Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 (Designation of Participating Countries) (England, Wales and Northern Ireland) Order 2013
Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Stowell of Beeston(11 years, 2 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 provides a framework within which the UK can make and execute requests for mutual legal assistance. In an effort to further improve international co-operation, we are seeking to designate the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Chile and Ukraine as participating countries for the purpose of various sections of that Act. The designations that will be made under the order are necessary as these three countries have ratified the second additional protocol to the European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 1959.
This convention is an important instrument as it forms the international basis for numerous incoming and outgoing requests. The second additional protocol is aimed at strengthening mutual legal assistance among parties and widening the scope of available mutual legal assistance. Under the 2003 Act, a state must fall within the definition of participating country contained in Section 51(2)(b) of the Act in order for the UK to seek and provide mutual legal assistance to a country in accordance with these provisions.
A country falls to be regarded as a participating country if it was a member state of the European Union on the date at which the relevant provisions of the 2003 Act were commenced or if it has been designated as a participating country by an order made by the Secretary of State. As Armenia, Chile and Ukraine are not EU member states, this order seeks to designate them as participating countries for the purpose of various sections of the Act.
The effect of the designations will be as follows. First, designation of the relevant states as participating countries for the purposes of Section 31 of, and paragraph 15 of Schedule 2 to, the 2003 Act will allow the UK to execute requests for witnesses in this country to give evidence in foreign proceedings by telephone and ensure that where such evidence is given the process is supervised by a court in the participating country.
Secondly, designation of the relevant states as participating countries for the purposes of Section 47 will allow the temporary transfer of UK prisoners to that participating country to assist with investigations into an offence which was, or may have been, committed in the UK. Thirdly, designation for the purpose of Section 48 will allow the temporary transfer of prisoners from a participating country to the UK to assist with investigations into an offence which was, or may have been, committed in that participating country.
The UK is committed to improving the provision of mutual legal assistance, and this order will enhance the level of co-operation that the UK can offer to, and seek from, other countries. This is a key tool in combating cross-border crime and ensuring justice for British victims of crime. I commend the order to the Committee, and I beg to move.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, it would probably be an exaggeration to say that there was an enormous amount of interest in this order. Nevertheless, I thank the Minister for the explanation of the purpose of the order, which activates powers within the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003 to add to the list of countries with which mutual legal assistance in criminal matters exists. The 2003 Act was enacted to implement ratification of the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters 2000. The 2000 convention extended and improved the facilities for mutual legal assistance created under the earlier non-EU convention of 1959.
The 2000 EU convention requires participating member states to meet requests from each other to facilitate criminal investigations, including sharing of investigation documents, transmission of stolen objects, video conferencing of witnesses, covert investigations and interception of telecommunications.
Non-EU countries which have ratified the second additional protocol to the 1959 European Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters can be added to the list of EU member states that are required to participate, but this designation as a participating country must be done by order, and this order adds the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Chile and the Ukraine to the list of participating countries. The second additional protocol, to which I have referred, provides for hearings by teleconference, as the Minister has said, and for the temporary transfer of detained persons to another country.
In view of recent pronouncements, it is not clear whether the order we are being invited to approve will have a long shelf life. Last October, the Home Secretary announced that the Government planned to opt out of all 134 EU crime and policing measures negotiated prior to the Lisbon treaty through the UK’s prerogative under Protocol 36. That approach is, of course, in line with the apparent majority government view that the EU should be a free trade area and not much else beyond that.
The 2000 EU convention is now due to be amended by the directive on the European investigation order, which is currently waiting for adoption by the European Parliament. As I understand it, if the European investigation order directive is not adopted by the time the Government decide to exercise their opt-out from the 134 EU policing and crime measures, which the Government could do at any time before 31 May 2014, the EU 2000 Convention on Mutual Legal Assistance between the UK and EU member states on criminal investigation matters would cease to apply to the United Kingdom.
Other significant mutual agreements that would also be lost by the 2000 EU convention ceasing to apply to the UK include: the establishment of the European arrest warrant, which has seen 600 criminals returned to Britain to face justice, including terrorists, and, most recently, a teacher suspected of abduction; minimum standards across the EU for counterterrorism co-operation, skills and expertise; sharing of criminal records, which would include, for example, those of a known sex offender travelling to Britain from another EU member state; co-operation on the identification of laundered money; co-operation between member states in tracing and freezing criminal assets; agreements with Interpol on sharing intelligence; and agreements with the United States on the processing of passenger name records data by airlines.
Given that the Home Secretary has already indicated her preference to opt out of all 134 EU crime and policing measures, including, presumably, the 2000 EU convention, what is the Government’s purpose in seeking to add to the list of partner countries with which mutual assistance under the 2000 convention applies? Can the Minister say what will happen to the mutual assistance agreements with these three additional countries referred to in this order if the Government proceed with their declared wish to exercise their opt-out from the 134 EU crime and policing measures, including, presumably, the 2000 EU convention? Will we still have a mutual assistance agreement with the three countries referred to in this order or is the mutual assistance agreement with these three countries dependent on our not having opted out of the 134 EU crime and policing measures, including the 2000 EU convention, since the agreement with these three countries is not bilateral but through the European Union?
If the Government feel that there is merit in having mutual assistance agreements with the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Chile and the Ukraine, will the Minister say what effect the 2000 EU convention ceasing to apply to the United Kingdom would have in terms of our ability to pursue criminal investigations and bring to justice offenders based in these three additional participating countries?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
Although he did not say it, I take it from his comments that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, supports the order. I am grateful to him for that.
On his broader point about the Government’s decision on opting out from the European justice and home affairs measures in the European Union, as he knows, discussions about this are taking place within the Government and an assessment is being made of the value of those arrangements to the UK. As my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said very clearly to Parliament, the Government’s current intention is to opt out of all measures and to seek to rejoin those where it is in the national interest to do so. The Government have committed to a vote in both Houses before a final decision is made. The priority is to ensure that the final decision is, as I say, in the UK’s national interest.
If the UK decides to opt out, en masse, of all 134 EU measures, we still have the Council of Europe convention of 1959. This is not an EU measure and so it does not fall within the scope of the 2014 opt-out decision. However, in light of the fact that, as the noble Lord said, there are no other noble Lords participating in the debate today, my answer to the point that he raised is clear: this order is necessary to allow the UK to continue to fulfil its international obligations and to ensure that the UK can successfully prosecute international crime and achieve justice for British victims of such crime. Again, I commend it to the Committee.
Lord Rosser
I am certainly not going to oppose the order but if the European Investigation Order directive is not adopted by the time the Government decide to exercise an opt-out from the 134 EU policing and crime measures—which they could do at any time before 31 May 2014—is it true that the EU Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between the UK and EU member states ceases to apply to the United Kingdom? If that is the case, what effect does it have on the mutual assistance agreements with the three countries referred to in the order?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As I have made clear, the Government’s intention is to opt out of the measures and seek to rejoin those where it is in the national interest to do so. That is clearly what the Home Secretary has said and that is what we will do.
Lord Rosser
I have asked a specific question. I do not mind if the Minister is not able directly to answer the question today—I do not expect her to be a walking encyclopaedia—and I will be happy if she undertakes to write to me with a response. That would be quite satisfactory.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
As I understand it, we have already opted in to the European Investigation Order and have subscribed to that. Yes, it is in scope but, as I have already said to the noble Lord, our intention is to rejoin those measures where it is in the national interest to do so. I think I have now answered his question.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Stowell of Beeston(12 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as we have previously discussed, the Bill creates a general rule that all individual samples will be destroyed within six months of being taken. This represents a significant step in protecting the civil liberties of those whose DNA is taken in the course of a criminal investigation, as it ensures that the particularly sensitive genetic material, which is generally not needed for identification purposes, is destroyed at the earliest opportunity.
However, as we have proceeded with our consideration of how to implement the provisions of the Bill, prosecutors at the Crown Prosecution Service have made representations to us that, in a limited number of cases each year, it would in fact be necessary to retain the individual samples in order to deal with any subsequent challenge by the defence to the comparison made between the DNA of the individual and that found at the crime scene.
Prosecutors are concerned that, if they are not able to retain samples in these cases, they might be unable to withstand such a challenge and acquittals on technical grounds might result. An example of the type of case where such an issue might arise could be where the crime scene stain contained a mixture of, for example, the blood of both a murder victim and their attacker, and possibly a third person, such as an innocent housemate of the victim. In such a sample, the quantity of material from the victim is likely far to exceed that from the attacker and the innocent third party but, without retaining the reference samples from all three individuals, the chemistry and analysis used to derive the three individual profiles, and thus to make a match to the suspect, might be open to challenge in court.
Amendment 7 would therefore insert into Clause 14 a mechanism to enable the police, very early in a case before any samples had been destroyed, to make an application to the local magistrates’ court to retain all the individual samples in a case for a period of 12 months. That should be long enough in the majority of cases to identify a suspect and complete the pre-trial disclosure process, as part of which it would be established whether the defence intended to mount a challenge to the derivation of DNA profiles and/or matches. If not, the material would be destroyed at that point.
If a suspect had not been identified at the 12-month point, or if the derivation of the profiles and/or matches was still in dispute, the police would be able to apply to the courts to retain the material for a further 12 months, with further such applications available until either the case was concluded or there was no need to retain it any longer. If at that stage a suspect had been identified and criminal proceedings were under way, Section 66 of the Courts Act 2003 would allow the trial judge to deal with the application to continue to retain the samples.
I emphasise to your Lordships that we anticipate this procedure being used in only a handful of cases each year, all of which must be serious crimes on the qualifying offences list. While biological samples will be retained following a successful application, those samples will be able to be used only in the case for which they are taken and no extra profiles will be retained on the National DNA Database.
Given that the concerns of prosecutors would also apply in respect of the prosecution of those arrested under the Terrorism Act 2000, we are making similar provision in Part 1 of Schedule 1.
I turn briefly to the other amendments in this group. Amendment 8 to Clause 17 is technical and confirms that material taken under the regimes in the International Criminal Court Act and the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act is not subject to the rules in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act but to the rules in those Acts.
The amendments to Clause 18 make it clear that, in respect of a DNA profile, the responsible chief officer is the one whose force took the original sample rather than the one in whose force area the forensic science laboratory is located, while Amendment 14 to Clause 21 removes the definition of the phrase “law enforcement authority”, which is not used elsewhere in that clause.
Finally, I take this opportunity to give notice to the House that we are considering whether it would be helpful to clarify further the scope of the regime for the retention and destruction of material under Section 18 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. If we conclude that further clarification would be helpful, I propose to bring forward further amendments to Schedule 1 to the Bill at Third Reading. Naturally, I will give noble Lords proper notice of any such amendments, should they prove to be necessary.
I should have said at the beginning that, in moving Amendment 7, I was speaking also to Amendments 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14.
Lord Rosser
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation of the reasoning behind these amendments. I want to raise a question about a particular part of the amendment rather than to make any point in opposition to the amendments.
The amendments in this group appear to require the application to be made before a district judge in the magistrates’ court. Will the noble Baroness confirm what appears to be the case; namely, that an application could not be made before lay magistrates in the same court? I may be wrong, but if that assumption is right, will the Minister say why this is the case on this issue, since it does not relate, for example, to terrorist activity or threats to national security? As I understand it, the issue simply concerns the case for retention. Is it because there is an existing statute that already provides for this approach? Is it because it is considered that such applications will normally involve complex issues of law? Is it envisaged that such applications will normally be lengthy hearings lasting more than one day? Is it because lay magistrates do not want this responsibility? Is it a lack of confidence in lay magistrates? Or does the reference to “district judge” include lay magistrates? That may possibly be the explanation.
Will the Minister also say whether there is a district judge sitting at every magistrates’ court at which such an application might most conveniently be made; whether it is envisaged that a district judge will hear such applications on occasions outside court sitting hours, away from the court; and what will happen if the district judge who is down to hear the application is off sick on the day fixed for the hearing and, as is often the case, no other district judge is sitting at that magistrates’ court? Will the date for hearing the application have to be rearranged, or in those circumstances would arrangements be made for the application to be heard by a Bench of lay magistrates already sitting that day at the court in question? To cover myself, perhaps I should declare that I am a lay magistrate—but I am not asking these questions in order to tout for additional business.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, I will speak briefly on one aspect of the amendment that might be of interest to the noble Lord, in the hope that further advice might wing its way to me. It may be that the specification of a district judge might relate to the fact that the application by the police in the first instance would be ex parte. That may be why the application needs to be made to a district judge rather than to a lay magistrate. I can now confirm that the application will be only to a district judge, not to a lay magistrate, because it is an exception to a general principle requiring discretion, and is not to be used routinely. If no district judge is available, the application could be heard by a circuit judge if one is available. If after that explanation the noble Lord feels that I have not answered all his questions, I will follow up in writing.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Debate between Lord Rosser and Baroness Stowell of Beeston(12 years, 3 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Wills has set out the objectives of the amendment, which seek to improve the delivery of a transparent and open system of government through the previous Government’s groundbreaking Freedom of Information Act. They are in line with the Government’s own pledge to improve and extend the drive for greater transparency. The Freedom of Information Act provided a mechanism for the Government to extend the scope of the Act, as my noble friend has already explained. By placing a duty on the Government to report annually on their activities to maintain or extend transparency through further designation of public authorities and on public authorities to report on their efforts to comply with the Act, the amendment will create a driver that will strengthen and adhere to the principles and purpose of the Act. I very much hope that we will hear a positive response from the Minister to the amendment.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston
My Lords, as my noble friend has already made clear this afternoon the Government are very committed to greater transparency and to making sure that the Freedom of Information Act introduced by the previous Administration operates as effectively as possible. That is behind our commitment to introduce post-legislative scrutiny of the Freedom of Information Act, which is now under way and being carried out by the Justice Select Committee.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wills, explained, Amendment 151B would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report detailing the Government’s actions in relation to Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act, which enables the Act to be extended to bodies performing functions of a public nature or providers of public services under contract. Amendment 151D proposes that public authorities are required to publish annual reports containing prescribed classes of information about their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act and environmental information regulations.
In relation to Amendment 151B, I fully appreciate the need for transparency in relation to the Government’s exercise of the power in Section 5 of the Freedom of Information Act. The Government are, and will continue to be transparent in this area. We have given advance notice of planned consultations under Section 5 and, of course, any order made under that section is subject to the affirmative procedure. We see no practical benefit in introducing a requirement to publish an annual report. I also agree with the sentiment behind the noble Lord’s Amendment 151D regarding the transparency of freedom of information activity. Public authorities should be accountable for their performance in respect of freedom of information requests and actions. However, I am not persuaded of the case for introducing a statutory requirement to publish an annual report along the lines proposed here. We need to be alert to the resource implications before placing any new burdens on public authorities. That said, I recognise that the transparency of freedom of information performance across the public sector is also something to which Parliament may wish to return, as I have already said, in the post-legislative scrutiny that is now under way. While I sympathise with the sentiments behind the amendment, in light of the fact that that post-legislative scrutiny will provide a forum for such proposals to be properly considered in the round, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.