Extradition Bill

House of Commons, 13 November 2003.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

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

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

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

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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 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.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

As I said earlier, only this week did the Government say that they were prepared to start to climb down in the face of the defeats that they suffered in another place. Even though it was a last-minute concession, or at least a meeting of the Opposition parties halfway, it was nevertheless welcome. I do not hold the Minister responsible in any way. Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) was very intransigent in Committee, but he has now resumed his role as the Government hard man or deputy Chief Whip. Baroness Scotland met my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, who is my party's spokesperson in another place, only on Tuesday afternoon, and discussed the climb-down that the Government were proposing to make.

We have found that the Government are meeting us about halfway on this matter. Even though that is welcome, we have said throughout the proceedings on this Bill and in Committees in both Houses that the warrant relating to the extradition of a British citizen to a category 1 country should include detailed and specific information. Of course, the Opposition still have fundamental objections to the concept of the European arrest warrant and the way in which minor administrative judicial officials in other countries, working as investigators, juges d'instruction or the like, may be able to require the extradition of UK citizens, while the British courts will be unable to look behind the warrant. We maintain that objection.

Yesterday, the Home Secretary referred in his statement on identity cards to the distinguished writer Frederick Forsyth and told us that he regarded him highly as a writer, but not as a political commentator. I regard Mr. Forsyth highly in both capacities, however, and I refer my hon. Friends and those outside the House who take an interest in these matters to his trenchant and accurate comments on this issue. I was reminded of his prescience in looking at the European arrest warrant, as well as the Government's proposed amendments to allow more to be included on the back of it, when I was stuck in traffic yesterday listening to a recording of one of his brilliant Saturday morning Radio 4 essays, which were broadcast before the BBC revealed its bias and took him off the air.

Unfortunately, despite the strong views on this matter that we expressed in Committee and in another place, the rules constraining today's proceedings allow us to debate only the matters coming from the Lords and the way in which the Government are responding to the defeats that we inflicted on them there. The Government's halfway house proposal is an attempt to soften the blow by ensuring that the warrant contains some details about what the requesting country alleges against the UK citizen. We hope that that may enable challenges if requesting countries make inappropriate requests and the warrant is clearly defective because it does not provide what amendment (a) will require.

I should stress, however, that that does not entirely allay our fears, and I wish to refer briefly to what my noble Friend Lord Lamont and some other noble Friends said yesterday in another place in furthering the concerns expressed by distinguished jurists and commentators such as Leolin Price, QC, and Torquil Dick Erikson, who have helped us a great deal. Lord Lamont spoke about the difficulty that may arise if British citizens find that they are being summoned abroad on the basis of code Napoleon and corpus juris-type requirements. At column 1412 of Hansard, he expressed concern about the way in which British citizens' rights may be trampled on by people investigating matters rather than prosecuting them.

None the less, the European arrest warrant will now have to contain the details that we regard as equivalent to the legal classification of the offence in question, as set out in the original Opposition amendment and in the European framework decision. We will discuss the list of offences later in respect of Lords amendment No. 236. I understand why the Government do not feel able to include reference to the degree of participation, as we suggested in the original amendment, on which we defeated them. They believe that there is a danger that the question whether somebody was a ringleader, as the Minister puts it, or one of the hangers-on in an offence might cause confusion and create a loophole.

That is why we have agreed, however reluctantly, to accept the Government's halfway house, but we still feel very strongly that, because extradition cases may now be much more common, as my noble Friend Lord Lamont said yesterday in another place, there may still be occasions on which somebody is arrested and brought before foreign courts without the degree of protection that British citizens have previously been able to expect.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

We have had confession and forgiveness from the Minister, and now we apparently have repentance, even though it has come at the eleventh hour, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said. None the less, the Liberal Democrats welcome that repentance, which represents a significant improvement. Indeed, it is a tribute to the manner in which business is done in another place. I should like to observe in passing, however, that it is regrettable that one sometimes has to debate such matters in this place four times before the argument is finally accepted and that it is sometimes not the force of argument, but the force of timetabling, that seems to carry the day. 1.45 pm

As I said, the safeguards that are being introduced are important and should be included in the Bill. The one significant change that the Government seek to make to the Lords amendment is the exclusion of the reference to the degree of participation. I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that that represents an improvement to the amendment, which strays from what we wanted the warrant to include and relates to what is properly a matter of evidence. It is important that such distinctions are maintained.

I commend the Government for having taken the point that was made and improved on it.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I welcome the support of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). We try to show that we are a listening Government and ensure that the process of scrutinising legislation—in the case of extradition, it is very detailed legislation—is seen to work, and I commend my noble Friend Baroness Scotland for all her endeavours in that regard.

Obviously, we want to introduce legislation that clearly respects the rights of British citizens while recognising that the European arrest warrant has huge benefits in terms of securing effective arrests and a more open and transparent way of ensuring that nobody who commits a crime can escape the consequences by crossing a border. The measures in the Bill and the tightening up provided by the amendments will further reassure people about the way in which the European arrest warrant, and consequently extradition, will be applied.

Government amendments (a) to (d) agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20 — Case Where Person Has Been Convicted

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 111, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I invite the House to disagree with the amendments made in another place, and to agree to the amendments in lieu tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall seek to demonstrate that we have accepted the substance of the amendments made in another place.

The Bill contains detailed provisions to cover a situation in which we receive an extradition request for a person convicted in absentia. They reflect the approach that the UK has always adopted, although I should add the rider that in absentia cases are very rare. The Bill provides that, where we receive a request in respect of a person who has been convicted in absentia, the judge, after considering all the main bars to extradition, must decide whether the person deliberately absented himself from his trial. Clearly, if the person deliberately absented himself by not turning up for the trial or escaping from custody, he should not be entitled to any special treatment. However, if the judge concludes that the person did not deliberately absent himself, he can order extradition only if the person will be entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial. The reference to a review is intended simply to reflect the fact that not every other EU country uses the same terminology as we do. However, a review has to have the same features as a retrial in order for extradition to be permissible in those circumstances. A retrial differs from an appeal. An appeal starts from the basis that the original verdict stands unless the court finds to the contrary. A retrial, by contrast, begins with a blank sheet of paper with the case against the person having to be proved afresh.

That is the background. Let me now say more about the amendments. In another place, the clauses dealing with in absentia convictions were amended to specify more precisely the features that a retrial or a review should include. Three particular features were specified—the right to be present at the trial, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to legal aid. There can clearly be no objection of principle to those important features of any fair trial. We think, however, that some improvement could be made to the wording. That is hardly surprising, since the Government, unlike opposition parties, are able to call on the services of our expert parliamentary counsel, who are always there to serve us.

Accordingly, the Government amendments achieve broadly the same results—but they do so in a slightly different way. They provide that the judge cannot conclude that that which is on offer amounts to a retrial or a review, and therefore cannot order extradition, unless the person has the right to legal assistance or legal aid—if he lacks means—and the right to cross-examine witnesses and call his own witnesses. The wording that we adopted is drawn straight from article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights, so it has an impeccable pedigree.

On the third right that was dealt with in the amendment passed in another place—the right to be present at the retrial or review—we simply do not believe that we can create an absolute right of that kind. As hon. Members will be aware, no such absolute right exists in this country. A judge at a trial has the power to order a person to be removed from the court if he is being abusive or disruptive. Exactly the same is true in other countries. We have to respect that, which is why the Government amendments in lieu do not refer to the right to be present.

With that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the Government have gone as far as possible to meet the concerns that were expressed in another place. I therefore invite this House to agree to the Government amendments in lieu of those that were made in another place.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

Once again, the Government have responded to a defeat that was inflicted on them in another place by my noble Friends, those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and one or two Cross Benchers. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that given that the Bill is pretty much a year old—we debated it in Committee as long ago as January—it is a great shame that we finally have these last-minute concessions only because the Government were worried about fighting on too many fronts in the last few days of the Session and did not want a kind of ping-pong between the two Houses on several Bills at once. Nevertheless, the concessions are of course welcome.

We defeated the Government on these matters in another place on 27 October—the debate starts at column 32 of that day's Hansard. We were seeking to provide further vital protection for UK citizens who may face extradition to countries with legal procedures that are very different from our own. We debated that at length in Committee back in January. Many organisations on both sides of politics—whether Liberty and Justice on one side, or the Freedom Association and the Democracy Movement on the other—expressed great concern about the provisions on the European arrest warrant. Organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad pointed out that because procedures in other countries are so different, the Bill needs to provide extra protection, especially in cases involving extradition for the purposes of retrial after conviction in absentia. As recently as yesterday, my noble Friends Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Carnegy, among others, expressed concern about legal procedures in countries such as Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who had hoped to speak in this debate but sadly cannot be with us because of other parliamentary commitments, has done likewise in respect of other countries, including Spain and France. I am very pleased that the Government have agreed, albeit at the last minute, to deal with that.

