House of Commons Hansard Debates for 1 Nov 1995

Column 364

make recommendations. We will respond to the Committee, but I should not prejudge its recommendations.

My right hon. Friend also raised the proposals of Central Rail Group to construct the new freight line, but that would have to be brought forward under the provisions of the Transport and Works Act 1992. If that happens, the House will have the opportunity to reach a decision on the principal project before it proceeds to any inquiry.

Mr. Wilson: The Minister is coming towards the end of his remarks. Will he answer my questions about the value of cash and assets to be handed over to the private sector?

Mr. Watts: No. I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman, as I shall write to any hon Member to whom I have not had time to respond in the debate. The hon. Gentleman's queries do not relate to the order, and I think that I should continue to spend my time on that. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) mentioned the approach to St. Pancras. The Select Committee asked for a different arrangement for the approach to St. Pancras from that originally proposed in the Bill. It has now agreed to consider both the modified Baxter scheme, as it is called, and the promoter's developed scheme in the new year. We welcome that decision and we expect to introduce the additional provisions for both schemes in early December.

I can assure the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury that both schemes will be dealt with in an even-handed way, so that both the Committee and those who may wish to petition it have the fullest possible opportunity to appraise their relative merits. I will also seek to make available as much information as possible as early as possible to assist the petitioners.

The cost of petitioning was raised by the hon. Members for Barking (Ms Hodge), for Islington, South and Finsbury and others. It is not a matter that we can control, because the cost of it is standard and is set by the House.

We believe that the Baxter scheme had some significant defects in operational terms, as well as it presenting some major difficulties in the construction phase. That is why Union Railways developed an alternative that we now believe to be better environmentally and superior in both its operations and construction. It also meets the key objectives of the Baxter scheme and, in particular, reduces the impact on Caledonian road and the traders and others who live there. It is also significantly cheaper than the modified Baxter scheme, although that is not an overwhelming consideration.

It will be for the Select Committee to take a view as to which of the options should finally be chosen. I can assure the House that there will be no attempt at ministerial interference in the Committee's deliberations. I gave that assurance on Second Reading, and I am happy to repeat it.

When the Baxter scheme was worked on sufficiently to prepare an additional provision, its construction and operational difficulties became more apparent than they had been during the Select Committee's deliberations. That was the driving force behind the production of the promoters' developed scheme.

The hon. Member for Barking paid a well-deserved tribute to the Select Committee and its work.

Column 365

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) raised the question of Boxley valley. We have promised to continue consultation on the landscaping and mitigation for the route of the rail link through the Boxley valley, in line with the Select Committee's recommendation. I understand that Union Railways has had a series of discussions in the past few months with the local authorities and parish councils directly concerned--

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion , Madam Deputy Speaker-- put the Question, pursuant to Order [27 October] .

Question agreed to .

Resolved ,

That further proceedings on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill shall be suspended until the next Session of Parliament;

That if a Bill is presented in the next Session in the same terms as those in which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill stood when proceedings on it were suspended in this Session--

(a) the Bill shall be ordered to be printed and shall be deemed to have been read the first and second time;

(b) the Bill shall stand committed to a Select Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Committee in this Session; (c) all Petitions presented in this Session which stand referred to the Committee and which have not been withdrawn shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

(d) any Minutes of Evidence taken and any papers laid before the Committee in this Session which have been reported to the House shall stand referred to the Committee in the next Session;

(e) only those Petitions mentioned in paragraph (c) above, and any Petition which may be presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any proposed additional provision or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the Committee in the next Session, shall stand referred to the Committee;

(f) any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Committee in the next Session shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition;

(g) the Committee shall have power to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place, and to report from day to day the Minutes of Evidence taken before it; (h) three shall be the Quorum of the Committee;

(i) any person registered in this Session as a parliamentary agent entitled to practise as such in opposing Bills only who, at the time when proceedings on the Bill were suspended in this Session, was employed in opposing the Bill shall be deemed to have been registered as such a parliamentary agent in the next Session;

(j) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with in this Session, shall be deemed to have been complied with in the next Session; and

(k) if the Bill is reported from a Select Committee in the next Session, it shall thereupon stand re-committed to a Standing Committee.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker-- proceeded, pursuant to Order [27 October], to put the Question on the second motion.

