|
Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley): I want only to ask the Minister whether mutual recognition is the right term to apply in this case. Mutual recognition, as customarily used in the European Union context, means that a widget in this country is accepted as a standard in another EU country, and vice versa. What principle of legal philosophy does the Minister rely on to decide that mutual recognition should apply exclusively to what is deemed to be criminal? Why does it not apply to what is deemed not to be criminal?
11 am
Mr. Ainsworth: I think that I shall withdraw my welcome to the hon. Gentleman. In his absence—I understand the reasons why he was absent—we have debated the principles of mutual recognition. I repeat that we are not setting out on the road to corpus juris across the European Union: the provision is an alternative to it.
We have some basic choices. We could stand firm on our British justice system and maintain barriers to our ability to co-operate with our European partners, or we could accept that in a world where criminals as well as law-abiding citizens can move freely between borders, we need a higher degree of co-operation to secure the rights of victims and to promote justice. If we believe in making changes accordingly, two answers are possible. We either seek to establish corpus juris at the European level, or we enter into effective mutual recognition arrangements. That means saying to other EU countries that we
Column Number: 128
recognise that their justice systems secure fairness, and in return they have to recognise ours. I have already acknowledged that big steps forward are still required. Presently, Austrian nationals cannot be extradited to this country when they commit certain crimes, and other extradition problems can result in British victims.
Mr. Maples: The Minister—and, indeed, the Secretary of State—consistently ignores the other alternative in part 2. None of us has any problem with part 2: it could provide an equally effective solution to problems with our European partners and other countries. Part 1 is abhorrent because it removes every single protection against the extradition of a British citizen from Britain. Part 2 does not. If the Minister were to drop part 1 and accept part 2, I suspect that we could all go home now. Yet the Minister consistently fails to enumerate that alternative.
Mr. Ainsworth: I understand the Conservative Opposition's viewpoint, which has been voiced repeatedly by the hon. Gentleman from the Back Benches, by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on the Front Bench and by the right hon. Member for West Dorset. They fundamentally oppose going any further down the road of mutual recognition, but we simply disagree.
Mr. Hawkins: Because we disagree so fundamentally, we shall press for a Division.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 6.
Division No. 13]
AYES
Ainsworth, Mr. Bob
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Dobbin, Jim
Howarth, Mr. George
Hughes, Mr. Kevin
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Twigg, Derek
NOES
Burnett, Mr. John
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Hawkins, Mr. Nick
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Maples, Mr. John
Watkinson, Angela
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 54
Request for consent to further extradition
to category 1 territory
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Burnett: Although our amendment designed to delete the clause was not selected, I must place certain points about the clause on the record. The specialty rule in relation to further extradition to third countries provides a key safeguard against abuse of the system, and should be treated independently from the issue of dual criminality.
Aside from the specialty rule, offences prosecuted following surrender may raise other possible grounds for non-return—for example, because of an amnesty or a territorial issue. It is therefore not appropriate to issue a blanket waiver, although on a case-by-case
Column Number: 129
basis, and with the agreement of the surrendered person, a waiver could sometimes be appropriate.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 55 to 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62
Documents sent by facsimile
Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 170, in
I can be brief. The Law Society of Scotland suggested the amendment, which amounts to a clarification of the Bill's wording. I do not suggest that the amendment's wording is perfect, but I am interested to hear what the Minister has to say, and we wanted to probe this issue on behalf of the Law Society of Scotland.
Mr. Ainsworth: I shall try to be equally brief. We envisage that, in most circumstances, the documentation, particularly the European arrest warrant itself, will be transmitted to the National Criminal Intelligence Service via a secure electronic link—the Schengen information system. However, most people would accept that material may not be available in electronic form or may need to be sent urgently. The amendment would involve the Secretary of State in setting out the procedure for the receipt of faxed material, and is therefore a little over the top.
