Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

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

We are coming to the end of the proceedings, and, in the spirit of co-operation, I want to genuinely thank the new Minister for what she has done since she took over. I also put on record my thanks to you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Hurst, and to other members of the Committee, particularly the other two Ministers, the hon. Members for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) and for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth).

Mr David Cairns (Greenock & Inverclyde, Labour)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I will in a second.

No doubt, there will be the usual courtesies when we finish and the Bill is passed to the other place. Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, I wanted to set out why we tabled the new clause.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire, speaking for the Liberal Democrats—and later, Lord Goodhart—put forward a clause similar to new clause 9. There was an interesting debate in which we were informed that the Government did not have the power to force such legislation on the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.

I have a personal insight into why Ministers are saying what they do on the subject. When Lord Williams of Mostyn had responsibility for such matters, I went with him to see the historic ceremonies of the opening of the Manx Parliament, Tynwald. Lord Williams thought that he was going to have a jolly weekend, but none of his officials had briefed him on the fact that emergency debates had been held in the Manx Parliament, and in Jersey and Guernsey, to consider the dramatic move of secession from the UK. Those three Parliaments in our Crown dependent territories had been outraged by the way that the Government had imposed the Edwards report, which investigated their banking and financial services, on them without any consultation.

On the weekend that we were in the Isle of Man, every time Lord Williams got up to address people on what would usually have been a ceremonial occasion, he was attacked right, left and centre, not only by the Manx politicians, but by guests from Jersey and Guernsey. I was pleased that, on the two occasions on which the matter was raised, Lord Bassam of Brighton and Lord Filkin said, ''Well, of course we cannot impose this on the Crown dependencies.'' Those dependencies have learned a lesson from how

badly their fingers were burned. The Edwards report was announced very suddenly, without any of the normal consultation with Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, because the Government were in the first of the big holes into which they dug themselves about the former Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). He had to resign because of his involvement in offshore financial matters that he had not properly declared, and the report was announced early as a desperate attempt to get everyone off the hook.

I am not ignoring what Ministers have said in introducing new clause 9. I am sure that the Minister will have the same brief as her colleagues had in another place, which is that they cannot impose the Act on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I have tabled the new clause purely to probe and put on record the fact that I understand why Ministers are being so careful this time around—it is because they got it so badly wrong last time. I give way to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde.

Mr David Cairns (Greenock & Inverclyde, Labour)

The moment has long since passed. I was not sure whether there was a statute of limitations on trying to intervene.

The hon. Gentleman started by saying that he wanted to genuinely thank X, Y and Z. Given that he is the self-proclaimed grammatical pedant, I am sure that he would want to apologise sincerely for that gaffe.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman is right, and he can now qualify himself as the grammatical conscience of the Labour Committee members. I should indeed have said that I wanted genuinely to thank, and I accept the correction entirely. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome begs to differ, but he can speak for himself. On this particular grammatical point, I am on the same side as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde, and I will consider my wrists well and truly slapped.

It is unusual for the Conservatives to introduce in the Commons a new clause that was introduced in the Lords by the Liberal Democrats, but I thought that it was worth getting this debate on the record. I know what the Minister will say and that I will accept her assertion that we cannot impose the Act on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. However, as I will represent Parliament in two weeks at the next Tynwald opening, it will be helpful to refer back to this debate. That is why I wanted to have it.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I want to put on the record my belief that abhorrence of a split infinitive is an example of Victorian pomposity at its worst. It is a misunderstanding of the English infinitive, and what is good enough for the revised version is good enough for me.

On the substance of the new clause, it has been a recurrent theme throughout our proceedings for me to ask about the position of the Crown territories and British overseas territories, although new clause 9 applies only to the Crown dependencies.

We must get our act together as a country with the Crown territories. If we are serious about defeating international financial and other crime, it is not acceptable for there to be areas within the responsibilities of the United Kingdom in its broadest sense in which the writ does not run for effective crime prevention and investigation. I understand entirely the constitutional problems of having parallel legislation in the Parliaments, Assemblies of the States and the Tynwald to achieve the same objectives, but it is vital that we have that; otherwise, we will fail in our duties as a member state of Schengen to achieve the comprehensive coverage and international co-operation that is required. I have absolute confidence that if another member state had territories that approximated to the European mainland but was not adhering to international agreements, we would be extremely critical of them.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has been saying, and there is a particular example. We have been critical of some of the Spanish Government's actions in relation to their territories on the north coast of Africa—Ceuta and Melilla. One of the arguments that those of us in the House who support Gibraltar retaining its current status—the Gibraltarian people have just voted by a massive majority to keep their current status—make is that the Spanish Government's treatment of Ceuta and Melilla is not consistent with their approach to Gibraltar. Is that not a very good example, in terms not only of financial matters and controlling fraud and crime but of constitutional matters, that bears out the hon. Gentleman's point?

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

To a certain extent it is a good example. Ceuta and Melilla are, however, treated as parts of metropolitan Spain for the purposes of its domestic law, whereas we do not treat our Crown dependencies as part of metropolitan United Kingdom—if that is the appropriate term—as far as our jurisdictions are concerned, which poses a problem.

