---

Mr. Hawkins: I certainly do not think that the Minister need apologise for speaking at some length, because we all recognise that these are important matters. The new clause, which the Government are now seeking to remove, was introduced by Lord Goodhart in another place on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but with very strong support from my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and other noble Friends, including Lord Lamont of Lerwick, to whose comments I shall refer in a moment.

The Conservatives are sorry that the minimum procedural rights clause—clause 22—which was inserted in another place, is to be removed. However, we have reluctantly agreed, in the light of the Government's helpful concessions on other matters, that we understand why the Minister believes that some of the monitoring might not be workable, and that the Government believe that highlighting article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights might suggest—although we never intended to; nor, I am sure, did the Liberal Democrats—that the rest of the ECHR was somehow less important. Nevertheless, it is important, particularly in the light of what the Minister has said, to refer to some of the reasons why we think that these issues remain important, even if, somewhat to our regret, the Government have decided that they cannot live with clause 22 and that it will be removed.

We believe that certain minimum procedural rights need to apply to any British subject who might be extradited, because of the concerns that have been expressed by organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad. The issue of British citizens being able to understand proceedings in another language is crucial, and I am sure that the Minister will say that the ECHR provisions elsewhere in the Bill will cover that. I should like to refer to what Lord Lamont of Lerwick said in another place on 27 October:

"I recently watched a television documentary about a famous sporting English figure who was tried in France. When asked what he thought about the court verdict, which went against him, he said 'I did not understand a word of the proceedings'. I am not commenting on that case, but a person should not have to go through legal proceedings"—

in one of our fellow EU countries—

"without understanding a word of what is said.


The second point on which a person can be at a huge disadvantage is not having legal aid. There was criticism in the famous case involving plane-spotters in Greece about the quality of lawyers provided."

I was involved in the case of a British lorry driver who was arrested in Patras, Greece, earlier this year. He was put on trial in a Greek court within 24 hours. He was not given a choice of lawyer, and a local jeweller was pressed into service as an interpreter simply because he understood some English. That is clearly unacceptable, and is the kind of occurrence that led to the minimum procedural safeguards being introduced in another place in clause 22.

2.15 pm

I had the opportunity to raise that particular case with her Majesty's ambassador to Greece, Mr. David Madden, and he and the consul in our embassy in Athens were enormously helpful when I visited them at Easter this year. Coincidentally, while I was in Greece I

13 Nov 2003 : Column 445

happened to meet a couple of United States federal marshals who had gone over to Greece from Seattle to try to extradite a drug smuggler and counterfeiter. I was able to have a very useful conversation with them about the different ways in which extradition procedures work. They were concerned to hear about the issues relating to the lorry driver, David Wilson, which I had been raising with our ambassador and consul.

British citizens who get into difficulties are very well looked after by ambassadors and consuls all round the world. With the new European arrest warrant—about which the Conservatives have strong reservations—and this new legislation coming in, we wanted to ensure that ECHR protections were incorporated in the Bill for the benefit of our citizens. My noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick pointed out that, in the case of the plane-spotters, one was

"a lady who merely sat in a car reading a newspaper"—

while the plane-spotting was going on.

"Most people would have thought that she should have a separate lawyer."

That was not the case.

"There is an absence of adequate legal aid in many Mediterranean European countries."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 41.]

That applies even within the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) described extensively in Committee.

One reason my noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick and I have been so uneasy about the Bill is that when the Government say that people should not evade justice by crossing national borders, they do not seem to acknowledge that British people in other countries are at a tremendous disadvantage when the legal proceedings under systems such as the Code Napoléon are unfamiliar to them. Similarly, non-British persons who had never visited the UK before might find themselves at a disadvantage before our courts. That is why we must have safeguards in relation to extradition proceedings.

In the light of the Government's concessions on other matters that we are debating today, we reluctantly accept that they are going to remove clause 22, but I am glad that the Minister at least acknowledged that this proposal from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in another place represented a worthy aim, and that we were trying to introduce an extra level of protection for British subjects. I am glad that she has put it on record today that she believes that all the things we intended to do in clause 22 are covered in other parts of the Bill. I would not want, in accepting the Government's view on this matter, to suggest that we are totally happy with the European arrest warrant or with everything that the Government are putting forward. We are not. We continue to have massive concerns about the European arrest warrant, as the Minister knows. Very reluctantly, however, in the light of the other concessions, we will go along with the Government on this.

Mr. Carmichael: Yet again, I can say that the Liberal Democrats are broadly content with the totality of the deal that has been struck. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath ((Mr. Hawkins) said that the Conservatives had arrived at their position with some reluctance, and we

13 Nov 2003 : Column 446

can understand that. I am pleased with the Minister's assurances that the aims that we were seeking to achieve, particularly in relation to article 6.3 of the ECHR, might be achieved in other ways. I also take on board the Minister's comments about the Secretary of State's role, as it would be under the new clause. I think it was confused, and would be confusing.

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that the clause had been added at the instigation of my noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart, albeit with Conservative support. I pay tribute to him for all he did: he brought a wealth of experience to the proceedings, allied to good sound Liberal principles. I do not think I am giving away any secrets by saying that last night I received a memorandum from him about the arrangements arrived at in the other place. It says:

"The Government says that the new clause is unworkable (probably correctly!)"

I think it fair to say, apropos my earlier comments, that repentance will clearly not be the sole provenance of Ministers today.

Caroline Flint: Let me first confirm that the ECHR deals with the language issue. It guarantees the right to an interpreter if that is necessary, which is entirely right.

I welcome the endorsement of Opposition Members. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), we can always present ideas but those ideas are always open to further scrutiny and change, regardless of which side of the House is involved.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 63

Extradition Offences: Person Not Sentenced For Offence

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 amendments Nos. 74, 77, 154, 219, 222, 223 and 236.

Caroline Flint: Let me first deal with Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 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 the 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

13 Nov 2003 : Column 447

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.

---