Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause is self-explanatory. It would require that an annual report be made to Parliament on the use of freezing orders. We debated such orders in a previous sitting, especially domestic freezing orders, which—despite the phrase—are freezing orders that apply elsewhere. My interpretation of a domestic freezing order is what I shall receive if I do not arrive home at a reasonable time tonight.

The whole issue of freezing orders is a significant development in the legal process. In clauses 10 to 12, we are effectively giving a British court the opportunity to protect evidence overseas before it comes to this country. As we said the other day, that opens up a range of issues.

The point is simple: we think that there should be an annual report, so that we can see how the legislation is settling down. It is interesting that, so far in Committee, we have referred back to the 1990 legislation on a number of occasions. Indeed, we have asked the Minister how certain parts of it have worked, and he, with respect, has not been able to answer because nobody knows. We cannot turn back

the clock and start investigating all those issues, but as we are doing something significantly different, it is probably right that we require annual reports, so that we know how the provisions are settling down. It may well be that in a few years everything will be running all right, and an annual report will become less relevant; however, in the early stages, such reports would be extremely useful, and I would be grateful if the Minister would consider that.

Stephen Hesford rose—

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

I have finished.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

Mr. Hesford, do you wish to speak?

Mr Stephen Hesford (Wirral West, Labour)

I was going to intervene; I do not wish to speak.

Mr Robert Syms (Poole, Conservative)

Good speech.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

You are a little late for intervening, Mr. Hesford, but obviously you may address the Committee.

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

I say to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire that the new clause would involve unnecessary bureaucracy, impose a considerable burden, and not produce any significant benefits. Orders to freeze evidence are new, and it is impossible to predict how many will be issued. It is likely that numbers will increase as the authorities become more familiar with the procedures involved. The central authority will monitor the numbers to ensure that it is appropriately staffed, in the same way that we monitor the number of mutual legal assistance requests at present.

The effect of such orders is not fundamentally different from mutual legal assistance requests to seize evidence in another state. Freezing orders are a new, faster method of obtaining evidence, but we can already request and obtain evidence. The burden that freezing orders will place on our authorities will not be significantly different. Furthermore, the evidence provided for in clauses 10 to 12 only implements part of a requirement introduced by a framework decision on orders to freeze property and evidence.

Schedule 4 implements provisions relating to freezing terrorist property, and further legislation will be required to implement the provisions relating to the freezing of other property with a view to confiscation. A report on the use of freezing orders made under part 1 of the Bill would therefore present an incomplete picture. I do not know how many reports the hon. Gentleman wants.

A similar amendment was tabled in another place to say that Parliament should know how the provisions are working. I should say to the hon. Gentleman that information about numbers of orders will be available via parliamentary questions. In the same way, we would not reveal information about individual mutual legal assistance requests, but would be held to account in the normal way. I am sorry to say that I am not prepared to accept the hon. Gentleman's new clause, and, for the reasons that I have given, I ask him to consider withdrawing it.

Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)

Well, there is a surprise. In light of earlier comments that the Minister made, reading from

his brief, his point is comprehensible, and he obviously supports it. I understand that; I knew he would oppose the new clause. Governments always do, including the Government of whom I was a member. We opposed similar clauses. That is the nature of the beast, but it is still important that the issue is debated. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.