The
Committee consisted of the following
Members:
Brokenshire,
James
(Hornchurch)
(Con)
Burns,
Mr. Simon
(West Chelmsford)
(Con)
Fisher,
Mark
(Stoke-on-Trent, Central)
(Lab)
Hanson,
Mr. David
(Minister of State, Home
Department)Huhne,
Chris
(Eastleigh)
(LD)
Jackson,
Glenda
(Hampstead and Highgate)
(Lab)
Kemp,
Mr. Fraser
(Houghton and Washington, East)
(Lab)
Linton,
Martin
(Battersea)
(Lab)
McCabe,
Steve
(Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's
Treasury)
Moon,
Mrs. Madeleine
(Bridgend)
(Lab)
Pritchard,
Mark
(The Wrekin)
(Con)
Singh,
Mr. Marsha
(Bradford, West)
(Lab)
Stanley,
Sir John
(Tonbridge and Malling)
(Con)
Willott,
Jenny
(Cardiff, Central)
(LD)
Wright,
Mr. Anthony
(Great Yarmouth)
(Lab)
Yeo,
Mr. Tim
(South Suffolk)
(Con)
Michael Clark, Committee
Clerk
attended the
Committee
Seventh
Delegated Legislation
Committee
Wednesday 24
June
2009
[Hywel
Williams in the
Chair]
Draft
Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of
Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) (No. 2)
Order
2009
2.30
pm
The
Minister of State, Home Department (Mr. David
Hanson): I beg to move,
That the
Committee has considered the Draft Crime (International Co-operation)
Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and
Northern Ireland) (No. 2) Order 2009.
I
look forward to serving under your chairmanship again, Mr.
Williams. Hon. Members will recall the Crime (International
Co-operation) Act 2003, which streamlined and modernised the United
Kingdoms mutual legal assistance relations with the rest of the
world.
In
an effort to further improve international co-operation and fight
crime, we are seeking, in the draft order, to designate Switzerland,
Iceland and Norway for the purposes of various sections of the 2003
Act. The draft order reflects the fact that the European Union has
concluded two agreements with those states. On 26 October
2004, a co-operation agreement against fraud was signed between
Switzerland and the EU, and on 19 December 2003, the EU
concluded an agreement with Norway and Iceland, allowing them to accede
to certain articles of the 2001 mutual legal assistance convention and
its protocol. As a result, it is now necessary for the United Kingdom
to designate those countries as participating countries
under the 2003
Act.
The
designation of the three countries for the purpose of sections 32, 35,
43, 44 and 45 of the Act, will allow for requests for locating bank
accounts and providing banking information relating to criminal
investigations to be executed in England, Wales and Northern Ireland,
and for such requests to be made to Norway, Iceland or Switzerland by
the
UK.
Norway
and Iceland are also designated under sections 31, 47 and 48
and paragraph 15 of schedule 2 to the 2003 Act. That will allow the UK
to execute requests for witnesses to be heard by telephone in criminal
proceedings and allow for prisoners in the requesting country to be
temporarily transferred to the requested country to help with domestic
investigations.
Finally,
we propose to designate Switzerland under sections 4 and 4B of the Act,
so that the process documents may be sent directly from the UK to the
individuals
affected.
The
order is part of our general UK responsibilities to try to fight crime
and to ensure that criminals do not escape justice. I thank my hon.
Friends for being here today, and I commend to the order to the
Committee.
2.32
pm
James
Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship, I believe for the first time, Mr.
Williams. I hope to have further such occasions in the
future.
In
response to the Ministers statement, Her Majestys
Opposition broadly agree with everything that has been said about the
need to ensure that we have co-operative links with other nations,
given that a lot of crime now is international in its nature,
particularly financial crime. The need to ensure that offenders are
brought to justice requires that degree of co-operation to be in
effect. Therefore, bringing the three additional countries within the
ambit of the 2003 Act is welcomed.
