|Back to Table of Contents
|Lords Hansard Home Page
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, what I am concerned with is the second set of conditions relating to matters which include excluded material. I refer in particular to the question of journalistic material. While I was not involved at the time, I know that there were extremely long arguments during debates on PACE as regards the question of using these powers to obtain access to confidential sources. It is clear that there must be a strong case to justify the disclosure of excluded material.
I tabled the amendment to enable the issue of principle to be debated. We believe that restrictions must be placed on the disclosure of special procedure and excluded material which correspond, so far as they serve a useful purpose, to those in PACE. Frankly, I do not think that this is the occasion on which to discuss them as matters of detail.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to deal with that. While I cannot give any kind of commitment because I do not know what it is that requires a commitment, I am prepared to look at which aspects of the "safeguards" which, having regard to the totality of the safeguards provided under the Bill, the noble Lord thinks do not apply but which ought to apply in relation to the execution of overseas freezing orders.
However, the noble Lord will forgive me for saying that this does not appear to be a matter of detail. Without knowing what his objection of principle is, I cannot say what my attitude to it would be. I am prepared to look at it without commitment, but I cannot give a commitment because I do not know what the detail is.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I would put it the other way round. The Bill excludes the protection given by PACE to the special procedure material and excluded material. It is a judge who has to decide whether the requirements are satisfied. That appears to me to be the starting point from which we should proceed.
I ask the House to accept as a principle that there should be restrictions which are equivalent to those in PACE. If the Government respond by saying that some of the PACE requirements are not necessary or appropriate, we can look at them again. At the moment, however, I think that the noble and learned Lord is putting it the wrong way round. He is saying, "Tell us what you do not like about it and we shall see what we can do". The answer is that we do not like the
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in this group are all technical amendments. Amendment No. 32 relates to the repeal of Sections 31 and 32 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. Subsection (1) of Clause 28 (Interpretation of Chapter 2) includes a definition of "premises" which for Scotland picks up on the definition in Sections 31 and 32 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995. However, Sections 31 and 32 in Part V of that Act were repealed on 24th February 2003 by the relevant commencement of Schedule 12 to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The same definition of "premises", with a slightly different layout, is to be found at Section 412 in Chapter 3 of Part 8 of the 2002 Act. Therefore reference to this definition should more appropriately now be made to the 2002 Act.
Amendment No. 33 allows the provisions of Clause 29, which concerns the types of proceedings in which evidence may be given by TV link, to be extended to Northern Ireland. This is necessary because we would want any change made in respect of England and Wales to apply also to Northern Ireland. Scotland is catered for separately under Clause 29(2).
Amendment No. 66 relates to paragraph 36 of Schedule 5 on page 74. It is a consequential amendment so that the new subsection (3A) inserted into Section 5 of the 1990 Act has effect in relation to warrants issued under Clause 47. The amendment in Schedule 5 is to allow service personnel sentenced to detention by courts martial to be transferred overseas. If the amendment is not made, provisions of the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and of the Naval Discipline Act 1957 could prevent the removal from the United Kingdom of persons serving sentences of detention imposed by courts martial.
Service personnel who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, as opposed to detention, by a court martial are automatically dismissed from the services. These periods of imprisonment are served in civilian prisons and not in military institutions, so the relevant provisions of the Bill relating to civilians would apply.
Amendment No. 68 is a correction. Article 49(a) of Schengen is repealed under Article 2(2) of MLAC and the appropriate reference should therefore be to Article 3(1) of MLAC, which replaces the Schengen provision. I hope that these wholly uncontroversial amendments meet with the agreement of your Lordships' House. I beg to move.