Clause 14 - Powers to arrange for evidence to be obtained
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
9:30 am
Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
I welcome you, Mr. Benton, to the Committee this morning. I am sure that we are all intensely grateful to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for reading out almost the entire transcript of a Lords debate. I am not sure, however, that he quoted the best of the debates on the Bill from another place. There was much confusion, not from the Attorney-General, but from some of the noble Lords as to exactly what they were talking about.
The fact is that legal systems vary between different countries in the European Union. We not only accept but applaud it. We do not believe in harmonisation of legal systems, and we do not want to have the same Code Napoléon as the basis of our legal system. We rejoice in English common law and Scots law, and have never attempted harmonisation between those two jurisdictions, let alone with our continental counterparts. That means that there will be different definitions for the proceedings that we are used to in England, those that Scotland is used to, and those that are considered the norm in continental Europe. Some criminal offences in this country have equivalents that are dealt with through administrative proceedings in other countries. Also, what other countries know as ''clemency proceedings'' are not known in English law in the same form; such cases are dealt with by the Court of Appeal in English law, in terms of administration, but they are not dealt with in the same way.
The basis for any mutual legal assistance treaty must be respect for, and accommodation of, each other's legal systems where possible. That is the basis on which the treaty was signed, and that is why administrative and clemency proceedings are expressly included. I do not have a problem with that.
However, I might have a problem if the mutual assistance arrangements were extended beyond Schengen countries to those with grossly different judicial systems that are not based on adherence to the European convention on human rights and the other norms of western Europe. I share that serious concern, if that is the issue that is meant to be addressed in the amendments. The Minister did not address that point when we discussed the issue earlier this week. On Second Reading, I gave the Minister the example of the United States of America, which has 51 jurisdictions with grossly different laws and proceedings. What is the norm for the commonwealth of Massachusetts is not the norm for the state of Mississippi. It would worry me intensely if we were to extend the proposals to American jurisdictions. There are other countries for which the effect would be even worse, because their systems are so alien.
On countries that are signed up to Schengen and the mutual legal aid convention, we have a problem not with the reliability of proceedings, but merely with the definition. We have to accept that mutuality is the key. There will be areas of English and Scots law that are unknown to German, Dutch or Spanish courts, but we expect their co-operation, because it is in our interests to expect it. It would be a mistake to take out substantial swathes of the legal systems of other
countries, simply because they are not expressed in precisely the same form in English or Scots law. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath is mistaken in his belief that that would be to our advantage, and I will not support his amendments.