Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

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

I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Benton. We are now coming to a couple of new clauses that relate to the banking aspect of the Bill that we debated this morning, when your colleague, Mr. Hurst, was in the Chair. The Minister and the rest of the Committee may have noticed that the important issue of an annual report was debated not once but twice in another place—on 27 January and 25 February. Conservative Members feel strongly about the issue, as does the British Bankers Association. It has pressed us to continue to pursue the matter, and I am certainly happy to do so. For the reasons that I set out this morning and which my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin), who is unable to be with us this afternoon, reinforced, grave concern is felt by the banking community that the new provisions may turn out to be somewhat onerous. As my noble Friend Viscount Bridgeman, said in another place, we need to have an annual report to set out exactly what the costs will be and how matters will operate.

In another place on 27 January, Lord Filkin gave only a brief response to the worries expressed by my noble Friend Viscount Bridgeman, which were echoed by my noble Friend Lord Renton, and Lord Monson. Lord Bassam of Brighton gave a slightly longer response on the second occasion. I wish to refer to one or two points that were made in another place.

Mr Stephen Hesford (Wirral West, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

In a moment, but before I do so, I want to stress what Lord Monson said. When making reference to my noble Friend Lord Renton, he said:

''we are in uncharted waters. Parliamentarians and the public have a right to know the cost to the taxpayer of complying with the requests and to know how often such requests are made.''

Lord Monson forcefully made the point that it is not a matter of probing or calling for an annual report for the sake of it. Lord Renton said:

''The Bill breaks new ground internationally and will affect people's rights all over the world—potentially, at any rate. We should know, from time to time, what progress has been made in implementing it.

The new clause merely asks for details of the effects of requests for banking information. That is not a big demand, but it is important, and I would have hoped that the Government would be sympathetic.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC142.]

Such a statement encapsulates our case in a nutshell.

Mr Stephen Hesford (Wirral West, Labour)

The new clause does not deal with the effective administration of justice, which is what the Bill is about. It is nit-picking about cost. What price do we put on the effective administration of justice and co-operation across jurisdictions in dealing with such issues, some of which are serious to my constituents and others?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

If the hon. Gentleman wants to add to the annual report and wants a specific report on the effects on the administration of justice, I am sure that we would have no objection to that. However, I take issue with his saying that we are nit-picking. I am sure that the Minister will not say that when she responds. A responsible and serious organisation, such as the

BBA, said that it wants such a report because it would evaluate how much the banking provisions of the Bill are used and review the unit costs of handling individual cases and the number of inquiries received by the UK under the protocol. Its worries, which we echo, are not to be dismissed at nit-picking. The matter is important. It is not something that can be dismissed.

Indeed, from the Government's Front Bench in another place, Lord Bassam of Brighton said:

''I shall not level my common allegation that when stuck for an amendment one dreams up an annual report to demand.

I see the point made by the noble Lord.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. GC218.]

He was responding to my noble Friend Viscount Bridgeman. The Government Front Bench in another place certainly took the matter seriously. I hope that that will show the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) that he was wrong to level at us an allegation of nit-picking. We are making a serious request, and I hope that the Minister will treat it equally seriously.

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)

Clearly, it is important that there is access to information about how the new powers under the Bill are proceeding. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are different ways and means of achieving that end. As with the similar proposal in connection with freezing orders, we do not see a need for a statutory requirement for a report on the operation and the costs involved in executing requests for banking information. I understand that hon. Members were concerned that there are relatively few statistics available relating to the operation of the 1990 Act. Fortunately, technology has moved on since that Act was passed, which will make it easier to keep such statistics in future.

The Home Office keeps records and statistics on the number of requests received by and sent from the UK. Furthermore, we explicitly require all requests made on the strength of a protocol to be sent via the territorial authority for the specific purpose of monitoring the frequency and success of such requests. In that way, we will be able to identify and deal with any problems if they arise. We believe that it will be possible to obtain information on the working of the new arrangements by tabling parliamentary questions, and that that is an adequate way in which to get information of that nature into the public domain, without a statutory obligation to produce an annual report.

Furthermore, although requests to identify monitored bank accounts are new, the UK already receives and responds to other types of requests for banking information. Requests to provide copies of bank statements and other records relating to identified accounts are numerous and routine.

As was said earlier in the debate, we will be monitoring the effectiveness of all the new provisions in the Bill, and I am sure that we will still be in contact with representatives of the banking industry, to ensure

that the provisions of the Bill are not unduly onerous in achieving the task that we are discussing.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I am rather disappointed with the Minister's response. I remind her that the Government's estimate of the cost to the banking industry of complying with the legislation—the Government's own regulatory impact assessment—puts the cost at between £1.26 million and £3.7 million a year. As was said in another place, it is essential that there is transparency in the matter. Although the BBA supports the measure, we must ensure that the procedure is working, and that there is proper co-operation between member states. Viscount Bridgeman quoted the BBA as follows:

''The UK, and the information which the UK will, potentially, be able to obtain will not be less or less timely than that which the UK will normally provide. Differences could arise through, for example, different legal procedures or bank secrecy rules, in particular where the retail banking structure is less concentrated than in the UK. Such differences could reduce the benefits for more ready access to information in response to requests for mutual legal assistance.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. 218.]

As my noble Friend Viscount Bridgeman said in another place:

''An annual report will help to establish the extent to which there is a level playing field both in theory and in practice.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. 218.]

It will also establish whether there is a level playing field. That links in to the points that I made before lunch. We are not satisfied with the Government's response, and therefore I wish to divide the Committee on the matter.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 9.