Clause 8 - Sending requests for assistance

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords] – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:30 pm on 10 June 2003.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath 3:30, 10 June 2003

I beg to move amendment No. 19, in

clause 8, page 6, line 12, leave out 'In cases of urgency,'.

Photo of Mr Alan Hurst Mr Alan Hurst Labour, Braintree

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 122, in

clause 8, page 6, line 15, leave out

'the Treaty on European Union'

and insert 'treaty obligations'.

No. 20, in

clause 8, page 6, line 16, at end insert—

'(4) The Secretary of State may by order make regulations prescribing the circumstances in which a situation is (or is not) to be deemed a case of urgency for the purposes of subsection (3).'.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I can speak to these amendments briefly. As the Minister, Committee members and you, Mr. Hurst, will realise, amendments Nos. 19 and 20 are really alternatives to one another for the Minister and the Government to consider. We are probing the restriction in subsection (3), which amendment No. 19 would omit. As the Bill stands, the provision is restricted merely to cases of urgency, and we wonder

whether that restriction is necessary. Amendment No. 20 would provide the other way of looking at the matter: the Secretary of State could make regulations saying what is urgent. As I have already said, we are not generally in favour of giving the Secretary of State more order-making powers. If I had to plump for one amendment, I would say that I am putting more of my effort into amendment No. 19, which would be helpful.

On the question of what is urgent, perhaps it would be appropriate to mention that my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and I had some extremely interesting and useful discussions with those involved in such issues in Holland, which we visited a year or so ago. Colleagues who know me well will be aware that I always try to wear a tie appropriate to the occasion, and I am today wearing the tie that I was given—as was my hon. Friend—by the Netherlands Centre for International Police Co-operation, which is known in Dutch as Politie, in The Hague.

We spoke to senior officers in Holland who have to deal with some of those cases, which are sometimes urgent. There was quite a lot of urgency when we were there, because we were present on the day that the Dutch Government collapsed. As my hon. Friend will remember, one of the senior officials who briefed us from the Dutch Cabinet Office had to leave the meeting because something urgent had happened—his Government had just collapsed, and he had to rush back to the office. That is not the sort of urgency that we are talking about in the Bill, but hon. Members from both sides of the House of Commons benefit enormously from the international meetings that we have to consider such issues, and how such matters are dealt with in other countries.

I hope that the Minister can understand the basis on which we are putting the issue forward. We do not think that the provision should be restricted to ''cases of urgency''. It is not necessary to have that restriction in the Bill.

I shall briefly refer to the Liberal Democrat's amendment No. 122, to which, no doubt, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome will speak in a moment, and which is in this group. The Liberal Democrats are suggesting replacing

''the Treaty on European Union''

with ''treaty obligations''. I do not know whether there will be a split on the Liberal Democrat Benches. In a previous Committee, on which I served with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland, I referred to the fact that he represented the Eurosceptic tendency in his party. I do not know where the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome comes from, but I was interested to see that the amendment was tabled. I wondered whether the hon. Gentleman was looking forward to yet further treaties to the current treaty on the European Union. If he is, I am suspicious about the amendment. We will hear what he has to say, but at present I am not persuaded of the thinking, as I foresee it, behind the amendment No. 122.

Photo of David Heath David Heath Shadow Spokesperson (Home Affairs)

The paranoia on the Conservative Benches knows no bounds; it is extraordinary.

The purpose of putting forward the amendment is that the Bill is restricting something that is to the benefit of the United Kingdom authorities, and it can only be to their benefit to be able to make requests urgently to international policing bodies for evidence to use in UK domestic proceedings. It is hardly a matter for suspicion that we might ask someone with whom we have established a treaty for information for use in UK domestic proceedings. We also want to ensure that the provision is not restricted to the existing treaty. It is quite possible that new treaties will be signed, not only in the European Union, but with countries outside it, for mutual co-operation in judicial matters. It would be a shame if it were always necessary to amend legislation to update it for international policing bodies that may be established in the future.

I have in mind a particular body, the name of which I shall not attempt to pronounce. I read the report of the proceedings in the other place, and apparently various Members of that House ''helpfully'' pronounced it differently. We were told that in the transcript without an explanation of phonetics in Hansard to tell us the correct way in which to pronounce it.

Why limit the Bill to the existing treaty when any treaty would need ratification under British law if it were to take effect? The provision could refer simply to ''treaty obligations'' and, thus, make it open-ended. After all, we are asking for help from outside, not giving it, so the obligation is not on our authorities, but on others to help us. That seems to be a good idea, although others may consider that it is tainted if it comes from one source or another, and is used in British domestic proceedings.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department 3:45, 10 June 2003

The Government do not believe that it would be helpful to set out in regulations what constitutes an urgent situation for the purposes of the clause. It is difficult to see how legislation might successfully cover all the situations in which it might be necessary to make an urgent request for assistance or what would be gained by such legislation. In one case, the request might be urgent because an initial, non-urgent request had not been responded to; in another, the possibility of new evidence might come to light late in an investigation when a trial date had already been set.