I believe that we can rely on NCIS to be sure that the material that it receives is from a legitimate source. It will be able to ensure that the circumstances in which the material is received are genuine. For instance, if NCIS received a fax and felt it necessary, it would take the appropriate follow-up action, including on any subsequent material, to discover where it came from and to ensure that it had not come from an imposter or inappropriate organisation.
The amendment is unnecessary. This is fundamentally an administrative issue, and we can rely to some extent on the authorities to ensure that things are carried out properly.
Mr. Hawkins: It is valuable to get that on the record. However, it would have been helpful for the Secretary of State to be involved, because that would have given some opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. As the Minister knows, the Opposition have consistently reiterated that there should be parliamentary accountability via the Secretary of State. However, having heard what the Minister said, I am content to leave it at that, and not to press the amendment to a vote. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 130
Clause 63
Extradition offences: person not
sentenced for offence
Amendment proposed: No. 68, in
clause 63, page 30, line 12, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
'(b) a judicial decision made by a judge of a High Court of a category 1 territory in which the presumption of innocence applies shows that the conduct constitutes a terrorist offence;
(c) the terrorist offence is punishable under the law of the category 1 territory with a sentence of imprisonment of three years or more.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 7.
Division No. 14]
AYES
Burnett, Mr. John
Carmichael, Mr. Alistair
Hawkins, Mr. Nick
Johnson, Mr. Boris
Maples, Mr. John
Watkinson, Angela
NOES
Ainsworth, Mr. Bob
Campbell, Mr. Alan
Dobbin, Jim
Howarth, Mr. George
Hughes, Mr. Kevin
Stoate, Dr. Howard
Twigg, Derek
Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland): I beg to move amendment No. 150, in
clause 63, page 30, line 17, leave out '12 months' and insert 'three years'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment No. 70, in
Amendment No. 73, in
Amendment No. 76, in
clause 64, page 31, line 45, leave out '4 months' and insert '3 years'.
Amendment No. 77, in
clause 64, page 32, line 8, leave out '4 months' and insert '3 years'.
Amendment No. 78, in
clause 64, page 32, line 14, leave out '4 months' and insert '3 years'.
Amendment No. 79, in
clause 64, page 32, line 19, leave out '12 months' and insert '3 years'.
Amendment No. 80, in
clause 64, page 32, line 26, leave out '12 months' and insert '3 years'.
Amendment No. 81, in
clause 64, page 32, line 29, leave out '4 months' and insert '3 years'.
Amendment No. 82, in
clause 64, page 32, line 36, leave out '12 months' and insert '3 years'.
Mr. Carmichael: The amendment would replace the term of 12 months or greater in subsection (2)(c), with a term of three years, which is the provision specified in the European arrest warrant framework decision. The Conservative amendments seek to amend
Column Number: 131
subsequent parts of the clause in a similar way, and no doubt the hon. Member for Surrey Heath will have something to say about them.
I will be interested to hear from the Minister why the Government believed it to be necessary to ''gold-plate'' the European legislation in this way. In part 1, there is a fairly coercive system for which there must be certain checks and balances. One of the most important checks—or possibly a balance, I am never quite sure—must be the seriousness of the offence that is involved. There should be no opportunity for abuse of extradition requests for offences that are trivial or administrative in nature. The other balance is that of dual criminality, which acts as an important safeguard, but that balance does not exist for this subsection. In such circumstances, it must surely be appropriate that a higher standard or more serious offence must be anticipated. The reduction to 12 months will bring a wide panoply of offences under the ambit of part 1 and subsection (2). There would have been good reason for the framework directive to provide for three years, so there must be an even better reason to depart from that.
Amendment No. 150 does not affect subsequent clauses, in which the 12-month sentence limit would still be open when dual criminality were established, although if the Conservative amendments were accepted, the position would be different. My amendment relates only to subsection (2), and on that basis, I will be interested to hear the Minister's reasoning.
11.15 am
|
