Clause 21 - Considering the order
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
2:30 pm

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 37, in

clause 21, page 12, line 41, leave out 'a court' and insert 'the High Court'.

The amendment deals with a matter that was discussed in another place on 23 January. An amendment was moved by my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and supported by the distinguished and experienced lawyer, the noble Lord Renton, a former Home Office Minister. Lord Renton said:

''I should have thought that the Secretary of State, instead of merely referring the matter to some relatively minor local court—which he could do under the Bill as drafted—should refer it to the High Court.''

The Attorney-General, resisted our amendment, and said:

''The Government could not accept the amendment that imposed the obligation to limit execution of these orders simply on the High Court . . . Requests for evidence from overseas are currently generally dealt with by a magistrates' court. The Secretary of State has the power to put it to someone else, but there seems no reason why that procedure should not be followed for evidence freezing orders under the new procedure.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC 86–87.]

In the other place, we were seeking clarity; I want to go a little further. These are important matters. I have enormous respect for the lay magistracy, and we on the Conservative Benches have tried to defend it from the assaults and depredations of the Government. I do not blame the Minister for what has happened, because it is the Lord Chancellor's Department that has boxed in magistrates courts committees so tightly that they have been forced to close magistrates courts even when they did not want to, as they had to follow what are, in my view, completely misguided Government diktats on what magistrates courts had to have. Since the Government came to power, more than 100 magistrates courts have closed.

Power is being taken away from the lay magistracy, and we are getting away from the concept of local justice. As there are fewer magistrates courts, when important international matters come up, they should be required to go to the High Court. I have read what the Attorney-General said on the subject in another place, but I wanted to hear a little more from the Minister, and I wanted to place our continuing concerns on the record.

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

Freezing orders will be executed by issuing a domestic search warrant or production order, and will be dealt with by the same courts that handle mutual legal assistance requests to seize evidence. The magistrates court is nominated to issue search warrants—unless the material requested is excluded or is special procedural material, in which case the Crown court is nominated to issue a production order. The terms ''special procedural material'' and ''excluded material'' have the same meanings as they do in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

We intend to continue with the current practice when nominating a court under the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990, of nominating a court that is local to where the evidence is thought to be. Full training will be provided for magistrates, clerks of magistrates courts, the Crown Prosecution Service, the Crown court, Customs and the police. I do not think that it is appropriate that the use of the freezing orders and the ability to deal with them should be restricted to the High Court. It would be inappropriate and costly to use a court that was not local to the incident. Similar powers have been exercised under the old legislation, which was passed by previous Governments since 1990.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister has to say. Of course, we do not want to make matters more costly, but I am sure that the Minister understands our worries, in that some complex issues would be more appropriately dealt with in the High Court. We may need to return to such matters, but the Minister has placed the Government's view on the record and I shall not pursue the matter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Clauses 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 22 to 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.