| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Education (Determination of Admission Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
8.9 p.m.
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2996).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is a sore temptation to help all noble Lords to work off their wonderful party this evening, but I shall resist it.
Education (School Information) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2897).
Education (Variation of Admission Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2898).
Education (Admissions Appeals Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2899).
Education (Admission Forums) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2900).
Education (Objection to Admission Arrangements) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to
Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2901).The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I have one opportunity to say my last word. I hope that the Minister will write to me on the points that were not met when he responded to the debate. I hope also that he will correct some of his remarks. As a former Minister, if I gave information that was not correct I was always instructed by the then Chief Whip, my noble friend Lord Denham, to explain why I misled the House. We received information tonight that was incorrect. I would be grateful for a correction.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, we will of course obey the conventions of the House.
Education (Co–ordination of Admission Arrangements) (Primary Schools) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2903).
Education (Co-ordination of Admission Arrangements) (Secondary Schools) (England) Regulations 2002
Baroness Blatch had given notice of her intention to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the regulations, laid before the House on 2nd December 2002, be annulled (S.I. 2002/2904).
- House adjourned at eleven minutes past eight o'clock.
Official Report of the Grand Committee on the
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [HL]
(Third Day) Monday, 27th January 2003.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): Before calling the Committee to order, I should remind your Lordships that, in the likely event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes precisely, according to the watch worn by whomever is Chairman at the time, which may or may not reflect what is on your Lordships' watches.
Clause 32 [Customer information]:
Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 93A:
- Page 18, line 30, after "country" insert "as defined in subsection (9)"
The noble Viscount said: The amendments would clarify the exact definition of a "participating country". On page 30, we are told that it means,
- "a member State on a day appointed for the commencement of that provision",
The British Bankers' Association has raised concerns about the matter, as it feels that Britain should ensure that the information that we will be able to obtain will be not less, nor less timely, than that which the UK will normally provide. We should ensure that there will not be differences due to different laws, bank secrecy rules or banking procedures, which affect access to information, particularly if the retail banking structure is less concentrated than that in the UK. Such differences could reduce the benefits from more ready access to information derived from other states relative to the cost to the UK of providing such information in response to requests for mutual legal assistance.
We would welcome assurances that other countries would provide the same service as we would, and we are anxious that no other countries should be added to the list without having implemented similar provisions. We should not forget the cost of complying with customer information orders. Surely we do not
want to overburden small banks without, at least, ensuring that we can expect a similar service in return. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I support the amendment very much. The Minister explained that different countries dealt with such matters at different speeds. It would be wrong to have an arrangement with a country that was not reciprocal. I hope that the Minister can give a satisfactory reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): The amendments address the meaning of the term "participating country" in respect of the provisions on banking information. The definition in Clause 52 allows the designation of different countries as "participating" for the purpose of different provisions. It provides that,
- "A participating country, in relation to any provision of this Part, means a country . . . which is a member State on a day appointed for the commencement of that provision".
It is possible that, in contrast to the provisions implementing the framework decision on orders freezing evidence, the provisions could be extended beyond the EU. For example, we understand that Norway and Iceland, which are members of Schengen, are interested in participating in MLAC and the protocol. Another example is Switzerland, which is negotiating to participate in Schengen. Should that be agreed, Switzerland would have the same opportunity to participate in the protocol as other states that are part of Schengen and not part of the EU. It might therefore be appropriate in the future to designate Norway and Iceland and other countries yet to join Schengen as participating countries for the purpose of Chapter 4.
As well as seeking to restrict the application of the provisions to European Union member states, the amendments—I recognise that they are probing amendments—would ensure that they applied only between member states that had implemented the protocol, once all 15 had implemented it. Presumably, the concern is that other member states would be able to make such requests from the UK without being able to reciprocate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, suggested. That fear is unfounded. Member states will have had to ratify the protocol before being able to make such a request and therefore would be in a position to respond to similar UK requests.
The protocol can enter into force before all 15 member states have implemented it. Article 13 states that it shall,
- "enter into force in the eight member states concerned 90 days after the notification [of completion of implementation formalities by] the state . . . which is the eighth to complete that formality".
I hope that that explanation has addressed the concerns raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. There is nothing of risk or harm in the measures.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page