HL Deb 14 March 1989 vol 505 cc160-3

7.54 p.m.

The Earl of Arran rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 8th February be approved [9th Report from the Joint Committee].

The noble Earl said: My Lords, the need for effective international co-operation to combat serious crime becomes ever more apparent. Those who prey on others for their profit, most notably perhaps those involved in the sickening drugs trade, are not respecters of national boundaries. On the contrary, their aim is to make the most of differences in national laws and procedures, moving themselves and their money about the world with ease in the hope that the agencies of law pursuing them will be forced to stumble and lag behind.

Neither we nor our allies in other countries are prepared to let this happen. In passing the Drug Trafficking Offences Act 1986, Parliament recognised what was needed for effective international action to curb the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking. The Act created powers to freeze and confiscate such proceeds, not only in proceedings in this jurisdiction, but also in response to requests from other countries whose traffickers have sought to protect their gains by depositing funds or acquiring property here.

The draft order now before us, which has been considered by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, is the first fruit of our endeavours to make this legislation effective in its international dimension. The order, if approved and made, will enable us to fulful our obligations in respect of the provisions on the proceeds of drug trafficking contained in an agreement concluded last year with the Government of the United States.

The Order in Council designates the United States of America under Section 26 of the 1986 Act. It makes provision, first of all, for the registration and enforcement in the High Court of orders made by courts of the United States confiscating a convicted offender's proceeds of drug trafficking. I should add that before registering an order, the High Court must be satisfied that any process of appeal has concluded and that the person against whom the order is made had the chance to contest the proceedings in question. The High Court must also be satisfied that it should not be contrary to the interests of justice to enforce the order here.

The Order in Council also makes available the powers in the 1986 Act to restrain dealings in assets, in this case so as to ensure that it is available to satisfy a confiscation order which has been made, or is expected to be made, in proceedings in the United States. The High Court must be satisfied that such proceedings have been instituted and have not been concluded, and that either a confiscation order has been made or there are reasonable grounds for believing that one will be made.

I should like to add that to ensure consistency and correctness, it is intended that our own prosecuting authorities should make the necessary applications to the High Court on behalf of the Government of the United States. In addition, requests from the United States will first be checked and scrutinized by a central authority in the Home Office.

Your Lordships will notice that in applying the relevant powers in the 1986 Act, the Order in Council makes a number of modifications. These do not in any way subtract from the important safeguards that attach to those powers, including the right of people affected by a restraint or charging order to seek its variation or discharge, and the opportunity to make representations given to people claiming an interest in property which is liable to be confiscated. The purpose of the modifications is simply to reflect differences of form between some of the procedures in United States' law and those in our own. For example, confiscation orders in the United States are made in respect of specified property whereas ours are made for payment of a sum of money.

I am sure that your Lordships will welcome this important step in international co-operation against drug trafficking. The order will enable the United Kingdom to deprive drug traffickers of gains they would otherwise have made safe in return for similar action taken on our behalf in the United States. We expect to bring before your Lordships in due course further orders making further advances in this important campaign. I beg to move that the order be approved.

Moved, That the draft order laid before House on 8th February be approved. [9th Report from the Joint Committed].—(The Earl of Arran.)

Lord Mishcon

My Lords, I believe the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the very lucid way in which he explained the order. I should perhaps make it clear at once—if it needs to be made clear at all—that in every conceivable effort that the Government make to track down drug traffickers and to trace their ill-gotten proceeds and see that they are confiscated, Her Majesty's Opposition support those efforts with all the strength at their disposal.

The order arises out of a useful agreement reached between the United States and the United Kingdom in February 1988. As the agreement was entered into in February 1988, why is the order before us after a delay of 13 months? I can well understand that this matter requires the agreement of the United States' authorities and that technical aspects are involved. I mention the point in the hope that nobody in the United States or the United Kingdom has escaped the rigours and the objects of the legislation because of the 13 months' delay. If there is a way of avoiding such delay in similar international agreements in future, I am sure that the House and the noble Earl would welcome it.

Those are the only observations that I can usefully make, except to state our complete support for the order and our hope that more international co-operation of the same kind will occur in the future.

Lord McNair

My Lords, we find this order very much more acceptable than the other three. We support it whole heartedly.

The Earl of Arran

My Lords, I am grateful for the general tenor of satisfaction and agreement from both the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, and the noble Lord, Lord McNair. I do not want to test the patience of your Lordships, but I should like to say that it is always encouraging to find the House once again united in support of the measures necessary to curb the evil of drug trafficking. We have so often seen how drug trafficking is a truly international business. We have seen too how the drug trafficker can be caught by his association with tainted money and how he therefore tries to salt that money away, passing it through many different countries.

The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, asked about the delay of some 13 months. We should have wished the order to be brought before the House sooner. The principal reason for the delay was the need to await the coming into force of amendments made to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. We shall certainly hope to bring agreements into effect as quickly as possible in the future.

In conclusion, the order is an important step forward in the efforts of this country and the United States to make drug trafficking more difficult and less attractive. I commend it to the House.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Earl of Dundee

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.40 p.m.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

[The Sitting was suspended from 8.3 to 8.40 p.m.]