The Minister has now finally agreed that there must be a right to legal aid and to recall and cross-examine witnesses. A great deal of discussion took place yesterday and on 27 October about the examples cited by organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad to the effect that legal aid, as we understand it, is sometimes unavailable even in major European countries such as Spain, Portugal and France. My noble Friend Lord Lamont, in particular, referred to that.

The Government have made it clear that all UK citizens who are extradited must have the benefit of their rights under the European convention on human rights. We understand their wish, as reflected in their amendments, not to create any loophole that might enable someone to escape a deserved extradition simply by not being present in court. That was the basis of the discussions between the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Scotland and my noble Friend Baroness Anelay on Tuesday afternoon. Our intention, as the Government recognise, was to avoid an overseas country being able to hold an improper retrial, or trial in absentia, of a UK citizen.

We are glad that the Government have accepted with good grace the defeat that we inflicted on them in another place, and we are reasonably content with their compromise version of our amendment. We wish, however, that it had not been necessary to keep pressing them—on three or four occasions, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. In all the previous debates, we were told that they had no plans whatsoever to give way; only at the very last minute, faced with the danger of ping-pong between the two Houses at the end of the Session, do we get some common sense. It would surely be better had the Government conceded this vital point at a much earlier stage, as they could have done.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made repeated reference to his noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I may represent one of the smaller constituencies, but we in the northern isles punch above our weight in terms of our contribution to proceedings in both Houses.

The Minister said that in absentia trials are relatively uncommon in this country. Indeed, they are extremely rare. I can think of only a small range of very minor offences, such as those under the vehicle excise duties legislation, where trials can be held in the absence of the accused. The situation is very different in other continental jurisdictions—in France, for example, one can be tried in absentia on a charge of murder. This is an important protection, and I am delighted that, albeit at this late stage in the proceedings, the Government have been persuaded of the merits of the arguments that were put to them in Committee and in the other place.

The availability of state-funded legal assistance is important. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath speaks with justifiable pride of the practice in United Kingdom jurisdictions in that regard. Although I understand that that is a 20th-century phenomenon south of the border, the Minister may know that an Act of the Scots Parliament some time in the 15th century first provided for that north of the border. I am therefore delighted that those south of the border have been able to catch up with us over time.

The right to be present at a retrial or review and to cross-examine witnesses is also important. I commend parliamentary draftsmen and counsel for their elegant re-expression of the provision, and the Minister for reintroducing the amendment in a way that does not significantly disturb the sense of the Lords amendment. Liberal Democrat Members have no difficulty with the amendments in lieu.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

Again, I thank hon. Members for supporting the Government amendment. It is designed to deal with those who commit crimes while ensuring that they have the protection that they deserve.

Lords amendment disagreed to.

Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

After Clause 21

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

I invite hon. Members to agree to remove the new clause, which was inserted on Report in the Lords. It is unnecessary and inappropriate, as I shall endeavour to explain. Extradition is a classic balancing act, involving the rights of the person whose extradition is sought on the one hand, and the need for society to ensure that those accused of serious crimes are swiftly brought to justice on the other.

The Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between the rights of the fugitive and the interests of justice. We have built several important safeguards into the extradition process. Many are the same as those in existing extradition legislation but the most important of them are new.

To ensure that the requested person's human rights are fully considered and safeguarded, we have included specific bars to extradition on the ground of human rights in part 1 and part 2—clauses 21 and 86 in the copy of the Bill that we are examining today. Those clauses are unambiguous. They provide that a judge must refuse to extradite a person if the extradition would be incompatible with the fugitive's convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. If extradition would breach the fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights, it must not and cannot take place.

Not only does that protect against infringing individual rights in this country, but ECHR case law has clearly established that those obligations extend to the fugitive's likely fate if he is extradited. If there is a significant risk that his rights under ECHR will be breached when he is returned to the requesting state, we cannot extradite. That is important, and it might help hon. Members if I gave an example.

The key case is that of Soering. In its judgment in that case, the European Court of Human Rights stated:

"It would hardly be compatible with the underlying values of the convention, were a contracting party knowingly to surrender a fugitive to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, however heinous the crime allegedly committed. Extradition in such circumstances would be plainly contrary to the spirit and intent of Article 3."

On article 3, the Court stated:

"The decision by a Contracting State to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under article 3 and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country."

The Court went on to explain that article 6 issues could arise in extradition proceedings when there was a significant risk of the denial of a right to a fair trial in the requesting state.

