| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Miss Ann Widdecombe (Maidstone and The Weald): I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his customary courtesy in giving me early sight of it.
I am sure that I speak for many when I welcome the fact that we have a final decision in the case, which has mainly been characterised by muddle, contradiction and delay. I also welcome the fact that there will be a review of the law of extradition, as it is clear that the case has pointed up several unsatisfactory aspects. I look forward to the consultation paper being issued in due course.
Will the right hon. Gentleman please publish an estimate of the full costs from the beginning to the end of the case? Will he also please publish an estimate of the police manpower involved in the case?
Will the Home Secretary explain the delays, particularly the two delays that occurred between October and March? The right hon. Gentleman was informed in October that there was a medical question mark over Senator Pinochet's fitness to stand trial, yet the procedures were dragged out until March before we finally had a decision. I ask the same question in respect of the application for habeas corpus, which was made in October and had not been determined by the time that everything else was resolved.
Does the Secretary of State accept that there are serious lessons to be learned from the case? It remains the fact that Senator Pinochet came to this country for medical treatment and, at the behest of our ethical Foreign Office, was greeted and feted at Heathrow--yet hardly any time later, he was arrested while still recovering from the operation for which he had come to this country.
The senator and those arguing on the other side of the case were subjected to a highly protracted legal process in which the Secretary of State appears to have been unable swiftly to determine the various matters that were his responsibility, rather than the responsibility of the court. He had the power to refuse the extradition application, but above all he had the power to act much more quickly when he knew that there was a question mark over the senator's health. It is that delay, rather than the original delay, which concerns me most.
The Secretary of State glossed over the leak of the medical report; he mentioned it, but he glossed over what was behind it. It remains a feature of the case that the Home Secretary gave an undertaking of medical confidentiality on the basis of which, presumably, permission to make the medical examination was granted. That confidentiality was then breached. What investigation has he made of that? What representations has he made to Spain, if that is where the breach occurred? How seriously does he take the matter? He is shaking his head, but I am not asking him to provide an explanation by magic; I am asking him what attempts he has made to find one. That is a reasonable question.
Senator Pinochet has been returned to Chile, and many of us will welcome that because we believe that Chile should have determined whether the case came to trial, and held that trial if it so determined. The outcome is satisfactory, but the case was deeply unsatisfactory. At the
end of the procedures, I cannot believe that Spain, Chile, the senator or the relatives and victims of his alleged crimes are happy. I cannot believe that anyone has gained satisfaction from the handling of the case. When reviewing the workings of our extradition law, will the Home Secretary also review the points on which he had absolute discretion, but took a long time to exercise it?
Mr. Straw:
The right hon. Lady asked me specific questions, which I shall try to answer, and made some general observations with which I shall also deal. Our current provisional estimate of the Government's legal costs is just under £1.4 million, although they are likely to be greater. I cannot provide an estimate of the cost of the police protection. I may be able to do so with one important proviso: that I am satisfied that that will not compromise such security operations in future. That has been the policy of successive Governments. Subject to that, I will provide the information to the House and the right hon. Lady.
The right hon. Lady asked about the delay. No unreasonable delay occurred from the point in early October when I was informed by the Chilean Government--not Senator Pinochet's representatives--of anxieties about his medical condition. It is very unusual in an extradition case for medical representations to be submitted by a third party, in this case the Chilean Government. We had to ensure that my actions were in accordance with the law. At that stage, the matter was before the courts, not before me. In normal circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the habeas corpus proceedings to be completed before further representations were considered by the Home Secretary.
In the light of the serious condition which was disclosed prima facie by the medical report from the Chilean embassy, I was satisfied that it was right and proper of me to seek further independent medical opinions about Senator Pinochet's condition. However, first, I had to assemble a team whose expertise and independence was beyond question. That was put in hand with the greatest possible speed, but it took the chief medical officer, the Home Office and me some time to assemble such a team. We had to check that its members had the relevant expertise, no connections with Spain or Chile, and no political affiliations that would later bring their integrity into question.
The right hon. Lady asked an eccentric question about the delay in the habeas corpus application. She should know that as we have separation of powers in this country, the timing of cases is a matter for the courts, not the Home Secretary. I reject her suggestion that I have acted without speed at any stage in the process. Whenever a decision has been ready for me to make, I have acted with speed.
The right hon. Lady asked about the leak of the medical reports. I greatly regret that leak. I offered medical confidentiality partly because I was concerned that if it was not provided--the information was given only to the senator's representatives, the Crown Prosecution Service and to me--there would be a danger that it would not simply be confined to those who had an interest in it, but broadcast worldwide.
I fully accepted that, in terms of seeking publicly to justify the conclusions I reached, it was easier for me to have that medical report on the record. I made it clear to the divisional court that I felt myself bound by the
undertakings of medical confidentiality, which I had given in good faith, but of course if the court ordered otherwise I would have to follow the decision of the court. That is what I did--[Interruption.] That is precisely what I did. We do not know exactly where it was leaked, but there is every suggestion that it was leaked outside this jurisdiction. Inquiries are being made. I understand from the Spanish ambassador that Spain regrets the leak, but has been unable to conclude that it was the fault of the Spanish authorities.
I want to make two final points. I have dealt with the allegation that the right hon. Lady made about delay. She then suggested that there has been muddle and contradiction in this case. Looking at the Opposition's response, only they have shown the most extraordinary muddle and contradiction in the pursuit of this matter. This morning on the radio she said, commendably, that she had never suggested for one moment that anything I had done was improper. She also suggested that once the matter had been before me it was appropriate for me to make decisions. That is a rather different comment from past ones that I have had to accept without the possibility of responding.
The right hon. Lady told the Conservative party conference--I suspect more for its entertainment than as a recitation of the truth--that I had welcomed General Pinochet to the United Kingdom, when I had done absolutely nothing of the kind, and that I had arrested him, which I had also not done. There is also the comment of the Leader of the Opposition on 10 December 1998, who described my decision to issue the first authority to proceed as "cowardly". I do not happen to believe that accepting and acknowledging our international obligations and the rule of law is a matter of cowardice. Given the position that she is now taking, I hope that she will invite her right hon. Friend to withdraw such an unsubstantiated remark.
My final point is that I am sorry that the right hon. Lady did not see fit to acknowledge the very serious nature of the crimes alleged against Senator Pinochet. He was accused of torture and of conspiracy to torture of a very extreme kind. Those were and remain crimes that should have been the subject of international judicial process, but for the fact that this man was unfit to stand trial.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
Does the Home Secretary accept that many people in this country and around the world feel a sense of shame at the news that Pinochet has now left British airspace and is therefore free from any likelihood of prosecution in any court anywhere in the world? Does he also accept that in addition to the 31 cases of torture on which Pinochet stands indicted in British courts, he stands accused of the death or disappearance of more than 7,000 people in Chile? This man has not faced justice; he has avoided it. He has lived in luxury and gone through the courts here. None of his victims ever had the chance to go through courts or be represented anywhere. They were merely shot and murdered during his disgraceful regime.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |