| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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 I 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—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 Opposition 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.]
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 1 only was not something that the Liberal Democrats were able to support. Interestingly, however, having reviewed the Hansard report 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.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |