§ Ross CranstonTo ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to the answer of 9 November 2001,Official Report, column 492W, on the European Crime Convention, if he will make a statement on the outcome of consideration as to the practical implications for banks. [44793]
§ Mr. Bob AinsworthThe practical implications for banks of the 2001 Protocol to the 2000 European Union Mutual Legal Assistance Convention (which the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) has referred to as the European Crime Convention) are very similar to the existing provisions on customer information in the Terrorism Act 2000 and the provisions on customer information orders and account monitoring orders contained in the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill. The Government's current view is that the mechanism to be used to obtain information in response to requests for these orders made under the Protocol will resemble that used to obtain similar types of information under the Terrorism Act and the relevant provisions of the draft Proceeds of Crime Bill. Accordingly, the costs per order are expected to be comparable to those identified by the Regulatory Impact Assessment conducted for that Bill. A separate Regulatory Impact Assessment for this Protocol will be carried out.
The key difference between the measures in the Terrorism Act and the Proceeds of Crime Bill and the Protocol is scope. The Protocol covers a wider range of serious crimes. Banks will therefore be expected to provide information in relation to slightly different types of criminal investigation.