Question agreed to.

Resolved ,

That it be an instruction to the Select Committee to which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session--

Column 366

(1) that it have power to consider--

(a) alternatives to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the approach of the rail link to St. Pancras station from the west of Highbury Corner;

(b) the provision of rail sidings on the Midland Main Line on the western edge of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

(c) the relocation of Tarmac plc's existing concrete-batching facilities to a site in the north-west corner of the King's Cross Railway Lands;

(d) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding railways in the throat of St. Pancras station in the vicinity of the Regent's Canal;

(e) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding diversion of the Camden sewer;

(f) the provision of an additional road into the King's Cross Railway Lands from York Way, in the London Borough of Camden; (g) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding ticket halls and subways of the London Underground Railways;

(h) the provision of a sewer forming a diversion of the St. Pancras sewer;

(i) alterations to the table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the Bill (buildings authorised to be demolished), so far as relating to the London Borough of Camden;

(j) the running through a tunnel of so much of the rail link as lies between Barrington Road, in the London Borough of Newham, and Dagenham Dock, in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham; (k) works required in connection with the accommodation of the easterly portal of the main London tunnel;

(l) the undertaking of additional overhead line diversions in the vicinity of the A13 in the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham and the London Borough of Havering;

(m) realignment overground of the rail link and Tilbury Loop Railway in the vicinity of the Mardyke Park housing estate at Thurrock, in the county of Essex, and associated works;

(n) the provision of additional roads in the vicinity of Crowbridge Road, Ashford, in the county of Kent;

(o) the provision of sidings on the Ashford to Canterbury Railway to the east of the River Stour at Ashford, in the county of Kent; (p) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the junction of the rail link and the Eurotunnel Railway at Folkestone, in the county of Kent;

(q) alterations to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding planning permission for development authorised by Part I; (r) alterations and additions to the provision which is now made in the Bill regarding the compulsory acquisition of easements and other rights over land by the grant of new rights;

(s) the disposal of land acquired for the purposes of or in connection with the works authorised by Part I;

(t) the inclusion of additional land within the limits of land to be acquired or used; and

(u) additional power to stop up highways in connection with the construction of the A2 and M2 improvement works;

and, if it thinks fit, to make Amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes; (2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee mentioned in paragraph (1) above is empowered by that paragraph to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if--

(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period includes any time during which the House is adjourned for more than four days, not later than five weeks beginning with that day, and

Column 367

(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents;

That it be an instruction to the Clerk of Private Bills that, on receiving an original copy of the first newspaper notice of any Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill is committed in the next Session is empowered by paragraph (1) of the above instruction to make, he shall publish the date of the notice in the Private Business paper. That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).

Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland)

That the draft Parliamentary Constituencies (Northern Ireland) Order 1995, which was laid before this House on 16th October, be approved.-- [Mr. Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

Television

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 7942/95, relating to television; and supports the Government's approach to the negotiations on the proposed amendment.-- [Mr. Willetts.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Ambulance Cover (Kyle of Lochalsh)

7.21 pm

Mr. Charles Kennedy (Ross, Cromarty and Skye): I wish to present a constituency petition to the House on behalf of constituents and residents in the area of Lochalsh in Ross-shire. They have collected nearly 700 signatures requesting that local ambulance cover should be maintained in the Kyle of Lochalsh with the establishment of a permanent base.

The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons instruct the Scottish Ambulance Service trust accordingly.

And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. To lie upon the Table.

Column 368

Mrs. Brenda Price

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Willetts.]

7.22 pm

Mr. Jerry Hayes (Harlow): Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to raise what I consider to be probably the worst miscarriage of justice I have ever encountered in my 12 years in the House.

Mr. Brian Wilson (Cunninghame, North): Since you were dropped from "The James Whale Show".

