James
Brokenshire: I rise briefly for the last time in this
section to say that this comes down to whether one accepts, as a
starting point, that it is right for the state to have the ability to
forfeit private assets, or whether ones feels that the court should
have that ability. I recognise what the Minister says about judicial
oversight, but that depends on who has the ultimate authority. He is
setting a precedent by saying that the state rather than the court has
the right to forfeit. It is that distinction between the judiciary, and
the legislature and the Government, that I seek to underline on the
basis of fundamental principles. While I accept that he does not
understand it, that is the basis of my argument. I do not support
criminal elements or those who have acquired ill-gotten gains through
illegal
means.
Mr.
Coaker: It was unfair of me to say that I did not
understand the point—I did. I suppose that I was saying that I
do not agree with it. As always, the hon. Gentleman put his point
perfectly. I
shall make one further point on judicial oversight. The hon. Gentleman
does not agree with my point and feels that I am setting a precedent,
but I have tried to balance the need to get more detained cash
forfeited with sufficient safeguards to ensure that somebody can go to
the courts to protect their money. However, there will, of course,
already have been a court order to detain the
cash.
James
Brokenshire: It is
different.
Mr.
Coaker: The hon. Gentleman says that it is different. The
cash is detained by a court order and is then forfeited. The point of
difference is that the hon. Gentleman wants there always to be judicial
forfeiture, but in certain circumstances there is a case for
administrative forfeiture. Administrative forfeiture is not, however,
automatic. There is judicial oversight, so someone can go back to the
court and say that the forfeiture is not fair and they wish to contest
it because the money was not criminally gained. Providing that that is
done, the measure is proportionate, particularly as in exceptional
circumstances someone can appeal if the time limit laid out in the Bill
has run out.
There are
increasing numbers of detained cash investigations and detained cash
orders, and there is the need therefore to try to forfeit the money. We
all want to ensure that more criminal assets are obtained from
criminals and that they do not gain from their criminal activity. This
is a proportionate step forward; it balances the administrative process
with some judicial
oversight. I
apologise; I forgot to deal with SOCA. Hon. Members will know that I
always try to answer the questions. Whether I answer them to their
satisfaction is another matter. The hon. Gentleman raised a point about
SOCA. The easy part of the answer is that he knows that SOCA will
publish its annual report, in which it will have to outline its
progress. SOCA will publish its reports in the same way as ARA did, and
that should allow proper comparison between them with respect to assets
recovered. I know the hon. Gentleman is concerned about that. I hope
that that is helpful to
him. Question
put and agreed
to. Clause
46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clause
47 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
48Article
26
alerts
James
Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 252, in
clause 48, page 62, line 1, leave
out subsection
(2). We
come now to a separate part of the Bill that deals not with asset
recovery, but with matters relating to extradition and, in particular,
the issue of the adoption of the Schengen information system II: how it
applies to us in the UK and the interrelationship with the European
arrest warrant. It is worth noting that the UK is not a part of the
Schengen convention and does not currently have access to the existing
Schengen information system. The framework decision underlying the EAW,
though, envisages that an issuing judicial authority would transmit an
EAW directly to the receiving country’s judicial authority, or
by means of issuing an alert for the request of a person through the
Schengen information system.
As we heard
in evidence, the UK currently receives EAWs via Interpol channels, or
through the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Amendment 252 is a probing
amendment tabled in order better to understand the relationship between
a situation where an article 26 alert has been entered on the Schengen
information system, and where it has not. My understanding was that the
change to the Extradition Act 2003 was intended to facilitate the
UK’s compliance with the framework decision, yet subsection (2)
appears to go further than this, enabling the transmission of an EAW by
electronic means other than an alert on the new Schengen information
system II. What do the Government envisage by that?
Will the
Minister also explain what reciprocal arrangements exist with other
countries to enable them to receive and process EAWs issued by the UK
and transmitted in electronic form, as envisaged by the clause? Can he
confirm how EAWs are currently transmitted by the UK to other
countries? What impact does he expect this provision to have in terms
of additional requests for extradition arising from alerts through the
Schengen information system II?