Subsection (3) implements article 6.4 of the mutual legal assistance convention, which provides that, in urgent cases, Interpol may be used. The convention does not define an urgent situation. We consider that it is right to maintain that degree of discretion. The European convention of 1959 provided that urgent requests could be transmitted via Interpol, but there was an omission from the 1990 Act. We intend to put that right by including such matters in the Bill. States are not permitted to send requests via Interpol, which is the basic reason why we are against the second amendment, which would remove urgency and allow people to go via Interpol for non-urgent cases.

The purpose of subsection (3)(b) is primarily to enable requests for assistance to be sent via Eurojust

or a national member of Eurojust in cases of urgency. Its wording reflects the wording of article 6.4 of the mutual legal assistance convention, which was drafted just before Eurojust was formally established.

Amendment No. 122 would widen the scope of the subsection by throwing it open to a body that is competent under any treaty obligation, not only the treaty on European union. We do not see the point of changing the wording in such a way. There will be provision in a treaty that may be agreed to ensure that existing arrangements of that nature under an old treaty in respect of the European Union treaty are preserved. We do not see the need to broaden the provisions to cover non-EU treaty obligations.

The function referred to is receipt of requests in urgent situations. That is a specific role, and the provision is included for the specific purpose of implementing the mutual legal assistance convention requirement. It is not designed to cover arrangements under any other international agreement. There are no other bodies outside the EU to which we would wish to extend this function. In those circumstances, all countries outside the EU will be able to use Interpol—as will we. The broadening that the hon. Gentleman suggests for future proofing against future treaty changes should be picked up in the process of those changes, and the widening is picked up by the role that Interpol rightly plays for non-EU countries.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for the sensible manner in which he always approaches this matter. However, I wish to ask him about a point on the European aspect of this. Baroness Anelay of St. Johns pointed out that before the debate in another place on 13 January she had been looking at the Home Office's memorandum preparing for the temporary special European Council: she stated that the Home Office itself was saying,

''that public opinion is not yet always ready to accept that the judicial authorities and procedures of other member states are equivalent to our domestic courts, especially when our own nationals are involved.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC43.]

The Minister and I have had debates about the Kalamata plane spotters, and the more recent case of David Wilson is another example involving the Greek courts. We have discussed that a lot. The European Union Committee of this House agreed with the Home Office analysis. Is there not a problem here, which the Minister must think about when he is talking about the European aspect of this?

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

I am struggling to see how some of those wider debates relate to our ability to use Eurojust or Interpol in cases where we need mutual legal assistance in urgent situations.

The hon. Gentleman is a well-known Eurosceptic who is suspicious of all kinds of things that go on on the continent, but I am unsure why he is seeking to drag this out. He has tabled two amendments. One of them removes urgency: as I have said to him, we are not allowed to do that in any case. The other one provides for us to define urgency in the Bill. Neither of them forward his suspicion of the procedures that are followed in our EU-partner countries.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I intervened at that point because I thought—and I hope that I am correct—that the Minister was responding to the Liberal Democrat amendment, which he will recall that I adverted to in my opening remarks on this. When he is addressing the whole issue of future European treaties, he must consider that he is in a slight difficulty because his own Department is putting forward memorandums to European Union Committees of this House that say that there is a problem here that we have not fully addressed and Eurojust is only just beginning to do so. This goes more to the Liberal Democrat amendment than to my issues about urgency.

Photo of Bob Ainsworth Bob Ainsworth The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department

The Liberal Democrat amendment appears to suggest that there may be future treaties that would designate bobbies and we should pre-empt and, in effect, future proof the legislation against those arrangements. That would be more threatening to the hon. Gentleman's position than what we are saying: the issue of what is picked up from existing treaties would have to be dealt with in any new treaty negotiations and designations would have to be carried forward. That is the more cautious route, in line with the very sensible Home Office position.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

I hear what the Minister is saying, but I do not think that he understands the import of what I was suggesting in my intervention, which is that we should be more cautious than the Home Office.

Photo of Mr Nick Hawkins Mr Nick Hawkins Conservative, Surrey Heath

The Minister says that now: if he really knows what I am getting at, perhaps he was being slightly disingenuous in his earlier response.

This matter was debated in another place, and I think it will continue to be of concern, but at this stage I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

On resuming—

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.