| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 16, line 19, leave out from 'means' to end of line 22 and insert
'the Framework Decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing property or evidence adopted by the Council of the European Union on 22nd July 2003'.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 15 to 17 and 19 to 27.
Caroline Flint: I should like to say a few words about these Government amendments, bearing in mind the fact that we were criticised—I think, unjustly—during earlier debates for not having brought new clause 1 to the House's attention earlier, during proceedings in Committee. So I want to put on record the reason why these technical amendments are being moved today.
These technical amendments have been tabled to take account of the recent adoption, on 22 July, by the European Council of the framework decision on the execution in the European Union of orders freezing
property or evidence. Now that the framework decision has been formally adopted, it makes for good drafting in the Bill to refer to the final form of the decision. The Bill currently refers to the relevant framework decision, and secondary legislation would be required to identify the framework decision and the provisions of the decision defining what are listed offences covered by freezing orders and what is the specified information to be contained in a certificate accompanying the orders.Under the amendments, the Bill will refer to the framework decision as formally adopted, giving the provisions greater clarity. The relevant definitions in clause 28 and schedule 4 will be amended to refer to the framework decision itself and to the specific provisions in the framework decision that have been formally adopted.
Amendments made: No. 15, in page 16, line 31 [Clause 28], leave out from 'in' to 'of' in line 32 and insert 'Article 3(2)'.
No. 16, in page 16, line 33 [Clause 28], leave out 'such an order' and insert
'an order made by the Secretary of State'.
No. 17, in page 16, line 40 [Clause 28], leave out from 'by' to 'or' in line 42 and insert
'the form of certificate annexed to the relevant Framework Decision'.—[Caroline Flint.]
5.30 pm
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 20, line 3 [Clause 33], leave out paragraph (a).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 7, in page 25, line 7 [Clause 43], leave out 'bank' and insert 'financial institution'.
No. 8, in page 25, line 26 [Clause 43], leave out 'banks' and insert 'financial institutions'.
No. 9, in page 25, line 32 [Clause 43], leave out 'bank' and insert 'financial institution'.
No. 10, in page 25, line 33 [Clause 43], leave out 'bank or banks' and insert 'financial institution or institutions'.
No. 11, in page 26, line 20 [Clause 44], leave out 'banks' and insert 'financial institutions'.
No. 12, in page 27, line 9 [Clause 46], leave out paragraph (b).
Mr. Heath: Amendment No. 6 will be familiar to members of the Standing Committee, and particularly to Conservative Front-Bench Members, who were happy to move a similar amendment in Committee. I hope that they still feel able to support the sentiment involved.
We have a serious problem with the scope of clause 33(3)(a), which allows that the application for information on monetary transactions may specify as a single entity all financial institutions. Without wishing to spend a lot of time explaining our objections to that,
it seems to us that framing the provision in that way, so that every financial institution in the country must provide the relevant transaction information, or at the very least, look for it, implies a substantial burden on those institutions, to no great effect, first because the vast majority of them will be irrelevant to the investigation in question, and secondly because if all the institutions provide information, it will be extremely difficult for the investigating authorities to process it. I referred in Committee to the difficulties that the National Criminal Intelligence Service has in current circumstances in dealing with the amount of financial information involved, and such an increase would overwhelm its investigation systems. Moreover, if the evidence on the basis of which a request is made is so flimsy that it is impossible to identify even a class of financial institutions that should properly provide the necessary information, that suggests to me that that evidence is insufficient to be acceptable as a trigger for the procedure in the first instance.In addition, as I said in Committee, I think that the drafting of clause 33(3)(b) and (c) covers all eventualities. I asked the Minister in Committee what would be the effect on any proposed investigation that she could envisage if paragraph (a) were missing. She did not give a convincing answer with regard to anything that would fall outside the provisions of paragraphs (b),
- "a particular description, or particular descriptions, of financial institutions"
- "a particular financial institution or particular financial institutions".
Amendments Nos. 7 to 11 relate to circumstances in which account information could be sought by British authorities from overseas authorities. In Committee, I drew attention to the fact that, in considering this country, we refer to financial institutions, whereas in considering other countries, we refer to banks. I asked whether there was a reason for that, and whether it would be better to delete the word "bank" from the Bill and replace it with "financial institution", which the amendments would do. The Home Office and the Minister have considered that and I am grateful that the hon. Lady wrote to me to explain the thinking behind the Department's view.
I hope that I summarise fairly what the Minister wrote. She said that, in relation to a request from an institution in this country, since we have a loose definition of banks but a safe definition, in legal terms, of financial institutions, that is the proper term to use, which I accept entirely. However, she said that, in considering overseas authorities, definitions are necessarily enshrined in those countries' domestic legislation, and nothing to do with what we might care to say in our legislation. Those arguments are absolutely
right, but I am worried that the use of the word "bank" in the Bill will limit the scope of what could properly be requested from an overseas authority to information from either what a British court would define as a bank, which is a narrow and incomplete definition compared with that of a financial institution, or what an overseas body defines as a bank, which might be a limited subset of all the financial institutions in a country. For example, there are many mutual credit organisations in France that are not banks, by definition, but are nevertheless financial institutions in which people deposit money and to which I hope the provisions would apply.The substitution of the word "bank" for "financial institution" when dealing with our requests to overseas authorities limits ab initio what we may ask for, which is an inherently weaker position. I ask the Minister to consider again whether the arguments in her letter hold water.
Amendment No. 12 relates to provisions for introducing new offences, effectively by negative resolution, through a decision by the Council of Ministers, which would be translated into British law with minimal scrutiny in this country. That is objectionable. The argument made in Committee was that we should not wish to overload this Parliament with scrutiny. When considering overseas requests to scrutinise the bank accounts of citizens of this country, we owe it to them to apply a little more scrutiny than that implied by the provision. The offences might be determined by qualified majority voting in the future, so the Council of Ministers could vote to overrule a British Minister and add offences to the list. The British Government would be required to add offences to the list with which they did not agree because they had been outvoted under QMV and there would be only minimal scrutiny by the House. Many hon. Members, myself included, do not think that that is acceptable. At the very least, a proper process of scrutiny in the House is required so that we constituency Members of Parliament may speak up for constituents who might be affected by such a decision. I make no apologies for taking an apocalyptic view. I do not think that the circumstances that I have described would arise in a reasonable scenario, but they could. It is right that when we legislate for the UK we consider the worst case rather than the best case. That is why the amendment is necessary.
This group of amendments is important, and it needs careful scrutiny because the process, although necessary, is intrusive. We have no argument with the basic principles of what the Government are trying to achieve, but the House should have careful control of the process. The wording is important because it may reduce the measures' effectiveness by applying too heavy a burden on those on whom they bear, by incorrectly defining the circumstances in which the powers can be used or by allowing an expansion of the powers without the proper imprimatur of the House, which is an important part of our legislative process.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |