European Investigation Order

Alan Johnson Excerpts

Tuesday 27th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the draft directive for a European investigation order, and the Government’s decision to opt into that draft directive.

As people have become more mobile, so too has crime, and that has serious consequences for our ability to bring criminals to justice. To deal with cross-border crime, countries enter into mutual legal assistance—MLA—agreements. Those agreements provide a framework through which states can obtain evidence from overseas. MLA has therefore been an important tool in the fight against international crime and terrorism. It has been crucial in a number of high-profile cases. For example, Hussein Osman, one of the failed terrorists from the 21/7 attacks five years ago, might not have been convicted had it not been for evidence obtained through MLA.

However, MLA has not been without its faults. The process is fragmented and confusing for the police and prosecutors, and it is too often too slow. In some cases it takes many months to obtain vital evidence. Indeed, in one drug trafficking case the evidence arrived in the UK after the trial had been completed. The European investigation order is intended to address those problems by simplifying the system, through a standardised request form and by providing formal deadlines for the recognition and execution of requests.

The Government have decided to opt into the EIO because it offers practical help for the British police and prosecutors, and we are determined to do everything we can to help them cut crime and deliver justice. That is what the police say the EIO will do. We wrote to every Association of Chief Police Officers force about the EIO, and not one said that we should not opt in. ACPO itself replied that

“the EIO is a simpler instrument than those already in existence and, provided it is used sensibly and for appropriate offences, we welcome attempts to simplify and expedite mutual legal assistance.”

However, I know that some hon. Members have concerns about the EIO, and I should like to address them in turn. The first is on the question of sovereignty. In justice and home affairs, there are many ideas coming out of Brussels, such as a common asylum policy, that would involve an unacceptable loss of sovereignty. I want to make it absolutely clear to the House that I will not sign up to those proposals, and I have made that clear to my European counterparts. However, the EIO directive does not incur a shift in sovereignty. It is a practical measure that will make it easier to see justice—British justice—done in this country.

The second concern is about burdens on the police. At a time when we are reducing domestic regulatory burdens on the police, I agree that it would be unacceptable to have them re-imposed by foreign forces. That is why we will seek to ensure that there is a proportionality test, so that police forces are not obliged to do work in relation to trivial offences, and that forces will be able to extend deadlines when it is not possible to meet them. I want to be clear that the EIO will not allow foreign authorities to instruct UK police officers on what operations to conduct, and it will not allow foreign officers to operate in the UK with law enforcement powers.

The third concern is about legal safeguards. We will seek to maintain the draft directive’s requirement that evidence should be obtained by coercive means, for example through searching a premises, only where the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. Requests for evidence from foreign authorities will still require completion of the same processes as in similar domestic cases. In order to search a house, for example, police officers will still need to obtain a warrant.

The execution of the EIO must be compatible with the European convention on human rights. That means that there must be a clear link between the alleged criminality and the assistance requested, otherwise complying with the request would be in breach of article 8 of the ECHR, on private and family life.

By opting in to the EIO at this stage, we have the opportunity to influence its precise content. We know that the existing draft is not perfect, and we are confident that we will be able to change it in negotiations. My noble Friend Baroness Neville-Jones has already had discussions with her German counterpart, and we are confident that we will shape the draft directive so that it helps us to fight crime and deliver justice while protecting civil liberties and avoiding unduly burdening the police. That is why the civil liberties group, Justice, says that

“on balance it is better for the UK to engage in this area than be ousted onto the periphery of evidence in cross border cases.”

I ask hon. Members to remember this: the EIO will apply to both prosecutors and defence lawyers, which means that it can be used to prove British subjects innocent abroad, as well as to prosecute the guilty at home.

The EIO will allow us to fight crime and deliver justice more effectively. It does not amount to a loss of sovereignty. It will not unduly burden the police. It will not incur a loss of civil liberties. It is in the national interest to sign up to it, and I commend this statement to the House.

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

I do not want to worry the right hon. Lady unduly at our daily meeting, but I broadly welcome this statement. I suspect that I am just a short preliminary to the real opposition on the matter, which is the Brokeback tendency behind her. [Hon. Members: “Bareback!”] Or bareback tendency, even, which adds a whole new dimension.

We supported the Stockholm programme in December, which included the decision that a comprehensive system for obtaining evidence in cases with a cross-border dimension, based on the principle of mutual recognition, should be further pursued, not least because as the Home Secretary said, the current framework consists of a whole series of instruments that are fragmentary and repetitive. They hamper cross-border investigation at a time when the international dimension, particularly of serious organised crime, is of increasing importance.

There is a clear need for a comprehensive, legally binding single instrument to provide a definitive framework for cross-border investigations. That should not be conflated with the European prosecutor proposal, which we were firmly against. Perhaps the Home Secretary can confirm that failure to opt into the current instrument would leave the UK with the existing unsatisfactory and fragmentary provision, thus putting us at a disadvantage in the fight against cross-border crime. In contrast, as she said, opting in will allow us to negotiate further safeguards. Does she agree that those should include greater consideration of the rights of the suspect, and should not that include judicial scrutiny at both the issuing and executing stage?

I agree with the Home Secretary that there should be a proportionality test, as with the European evidence warrant, which I believe the UK will no longer be obliged to implement if we sign up to the EIO. Can she confirm that that is the case?

The human rights organisation, Justice, has indeed urged the Government to opt into the instrument, but it has raised a number of concerns about the initial draft. What discussions have the Secretary of State or her Ministers had with that organisation, and does she agree with its analysis?

It is good to see that the Government have recognised that cross-border crime is a serious concern. The Home Secretary’s party opposed the European arrest warrant, principally, I believe, because it contained the word “European”. I am glad that she is not repeating that mistake, and in welcoming her statement, I hope that will rethink her approach on second generation biometric passports so that as with the EIO, British citizens are not left behind as security measures in the rest of the European Union become more effective.

[Mrs May]

I welcome the positive and constructive approach that the right hon. Gentleman has taken today. Sadly, we are about to go into recess, so he and I must find a means of meeting other than across the Dispatch Box in the coming weeks. He made a number of points and made a passing reference to the Stockholm programme. Of course, this Government did not support everything in that. We are treating each justice and home affairs issue on a case-by-case basis, so we will decide to opt in to some things, such as the EIO, and to opt out of others.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me to confirm the impact of a failure to opt in. Failure to opt in would indeed leave UK police and prosecutors in a very unfortunate position, because it would mean that they must rely on existing MLA agreements to obtain evidence from overseas. It is intended that forces from which evidence is requested will meet a timetable contained within the EIO. I suspect that because of that, the practical reality of opting out is that UK requests would go to the bottom of the pile. The figures are stark—70% to 75% of our MLA requests are with other EU member states—so failure to opt in would have a significant impact.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the European evidence warrant. The directive makes it clear that the EEW will be repealed and replaced by the EIO. He also mentioned the European arrest warrant. Of course, it is important that people should not get mixed up between the EIO and the EAW. We took a view different from that of the previous Government on the EAW when they signed up to it, but our review of extradition will include a review of the EAW.

The right hon. Gentleman talked about safeguards. As I said in my statement, it will be necessary in the case of certain requests—for example, for the search of premises —to have the safeguard of proper consideration, because a warrant will be required, as is the normal course of events if the UK police choose to search premises.