Clause 9 - Use of evidence obtained
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I understand that entirely, but in each instance it is a court in the UK that considers whether the case that has been made to it is manifestly incompatible with convention rights. I understand that the initial request on one hand, or the implementation of the request on the other, will take place in a country beyond the UK's jurisdiction, so it is a matter for that country—which, as we know, is identified as a participating country in the context of the Bill, will come within Schengen and other protocols and will be a signatory to the European convention on human rights.
However, at the same time, there is a point of consideration, which in each instance is in a British court, either in transmitting the request from a British authority or implementing the request from an overseas authority. It is at that point that I want to be satisfied that the British court has regard, as we are by obligation required to have regard, to the human rights convention. Quite correctly, the Human Rights Act 1998 assigns that obligation, so I accept that this is a belt-and-braces exercise, but I still cannot accept entirely why the reference is there in one instance but not in the other. I would prefer it to be there in both, so that everyone could clearly see that it was a major consideration to be taken into account.
The Minister says that that measure is not necessary and he gets very sensitive, as I said, about why I should even suggest that it might be necessary. I am sorry, but I am trying, in my inept way, to improve the Bill. It seems that in this case the Minister does not accept that I am doing so. I will seek leave to withdraw the amendment, but I should be grateful for any further aper¢us that the Minister receives on the subject. We may want to return to it at a later stage in our consideration.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.