Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Again, I want to raise a couple of points in a couple of sentences so that they are not missed when the Bill is considered further. I am happy for the Minister to write to me and to other members

of the Committee rather than taking up the Committee's time this afternoon.

The clause deals with how domestic freezing orders, once made, will be transmitted to the country where the evidence is. Subsection (1)(b) states

''any authority recognised by the government of the country . . . as the appropriate authority''.

The Minister has just talked about the well-trodden ground between us when we discussed the Extradition Bill. There may be problems with some countries that might recognise authorities as appropriate authorities in those countries, but we in this country might not be happy with them. Will the Minister say what the safeguards are?

On 23 January, on the second day in Committee in another place, at columns GC61 to 64, there was an extensive debate about time limits. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow made some points that I do not believe were fully answered by the Government in the other place. I should be grateful if the Minister would take on board the fact that Opposition Members share the concerns expressed by Lord Carlisle. The Minister probably cannot respond in detail today, but once again I hope that he can write to me.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Again, I pick up on the hon. Gentleman's comments. First, I do not care what the arrangements are in another country for acquiring the evidence used in the procedures, provided they are in line with international treaty obligations and the domestic arrangements of that country. They can send the broker's men to gather the evidence as far as I am concerned, provided it is available for use in a British court. It sometimes seems that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is so suspicious of overseas authorities that he does not want them to do what we want them to do on our behalf. I do not share his view. However, I share his concern on time limits, and I note that during proceedings in another place, in column GC63, the Advocate-General—[Interruption.] I am sorry; wrong country and wrong jurisdiction. I meant the Attorney-General. He said:

''We are sympathetic to the idea that there should be a time limit. We shall consider that point, and the drafting, and bring back a proposal.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC63.]

We are waiting for that proposal. We hope very much that the Minister will now give that same assurance to the Committee, and that by Report he will have considered the matter and will have acceded to the view expressed by the Government in that instance. Perhaps he will consider bringing back a proposal for our consideration.

Mr Bob Ainsworth (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office; Coventry North East, Labour)

I will. However, the time limit that the hon. Gentleman asks for is there in clause 11(3), which states:

''The judicial authority is to send the order to the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with its being made.''

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath does not like mutual recognition—a point recognised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. It is for us to decide in this country what the appropriate authority

is for receiving and making orders of that kind. It is for authorities overseas to take that decision under mutual recognition. We cannot impose terms on them, and we would not expect them to impose terms on us. None the less, I will write to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and make him aware of what we envisage in terms of the authorities that will use those powers, so that he can make Eurosceptic capital out of my letter.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.