| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
3.45 pm
Lord Bridges: My Lords, when we debated the matter a week ago, the noble Baroness made a most interesting speech, which I have had the benefit of reading several times. At the end of her speech, there was a passage that indicated that, since the ratification of the treaty, she had had some discussions with the American negotiators that gave messages of comfort as to how the treaty would be negotiated. I concluded by asking her a direct question: what was the status of those assurances? Did they have the force of law or were they merely a message of comfort? I have not heard from the noble Baroness since and she did not reply at the time, so I should be grateful if she could answer that question now.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I apologise for not replying. They are assurances. They do not have the force of law in that they do not set down enforceable arrangements, but we have had similar arrangements over a long period. They are practical arrangements as to how we will work with our partners—ways of dealing that have stood us in good stead. It is the intention of both our Attorney-General and the Attorney General in the United States to continue those discussions so that we have a reasonable, practical arrangement for decisions to be made on whether cases would be best tried here or elsewhere.
7 Nov 2006 : Column 659
I underline the fact that nothing in those informal arrangements would preclude or prevent us from prosecuting if we came to the conclusion that we wanted to do so, irrespective of what any contracting state may prefer. It will be our decision and down to our prosecutors whether we believe, on the face of the evidence and information that we have, that the matter would be better dealt with in this country. No agreement that we enter into will impinge in any way on our ability to make that decision for ourselves.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, was too quick for me, rising before I could respond to the noble Baroness's final observation about our wanting the treaty. We want the treaty, but subject to the forum amendment. We do not understand why the forum amendment was granted to the Irish but not to us. There is, it now appears, one simple reason: the Irish asked for it; we did not. The Government do not really want the judges to have the power to determine; they want the prosecutors to have the power to determine forum. That has always been wholly unacceptable to us and, thus, the treaty is wholly unacceptable to us without that forum provision.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
“(j)forum.”;”81A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones.
81B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed.
82A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 83, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones.
82B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed.
(1) If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 1 territory.
(2)In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.””
83A: Because the Lords Amendment, taken with Lords Amendments Nos. 81 and 82, could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones.
7 Nov 2006 : Column 660
83B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed.
(1)If the conduct disclosed by the request was committed partly in the United Kingdom, the judge shall not order the extradition of the person unless it appears in the light of all the circumstances that it would be in the interests of justice that the person should be tried in the category 2 territory.
(2)In deciding whether extradition is in the interests of justice, the judge shall take into account whether the competent United Kingdom authorities have decided to refrain from prosecuting the person whose surrender is sought for the conduct constituting the offence for which extradition is requested.””
84A: Because the Lords Amendment could cause the United Kingdom to be in breach of existing international agreements and would unduly restrict its ability to enter into further ones.
84B: Because it is appropriate that judges should have discretion over requests for extradition in the manner proposed.
The Commons insist on their disagreement to Lords Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 but propose Amendments Nos. 84C and 84D in lieu-
(1)A person’s extradition to a category 1 territory (“the requesting territory”) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that-
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question.
(3)This section does not apply if the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence.”
7 Nov 2006 : Column 661
(1)A person’s extradition to a category 2 territory (“the requesting territory”) is barred by reason of forum if (and only if) it appears that-
(2)For the purposes of subsection (1)(b) the judge must take into account whether the relevant prosecution authorities in the United Kingdom have decided not to take proceedings against the person in respect of the conduct in question.
(3)This section does not apply if the person is alleged to be unlawfully at large after conviction of the extradition offence.”
3C (1) An order bringing paragraph 3A or 3B into force is not to be made within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.
(2) If after the end of that period a resolution is made by each House of Parliament that paragraphs 3A and 3B (or either of them) should come into force, the Secretary of State shall make an order under section 51 bringing the paragraphs (or paragraph) into force.
(3) An order made by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) must bring the provisions in question into force no later than one month after the day on which the resolutions referred to in that sub-paragraph are made or, if they are made on different days, the day on which the later resolution is made.”
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move Motion B, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84C and 84D in lieu.