Mr. Hayes: I hear the hon. Gentleman's jocular aside, but this is a serious matter, concerning my constituent, Mrs. Brenda Price. In 1991, Mrs. Price was accused by the Spanish authorities of being involved in drug smuggling. Some 18 months later, a warrant was executed, but the evidence, as far as we know what it is--the crux of the case--is flimsy.

In 1993, the Spanish authorities wanted Mrs. Price to be extradited on the basis of the charges against her. The Spanish authorities acted rightly and properly, and within their rights--that is what the relevant treaty says. She was taken to Holloway prison and imprisoned without bail for several weeks. Eventually, because of the efforts of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Home Office, she was eventually granted bail. The trouble is that the Spanish authorities could not or would not get their act together.

The charges were dropped, and Mrs. Price thought, understandably, that that was the end of the matter. She had been imprisoned in Holloway without bail, and accused of a serious offence, but the charges had been dropped by the Spanish authorities, and the warrant was cancelled.

A few weeks ago, Mrs. Price and her husband went on a day trip to Calais. They crossed over to Belgium, but, on doing so, she was arrested under the old warrant issued by the Spanish authorities, which wanted her to be extradited.

I find Mrs. Price's treatment extremely worrying, not least because of a letter from the then Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). Incidentally, I am delighted to note that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, because he is one of the most conscientious and able Ministers in the House.

My right hon. Friend's predecessor wrote to me:

"As you know Mrs. Price was discharged by the Metropolitan magistrate at Bow Street as the Spanish authorities had decided not to pursue Mrs. Price's extradition at this time. We share her Solicitor's concern that Mrs. Price was detained for so long in respect of an extradition request that was not pursued--although I must stress that in acting as they did the Spanish authorities did nothing that they were not entitled to do--and we will be registering this concern with them."

Mrs. Price, as a free British citizen, quite properly felt she could go to France. She was subsequently arrested, however, and is now in gaol there. Her husband, Sam Price, has not been allowed to see her recently, and, as far as one can understand, will not be allowed to see her for the next three months.

Column 369

It is not for any of us to determine whether someone is guilty or innocent. What the case is about is getting authorities, such as the Spanish Ministry of Justice, to get their act together. Why should a British citizen be languishing in a French gaol--she may stay there for a number of months to come--unless those authorities have the evidence to keep her there?

I am not criticising the Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the Home Office, which have been extremely helpful. I urge my right hon. Friend, however, to say to the Spanish authorities, "If you have evidence against this woman, bring it to us now." Mrs. Price's lawyer in France has told me that she cannot make a bail application on her behalf until that evidence is furnished by the Spanish Ministry of Justice. That is as gross an affront to justice as any occurring anywhere in the world.

I know that my right hon. Friend will do his utmost to get the Spanish authorities to act. He will remember the case of the British lorry driver, Roy Clarke, who spent 20 months in custody only to be acquitted. The case of Brenda Price is far worse, because no evidence has been brought against my constituent.

Mrs. Price is not alone. It has been estimated by that splendid organisation, Fair Trials Abroad, which has compiled a fascinating report which I am sure that my right hon. Friend has read, that there are probably 15,000 Mrs. Prices throughout Europe.

Why is that? It is because there is no concept of Euro-bail. People are languishing in foreign gaols simply because the authorities are unable or unwilling--or too incompetent--to get their act together, and they will not furnish the necessary evidence. That is a gross miscarriage of justice, and such cases happen all the time. I ask my right hon. Friend to raise the matter at the Council of Ministers. I know that the Home Office has been reluctant to do that in the past, but Euro-bail should be discussed.

I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a report by Fair Trials Abroad which says that the number of foreigners in serious trouble outside their own countries is surprising. In 1993, the figure was over 45,000, with over 15,000 on remand. A high proportion are EU citizens. The numbers will continue to grow rapidly as the full effects of freedom of movement and other factors come into play. Almost all the cases that Fair Trials Abroad knows of in which some sort of miscarriage of justice is likely to have occurred contain an element of discrimination. It is satisfied that the discrimination involved in provisional liberty, foreign evidence and lack of proper interpretation constitute the major current threats to the pursuit suit of justice for EU citizens.