Not only do our procedures have to comply with ECHR, but we could not extradite where there was a significant risk that the procedures in the requesting state would result in a breach of the fugitive's convention rights. We should be in no doubt that fugitives and their lawyers will not be slow to use the provisions and take every opportunity to argue that ECHR protection means that extradition should not take place.

That brings me neatly to the amendment that was made in another place. It inserted a new clause that contains four subsections, with which I should like to deal. The first subsection requires the district judge to have particular regard to article 6.3 of the ECHR. As I am sure hon. Members know, article 6.3 guarantees the right to a fair trial and refers to minimum rights, including the rights to mount a defence, to have publicly funded defence lawyers, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have an interpreter if necessary. Although those rights are important, I do not understand why the article needs to be singled out.

As I said, those who represent fugitives will doubtless try to argue that extradition should be barred on the ground of the ECHR. In many cases, their submissions will be built around likely breaches of article 6.3. However, there will be times when it could be argued that extradition would lead to breaches of articles 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.2, to name a few. A breach of any would be serious, and the district judge would need to give all such arguments serious consideration. I do not understand why we should draw attention to one specific article, almost suggesting that breaches of other articles are a lesser matter. I am sure that those who devised the amendment did not intend that, but we should avoid that inadvertent effect. We should trust our judges to consider all possible ECHR breaches carefully.

Subsection (2) of the new clause would enable the judge to accept a written assurance from the requesting state that the person's rights under article 6.3 will be properly observed if he is extradited. Apart from the general point that we should not single out article 6.3, the provision is unnecessary because the Bill already covers its substance. As the measure is currently drafted, it is open to the fugitive and the requesting state to make representations to the district judge on the ECHR question, to advance arguments and to present evidence—written or otherwise.

In accordance with normal practice, the district judge will weigh up the evidence and arguments and reach a decision, which can be subject to appeal. In the course of that, it is open to the requesting state to submit evidence to the judge—in writing if it wants—about its procedures or any other matter in an attempt to demonstrate that the person will receive a fair, ECHR-compliant trial. The judge will decide how much weight to attach to such assurances. I cannot understand what subsection (2) of the new clause would add, given that the requesting state can already give written assurances.

Subsection (3) would require the Secretary of State to monitor proceedings once the person had been returned. A moment's thought would demonstrate that that was not practical. Apart from practical difficulties and the costs, on what basis would the monitoring be carried out? How would the monitors decide whether rights under ECHR had been upheld? I fail to understand how the provision would be workable.

The amendment ignores the fact that the UK has had extradition relations with a variety of countries throughout the world for more than 100 years. We conduct a large proportion of our total extradition traffic with EU member states and we have not previously believed it necessary for the Secretary of State to monitor their internal systems. If the position in countries to which we already extradite were as bad as the amendment implies we would have stopped extraditing to them many years ago. Furthermore, for the UK unilaterally and directly to monitor other EU member states' judicial systems, whether generally or specifically in extradition cases, would be a flagrant abuse of their sovereignty.

I am sure that the House will appreciate that the UK would take great exception to other countries taking such drastically intrusive measures in respect of our procedures in this country. How would we feel if every time we got someone back from another country, they were accompanied by an official representative of that country checking on whether our criminal justice procedures were fully up to scratch?

Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to bring any deficiencies that the monitoring process highlighted to the district judge when he considered fresh requests from that country. I doubt whether that will be necessary, as a fugitive will not hesitate to bring any human rights breaches to the attention of the judge, especially when the circumstances are similar. If a person is wanted by country x, the fugitive will be quick, if it helps his cause, to point out what happened to the last person who went from Britain to that country.

There are deeper objections to the final part of the new clause. Requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in any subsequent cases involving requests from a particular country would effectively make the Secretary of State a party in an extradition case, and could have serious diplomatic ramifications if the requesting state took exception to his intervention.

While it is true that the Secretary of State is currently involved in extradition cases, and will remain involved in part 2 cases, he very deliberately acts in a quasi-judicial fashion. Asking him to intervene to comment on the quality of another country's criminal justice system is a very different matter. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State did not become involved in a particular case, the fugitive could seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to intervene in his case. Of course, we would expect the vast majority of such attempts to fail, but we would nevertheless be bringing in another avenue of challenge and delay of exactly the sort which plagues our present system and which we are trying to avoid.

