HC Deb 13 November 2003 vol 413 cc446-51

Lords amendment:No. 72.

Caroline Flint

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we may take Lords amendents Nos. 74, 77, 154, 219, 222, 223 and 236.

Caroline Flint

Let me first deal with Lords amendments Nos. 72 74. Under the terms of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, we are obliged to remove the dual criminality requirement for offences falling within the list if they attract a penalty of three years' detention or more in the requesting state. The Bill originally went further by removing the dual criminality requirement for list offences attracting a one-year penalty or more. It was amended in another place to bring it more closely into line with the terms of the framework decision. The Government continue to believe that there is no reason in principle why the United Kingdom should not exceed its international obligations when we think it is in our interests to do so, but on this specific point we recognise t/he strength of feeling in another place, and are keen to try to accommodate it.

As the House knows, we have been investigating the offences that are on other EU countries' statute books but have no counterpart in the UK. We have found very few, which is hardly surprising. I am sure Members would expect all EU states to have similar ideas of what constitutes criminal conduct. The practical consequence is that it is hard to conceive of circumstances in which a person might be accused of an offence in another EU country that attracts a penalty in the one-to-three-year bracket but which would not constitute a criminal offence in this country.

Accepting the amendments, as we propose to do, should not result in the extradition of fewer people. We can therefore respond to the evidently strong and sincere feelings in another place safe in the knowledge that we will not, as we feared originally, be offering sanctuary to those who have committed serious crimes elsewhere in the EU.

The other amendments seek to include the generic list of offence categories in the Bill. I know that both Opposition parties wanted that, and I am glad that we have been able to oblige. We have also ensured that the list can be amended only to reflect changes agreed at European level—although I hasten to add that we know of no plans for changes—and only by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is exactly in line with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee.

Let me say a little more about the list. Various people have commented critically that the UK does not have offences of, for instance, swindling or xenophobia. The point is that the items in the list are not intended to be precise offences; it is a list of broad categories. While the UK has no offence described as swindling, plenty of our fraud offences fall into that category. Similarly, much of our race relations legislation falls into the racism and xenophobia category. As we have said before, we generally have much more extensive and developed race relations legislation than other EU countries.

One of the great advantages of the European arrest warrant, along with the list, is that it will enable us to extradite those who come to this country and breach our laws. If someone comes to the UK from Portugal and, while here, incites racial hatred, we shall for the first time be able to secure his extradition. Had we adopted the Conservative stance, that person would have been able to act with impunity. We are still waiting for the Conservatives to explain how that can be in the interests of justice.

The European arrest warrant offers real benefits to this country. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has tried to be consensual and supportive in general, but when it comes to this issue he breaks in every now and again with a little snipe against the warrant. We do not think anyone should be allowed to go to another EU country, break its law and expect to get away with that. We have been happy to respond to the Opposition parties' request by including the list.

Mr. Hawkins

We are very pleased about the major concessions made by the Government following the defeats that we, the Liberal Democrats and others inflicted on them in another place. There was a great deal of debate in Committee. This was the first group of amendments we discussed when we began the Committee stage here back in January. At that time, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and 1 agreed that the Bill was "front-end loaded", in that so many of the big issues were being dealt with at the outset.

Mr. Carmichael

The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I have served on many Committees this year, but according to my recollection my colleague in this instance was my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). It is an easy mistake to make.

Mr. Hawkins

I apologise. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon served on the Committee considering this Bill, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I have served together in the trenches during many Committee stages.

On this occasion, the Government were defeated by 115 votes to 107 in another place on 27 October. The record of the debate begins in column 66 of that day's Hansard.We are pleased that the Government recognise that the operation of dual criminality should mean that what we proposed all along will not create any loopholes, although I am rather sad that they took so long to do so.

I shall return shortly to issues relating to not gold-plating the European framework decision, because they were discussed both by us in Committee and in another place. But before I do so, I should point out that amendment No.236 has been helpfully included in this group at my specific request. I am grateful to the Minister and her private office, and to the Clerks of the House, for Mr. Speaker's deciding literally a few hours ago that it should be so included, rather than being grouped with the mere drafting amendments at the end.

2.30 pm

The European framework decision list was debated at length in Committee and in another place. In Committee, we were taunted somewhat by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in respect of the Opposition parties' wanting to debate the framework list's contents and the fact that certain categories, such as xenophobia, are not#x2014;as the Minister herself concedes—precise. From our point of view, part of the mischief is the very point that she makes: they are broad categories. Part of our concern was that a British citizen might be subject to an extradition request in respect of an act that is not actually an offence in UK law.

My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading, and I have said on many occasions, that we wanted part 1 of the Bill to apply only to terrorism, which is why we did not say in Committee that the entire framework list should be included in the Bill. However, following the debates in another place, and in the light of the Government's amendment No. 236, any British citizen who wants to see what extradition he or she might be subject to will at least be able to look at the categories in the European framework list.

We have not changed our view. We still think that the draconian measures in part 1 of the Bill should have been restricted merely to terrorist offences, and I discussed with the Clerks whether it was possible, even at this very late stage, for me to amend the Government amendments to achieve that end. However. I was advised that it was not possible to draft an amendment that restricted part 1 only to terrorism; it was possible only to draft a restricting amendment that would have included part 3 as well, thereby affecting those whom we want to extradite back to the UK. Had I drafted such an amendment, the Minister would have said, "The O pposition are trying to drive a coach and horses through this Bill." [Interruption.]She is smiling, so I know that that is precisely what she would have done.

