Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 134, in

clause 20, page 12, line 16, after 'other', insert 'judicial'.

The amendment would introduce ''judicial'' into line 16 of the clause so that it would read, ''any other judicial authority in the country.'' That would act as a safeguard against the extension of the quite significant powers given to administrative authorities that are outside the judicial process. We have already debated the difficulty of translating terms used in other jurisdictions into British law, and I understand why some of the proposals set out in the debate in another place were not acceptable to the Government, because they defined matters in terms of a court exercising criminal jurisdiction. We still have the problem of whether the administrative courts have a criminal jurisdiction. I hope that by inserting ''judicial'' we make it clear that we are talking not about purely administrative authorities in other countries having such a right, and that it must be via a judicial process. That is to say, it must be subject to judicial approval at some point within that country, but it also means that it is open to appeal mechanisms and so on, which are the necessary safeguards to ensure a fair process.

There may still be authorities that will fall outside the judicial category, but I cannot think of authorities to which we would want to extend the arrangement that would not be defined as judicial. It seems a sensible precaution to have in the Bill.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Despite the fact that the hon. Gentleman has been quite critical of my comments on earlier groups of amendments and some of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire said, it is a genuine pleasure to rise to support him. There are occasions on which we agree, and it is not a Lib-Lab pact flying high. On this occasion, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are both trying to introduce some sensible safeguards. I strongly support the hon. Gentleman's remarks on amendment No. 134. We feel that the Bill would be clearer if the word ''judicial'' were introduced.

Lady Lady Hermon (North Down, UUP)

Will the hon. Gentleman comment on clause 20(4), which makes it clear that any order must relate to criminal proceedings or a criminal investigation? Does that clarify his doubts about which authority he might be requesting the order from?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

No, it does not entirely clarify them. I agree with what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said. I will listen with interest to what the Minister has to say about the matter, but this part of the Bill would be improved if it were made clear that it was a judicial authority. Of course, I understand the hon. Lady's point.

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

I am very pleased that the hon. Gentleman intervened so that I cannot be accused of Lib-Labbery. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome may be on to something worth considering. I do not want to accept his amendment at this point because there may be consequences. Like him, I cannot think of authorities with which we should be co-operating at present. If he will agree to withdraw the amendment, we will consider whether it is an appropriate clarification. If it is, we will table an appropriate amendment to enact his suggestion.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I am most grateful to the Under-Secretary for his helpful response. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath should not feel abashed at supporting my amendments on occasion, as I am happy to support his amendments when I agree with them. Having sat through many months in Committee on the Criminal Justice Bill, there were many occasions when Conservative Front Bench Members, myself, my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) found common ground. One of the interesting results is that almost everything we said during the Bill's passage has now become an announcement by the Home Secretary and is new Government policy.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am well aware of what the hon. Gentleman says. An interesting new coalition is building up. It is particularly fascinating that it includes the hon. Member for Nottingham, North. If there is one decision in his premiership that the Prime Minister now deeply regrets, I am sure that it was the extraordinary decision to sack him from the Whips Office. It has opened up a subsequent can of worms in terms of his support for some of the things that we have said, which has been useful—

Mr Joe Benton (Bootle, Labour)

Order. Let us return to the amendment.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Of course, Mr. Benton. I can only say that if we are to act corporately as a think-tank for the Home Office, we are delighted.

On the basis of the Minister's helpful response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 135, in

clause 20, page 12, line 29, at end insert—

'( ) manifestly correspond with the freezing order'.

The amendment is fairly simple. It would insert a new condition of

''manifestly correspond with the freezing order''.

That is entirely in line with article 7 of the draft framework decision, which sets out the grounds on which a competent judicial authority of the executing state may refuse to apply the freezing order. One of the conditions is that the certificate is not produced, is incomplete or manifestly does not correspond to the freezing order. That enables a freezing order that is clearly wrong to be rejected as such in an early stage in the proceedings, without further complication. There is no obvious reason why that has been left out of the

Bill, which is why I am trying to put it back in.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Once again, it is a pleasure to support an amendment tabled by the hon. Gentleman. We think that it is a sensible, helpful change, and I agree with him that the provision should be put back in the Bill. I hope that the Minister's response is as helpful as the one that he gave to the hon. Gentleman's previous amendment.

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

I will bring this happy consensus to an end, I think, before it goes too far.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept the amendment. Freezing orders may be rejected on the ground that the certificate and the freezing order are manifestly incompatible. The wording of the amendment does not represent a requirement under the framework decision. I am satisfied that the point it seeks to address, which is that the order and the certificate must adequately relate to each other, is covered by the current drafting. Subsection (5) contains a requirement for an order to be

''accompanied by a certificate which gives the specified information''.

Clause 28(7) defines what the specified information must be. Any information is required to be given in

''a document annexed to the relevant Framework Decision''.

That is a reference to the certificate. The reason for that formulation is that the framework decision has not yet been formally adopted. It is clear in the current drafting that the certificate must relate to the freezing order.

I am afraid that the consensus has broken down. The amendment is unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome to withdraw it.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I hope that the consensus has not broken down irretrievably—I shall cajole the hon. Gentleman back into it.

I anticipated that the hon. Gentleman would say that the amendment was unnecessary. I have read and reread the relevant clause several times. Clause 20(6) simply says what must be included in the certificate, including

''a statement as to the accuracy of the information.''

Information can be completely accurate and still manifestly not correspond to the freezing order—one does not preclude the other.

The hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should not include ''from the framework decision'' in the clause, but ''framework decision'' in clause 28(7) will appear in statute. The hon. Gentleman argues that we have not yet signed up to that decision, therefore it should not constitute the basis for the clause, or for my amendment. I do not understand that rather circular argument.

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

It is not just the accuracy; the certificate is required to contain the specified information.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Indeed, it must contain the specified information, including the offences under investigation, and so forth. However, someone must assess whether that information is factually accurate

and whether it corresponds to the requested freezing order. That is the dichotomy—

It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, THE Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.