It is already the job of the judge at the extradition hearing to determine under the human rights bar whether extradition poses a threat to the fugitive's convention rights. If there is a significant risk of article 6.3—or indeed any of the other convention rights—being breached in the requesting state, the bar to extradition will apply. The person will not be extradited. That could not be clearer and, indeed, the Bill has been given a clean bill of health in this regard by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Ultimately, we have to decide whether we trust our extradition partners. We have had that trust in other European countries for more than 100 years. If we trust them, we should be prepared to extradite to them without putting in place a complicated monitoring system as envisaged by the new clause. In the light of all that, I see no need for the new clause. I apologise for having spoken at some length, but these are important issues and I wanted to take the opportunity to explain the difficulties that we have with each part of the new clause. I hope that the House will see fit to remove it and send the Bill back to another place on that basis.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

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.

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 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.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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 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 (Labour, Don Valley)

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

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 74, 77, 154, 219, 222, 223 and 236.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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 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.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

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.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

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.

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.]

Our point, which we made throughout in Committee, is that there will probably be more extradition cases under the new provisions. The Minister's predecessor argued that the measure was first introduced in the Extradition Act 1989, but we said that that was not really a fair comparison. We referred at some length to the fact that even before we began our proceedings in Committee, the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee had said that it was not happy with the gold-plating of the framework directive. Given that Ministers were unable to convince their own colleagues on that Committee, I and other members of it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—she played a distinguished part in our proceedings, and I am delighted that she is on the Front Bench with me—felt that it was absolutely necessary not to gold-plate. One of the main complaints from British citizens is that we so often gold-plate a European Union measure and attach all manner of extra sanctions, and that as a result, our citizens are more put upon by the EU than are those of other EU countries.

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.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

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.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Clause 1 — Extradition to Category 1 Territories

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

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 (Labour, Don Valley)

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.

Nick Hawkins (Conservative, Surrey Heath)

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.

Alistair Carmichael (Liberal Democrat, Orkney and Shetland)

The Minister mentioned the amendment relating to the use of the affirmative procedure and the importance of judicial authority in the issuing of warrants. I welcome those two points, because the Liberal Democrats placed particular emphasis on them in Committee. I am delighted that they now appear in the Bill and that their importance has been accepted.

I listened to the Minister waxing lyrical about proceedings in the other place. She explained how all the amendments had been considered and fully debated, and I almost began to look forward to a day when I might be translated to the other place. However, I hope that that will not happen for some years yet. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made a good point when he said that the use of the guillotine in this House is having an adverse effect on our ability to scrutinise Bills. We must continue our attempt to find a better way to deal with legislation, because I am all too aware—as someone who has taken part in a significant number of Committees since I entered the House in June 2001—of the significant deficiencies in the present system. The caveat to that, however, is that any changes will have to be matched by responsibility on both sides of the House. The tendency towards filibustering and making specious and spurious points will have to be resisted by all hon. Members. The remarkable aspect of the way in which the other place operates is that there is a little more statesmanship and bit less politics. All parties in this House could learn something from that.

The Minister said that the essence of the Bill was to ensure that people responsible for committing crimes could not escape responsibility simply by crossing a border. Nobody could argue with that. Because it is now so much easier to cross borders within the European Union, legislation like this is inevitable. However, in our enthusiasm to reflect that, we should not lose sight of the need to protect the fundamental liberties and rights that we prize in this country. In some small measure, the amendments that we have discussed today and the issues that we discussed in Committee make a real contribution to that. With some reservations, we may be pleased with a job well done on this Bill.

Caroline Flint (Labour, Don Valley)

I will write to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on the role of the Lord Advocate and the issuing of words by electronic means, both of which he mentioned. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked about how we perform our duties of scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. It is fair to say that a combination of talents is brought to Parliament by those who represent their constituents—and therefore have direct experience of what the public feel about issues through surgeries and other activities—and by noble Lords as they perform the job of scrutiny.

I have mentioned the work of the Home Affairs Committee, which adds to our debate in such areas. The all-party groups and people with particular experience of an issue also add to our discussions. It is important to have opportunities to debate, but that might not always happen on the Floor of the House or in Committee. We need an informed process, and I am pleased that the Government have considered other methods, such as pre-legislative scrutiny, to offer other opportunities to tackle some of the big issues of our time. The Bill deals with big issues, because it is concerned with the rights of individuals as well as the need to fight crime wherever it takes place. The Bill represents good work in both Houses of Parliament, and I look forward to its becoming law and being implemented.

Lords amendment agreed to.

Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.

Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 27 to the Bill: Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Flint, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Shona McIsaac and Derek Twigg; Caroline Flint to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]

To withdraw immediately.

Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 27 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords