Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 152, in

clause 44, page 26, line 8, leave out

'or justice of the peace'.

We on these Benches yield to no one in our admiration for lay magistrates. The Minister and other Committee members will be aware that we are constantly trying to promote the interests of justices of the peace, and complaining that the Government have closed so many magistrates courts and moved us away from local justice. However, certain areas of the law have not traditionally been regarded as appropriate for lay magistrates. It is therefore important to state that this particular matter should be dealt with by a sheriff in Scotland, by a judge or resident magistrate in Northern Ireland and by a judge in England and Wales. Despite our admiration and support for JPs, we do not think it appropriate for them to be given this particular power.

JPs have a vital function in dealing with a huge number of cases of all kinds, but they deal with those at the lower end of the spectrum of offences. If we are talking about judicial authorities in the UK acting on behalf of the state, it is not appropriate to include JPs.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

The hon. Gentleman is right to probe the reason why the judicial authority in this instance can be a justice of the peace, because we are talking about an intrusive procedure. It goes beyond a basic warrant, which is the usual ceiling for requests outwith the judicial authority, and in other circumstances only those above a magistrate, such as a circuit judge,

would become involved. I would be grateful if the Minister made her position known to us.

There is a time lag or at least an inconsistency in judicial nomenclature between the Home Department and the Department that used to be called the Lord Chancellor's Department. For instance, Northern Ireland has both resident and lay magistrates. The latter are the equivalent of the justices of the peace in England and Wales, and yet they are not to have the power to make the request. That does not seem entirely logical. It would have been logical before the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002, but there is now the creation of the lay magistrates, although they do not yet exist.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

Order. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to redirect himself back into order by addressing the amendment.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

Yes. I was exploring the meaning of the term ''justice of the peace'' in the context of the clause, Mr. Hurst, and how that term is understood in the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. I hope that I kept myself in order, but because there is a serious danger of straying beyond the terms of the amendment, I shall sit down and listen to what the Minister has to say.

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)

The effect of the amendment would be that outgoing requests for account monitoring orders could not be dealt with in the magistrates court. We do not accept the amendment. The Government have made the point under other clauses that, in general, we consider the magistrates court entirely capable of considering and dealing with requests for mutual legal assistance, both incoming and outgoing. Magistrates courts have many years of experience in mutual legal assistance, and we have not heard any strong arguments for changing this practice.

There is no need to restrict outgoing requests to monitor accounts to higher courts; such requests are just another, albeit specialised, type of mutual legal assistance request. Magistrates courts can deal with outgoing requests under clause 7 and, in the interests of consistency, the same approach should be adopted here. Furthermore, it is entirely possible—and likely—that a request for monitoring will involve a request for other types of mutual legal assistance, such as the provision of historical information about the account. Those types of request are not new. The same court should be able to deal with all aspects of the request.

It should be noted that the majority of requests under the clause will be issued by designated prosecuting authorities themselves—that is, the Crown Prosecution Service, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the Serious Fraud Office.

The position in Scotland and Northern Ireland reflects normal existing mutual legal assistance arrangements. The magistrates court will act on behalf of prosecuting authorities, such as the Financial Services Authority, that cannot issue their own requests at present as they are not designated. We

will consult further, particularly on the question of Northern Ireland. The Court Service and the Northern Ireland Office have been consulted.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I hear what the Minister says. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome; he and I were involved earlier this week in a fascinating debate on a statutory instrument that dealt with what used to be called the Lord Chancellor's Department. The new Minister there got into terrible trouble with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) on the issue of lay magistrates in Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I were particularly conscious of his point—however, I must keep within order, too.

I hope that the Minister will realise that we are making a serious point. There is, of course, a judgment call to be made; the Government have come down on one side of the line and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I are on the other. However, at this stage, I shall not pursue the matter further. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.