We are not trying to damage the Bill. We recognise that the Minister and Baroness Scotland have made a genuine concession, and we are very pleased that they accepted our point about the framework list. Even though we do not like the list very much, we would rather include it in the Bill than risk British citizens not seeing what they might be subject to. Moreover, we very much welcome the time limit change from 12 months to three years.

I want to refer briefly to what was said in Committee about the framework list and the time limit. We said that we were seeking to reintroduce the requirement for a possible sentence—for an offence for which someone is to be extradited—to be a minimum of three years. We should recognise that it always used to be three years: that was the minimum sentence specified in the framework directive. Instead, the Government want the sentence to be 12 months in accordance with previous extradition legislation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 January 2003: c. 14.]Our point, which we made throughout in Committee, is that there will probably be more extradition cases under the new provisions. The Minister's predecessor argued that the measure was first introduced in the Extradition Act 1989, but we said that that was not really a fair comparison. We referred at some length to the fact that even before we began our proceedings in Committee, the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee had said that it was not happy with the gold-plating of the framework directive. Given that Ministers were unable to convince their own colleagues on that Committee, I and other members of it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—she played a distinguished part in our proceedings, and I am delighted that she is on the Front Bench with me—felt that it was absolutely necessary not to gold-plate. One of the main complaints from British citizens is that we so often gold-plate a European Union measure and attach all manner of extra sanctions, and that as a result, our citizens are more put upon by the EU than are those of other EU countries.

The Government have accepted at the very last minute that, because of the dual criminality point that the Minister mentioned, no loophole is in fact being opened up, so we can return to the provision requested by us and by her own colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, and in respect of which another place defeated the Government. This is very welcome, even though it has come very late. Members on both sides of the House can now say that as a result of the debates in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in another place, we will end up with a better and clearer Bill that will allow British citizens to see what the European framework decision really means. I do not agree with the Minister that broad categories are helpful. They will be a hindrance, and I predict that many cases will arise about the vagueness of the European framework list. But it is at least better that we be able to see what the Government are doing in the Bill.

Mr. Carmichael

I am delighted that the Government have now accepted amendments Nos. 72 and 74. If we have not quite achieved symmetry in this regard, we have certainly come full circle. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, these issues were debated in Committee on 7 January. I am delighted that, as we come to the end of the substantive part of our proceedings, we have managed to achieve some accord. I am pleased that the Government now accept that the gold-plating that the Bill previously sought to achieve is neither necessary nor desirable, and that the slightly intemperate language that was used in Committee about Opposition Members seeking to create loopholes was without foundation.

I want to place on the record my feeling of relief at the fact that, despite the application of his ingenuity, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was unable to find a way to re-engage in the debate on the restriction of part 1 to terrorist proceedings. He said that the matter was debated fully, and it is probably fair to say that it was debated to within an inch of its life; it was certainly debated to within an inch of mine. However, the remaining string of amendments are significant and to be welcomed. It is certainly desirable that they be included, because they provide an important safeguard. When an Act has to be used daily by lawyers and practitioners, it is preferable that it contain as much of such information as possible. Indeed, the scope for confusion and for the giving of poor advice is minimised by including such information, so from a practical point of view—if nothing else—the amendments are to be welcomed.

I do not share the concern that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath expressed about the exact continuity between the nomen juris applied in foreign jurisdictions, and that which we would use in this country. I suspect that the difference between us is that he is a practitioner in England and Wales, whereas I was trained in Scots law. Scots law has a principle-based system, whereby the importance is not the name that is applied to an act, but the conduct that lies behind it. The Minister is right to say that the category of swindling, for example, could be well understood; it is clear that it could mean just about any species of fraud known to Scots law. To get too hung up on the label that we attach to an offence would not be helpful. I realise that the English and Welsh system approaches matters from a different standpoint: it is not a Roman or principle-based system, as ours is north of the border. I suspect that that is perhaps the genesis of the difference.

The restriction to terrorism in respect of part I only was not something that the Liberal Democrats were able to support. Interestingly, however, having reviewed the Hansardreport of Committee proceedings, I saw that, although we had said that we would not support the Conservatives, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and I recorded no vote at all. It could well be that at that stage were sufficiently bereft of the will to live even to express a preference.

Caroline Flint

I welcome most of the comments from Opposition Members. On the matter of the one or three- year threshold, I was not party to this Bill from the outset, but I see nothing wrong in seeking to set a gold standard in Europe. Unfortunately, on this occasion, other European countries were not prepared to follow our lead on that matter, but our intentions were right and good—to ensure that serious criminals had nowhere to hide. For an offence that carries a sentence of more than one year, we felt that that should be applicable, but we did not secure the support of other European colleagues. We listened to concerns coming from another place, and indeed expressed in Committee, so we believe it is now right to support the amendments on the three-year threshold.

I am pleased with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about the list and about the difficulties of being too prescriptive or defining too clearly each and every individual crime. Unfortunately, we could have a recipe for paralysis there, given the nature of the Bill's intention to tackle serious criminals. I provided one example of swindling, but looking down the list I note that No. 11 deals with computer-related crime, which is quite a broad category. As the Minister responsible for dealing with high-tech crime, I know that technology is changing all the time, so being too prescriptive in defining individual crimes can be a problem. Sometimes it is necessary to have a broader-based category, but what is important is where the list sits in the context of the Bill.

We have already discussed some of the safeguards pertaining to the reasons for extradition, the use of the European arrest warrant and all the other associated procedures that would kick into action when a British citizen has committed an offence in Europe or when someone from elsewhere in the EU has committed an offence in the UK.

I generally welcome the comments that have been made in the debate and I ask the House to support amendments Nos. 72 and 74 and associated amendments in the group.

Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 74 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 111 disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 111 agreed to.

Forward to