Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Clinton-Davis: I am rather concerned that the amendment is not practical, because the system that we envisage is completely new. It is important that the Attorney-General, who I believe will respond to this amendment, should indicate within what time the

23 Jan 2003 : Column GC62

department will be able to deal with the issue. Currently, as I understand it, the situation is completely open. That is not satisfactory from the point of view of the department or of those who invigilate the department. My noble and learned friend should consider a practical amendment; I am not sure whether a period of 14 days—which is seemingly plucked out of the air—is altogether right. There should be some time limit.

Lord Renton: I agree that there must be a time limit of some kind. It is notorious that legal proceedings and more especially civil actions in this country, as in most other countries, can stretch on for months and years if we are not careful. These long and important proceedings, which should be brought to a head without much delay, should be subject to some kind of time limit. It could be said that 14 days is rather pressing the matter but I do not believe that to be unreasonable. If the Attorney-General says that he accepts the principle but would like to reconsider the length of time, one would have to consider that.

Lord Goodhart: The amendment stands also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Dholakia. I obviously support it and have nothing to add to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.

The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): I shall respond as best I can to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, about the level of staffing at the Central Authority. I am grateful to those who provided this information. I do not complain that I did not have notice; I say that simply by way of explanation. If there is some detail that the noble Baroness requires that I cannot give now, she will no doubt let us know and we shall do our best to respond in writing.

The Central Authority is currently staffed with one lawyer at its head, an SEO deputy, a higher executive officer and 10 operational staff. It also has the ability to call on the legal advisers branch at the Home Office, which would be a source of additional legal advice should that be necessary. The noble Baroness asked about the challenges by way of judicial review. They have been minimal—one last year and two the previous year.

The Bill will result in some decrease in the work of the Central Authority because, as the Committee will have noted, in certain cases—this is an important point—it is intended that there will be direct transmission of the material or request so that they do not have to pass through the Central Authority; that will speed things up. However, there will also be some increases. If it is helpful to provide further detail, I hope that the noble Baroness will not hesitate to ask and we shall do the best that we can.

The amendment proposes that a domestic freezing order must be sent to the Secretary of State in order to be transmitted abroad within 14 days of being made. All Members of the Committee who have spoken—the noble Lords, Lord Clinton-Davis, Lord Renton and Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baroness—have invited consideration of whether some kind of time limit

23 Jan 2003 : Column GC63

should be put on that obligation. I accede to that invitation to consider the issue. The Government agree that these are cases in which the order should be executed as quickly as possible after it has been made.

Members of the Committee may know that there are time limits within which domestic search warrants must be executed. We cannot impose the same time limit in relation to the sending of the orders because we shall not have control over the overseas authority that will execute the orders. However, the idea that there should be some degree of urgency—a similar degree of urgency if not precisely the same—raises a very fair point. While I sympathise with the intention that lies behind the amendment, we should like to take the precise terms and the drafting away for further consideration. I hope that Members of the Committee find that a helpful response.

Lord Renton: Will the noble and learned Lord also consider the length of the time limit? I hope that there will be one.

Lord Goldsmith: Absolutely. 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.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Has the noble and learned Lord consulted the Lord Advocate on this matter? Would it be his intention to accede on behalf of the Lord Advocate? How will he proceed? If this approach is necessary south of the Border, it is probably also necessary in Scotland.

Lord Goldsmith: As always, the noble Baroness is right to make these points. I shall take that issue away as well and, if it is necessary to consult the Lord Advocate, that will be done.

Lord Dholakia: The noble Baroness asked about resources and the noble and learned Lord indicated the present staffing level of the unit. Bearing in mind the additional workload, has he given any consideration to the extent to which additional staffing may be required, and will be made available in dealing with such orders?

Lord Goldsmith: I gave an indication of the current staffing level and said that the Bill will result in a decrease in work in some areas, but also in some increases. The resources are currently considered to be adequate. All targets are currently being met and the position will doubtless be kept under review.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who took part in this short debate and who supported the principle of including an indication of urgency. I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Minister for agreeing to take the matter away for consideration as regards the drafting, and for the possibility, as my noble friend Lord Renton said, of introducing some kind of time limit.

23 Jan 2003 : Column GC64

The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, was absolutely right to say that the figure of 14 days had been plucked out of the air. It was merely a tool to enable a proper debate on these matters of urgency. If they are not properly dealt with, the system will not have the credibility that it deserves in the eyes of people in this country and overseas. It is with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Whether Clause 11 shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I am not sure whether I am the only Member of the Committee who experiences considerable confusion in following the various clauses involving the differences between requests for evidence freezing orders, as against responding to or receiving them.

As I understand it, in this clause we are dealing with sending abroad a domestic freezing order made by a court in this country. Clause 10 suggests that the freezing order should be made by a judicial authority—in general terms, a court having satisfied itself that it is necessary for the protection of the required evidence which is in another country. However, before the freezing order can be sent to the other country, it must first go to the Secretary of State for forwarding, who will then decide whether he can forward it to a court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the evidence is situated.

If we compare that provision with Clauses 7 and 8, we find that, if the request is not for a freezing order but for assistance in obtaining the evidence, there is no need for the interference of the Secretary of State, and, as I understand it, the court—the "judicial authority" referred to in Clause 7—can send the request directly to the court where he believes the evidence is situated.

Are we not in a slightly strange situation? We are requiring applications for freezing orders—designed to freeze evidence to ensure that it is not destroyed—to go through the Secretary of State; but in the case of a request to have the evidence sent to this country so that it can be used, it goes directly from one court to the other. Why, in Clause 11, it is necessary to involve the Secretary of State?

Lord Goldsmith: Clause 11, as the noble Lord correctly identifies, requires freezing orders made by the domestic courts in this country to be sent via the Secretary of State, or in Scotland via the Lord Advocate. That is in contrast to the provision for direct transmission for letters of request under Clause 7.

The reason for that, about which the noble Lord properly asks, is that the freezing orders are a new procedure. There are no current procedures for dealing with them. Therefore, those dealing with them will be unfamiliar with the issuing, sending and receiving of them. The decision has been made that in those circumstances they should be sent via the Secretary of State. That will have the advantage of enabling the orders to be monitored and to be checked to ensure that they comply with the requirements of

23 Jan 2003 : Column GC65

the framework directive and of the legislation, and it will ensure that they are responded to appropriately. The importance of being able to ensure that the orders are properly made and properly executed is of significant interest. It is that which justifies this different procedure.

4. p.m.

Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. I understand that a new procedure is being invoked. However, gradually, perhaps after two or three years or more, the situation will be ameliorated. People will become more aware of their responsibilities. Is there any procedure which the noble and learned Lord has in mind to ensure that in a reasonable period of time the whole situation will be considered?

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page