As I said, I do not seek the full integration of the Crown dependencies into the United Kingdom jurisdiction. While we take responsibility for the foreign policies of those Crown dependencies, however, it is incumbent on us to find ways to implement the treaty obligations and international agreements that we enter into. Whether those agreements fight crime in general, financial crime in particular or terrorism, which is one of the reasons for the Bill, we must find ways to bring the law in Crown dependencies into accordance, as far as possible, with UK law. It is, however, beyond the competence of Parliament to do that. The hon. Gentleman's new clause—he will forgive me for saying this—is an artificial construct. I know that he understands that it is for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to negotiate with the Crown dependencies in order to encourage their support and involvement. Nevertheless, the responsibility is heavy.

I have asked the Minister a number of questions about that issue. She is going to write me a compendious letter telling me everything there is to know about the relationships with the various territories. In all seriousness, I ask her to take the

issue forward because we risk our domestic arrangements appearing to be less than complete when we fail to address those problems. We have been rightly criticised in the past on, for example, the law in Gibraltar not being what we would wish it to be to deal with finance and smuggling. Spain took the opportunity to make a valid argument against us, which I did not like because we should be able to negotiate from a position of strength.

Similarly, the British overseas territories in the Caribbean do not always behave as we would like them to, given the various international criminal activities that take place in that sphere. Nearer home, the Schengen agreement does not extend to the Crown dependencies, but its spirit surely should. We should encourage as much correspondence as possible on those laws.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The hon. Gentleman referred to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office having an opportunity to negotiate those matters further. However, Lord Wallace of Saltaire inadvertently pointed out in the debate in another place that the Home Office is dealing with the Crown dependencies. He was corrected by the Minister in another place, who said that the Lord Chancellor's Department is responsible. Since those remarks were made, however, there has been a botched reshuffle, and apparently the Department for Constitutional Affairs will take responsibility. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister were to clarify whether the new so-called super Department with a new Tony crony in charge will still deal with the Crown dependencies?

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

Order. The clause is narrowly defined through the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. I see no reference to Cabinet reshuffles.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

You are absolutely right, Mr. Hurst. I have no intention of being drawn down that route because we have had enough discussion of that particular subject over the past couple of days.

As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will know, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was responsible for producing the White Paper on the future governance of dependent and overseas territories. It therefore takes a continued interest in this area. The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to say that now the Department for Constitutional Affairs must take an interest, as must the Home Office, in ensuring the security of the United Kingdom. I look forward to the Minister's reply.

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 to make provisions in the Bill capable of extension to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. A provision such as the amendment suggests can be included in UK legislation only after consultation with the islands and with their consent. It cannot be done unilaterally, as the amendment would require. Unlike purely domestic legislation, it is not appropriate to include such a provision where the Bill is enacting our EU obligations. Unlike standard Community business, where territorial extent is defined by treaty, third pillar co-operation, which is implemented by the Bill, has no specific territorial application. The

inclusion of Gibraltar and the islands in an instrument is considered with our European partners at the time it is negotiated, and their inclusion can be specified in the instrument where that is agreed. As the islands have chosen not to participate in the measures covered by the Bill, we cannot use the Bill to change that situation.

The Crown dependencies were not consulted about the inclusion of a permissive extent clause in the Bill, as they customarily enact their own laws in the field of criminal justice. They have separate legal and judicial systems, which the UK Government respect. It is exceptional these days for UK legislation to be capable of extension to the Crown dependencies, save in a few areas such as immigration. A copy of the Bill will be sent to the islands once it receives Royal Assent, and it will be for them to decide if there is anything in it that they might want to copy into their own legislation. That does not mean that the islands are unable to provide similar assistance to that set out in the Bill. They have a raft of insular legislation that largely mirrors ours in areas such as judicial co-operation, terrorism, money laundering and fraud.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs will take responsibility for the Channel Islands. This week, officials there have been contacted in response to this matter. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Member for Surrey Heath for the time being, and that he withdraws his amendment. Obviously, this is an important area in relation to tackling international crime, and it needs to be clear.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

The Minister's comments satisfy me. They also appear to satisfy the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

It has been useful to put this debate on the record, as the Government need to be aware that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome on behalf of his party and I on behalf of mine will keep our eagle eyes on this matter. We are always conscious of the sensitivities of our important Crown dependencies. All the people on the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man who deal with financial services are concerned about this; they want to help the UK authorities tackle international crime—financial fraud, drugs smuggling and all other types of crime.

As the Minister rightly said, those dependencies have their own legislation. She confirmed what Ministers said in another place, but it was helpful to have her comments on the record. I am grateful to her for the courteous way in which she has responded. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

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)

Before we complete our proceedings, I want to take this opportunity to thank you, Mr. Hurst, and Mr. Benton for the way in which you have chaired our sittings. I am sure that you chaired them as effectively, professionally and smoothly when my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East was

leading proceedings. My hon. Friend has been of great support to me. Since I found out this week that I would be taking on this Bill, he has been very helpful. He has also been a good friend in giving reassurance. I have found that most Committee members do not know as much as I do because I am given the briefs.