I have some
short questions to ask the Minister in relation to the order, although
I am conscious of not detaining the Committee at any great length. The
first is on the timing for the designation. As the Minister has rightly
identified, the conventions were signed some time ago. Why has there
been the delay in the creation of the designation to today, given that
we may be going back to 2000-01? Have there been any implications? Why
was it necessary to have the rather large time gap?
Secondly,
what impacts or implications will the order have on law enforcement or
other agencies in this country? As I understand it, the order is
intended to promote greater co-operation towe hope and
trustbring people to justice for the commission of various
offences. I was somewhat surprised to see the explanatory memorandum to
the order
state:
There
is no impact on the public sector. An Impact Assessment has not been
prepared for this instrument as no impact on the private, public or
voluntary sector is
foreseen.
Will
the Minister confirm, explain or expand on that a little further?
Presumably, we are expecting some sort of impact; otherwise, the
question will be why we are doing this in the first place. It is about
ensuring that we bring people to justice and about whether there will
be any impact on police forces or other prosecution
authoritiesthe Financial Services Authority or othersto
ensure they can comply with any of the additional requirements. We look
forward to the greater participation that will flow as a consequence of
this
order.
May
I also ask the Minister about the impact on our relationship with
Switzerland, which has historically been a country with strict rules
and regulations about banking secrecy? Clearly, the requirements set
out in the 2003 Act envisaged, in the way it was drawn up, that there
would be greater participation and that account information would be
provided. Will the Minister say whether these provisions and the
co-operation and participation they enable help prosecuting and
investigatory authorities in this country obtain information to ensure
that those criminals or third parties who think they may have had a
safe harbour and who wish to commit financial fraud or other serious
financial crimes know that that is no longer the
case?
Obviously
there are distinctions, as the Minister has highlighted, between the
various agreements reached with the three countries. Will he explain
further why agreement on all the points was not forthcoming with
Switzerland, whether that is still work in progress and whether there
is a wider policy on all that? We understand the need for the order and
for greater co-operation and we look forward to the Ministers
answers, so that we can hear about the impact that this is likely to
have.
2.37
pm
Jenny
Willott (Cardiff, Central) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve
under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Williams.
Overall, I warmly welcome this enhanced international co-operation. I
do not see who could disagree with it; it seems a very sensible move
forward, so I will not detain the Committee long.
Clearly,
crime is becoming increasingly cross-border, so we need to make sure
that our laws are up to date in that element. I was very pleased to
hear the Conservatives stance today, since they have, in the
past, objected to the European arrest warrant and various other
measures that have improved international co-operation on crime. I am
glad to hear that the Conservative party seems to be a bit more
friendly towards international
co-operation.
James
Brokenshire: I am very pleased that the Liberal Democrats
have changed their stance tootheir home affairs spokesman has
been critical of the European arrest warrant himself in the past. We
have set out our support for the order and it is pleasing to hear that
the Liberal Democrats are equally
supportive.
Jenny
Willott: At the risk of getting into tit-for-tat, I will
continue with my questions to the Minister. One question I wanted to
raise has already been raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch, which
is why some aspects apply to Iceland and Norway and others apply just
to Switzerland. I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether
the Swiss authorities objected to some elements that Iceland and Norway
agreed to, or whether there are other reasons for the
difference.
I
am glad to support the measures that enhance co-operation on banking,
particularly given its importance to international terrorism. I am very
glad that the Government have been able to negotiate with the Swiss
authorities to ensure that we have improved co-operation, because that
is a really important step forward. I should be grateful if the
Minister would let us know how it will be ensured that decisions by
judges on customer information orders and account monitoring orders
will be uniformly applied across the EU and across Norway, Iceland and
Switzerland, given that judiciaries operate very differently in
different countries. Will the Minister say how we can ensure that there
is uniformity, so that requests for information are treated in the same
way? For example, will there be international guidelines?
Finally,
during the debate in the other place the Minister was asked whether he
could provide figures about the number of prisoners that are currently
transferred under sections 47 and 48. That Minister was not able to
answer at that point, but I wonder whether the Minister could do so
today. Also, will he tell us when those sections are used? Do the
Government foresee any examples of those sections being used in the
next few months?
