| Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
|
|
Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, because he laid out clearly some problems with the amendments. They would prevent us from properly implementing our participation in the Schengen convention and trying to achieve our aims in combating crime without borders. I refer to amendment No. 81. Article 40.2 of the Schengen convention, which the clause implements, provides for a grace period of five hours, during which surveillance may be continued across a national boundary under urgent circumstances. My understanding is that the reason given was that five hours was thought to be sufficient time for the authority of the receiving member state to respond to immediate notification from the incoming officers signalling that the border had been crossed, and for the receiving member state to take over the surveillance or send one of its officers to the scene to accompany the officers from the foreign member state. That is crucial when dealing with serious criminals. I think that there is general agreement that foreign officers may, on rare occasions, need to cross the border into the United Kingdom to continue surveillance. We anticipate that they will be picked up by UK officers as soon as possible; if, for example, the foreign officer came into the country via Calais, and the suspect was going to London, there would be a port at which that could happen. We feel strongly that a one-hour time limit might frustrate the large amount of work that goes into surveillance operations, and would be of no help. I remind hon. Members that the arrangements are reciprocal. There will be occasions on which UK officers will need to use the arrangements to follow a suspect who travels abroad at short notice, and we could hardly expect foreign colleagues to give us the benefit of the full five hours if we did not reciprocate. It is important that the provision stays as it is. On amendment No. 82, we appreciate the arguments put forward for setting a specific point at which the UK border may be considered to be crossed, but as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland eloquently said, how do we decide when that border is Column Number: 288 crossed? Police officers may have training and professionalism, but they cannot know, when travelling on an aeroplane, boat or train, the exact moment when they enter British airspace or waters.For reasons that have already been outlined, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary and would jeopardise the good intentions behind the clause. The amendment does not take into account the complex nature of maritime law. The Government's approach provides a point that can be readily identified by officers and that will not be so complex to discern that they are distracted from the operation in hand. The clause protects the interests of the United Kingdom. Those are the reasons why we have used the words ''enters the United Kingdom'' in the clause. We will consider the UK to have been entered when the foreign officer arrives at a port or airport or, in the case of Eurostar, when the train leaves the tunnel and enters Kent. Legally and practically, that is the simplest approach, for reasons that we have outlined. Mr. Hawkins: I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland was so critical of our amendments, given the tenor of debates on the matter in another place. Once again, his noble Friends did not have the same strong views about the amendments. Indeed, there was a suggestion that they understood where we were coming from, but as I said this morning when I was teasing the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, it should not surprise us that the Liberal Democrats do not necessarily say the same thing in both Houses of Parliament. I do not think that it will profit the Committee to spend any more time debating the matter. There is a difference of view, but we do not want to be accused of seeking to undermine the basis of the clause. Baroness Anelay of St. John's and others voiced our serious concerns in the other place. In some cases, those concerns were shared fairly widely. The Minister has almost inevitably provoked a battle between the Commons and the Lords, so unless the Government come up with a different form of words in relation to the matter that we voted on this morning, that issue will go back to the Lords again, and I have no doubt that this subject will be returned to as well. I shall not take up any more of the Committee's time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill. Mr. Heath: I have a couple of extraordinarily tedious questions to ask. They follow on from points that I have made before, and they will enable the Minister to add another paragraph to the letter that she has already promised me. In the clause, a ''United Kingdom officer'' is defined as
et cetera. I wonder why a sworn constable is not included. Does Column Number: 289
include those officers of NCIS who are not constables? The situation with NCIS may have changed since I was involved with it quite a few years ago, but at one time police officers acting for NCIS were seconded from territorial forces and were able to return to their force at the end of their service with NCIS. There were also people working for NCIS in an investigative capacity who were not police officers. I do not know whether this is intended to catch both categories, or whether it addresses police officers employed by NCIS on a temporary or permanent basis. My other point is rather tedious, but it might be important to be clear about it. The clause refers to a
That makes me wonder about the status of the police forces in the Crown territories and the British overseas territories. Those places are potential ports of entry to the United Kingdom. The Bailiwicks of Guernsey or Jersey offer a way of getting from France to the United Kingdom. The case of Gibraltar might involve more of substance, because I am unsure whether that territory is brought within Schengen by virtue of these arrangements. Mr. Hawkins: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has noticed that we tabled on Tuesday of this week—but debate today—new clause 9, which deals with some matters relating to overseas territories and returns to an issue that his noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and others referred to in another place. I wanted to alert the hon. Gentleman to that, in case he had not spotted it. Mr. Heath: I noticed that, but this is the other way around: the new clause is reciprocal to that. I wish to establish whether it is the case that police officers acting in those territories are not given the same opportunities as a French, German, Dutch or Slovenian officer. Would a constable on Jersey not be able to catch the hydrofoil—or whatever the right craft is nowadays—into Devon to conduct surveillance of a suspect, whereas a gendarme who alighted at St. Helier on the way could do so? If that is the case, it is bizarre—but perhaps it is not. A lot of people might be interested in what the relationship is between the Guardia Civil or the other Spanish police authorities and the Gibraltar police—which is a United Kingdom police force that is situated in Gibraltar. I will understand if the Minister does not have a reply to that at present. I am sorry to keep bothering her with inquiries about these Crown territories and British overseas territories but the points that I am raising tend to get forgotten—unless someone asks about them—and then about 10 years later we find that there is a major crisis because no one thought to ask the sensible questions. Caroline Flint: There is no one statutory definition of ''constable'' for historical reasons: that term refers to a person who holds the office of a constable. We are using the term ''police force'' as we are involved in the creation of statute. Column Number: 290 We will write to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome further about NCIS members to clarify his point. With regard to Guernsey, Jersey and Gibraltar, it is my advice that they are not participating in these parts of Schengen, and therefore this will not apply. Mr. Heath: So I am right in my surmise that a police officer in Jersey will not have the opportunity to go on to the UK mainland—let alone to France—on the same basis as a French gendarme? Caroline Flint: I understand that that is the case, but I shall check. Question put and agreed to. Clause 82, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 83 to 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 4 agreed to. Clause 90 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedules 5 and 6 agreed to. Clause 91 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2003 | Prepared 19 June 2003 |