In evidence to
the Committee, we heard that there was an expectation that there would
be a considerable increase in the number of EAWs, which would require
processing by law enforcement in this country as a consequence of the
changes envisaged by this clause and the Bill. Does the Minister agree
with that evidence and what does he expect the cost impact will be for
police forces in processing such requests? He will well appreciate the
budget pressure on police forces at the moment and he will note the
reports today of police forces having to reduce the number of police
officers as a consequence of such budgetary pressure. What cost impact
will the additional processing, required by an increase in EAWs, have
on the police forces that will have to deal with arresting people for
matters associated with them?
12.30
pm The
Minister will recall that we were told that a significant number of EAW
requests were being received from Poland. Does he envisage that these
changes will have a bigger impact on police forces that have seen an
above-average increase in population due to migration—the county
of Cambridgeshire obviously springs to mind? Previous comments have
highlighted the knock-on impact on police budgets of the cost of
translations and of addressing an increase in population of workers
coming from other accession states in the EU. What assessment has he
made of the impact of those changes, particularly on those police force
areas that have already seen challenges and issues to their budgets
arising from them? Therefore, if further EAWs are anticipated, as seems
to have been suggested in evidence, what impact does he expect this to
have on police forces generally and on specific police forces that have
seen an increase in population due to migration and accessions to the
EU? It is important to understand this in terms of the impact of the
clause the Government are proposing and what preparations have been
made, are being made and will be made to ensure that any impact is
properly assessed and calculated and taken into account by police
forces. Dr.
Evan Harris (Oxford, West and Abingdon) (LD): The
amendment has been correctly put by the hon. Member for Hornchurch. I
wondered why this subsection was included and looked at the explanatory
notes, which are difficult to follow unless you are an expert on the
2003 Act and extradition in general. They specify on page 38 that the
UK “be
required to ensure that all current alerts relating to people wanted
for arrest for extradition purposes which have been entered on to
either SIS or SIS II by other member states have been validated. These
provisions accordingly allow for the consideration and certification of
article 26 alerts and extradition alerts transmitted under SIS (article
95
alerts).” Presumably,
this subsection relates to those but it would be helpful if the
Minister could explain from where the requirement stems.
I have one
other question about this clause, which it seems appropriate to raise
now, in relation to the date included in new subsection (6)(a). There
is an amendment that could be raised at this point, but I have two. The
Bar Council says that the reference to 12 December 2006 in new
subsection (6)(a) should read 20 December
2006, which it describes as the date on which the Committee of Permanent
Representatives confirmed its agreement on the draft Council decision.
Justice, while giving no explanation, argues that instead of “Council
Decision on the establishment, operation and use of the second
generation Schengen Information System of 12 December
2006”, it
should say,
“Council
Decision 2007/533/JHA of 12 June 2007 on the establishment, operation
and use of the second generation Schengen Information
System”. I
do not feel strongly about it except in the interests of accuracy. We
have two lawyers and two different opinions and presumably the
Government lawyer has a third opinion. It would be helpful if the
Minister put on record why he believes that the date provided is
appropriate.
Mr.
Coaker: The hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon’s comment about two lawyers with two different opinions
made me laugh. That often happens, unfortunately. As always, it depends
on which one is listened to and agreed with.
I shall make
a couple of specific remarks and finish with some general points.
Starting with the section on extradition, we all accept the need for
extradition but it should be proportionate. I will say with respect to
the later amendments on this that it is done in a proportionate way
consistent with human rights legislation. We all agree with that. I was
struck by the fact that both Liberty and the Bar Council saw nothing in
the proposed new section that they regarded as a “titanic
battle”—I think those were the words used. The debates
around extradition and the fact that we have carefully tried to put
improvements in the Bill, including clause 48, to improve how it works
rather than to make huge changes were reflected in the fact that
neither Liberty nor the Bar Council saw huge issues in this part of the
Bill. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman of that important
fact.
The hon.
