Clause 8 - Sending requests for assistance
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
The paranoia on the Conservative Benches knows no bounds; it is extraordinary.
The purpose of putting forward the amendment is that the Bill is restricting something that is to the benefit of the United Kingdom authorities, and it can only be to their benefit to be able to make requests urgently to international policing bodies for evidence to use in UK domestic proceedings. It is hardly a matter for suspicion that we might ask someone with whom we have established a treaty for information for use in UK domestic proceedings. We also want to ensure that the provision is not restricted to the existing treaty. It is quite possible that new treaties will be signed, not only in the European Union, but with countries outside it, for mutual co-operation in judicial matters. It would be a shame if it were always necessary to amend legislation to update it for international policing bodies that may be established in the future.
I have in mind a particular body, the name of which I shall not attempt to pronounce. I read the report of the proceedings in the other place, and apparently various Members of that House ''helpfully'' pronounced it differently. We were told that in the transcript without an explanation of phonetics in Hansard to tell us the correct way in which to pronounce it.
Why limit the Bill to the existing treaty when any treaty would need ratification under British law if it were to take effect? The provision could refer simply to ''treaty obligations'' and, thus, make it open-ended. After all, we are asking for help from outside, not giving it, so the obligation is not on our authorities, but on others to help us. That seems to be a good idea, although others may consider that it is tainted if it comes from one source or another, and is used in British domestic proceedings.