Clause 16 - Extension of statutory search powers in
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
10:30 am
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The Conservatives have three disparate amendments in this group, which includes one tabled by the Liberal Democrats. In amendment No. 34, I return to a point that I raised in a previous sitting. There appears to be a discrepancy between the Bill and the explanatory notes in relation to obtaining the warrant for statutory search powers and whether the officer who seeks such a warrant knows what he or she is talking about.
As drafted, the Bill refers to the person making the application as a member of the international joint investigation team. Simply being a member of a team does not necessarily mean that every member is fully up to speed with the details of the case, and paragraph 61 on page 11 of the explanatory notes states:
''The constable making the application for the warrant or order would have personal knowledge of the joint investigation as he would in making such an application in a domestic investigation.''
Although it may seem pedantic, the amendment would put in the Bill precisely what the explanatory notes
lead us to expect would be the case: that anyone making an application for a warrant knows what they are talking about and has personal knowledge of the case rather than simply being part of a team, which could be a loose association. It may be difficult to define precisely who is a member of a team.
I am delighted to point out to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that the issue raised in amendment No. 35 was not debated in the other place, nor was the issue raised in amendment No. 36, before the hon. Gentleman rushes to assert his reason for tabling his amendment.
Clause 19, which refers to seized evidence, presumably the result of search powers, should include a time frame in which to comply with the request for assistance. Amendment No. 35 proposes that the time scale be laid down by the Secretary of State, and the hon. Gentleman's amendment proposes a period of seven days. It is a matter for debate; an element of discretion would be appropriate because seven days may not be enough time in some cases. The Secretary of State should have discretion, but he and the authorities need some discipline to deal with the matter within a reasonable period. Requiring the Secretary of State to lay down a time frame would make things clear and clarify the issue for the overseas authorities who seek information from this country. They would know the time they had to operate, how long they had to wait and when they could proceed to the next part of their proceedings.
Amendment No. 36 is important. It would require a replica or copy of the evidence obtained in this country to be made before it is passed to an authority from another country. The Minister will challenge me by asking why we need a copy in this country—the answer might be that I do not know—and I will tell him that it is because it is not possible to foresee the circumstances in which that information could be useful. We do not know whether subsequent investigations may hinge on that evidence. This country could commence a criminal investigation on the back of what has taken place in a court in another country. That happens, and the evidence may become useful at a later stage. It is important therefore that a copy, replica or representation should be made so that our authorities have a record of the evidence that has been handed over.