Member for Hornchurch asked how many additional arrests we thought
there might be as a consequence of the measure. In 2007, 504 EAW
arrests were made in the UK. As he said, Interpol or SOCA currently
alert the UK to EAWs. It is estimated that the UK receives only about
half of all EAW alerts, which is concerning. It is understood that
alerts on the Schengen information system will have increased by 250
per cent. between 2006 and 2010, which is fairly significant. The
estimated rise of 1,200 additional arrests is based on a range of data,
including an EU paper on SIS growth. Therefore, we expect a significant
increase in arrests as a result of becoming part of the SIS II. As we
have talked about on other matters, providing it is done with due
process, it should mean that we can help to catch criminals and stop
them avoiding justice by moving across
boundaries. The
hon. Gentleman asked about reciprocal arrangements. Arrangements are
reciprocal and we receive and send EAW requests by
e-mail.
James
Brokenshire: Proposed new subsection (2) appears to
address electronic transmission. I hope that the Minister will come to
that in a minute, but if electronic transmission is already happening,
why is proposed new subsection (2)
necessary?
Mr.
Coaker: I will come to that in a little while. I will
slightly chide the hon. Gentleman on the issue of costs to the police.
We can quote today’s papers but the latest figures actually show
that police numbers have gone up in some forces. They may have gone
down in others, and I cannot remember exactly what the split is, but in
approximately 20 forces the numbers went up and in approximately 20
they went down. Before anybody says that I do not know that there are
43 forces, I do, I am simply saying that it is approximately 20. If the
Opposition were to form a Government, they would delegate budgets to
local police forces that would then determine the best use of those
resources, unless they intend to dictate exactly what numbers the
forces should have. The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting political
point but, according to the latest figures, the numbers went
up.
The hon.
Gentleman raises a serious point about the additional burden of an
increased number of EAWs, which the Metropolitan police also mentioned
in its evidence. Frankly, it will be for local police forces to deal
with the requests that they get under the new system. They will
prioritise and deal with them in the same way that they prioritise and
deal with all kinds of requests in the course of upholding law and
order and tackling criminality in their own area. It will not be the
case that additional resources will be provided for
that. The
hon. Gentleman then went on to ask what can be done about the impact
that immigrants from a particular country may have on an area. He used
the example of Poland and the impact on an area. A new fund called the
migration impact fund will be available in different areas from April.
It will come from fees paid by people coming into the country and will
be delegated to regional government offices, which will be responsible
for distributing the money. In response to the hon. Member for
Peterborough (Mr. Jackson), who asked a similar question
about some of the impacts of migration on areas, I have
suggested to the Cambridgeshire police force, for example, that the
fund will be
available. The
fund will not be for the police only. It will also be available to
other local service providers, so that if there is an impact in an area
from a particular country or group of migrants, they can bid for funds.
As I said, there are no plans to increase police resources, but the
migration impact fund will be available should people wish to apply for
it. I
am looking for the answer to the question about 20 December.
I am sure that it has arrived, but I cannot see it at the moment.
Perhaps someone could help me out, as it has disappeared among the
plethora of paper that I have. I will deal with the question; I have no
doubt that the paper will
appear. The
amendment seeks to remove a subsection of the clause that deals with
the Schengen information system II, which allows law enforcement
agencies in the UK to certify incoming European arrest warrants that
are transmitted to the UK electronically but outside the SIS
II. The provision that the amendment would remove mirrors a provision
already contained in the Extradition Act 2003, which enables the UK to
consider and certify a large number of European arrest warrants that
are transmitted by
e-mail. When
the UK connects to the second-generation Schengen information system,
the vast majority of European arrest warrants will be transmitted via
that
database. This refers to the points made by the hon. Members for Oxford,
West and Abingdon and for Hornchurch on subsection (2). However,
countries that are not yet part of the SIS II network may wish to
continue sending European arrest warrants by electronic means such as
e-mail, and we may wish to do the same. Until the UK joins the SIS II,
it is vital that law enforcement agencies continue to have the ability
to certify arrest warrants that are sent electronically—in other
words, by this means—and that includes any requests that we
receive from countries that are not part of the SIS II and also arrest
warrants that we may wish to send. Removing the power could have an
impact on our ability to deal with criminals who move across
borders. In
reply to the question from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and
Abingdon about new subsection (6)(a), we agree that the correction
needs to be made, but parliamentary counsel has confirmed that it can
be dealt with as a printing correction, so no amendment is needed. I
thank him for pointing that
out.
| 