Bail discrimination is an affront to justice, because it involves prejudice. Council of Europe statistics suggest that there are thousands of EU citizens on remand in Europe's prisons at any one time who are affected. A foreign accused is invariably dependent on some form of foreign evidence during investigation and trial. For such evidence, he will be dependent on the procedures of European co-operation. Those procedures are ineffective. Up to 1,000 miscarriages of justice will occur annually in any one year from this cause alone.

Column 370

Before my right hon. Friend moves too far towards to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I should say that I am about to conclude. I should not like to catch my right hon. Friend the Minister unawares, because I know that he has been listening most carefully. I ask him to do everything he can, in co-operation with the Foreign Office, to get the evidence from the Spanish justice department. If they cannot, this woman should be released. It is interesting that the Spanish representative, the President of the Council of Justice Ministers, has stated that the problem of Euro-bail needs to be dealt with as a priority. Even the Spanish are saying that. It is important that every channel is used to persuade these people to either put up or shut up.

This is a grave miscarriage of justice. I urge my right hon. Friend to do everything he possibly can, not just for Mrs. Brenda Price but for the 15,000 or so others like her in the European Union, and for people like Roy Clarke who have languished in gaol. I ask my right hon. Friend to do what he can.

7.33 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) said. He raised a number of concerns about the extradition request made by Spain to France in relation to one of his constituents, Mrs. Brenda Price, who was arrested near Dunkirk on 5 October when travelling through France with her husband and son. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand if I reply in detail to the points he has made.

Mrs. Price is at present being held at the Maison d'Arre t in Loos. Before I turn to particular concerns, it may be helpful if I explain the general background to the case.

Extradition is the mechanism for returning fugitives to the country where an alleged offence has been committed, for the fugitive to be tried in a court of law. Extradition among all European Union countries apart from Belgium is covered by the Council of Europe convention on extradition. The convention lays down a common standard and common procedures for handling extradition requests between European countries which have signed and ratified it.

Under the convention, there is no requirement for a requesting state to make a prima facie case in support of an extradition request. All that the requesting country has to provide is an authenticated copy of an arrest warrant, a statement of the offences for which extradition has been requested, a copy of the relevant laws in the requesting country, and identification evidence. This material is usually considered by a court, in England and Wales a magistrates court, before a decision is made to issue an arrest warrant. Under the Extradition Act 1989, which implements the UK's obligations under the European convention, there is an alternative procedure which may be used in emergencies--for example, where a fugitive offender is likely to leave the country.

Under the emergency procedure, the requesting country can, through Interpol channels, request the provisional arrest of a fugitive. The requesting country must provide evidence that a case exists which is sufficient for a Bow

Column 371

street magistrate to issue a provisional arrest warrant. It should be noted that a decision by a court to issue a provisional arrest warrant is not a final decision. The requesting state has to back up the request with full supporting documents. If it does not, the arrest warrant will be discharged.

Once the fugitive is arrested, the requesting country has to provide documents in support of its extradition request within statutory deadlines. In the case of European convention countries, the documents must be provided within 40 days.

A country can issue an Interpol red notice, which alerts other countries that a person is wanted in that country to face charges, and should be arrested if located. The UK often receives such requests from other countries for British and other nationals. Indeed, the majority of requests we receive--around 70 per cent. of all cases--are initiated by an Interpol red notice and a provisional arrest.

