|
Mr. Ainsworth: The clause provides for making domestic ''freezing orders'' to secure evidence overseas. It implements part of the framework decision on the execution of orders freezing property or evidence, enabling the UK to make freezing orders for the purpose of securing evidence. The framework decision is an instrument involving the concept of mutual recognition, rather than mutual legal assistance.
A domestic freezing order is an order made by a UK judicial authority for protecting evidence in a participating country pending a mutual legal assistance request for its transfer to the UK. The clause specifies the circumstances in which a judicial authority in the UK may make a freezing order.
The clause is necessary because there is currently no provision for UK authorities to issue domestic orders that will be recognised and enforced abroad. It is possible to make a mutual legal assistance request to obtain evidence, and that happens frequently. Currently, any such request would be considered and the evidence obtained in accordance with the requested country's laws and procedures, not in accordance with our laws and procedures, as mutual recognition would provide that they should be.
Freezing orders will, however, enable faster and more efficient co-operation to occur, in circumstances where it is necessary to freeze evidence quickly. For example, a UK police team investigating a UK-based armed robbery might obtain intelligence that the weapons used in the robbery were located abroad.
Column Number: 075
The UK police would be able to get a court order to search for the weapons at a specified location. The authorities abroad would be required to notify an initial decision on execution of an order as quickly as possible, and whenever practicable within 24 hours of receipt, as required by article 5 of the framework decision. In contrast to a request for mutual legal assistance, there are limited grounds on which such an order can be rejected in the receiving state, provided it meets the conditions specified in the framework decision. For example, it must be accompanied by a properly completed certificate and relate to relevant offences.
The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the list. The list is in the framework decision, which requires investigation of proceedings relating to listed offences. Member states are required to recognise a freezing order only if it relates to one of the offences listed in the framework decision. The offence is punishable in the issuing state by a maximum sentence of at least three years.
Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Ainsworth: I give way. I know the road down which we are travelling.
Mr. Hawkins: I am sure that the Minister can anticipate me, but if the offence is listed in the framework directive, surely it should be in the Bill.
Mr. Ainsworth: That is a similar debate to the one that we had during consideration of the Extradition Bill. It is well-trodden ground between us. The list is in the framework document. At the moment, I see no reason why it should be in the Bill. We did not include such a list in the Extradition Bill, and I do not see why we should define that treaty obligation in this Bill.
Mr. Heath: A listed offence clearly must be defined, which it is in clause 28(5). Happily, we are therefore in accord.
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath will see a list of offences in clause 28.
The provision is not about freezing assets, but about evidence. The courts to be used must be the same courts that deal with requests for evidence. Those are orders for evidence, not for freezing assets or for asset recovery. The court that is making the request is the appropriate court.
The hon. Gentleman invites me to write to him in response to his other points, which I shall do to save the Committee's time.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 11
Sending freezing orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: Again, I want to raise a couple of points in a couple of sentences so that they are not missed when the Bill is considered further. I am happy for the Minister to write to me and to other members
Column Number: 076
of the Committee rather than taking up the Committee's time this afternoon.
The clause deals with how domestic freezing orders, once made, will be transmitted to the country where the evidence is. Subsection (1)(b) states
''any authority recognised by the government of the country . . . as the appropriate authority''.
The Minister has just talked about the well-trodden ground between us when we discussed the Extradition Bill. There may be problems with some countries that might recognise authorities as appropriate authorities in those countries, but we in this country might not be happy with them. Will the Minister say what the safeguards are?
On 23 January, on the second day in Committee in another place, at columns GC61 to 64, there was an extensive debate about time limits. Lord Carlisle of Bucklow made some points that I do not believe were fully answered by the Government in the other place. I should be grateful if the Minister would take on board the fact that Opposition Members share the concerns expressed by Lord Carlisle. The Minister probably cannot respond in detail today, but once again I hope that he can write to me.
5.30 pm
Mr. Heath: Again, I pick up on the hon. Gentleman's comments. First, I do not care what the arrangements are in another country for acquiring the evidence used in the procedures, provided they are in line with international treaty obligations and the domestic arrangements of that country. They can send the broker's men to gather the evidence as far as I am concerned, provided it is available for use in a British court. It sometimes seems that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath is so suspicious of overseas authorities that he does not want them to do what we want them to do on our behalf. I do not share his view. However, I share his concern on time limits, and I note that during proceedings in another place, in column GC63, the Advocate-General—[Interruption.] I am sorry; wrong country and wrong jurisdiction. I meant the Attorney-General. He said:
''We are sympathetic to the idea that there should be a time limit. We shall consider that point, and the drafting, and bring back a proposal.''—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 January 2003; Vol. 643, c. GC63.]
We are waiting for that proposal. We hope very much that the Minister will now give that same assurance to the Committee, and that by Report he will have considered the matter and will have acceded to the view expressed by the Government in that instance. Perhaps he will consider bringing back a proposal for our consideration.
Mr. Ainsworth: I will. However, the time limit that the hon. Gentleman asks for is there in clause 11(3), which states:
''The judicial authority is to send the order to the Secretary of State or the Lord Advocate before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with its being made.''
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath does not like mutual recognition—a point recognised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. It is for us to decide in this country what the appropriate authority
Column Number: 077
is for receiving and making orders of that kind. It is for authorities overseas to take that decision under mutual recognition. We cannot impose terms on them, and we would not expect them to impose terms on us. None the less, I will write to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath, and make him aware of what we envisage in terms of the authorities that will use those powers, so that he can make Eurosceptic capital out of my letter.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12
Variation or revocation of freezing orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Hawkins: This is slightly different because, in another place, there was no debate on this clause. It was passed on the nod for the sake of speed. The Committee will be pleased that I will once again be very brief. However, there is one question that I wish to put to the Minister. It is a serious question, which he may want to discuss with his officials. I am happy for the Minister to write to me, instead of responding today.
Clause 12 deals with variation or revocation. The provisions in general terms seem absolutely fine. However, at the moment, any person who is affected can apply to vary or revoke under clause 12(2)(d). That is fine, after the original order has been made. I am seeking reassurance that any person who might be affected will have the right to be heard during the consideration of the original application. Let us suppose that an application is being made, and people who might be affected come to hear about it. That is not beyond all likelihood. If the person who might be affected by it is aware that an application is being heard, there is nothing specific that gives that person the right to be heard—locus standi, as lawyers
Column Number: 078
call it—during the original application. They have the right to come along afterwards and be heard on an application to vary or revoke, but that could lead to more court time and more court costs, after the event. I would like the Minister to consider with his officials whether it could be made clear—perhaps through a small Government amendment—that as well as having the right to apply to vary or revoke, a person who may be affected will have rights of audience and rights to be heard when the original application is considered. As I read it, that is not clear in the Bill.
Mr. Ainsworth: Let us suppose that the order is made on a person who is outside the UK. The hon. Gentleman put the point that that person might have a view about it.
Mr. Hawkins: I am not talking about the person who is the subject of the order, but people who are affected by the order—those whose assets might be affected. They are referred to in the Bill. Rather than the person who is the subject of the order, someone else who is affected by it can apply to vary or revoke it. However, the Bill does not cover someone who may be affected by the order, who lives within the jurisdiction and becomes aware of the order. That person does not apparently have the right to be heard in the English language.
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman knows that there will be many circumstances in which such a right will not be available to people. However, there may be circumstances when it is. I do not believe that such matters are covered under the Bill. I shall examine its provisions and write to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.]
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Six o'clock till Thursday 12 June at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.
The following Members attended the Committee:
Hurst, Mr. Alan (Chairman)
Ainsworth, Mr. Bob
Cairns, David
Carmichael, Mr.
Gardiner, Mr.
Hawkins, Mr.
Heath, Mr.
Heppell, Mr.
Hermon, Lady
Hesford, Stephen
Iddon, Dr.
Kilfoyle, Mr. Peter
King, Andy
Knight, Jim
McDonagh, Siobhain
Paice, Mr.
Simmonds, Mr.
Syms, Mr.
Tami, Mark
Wiggin, Mr.
Woodward, Mr.
| 
