| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
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.
Lords Amendment: No. 1.
2.45 pm
Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 25, 28 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 78 to 110, 112 to 153, 155 to 218, 220, 221, 224 to 235, 237 to 244.
Caroline Flint: This is a large group of amendments, which represents all the Government amendments that were passed in another place. I should explain why they have been grouped together: it is simply a reflection of
the fact that all the amendments were welcomed in the other place. I can assure hon. Members that the Bill was subject to intense and rigorous scrutiny there, and there was no question of the Government trying to sneak anything into the Bill. Every single Government amendment was carefully examined and, I repeat, Opposition Members or Cross Benchers opposed not one of them. I hope that the House will take a similarly positive approach and that we do not spend time unduly on this group.Having said that, I should like to make some brief comments about the amendments. Several deal with minor technical and drafting points, which is inevitable with a Bill of this size. However, quite a few make substantive changes to the Bill, and I should like briefly to highlight some of the more significant ones.
We are providing that the designation of extradition partners will be by the affirmative resolution procedure in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. A part 1 warrant will be acceptable only if it has been issued by a judicial authority in the requesting state. We have imposed a requirement that any person arrested in an extradition case must be given a copy of the warrant as soon as possible, and we have put it beyond doubt that the partial removal of dual criminality cannot apply in any case where any part of the conduct occurred in the United Kingdom.
We have widened the extraneous considerations provision to ensure that extradition cannot take place in cases where the person would be disadvantaged on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation, and we have tidied up the evidential provisions and clarified the rules on the receivability of documents. As we have already discussed, we have put into the Bill the generic list of 32 offence categories for which dual criminality is partially removed, and provided that it can be amended to reflect changes only at European level—an issue that we debated on the previous group of amendments.
We have provided for the complete repeal of our existing extradition legislation and built that into the Bill. Incidentally, I should add that we have made a firm commitment that no existing cases in the system will be transferred to the new system. We have inserted a provision to allow the UK to comply with the extradition obligations arising from our ratification of various UN conventions. We have made it clear that the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecuting authorities have a duty to act in extradition cases.
I could go on, but that gives the House a flavour of the improvements to the Bill. I should add that many of the changes are responses to points and suggestions that were made, I acknowledge, by Opposition parties. Accordingly, I hope that the House will welcome the amendments and the transition of the Bill into law. The heart of the matter is that crime cannot be allowed to escape because people cross a border. We need to ensure that we work with other mature democracies to ensure that the system can be run as smoothly, efficiently and, I have to say, as cost-effectively as possible without putting at any risk the rights of the individuals concerned.
I again pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, who has worked exceedingly hard on this and countless other Bills in the other place. I also give my appreciation to hon. Members of all parties who have taken part in debates on the Bill in Committee and to officials who have ably supported Ministers and Committee members. I thank the staff of the House for their help. I hope for a speedy decision on this group of amendments so that the Bill can become law.
Mr. Hawkins: I can, as the Minister hopes, be fairly brief in my response. I am grateful to her for her welcome remarks about Opposition parties in the House and in the other place, and I am pleased that the Government are able to accept some of the amendments. We particularly welcome the decision to ensure that any further changes are made by way of affirmative resolution. We debated that at some length in Committee, and I do not propose to go over it again, but it is very welcome.
I should like to focus on a couple of amendments in the group, not to put any pressure on the Minister today, but to ask her to undertake to write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and me with further elucidation on any points that remain outstanding.
First, amendment No. 205 relates to the role of the Lord Advocate in conducting extradition proceedings in Scotland, which is something that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know more about than I do from his past professional experience north of the border. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me some information—we did not discuss it in Committee—about the number of extradition cases in which the Lord Advocate has been involved since the earlier Extradition Act 1989, and the Government's best estimate of whether a big increase in the Lord Advocate's work load is anticipated as a result of the changes. I realise that the Government may find it difficult to be precise, but some indication would be helpful.
Secondly, amendment No. 213 deals with the transmission of warrants by electronic means. I am slightly concerned that electronic means other than facsimile transmission will be introduced. The only requirement is that the designated authority should receive the electronic communication in a form that is intelligible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hope that the Minister will be able to write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and me to explain a little more about the Government's thinking. Obviously, other electronic means are now used regularly, but we do not want to see any downgrading in the significance of warrants in matters as important as extradition. Given the concerns that many of us have about the lack of security of email—many celebrated cases in other contexts have recently come to light—it would be helpful to know what extra safeguards might be introduced to ensure that electronic communication can be used without interference. Is it the case that something as important as an extradition request will come by other electronic means? I would prefer that such matters were dealt with more formally than in a mere email request. I have little doubt that other hon. Members would share my concern about the lack of security in such transmissions.
The Minister paid tribute, appropriately, to Baroness Scotland, and I wish to pay tribute to Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and my other noble Friends who made a significant contribution—as the Minister will acknowledge—to improving the Bill. It received many days of debate in the other place, and consideration of it continued there until 6.19 last night. It is a good example of how all the expertise in the other place can massively improve legislation, without the limitation of time imposed by the Government's guillotines. Perhaps the Government will learn the lesson for the purposes of this House. If we had had fewer guillotines, we could have made those improvements here. As it is, with the Government seeking to guillotine everything, such debates must take place in the other place, where there is time for proper debates.
We are not completely happy with the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has repeatedly made it clear that he regards this as a bad Bill and the European arrest warrant as something deeply to be regretted. Many other Opposition Members also have considerable reservations, but we will have to see how it works in practice. However, I am certain that it is a much better Bill now, as a result of the Government's concessions and the improvements made by the other place, than when it was first presented to this House about a year ago. The Government need to learn the lessons of that.
I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way in which she presented the amendments today. We have had more of a meeting of minds than when the matter was last debated in the House.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |