Policing and Crime Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord will know—I hope that I have made this clear—that what is apparent from the practice is that the same information is provided outwards as inwards. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, said about the standard that she proposes in new subsections (4) and (5). A judge would be required to decide, ""whether the information provided would be sufficient to make a case requiring an answer by the person if proceedings were the summary trial of an information against him"." She said that she did not intend that to be the prima facie test. However, that is exactly what the amendment provides. If that is not her intention, perhaps she will not press the amendment. The risk is that this will be taken to mean that the judge must be satisfied that there is a prima facie case. The test takes one back to the potentially lengthy extradition proceedings that we had and were trying to get away from. There may be good arguments about whether we should. I think that we should because of the world in which we now live. However, if the noble Baroness does not intend that to be the prima facie test, I respectfully say that this is not the right amendment. Finally, I have not spoken to the noble and learned Baroness and have no idea what she will say. However, to change the information requirements would not be consistent with our treaty obligations. Whether we should have entered into the treaty is another matter; but we are where we are today and this House should not require the Government to do something that would put them in breach of their international obligations.