Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I know that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has already said that he wants to raise a point about the clause, but I want to ask the Minister a one-sentence question. The clause states:

''where the evidence consists of a document, the original or a copy is to be sent''.

The Minister will recall that some very important terrorist cases in the Irish Republic collapsed because the prosecuting authorities in this country did not manage to send the right documents: they sent copies when they should have sent originals. I am not making a politically partisan point, because that has happened under Governments of both parties.

Will the Minister reassure the Committee for the record that we will not have any problems with other countries, especially the Irish Republic, by inserting into our law a clause that states that where the evidence consists of a document, the original or a copy is to be sent? I hope that the Minister understands the serious point that I am trying to make. I am trying to be helpful, and I want to ensure that the Minister and his officials can reconsider the subsection if they need to ascertain whether they need to insert a subsection that says, in effect, ''But we know that we always need to send an original if the other court requires it'', or something along those lines.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I want to pursue an issue that I attempted to raise earlier. I am trying to ensure that subsection (3) does not introduce any difficulty. An international joint investigation team may investigate offences in this country or under another jurisdiction. There is no problem if, for the purposes of its investigation, the team seeks a search warrant and seizes material that is to be used in proceedings in this country. If it seizes material to be used under another jurisdiction, would the court in that jurisdiction have to make a new request to enable the material collected by the joint investigation team to be transmitted to that court? In what circumstances could the team use evidence in an investigation into a matter that was already the subject of proceedings under another jurisdiction? Will the disclaimer in subsection (3) prove to be an obstacle to using what common sense

dictates: that once a team has a search warrant, and goes in and finds the evidence, it should be able to use it in the proceedings for which it was gathered? I do not know the answer, but the subsection appears to introduce an unnecessary obstacle. I do, of course, understand that the joint investigation team would be the requesting authority in an investigation alone. I am simply trying to ensure that the evidence is available for proceedings subsequent to that investigation.

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

I shall deal first with the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. The hon. Gentleman is right that there have been problems. Mutual legal assistance between two countries will never be a foolproof procedure. Domestic law differs. The key is the framing of the request and ensuring that the requested material will be in a form that the jurisdiction seeking to bring the case before the court can use. The hon. Gentleman is right that problems could arise if the request for information is not framed in that form. That is why we are obliged to respond to requests in a particular way. The only get-out is if there is some fundamental legal reason why it is not possible to respond to those requests. The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that will always be a potential difficulty if people do not frame requests correctly.

I gave the hon. Gentleman an answer in response to his question about joint investigation teams, but he now chases the argument one stage further back. The reason for the subsection is that the joint investigation team would have been originator of the request, which he accepts. The team would have been set up to undertake a specific operation with a view to bringing a prosecution. I do not want to respond off the top of my head to the question about the flexibility given to the joint investigation team at that stage to pass on information that comes its way that might be peripheral to the original reason for its establishment. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point in trying to check whether we are imposing inappropriate restrictions on passing on information that may come to hand. I shall try to ascertain what the procedures are for going wider than the original intent of the joint investigation team in passing on the information. There may be restrictions that are appropriate.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I am grateful to the Minister for considering the issue. His response addresses part of it, but the core intent of the investigation also bothers me. The member of the investigating team can secure evidence for the purposes of investigating the specific crime to which it relates. As I read it, however, there must be a second request to pass that evidence to a court under another jurisdiction so that proceedings can take place. What bothers me is the introduction of a two-stage process where a one-stage process would suffice. I may be misreading the clause, but that is how I interpret it.

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

I am fairly sure that that is not the case. The point of the joint investigation team was to gather evidence, to bring a prosecution and to present it to an appropriate court. The core reason is probably

covered, but I shall check. Issues that arise and information that the team comes across during its investigation is another point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.