Clause 35 - Account information
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
10:00 am
Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)
On the account monitoring order, various procedures would have been necessary to reach the point where such an order would be sought. We have discussed serious criminal investigations.
As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, clause 35(6) states that an account monitoring order
''has effect in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information (however imposed).''
That provision is replicated in clause 40 for account monitoring orders in Scotland, and in clauses 32 and 37 for customer information orders. It directly replicates sections 368, 374, 402 and 407 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which makes identical provision in relation to customer information orders and account monitoring orders made under it.
The purpose of this provision is to require a financial institution to provide the information specified in the order: requirements for information made under the powers of investigation take precedence in spite of any restriction on the disclosure of information. Banks are therefore able and required to breach customer confidentiality and provide the requested information to the court in response to a lawfully made order.
The provision is necessary because otherwise financial institutions could use customer confidentiality as a reason not to accede to customer information or account monitoring orders. That would make such measures weak investigative tools and frustrate the purposes of the protocol.
Customer information orders are compatible with the European convention on human rights. Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 imposes an obligation on courts to comply with the convention rights. In exercising its discretion in making an order, a court has to consider its obligations under the 1998 Act and be satisfied that an order is lawful in each case. The 1998 Act applies to all legislation, and ECHR rights do not need repetition in Bills to take effect. The obligation on a bank to disclose
information as a result of a lawfully made court order will not contravene the ECHR. Unless the provision goes ahead, the reason for having the protocol and the powers in the Bill in the first place will be frustrated.