I thank the officials who have assisted us throughout proceedings, and the members of Hansard. I also thank the police officers who have been in attendance during the past two days—I hope that they have found it interesting to know exactly what UK police officers may be able to do in future, and what foreign police officers can do in this country. No doubt they are thinking that there will be yet more tasks for them along with everything else.

As all Committee members would agree, it is important to tackle the area addressed by the Bill. Not to tackle it would be incredibly short-sighted. Crime is becoming much more sophisticated and technical, and communications assist crime. Our ability to work co-operatively with our European neighbours demonstrates that, although we have a strong voice in Europe, working with Europe will make us stronger. Together we can do something to combat crime.

I thank the hon. Member for Surrey Heath and his colleagues, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, who has led for his party, and all Committee members on the Opposition Benches. Overall, they have treated me kindly in my first week as a Minister, and I thank them for that. We had a little spat earlier today, but politics would not be politics without a few of those. I also thank my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee for their support. It is very much appreciated. It might not seem like it now, but the Bill will play an important part in our drive to tackle crime.

I should also like to thank my hon. Friend the Government Whip, who has supported me ably, as always. Considering how disruptive he might have thought that I was on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, he has been a fantastic support this afternoon. I should also like to take the opportunity to thank my team—everyone who has been involved in the preparation of the Bill, those who have given me advice this week and those from my private office. It has been a daunting week. We have managed to get through it and I hope that we have contributed to some good legislation that will tackle a matter that we earnestly want to address—the way in which international crime can operate. We have done a good job throughout the sittings of the Committee and I thank everyone for their support in this, my first week as a Minister.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

May I, in turn, thank the Minister and echo the thanks that she has given to Hansard, the doorkeepers, the police and all the officials. Most of all, Mr. Hurst, I thank you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton. I hope that you will pass on our thanks to him. This has been a good Committee and by and large, as the Minister has said, a good-natured one. I think that she has had a good start. She has praised not only her officials and her team, but also her

predecessor the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East, who is now a Government deputy Chief Whip. All Conservative members of the Committee would like to thank him for the work that he did when he was Under-Secretary. I hope that the hon. Lady will pass on our thanks to him. I was not at all surprised that he was promoted; he became more good-humoured as time went on. On a recent occasion he said that he was risking his future by describing a brief that he had been given as complete garbage. I thought that he must know that he was going to be promoted, or he would not have dared to say that.

I do not know whether I am giving a straw in the wind to the hon. Lady, but I genuinely want to thank her and to say that we all know that it is daunting to suddenly take over as a Minister; promoted, as she said, from being a very disruptive Back Bencher on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill Committee only two or three weeks ago, when she spoke in support of amendments that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I proposed on such difficult issues as travellers. With this Government, Mr. Hurst, you never know what will lead to promotion. I am sure that that is a signal to many of the hon. Lady's Back-Bench colleagues. It is not always slavish sticking to the party line that gets one noticed. [Interruption.] I thought that that might provoke a response from the Government Whip. He knows that sometimes people who are disruptive get noticed too.

I also thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. The Liberal Democrats always bring something to our debate, even if we are not sure in which direction they are going next. I genuinely enjoy serving on Committees with the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome and for Orkney and Shetland. They are two of those whom I regard as the slightly more sensible wing of their party. I thank my hon. Friends, our Whip who cannot be with us at this moment and, most of all, my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire. We operate as a successful double act. We have done it on a number of Bills, and I hope that we shall carry on doing so, although it is not in my hands to guarantee it.

Mr David Heath (Somerton & Frome, Liberal Democrat)

I associate myself with everything that has been said in the mini-Oscar ceremonies with which

the previous speakers have concluded. I want to thank you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Hurst, for the way in which you have presided over our proceedings, and everyone else associated with the Committee.

This has been one of those Bills that has to be classified as worthy but dull. Even with our best intent, we found it difficult to enliven the proceedings—until this morning, when my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland suddenly saw the light, realised how interesting it was and wanted to contribute at every opportunity. I am grateful to him for his active support.

Three Ministers have been involved. The Under-Secretary has acquitted herself extremely well in her first week. I found her predecessor as Minister helpful in his approach. I wish him well with his new responsibilities. I am grateful to the Lord Commissioner for his assistance—is this our third Bill together? The Home Office is so legislatively incontinent; as soon as we have finished one Bill, another comes along. Indeed, next week the Courts Bill comes to Committee.

The Bill has been put to bed. On the whole, it is a worthy Bill. Some areas are still contentious, and I fear that unless we see a little movement, it will continue to go from one House to the other for some time. I say that not as a warning but as a prediction. It would be in everyone's interests if we could reach agreement on the outstanding areas of contention, so that we do not have to watch the Bill travelling between both Houses—a journey that several Bills will be doing. I thank all concerned. We look forward to the remaining stages when the Bill returns to the House.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

I regret to say that almost all those remarks were out of order. However, making that ruling gives me the opportunity to acknowledge the kind remarks made about the Chair. I congratulate all hon. Members on the way in which they have conducted themselves during our consideration of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, to be reported.

Committee rose at twenty-one minutes past Four o'clock.