I look
forward to the Ministers answers and I am happy to support the
order.
2.40
pm
Mr.
Hanson: I thank the hon. Members for Hornchurch and for
Cardiff, Central for their support in principle for the order.
Evidently, its purpose is to try to ensure that we co-operate with the
three countries mentioned on international crime issues. Several points
were raised, and I will take each of them speedily in turn.
The hon.
Member for Hornchurch asked why there has not been regulatory impact
and what the regulatory numbers are. The number of requests that we
have received is relatively small, and will not create a great burden
on the agencies and operations dealing with them. In 2007 we had nine
requests in Norway, three in Iceland and 104 in Switzerland. In 2008
there were 23 in Norway, three in Iceland and 111 in Switzerland. There
is not a great deal of traffic on these issues, but it is important
that we regulate the issue with proper legislation.
Both hon.
Members drew attention to the delay in the implementation of the order.
The UK signed and ratified the EU-Swiss agreement in February 2006. In
relation to Switzerland, the sections related to banking evidence have
been in force since 2006 and banks have been prepared to process the
orders since then. However, we had to bring the order forward today
because, particularly in relation to the Norway-Iceland agreement,
which is before the Committee, the agreement requires each individual
country to take domestic measures necessary to enforce the agreements
prior to their conclusion. The order, effectively, brings that matter
to a conclusion today, if the order is agreed by this Houseas
the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central mentioned, the other place
consented to the order last
week.
Both
hon. Members asked why only certain elements related to Switzerland.
The agreement between Switzerland and the EU only relates to fraud, so
the provisions that we are designating are related to that area
alone.
Jenny
Willott: When the Minister says that the agreement is just
for fraud, does that include money transfers that might be involved in
international terrorism? That is clearly not fraud, but it is an area
that many people are also deeply concerned
about.
Mr.
Hanson: My understanding is that it does, and
self-evidently, it is about international co-operation on crime
issues.
I hope I can
give reassurance on the point that was made on the historical,
well-known significance of Swiss banks for occasions when individuals
may have tried to use the Swiss banking system to avoid some of their
responsibilities. That is obviously an issue of some concern. The fact
is that under the legislation to date and under the order, the Swiss
authorities have committed to ensure that the agreement between the EU
and Switzerland is enforced. Switzerland has agreed to provide such
evidence as is required and I have no reason, and nor do the United
Kingdom Government, to believe that the Swiss authorities will not help
to enforce the agreement. I am sure that hon. Members, like us, want to
ensure that the integrity of the Swiss banking system is maintained.
That is important for the Swiss Government, as well as for our
Government.
I
was asked about the number of prisoner transfers. There have been no
transfers under sections 47 and 48 this year. I know from my previous
incarnationonly two weeks ago, I was the Minister responsible
for prisonsthat we are keen to facilitate transfers both in
relation to convictions in due course and, as is the case in the order,
in relation to appearances and support in investigations of crime. In
the event of that being requested, we will certainly attempt to
facilitate it.
I hope that I
have covered all the points that the hon. Members for Hornchurch and
for Cardiff, Central have mentioned. If, on reflection, I have not, I
will examine them.
Jenny
Willott: Will the Minister also answer the question about
ensuring conformity across the different EU countries, Norway, Iceland
and Switzerland when judges are making decisions on the
orders?
Mr.
Hanson: It is an interesting point, which I would like to
look at. From my current understanding of the order, I cannot give a
definitive answer now. But evidently, it is key for us to look at that
issue across the European Community to ensure that we have an ability
to act on the order, not just in the UK but elsewhere. If the hon. Lady
allows me, I will look at that point on reflection and drop her the
proverbial note to confirm it. If she
has any points on that, she can come back to me in writing or by means
of parliamentary questions. I will reflect on and examine that point,
and I will, as promised, get back to her.
I hope I have
covered the other points, Mr. Williams. It has been a
pleasure to have unanimity in the Committee, and I commend the order to
it.
Question
put and agreed to.
2.46
pm
Committee
rose.