---

1.28 pm

Mr. Hawkins: I repeat what I said in my point of order: I am grateful to the Minister and, in particular, the private secretary and others in her office for their help, given the shortage of time. I have no difficulty agreeing to the money resolution. As the Minister says, it is unfortunate that the matter was not dealt with earlier, but she has apologised to the House on behalf of the Government for that. We would certainly not want to prevent those who are extradited but then not convicted from having the opportunity to apply to public funds for reimbursement. Each case would, of course, be considered on its own merits.

While we are on the subject of the costs incurred by British citizens who are dealt with by courts abroad, will the Minister undertake to look into a related matter? She will probably be aware that in Committee and in another place there was a great deal of discussion about the parallels with the British plane spotters in Greece, even though that was not an extradition case. Whenever any British citizen goes abroad to a face court they may well incur a large expenditure. I recently tabled questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), because the British plane spotters who were arrested in Greece and had to

13 Nov 2003 : Column 432

surrender bail have not had their money returned. I received a reply only this week in which the Under-Secretary said:

"My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General have made no representations to the Greek Government to ensure repayment of the British plane spotters' bail money.


The Greek court released the bail money on 22 May 2003. One of the 12 has now received his money. The others are currently in dispute with their Greek lawyers, one of whom has taken out an injunction to prevent this money being released until a solution is agreed. This is now a private, legal dispute between the plane spotters and their lawyers."—[Official Report, 11 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 205W.]

I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), cannot give me an answer today, but when she is looking at the costs of British subjects who face the courts abroad, particularly people who receive as much publicity as the plane spotters, to whom we shall undoubtedly return when we discuss the substance of the amendments, will she undertake to talk her colleagues in the Foreign Office? The Conservatives believe that it is unacceptable that British citizens who were taking part in a perfectly lawful activity and should never have been arrested in the first place are now substantially out of pocket. According to the answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the British Government are not helping them. They need help, and I am sure that the case will again attract a great deal of publicity if the Government do not provide it, so I hope that the Minister will undertake to talk to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office.

1.31 pm

Mr. Carmichael: The Minister well knows that hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and myself, are, by our very nature, forgiving people. We have no difficulty at all with the comprehensive and eminently sensible money resolution.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made some interesting, if not necessarily germane, comments about the plane spotters in Greece. If I recall correctly, he has a constituency interest, although I may be wrong. When we first heard about the plane spotters in Committee, there was snow on the ground, but it has now been replaced by autumn leaves. Unfortunately, however, the plane spotters' situation has not been resolved satisfactorily.

1.33 pm

Caroline Flint: I shall raise this issue with my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To pick up a comment by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I have yet to be involved with a piece of legislation in which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) did not have a constituency interest. He is a diligent constituency MP, and always makes sure that when we are discussing legislation, we have a realistic view of the way in which it affects people outside. I would not be surprised if he mentioned a number of his constituents in our debates today, as it would be quite right to do so.

I welcome the comments made by both hon. Gentlemen. All the main Government amendments were made on Report in the Lords, which finished two

13 Nov 2003 : Column 433

weeks ago, and the Government amendments that were considered on Third Reading in the Lords were tabled a week ago, so I hope that there was time to look at them. I was pleased to receive thanks from the hon. Gentlemen for the way in which the Department, particularly my private office, has helped them.

Question put and agreed to.

EXTRADITION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],

That the following provisions shall apply to the Extradition Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9th December 2002 and 25th March 2003:


Consideration of Lords Amendments


1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock.


2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 3, 26, 27, 72, 74, 111, 1 and 2, 4 to 25, 28 to 71, 73, 75 to 110, 112 to 244, and any remaining Lords Amendments.


Subsequent stages


3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.


4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Gillian Merron.]

Question agreed to.

13 Nov 2003 : Column 434

Orders of the Day

Extradition Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 157. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2

Part 1 Warrant and Certificate

Lords amendment: No. 3.

1.35 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Caroline Flint: I invite the House to agree the to the Government amendments to the Lords amendment. We are trying to preserve the spirit of the Lords amendment while, at the same time, using language that is suitable for a piece of UK legislation. We are concerned about the information that an incoming Part 1 warrant should contain. In the Government's view, the Bill is explicit about that, but in another place Members took a different view. In particular, they decided to import wording from the framework decision on the European arrest warrant into the Bill. We have no objection to that in principle, but it is much more sensible to use language that can be readily understood by people in this country, and which has been prepared by our expert parliamentary counsel.

We therefore propose to remove the requirement that the warrant should contain details of the nature and legal classification of the offence, as well as the applicable statutory provision, replacing it with any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. Basically, what does the requesting country think that the person has done, and how is its law applied? I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that that is a slightly neater and more straightforward formulation. I should also make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that there is already a separate requirement to give details of the sentence that could be passed.

Similarly, we are replacing a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed with details of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence. It is important that the person's acts, not the reasons why he or she committed the offence, should be clear. The term "circumstances" could lead to confusion. The requirement is therefore expressed more neatly and clearly and in keeping with the way in which our legislation is usually drafted.

We are seeking to remove one part of the Lords amendment without replacing it—the requirement that the warrant should contain information about the

13 Nov 2003 : Column 435

degree of participation in the offence by the requested person. I am not sure that I understand what that means or why it is relevant. For extradition purposes, it does not matter whether the person is the ringleader or an accomplice, provided that they are alleged to have committed an extradition offence. For example, it does not matter whether someone was waving a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller or driving the getaway car—it is the offence that is important. Clearly, the nature of participation may be an important consideration in the eventual trial and determination of sentence, but for the purposes of extradition to another EU country it is not relevant.

As I have tried to suggest, we have sought to accept the spirit of the amendment made in another place, while ensuring that the drafting is as clear and effective as possible. I invite the House to accept the Government amendments.

---