As my hon. Friend will appreciate, extradition requests, by their very nature, involve individuals who have already crossed international boundaries. It is an essential element in the success of the fight against crime internationally that those individuals wanted in connection with criminal offences in one country can be arrested before they have a chance to escape to yet another country. In this connection, my hon. Friend has questioned why he was not notified if the Spanish authorities had renewed their extradition request for Mrs. Price. He will appreciate that, by their very nature, extradition requests involve alleged offences against a person who has crossed international boundaries. Great care is therefore taken that the person is not alerted, in order to preclude any risk that he or she will flee the country. I make those general points by way of background, because they are pertinent to the case of Mrs. Price. Mrs. Price was the subject of an extradition request from Spain to the UK in 1993. The request from Spain was made through the emergency procedure for Mrs. Price's provisional arrest to face charges relating to the trafficking of 940 kg of cannabis. The Spanish provided information about the drug trafficking operation, and stated that an arrest warrant for Mrs. Price and others had been issued in Spain on 8 October 1992. That information was put before the magistrate at Bow street magistrates court, and he was invited to issue a provisional arrest warrant. He issued the warrant on 7 January 1993, and Mrs. Price was arrested on 13 January.

As is usual in such cases, the Spanish authorities were notified of Mrs. Price's arrest, and were informed that they had 40 days in which to provide documents in accordance with the European convention on extradition in support of their extradition request. However, the Spanish authorities failed to send the necessary supporting documents within the 40 days, as required under the international convention, and Mrs. Price was discharged.

I pause at this stage to make two points in answer to the concerns raised by my hon. Friend. As he is aware, the United Kingdom Government were concerned that what I have called the emergency procedure was used when there was, as it turned out, no evidence that Mrs. Price was an emergency case--that is, that she was about to flee the country--and when the Spanish authorities had not finished preparing the paperwork.

Column 372

The then Home Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), informed my hon. Friend by letter of those concerns in the following terms:

"We share her solicitor's concern that Mrs. Price was detained for so long in respect of an extradition request which was not pursued--although I must stress that in acting as they did the Spanish authorities did nothing that they were not entitled to do--and we will be registering this concern with them."

We wrote to the Spanish authorities about that aspect of the case in May 1993, and received confirmation from Spain that our concerns had been noted, together with an explanation as to why the Spanish authorities had not followed up the extradition request. They decided to await the outcome of the trial of Mrs. Price's co-defendants, which took place in May 1993. Had they been found not guilty, no doubt the request for Mrs. Price would have been dropped. In fact, the four defendants were convicted and sentenced to eight years' imprisonment and fined 65 million pesetas--or £336,000 in real money. My second point is to stress that Mrs. Price was released from custody, and the provisional arrest warrant discharged, solely because Spain did not produce the necessary documents within the time limits. At no time was the Spanish request refused, and it was open to Spain to make a second request to the United Kingdom or to any other country where Mrs. Price was found. Those points were explained to my hon. Friend at the time.

In his second reply of 22 April 1993 to letters from my hon. Friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde stated:

"As you know Mrs. Price was discharged by the Metropolitan magistrate at Bow Street as the Spanish authorities decided not to pursue Mrs. Price's extradition at this time".

I repeat and emphasise that the Spanish authorities did not drop Mrs. Price's case: they simply decided not to pursue it further at that time. I emphasise that point, because it appears from correspondence sent on behalf of Mrs. Price to the Home Office that Mrs. Price was under the misapprehension that the discharge of the provisional arrest warrant in 1993 was the end of the matter, and that the Spanish authorities had given up their intention to seek her extradition. That was and is not the case. If Mrs. Price was advised differently, I am sorry to say that she was badly advised. We, for our part, stated the matter clearly in the letter to my hon. Friend. The Interpol red notice for Mrs. Price's arrest continued to be in force, and it was on that notice that Mrs. Price was arrested in France on 5 October this year. As her extradition was not rejected by the United Kingdom, there was no reason why that should not have occurred. The United Kingdom police were not acting on that notice, because, as is usual practice in such cases, once a provisional arrest warrant has been discharged by the authorities of a state, the requesting authority must make a request with full supporting documents the next time it seeks extradition from that state. The French authorities were perfectly entitled to act on the Interpol red notice. Had the United Kingdom authorities been put in a similar position, they would have acted in the same way--and rightly so. It is in the nature of the emergency procedure that action must be taken on Interpol information. No consideration can, or indeed should, be expected to be given to detailed facts, such as whether a person is only on a day trip. All sorts of false stories could be given by those fleeing justice.

Next Section

Home Page