Clause 93 - Commencement
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm

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)

I beg to move amendment No. 88, in

clause 93, page 62, line 4, at end insert—

'( ) Any day appointed for the purposes of Part 1 (other than sections 32 to 41), and the related amendments and repeals, is to be one decided by the Secretary of State and the Scottish Ministers.'.

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 86, in

clause 93, page 62, line 10, at end add—

'(4) No order shall be made under subsection (1) until—

(a) the Extradition Bill has received Royal Assent; and

(b) the Secretary of State has certified that the provisions of this Act and that Act are compatible.'.

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)

I shall deal first with Government amendment No. 88, which refers to part 1 of the Bill, which deals with mutual assistance in criminal matters, and legislates for England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The amendment reflects the fact that the

responsibility for the implementation of part 1 is now devolved to Scottish Ministers where the provisions apply to Scotland.

The amendment ensures that UK and Scottish Ministers must consult and agree the same date for the commencement of the provisions of part 1. This is necessary as the provisions implement EU agreements which the UK has signed up to to participate in. All parts of the UK therefore must be ready to operate these agreements on the same date, otherwise we will be unable to fulfil our EU obligations. Different commencement arrangements would also create confusion.

The Scottish Executive have been consulted throughout the drafting and the passage of the Bill, and have been fully involved in shaping how the provisions will be implemented in Scotland. Officials north and south of the border have developed good relationships and will continue to consult to ensure that the provisions operate smoothly across the UK.

The amendments are in line with the devolution settlement. Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 states that while international relations is a reserved matter,

''observing and implementing . . . obligations under Community law''

is specifically excluded from the reservation. As criminal law remains a devolved matter, it is right therefore that Scottish Ministers should hold the responsibility for those provisions.

I shall delay my response to amendment No. 86 until the hon. Member for Surrey Heath has presented his argument.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

We do not have a problem with amendment No. 88. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, who understands the devolution settlement and what happens north of the border far better than I do, can speak if he wishes to dispute what the Minister said, but I shall not do so. However, my study of the proposal and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has not revealed any problem, so we shall not oppose it.

Amendment No. 86 is a brief provision, which relates to discussions—and battles—that I had with the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who has no doubt returned happily and with relief to the Whips Office as Deputy Chief Whip. He and I had many battles on the Extradition Bill; I wanted a counterpart provision saying that neither this Bill nor the Extradition Bill should come into force until they were brought into harmony with one another. The Minister referred earlier to the fact that this Bill's provisions were different from those relating to the European arrest warrant, which her officials are well aware that Conservative Members violently oppose. That is why we said that the proposals should be interlinked, but I will not labour the point. I am sure that the Minister will resist our amendment, but I hope that she at least understands, and has had some briefing on, the reason why we advanced it. We spent more time discussing the matter during the proceedings of the Extradition Bill. At that time, I anticipated that the same Minister would deal with both Bills throughout, but the reshuffle has

supervened and this Minister now has the dubious pleasure of having to respond to our concerns.

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)

We presume that amendment No. 86 arises from the Opposition's unfounded fear that, under the Extradition Bill, foreign officers will be granted powers to arrest UK citizens while carrying out cross-border surveillance operations under the Bill before us. That appears to relate to a confusion of what the Bill before us and the Extradition Bill permit. As Committee members will recall, during our lengthy discussions of clause 82 of this Bill we made it absolutely clear that foreign officers would not have any executive powers—in other words, powers of arrest, or search and seizure—while in the UK. The provisions permit foreign officers to carry out only surveillance operations in the UK, during which time they are not expected to make contact with suspects. The Bill was amended in Committee in the Lords to clarify that. Foreign officers will have no executive or coercive powers.

Furthermore, the hon. Gentleman may recall from the lengthy discussions of the Extradition Bill that the Government have absolutely no plans to designate anyone other than a British law enforcement officer to execute warrants under the Extradition Bill. Arrests will be carried out only by British police officers or British law enforcement officers, such as members of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise or one of the services police forces. The Government amended the Extradition Bill to make that clear.

We are not convinced that the amendment would achieve what is intended. Preventing the commencement of the provisions of this Bill until the Extradition Bill receives Royal Assent would serve no purpose. The two pieces of legislation deal with entirely different circumstances and powers. As hon. Members will be aware, the thrust of this Bill is to improve the way in which we provide legal assistance to other countries, both within and beyond the EU. The Extradition Bill deals with reforming our current extradition proceedings. Both Bills implement European framework decisions, but that is where the similarities end. Parliamentary counsel, and those who instruct them, take great care to ensure that each new Act of Parliament sits carefully within the framework of existing legislation so that inconsistencies do not arise.

I hope that that answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman, and he will not press his amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 94 and 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.