Clause 2 - Service of overseas process: supplementary
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
Almost all the amendments in the group are identical. This is something close to my heart and, I hope, to the Government's. Wherever possible, legal information given to ordinary people who are not lawyers should be provided in ordinary language. The amendments would insert such a provision in various parts of the Bill dealing with the notice being provided with the process—the notice to which the Minister referred in his comments on the first group of amendments.
We seek to clarify the form that the notices will take, and we need to ensure that those on whom the process is served are aware of its implications. The clause guarantees that there is no obligation under UK law to comply with the process, and the Minister repeated that. He also said that the notices would be quite comprehensive, but it would be helpful if the Bill stated that they had to be in ordinary language. That would build in a safeguard in the case that further redrafts were carried out by someone with a slightly different approach to such things.
I am not clear about who will be responsible for drafting the notices. Will it be the Home Office or the chief constable? Will there be a national standard, or could notices vary from officer to officer? We cannot take it for granted that ordinary language will always be used. Obviously, it is helpful where it is used, but the purpose of the plain English campaign is to promote its use.
In that respect, I was interested to discover that current legislation regularly uses the terminology ''ordinary language''. Indeed, there are 72 instances in current legislation. I am the first to accept that it is not in the 1990 Act, even though I am obviously defensive about legislation that was passed by the Conservative Government. Of course, if the Government think that such legislation cannot be improved on, we take that as some sort of merit award. However, after 13 years, even I am prepared to say that there is a little room for improvement.
By inserting the words ''ordinary language'', we would simply be pursuing the line that the Government have taken in other legislation. To stick with Home Office legislation, sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000 refer to courts explaining the effects of exclusion orders and drug abstinence orders in ordinary language. Section 65 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires constables to explain the effect of reprimands and final warnings in ordinary language. It is questionable whether violent football spectators will understand ordinary language, but the term is used to in the Football (Disorder) Act 2000. Many
other pieces of legislation, including many Home Office Acts, have included the phraseology ''in ordinary language''. I therefore hope that the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendments.
Grouped with them is amendment No. 6, which is in my name and those of my hon. Friends. It would insert ''legal'' to describe the advice that statutory notices would recommend people to seek when the process was served on them. Some would say that that was unnecessary and that such people would clearly seek legal advice. What other advice would they seek? Again, however, it would be helpful if the Bill stated that they should seek legal advice if they are served under an overseas process. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us what form that guidance should take. Should the notice set out sources of advice where people should go to obtain it? They may simply want to ask their employer or the citizens' advice bureau.
There is also the issue of the legal process in the country that serves the process. Where will people obtain advice in that regard? In the debate in the other place, Lord Filkin argued that it was unnecessary to include ''legal'' in the legislation because it is already in the standard notice. If it is in the standard notice, however, it should be in legislation. I am glad that it is in the standard notice, but that does not negate the need to put it in the Bill. That the Government have decided to put it into the standard notice is a strong argument for putting it in the Bill.
The Government may argue that because ''legal'' is not in the 1990 Act we do not need it now, but there are always little ways to improve legislation. They regularly oppose amendments on the basis that they are unnecessary or that they already exist, but we are repeating part of the 1990 Act in the new legislation. If the Minister suggests that we do not need to make minor amendments, it will be a shallow excuse.