Moved, That the House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 81 to 84, in respect of which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 84C and 84D in lieu.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Lord Goodhart moved, as an amendment to Motion B, at end to insert, “but do propose Amendment No. 84E as an amendment to Amendment No. 84C:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just two brief points to make in response to what the noble Baroness said. First, we are in the same position on the question whether the forum amendment would involve renegotiation of the treaty. As I understand it, she maintains—and I agree—that the United States, not having yet taken the final step of exchange of instruments and ratification, could, in theory, decide not to proceed with the exchange of instruments, in which case the treaty would not come into force. On the other hand, if they proceed with the exchange of instruments of ratification, because the forum matter is, as she said, outwith the treaty, the treaty would be
7 Nov 2006 : Column 662
The Minister’s only other argument is that this would delay extradition. To a slight degree, that must be correct, but it is also true that the real reason why extradition took so long in this country is that, on several occasions under the old procedure, matters had to be referred to the Home Secretary for a decision. There was a judicial review each time the Home Secretary took a decision. This was clearly abused. Under the new procedure, whether or not the forum amendment is accepted, there will be no scope for similar discretionary decisions by the Home Secretary, so the main cause of delay will be excluded. What is left of delay is a price plainly worth paying for justice. I therefore still firmly believe that the forum amendment should be added to the Extradition Act.
My immediate thought, on learning of the position of the Conservative party on this issue, was of a poem that many noble Lords will know:
If one substitutes the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for that of the Duke of York, and 200 Peers for 10,000 men, that is exactly the position which the Conservative party is in now. It is not only feeble but positively shameful, and I hope that a number of noble Lords on the Conservative Back Benches will join the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in supporting us in the Division Lobby.
In December 2003, we were the first party to battle against what we saw as unjust extradition when we opposed in both Houses the order that gave to the USA the right of extradition without evidence. If, as seems all too probable, that battle is about to come to an end, we will at least have fought it to the last. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to Motion B, at end to insert, “but do propose Amendment No. 84E as an amendment to Amendment No. 84C”.—(Lord Goodhart.)
3.53 pm
On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. B1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 174.
Addington, L.
Alderdice, L.
Alliance, L.
Ampthill, L.
Avebury, L.
Barker, B.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridges, L.
Browne of Belmont, L.
Burnett, L.
Chidgey, L.
Clement-Jones, L.
Cotter, L.
Dholakia, L.
Durham, Bp.
Dykes, L.
Ezra, L.
Falkland, V.
Fritchie, B.
Garden, L.
Glasgow, E.
7 Nov 2006 : Column 663
Goodhart, L.
Greaves, L.
Greengross, B.
Hamwee, B.
Harris of Richmond, B. [Teller]
Holme of Cheltenham, L.
Hooper, B.
Hylton, L.
Inge, L.
Jacobs, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.
Liverpool, E.
Livsey of Talgarth, L.
Low of Dalston, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Mar and Kellie, E.
Methuen, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Molyneaux of Killead, L.
Monson, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Moore of Wolvercote, L.
Morrow, L.
Murphy, B.
Neuberger, B.
Newby, L.
Northover, B.
Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.
Onslow, E.
Palmer, L.
Ramsbotham, L.
Razzall, L.
Reay, L.
Rees-Mogg, L.
Rennard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Roper, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]
Slim, V.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stern, B.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Taverne, L.
Tebbit, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Tope, L.
Tordoff, L.
Tyler, L.
Vallance of Tummel, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Walmsley, B.
Warnock, B.
Watson of Richmond, L.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Acton, L.
Adams of Craigielea, B.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Alli, L.
Alton of Liverpool, L.
Amos, B. [Lord President.]
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Archer of Sandwell, L.
Armstrong of Ilminster, L.
Ashley of Stoke, L.
Ashton of Upholland, B.
Barnett, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller]
Berkeley, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Billingham, B.
Bilston, L.
Blood, B.
Boothroyd, B.
Borrie, L.
Boston of Faversham, L.
Boyd of Duncansby, L.
Bragg, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brookman, L.
Burlison, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Carter, L.
Chandos, V.
Chorley, L.
Clark of Windermere, L.
Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Cobbold, L.
Colville of Culross, V.
Condon, L.
Corbett of Castle Vale, L.
Corston, B.
Crawley, B.
David, B.
Davidson of Glen Clova, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dear, L.
Donoughue, L.
Drayson, L.
D'Souza, B.
Dubs, L.
Evans of Parkside, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Evans of Watford, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L. [Lord Chancellor.]
Falkender, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Filkin, L.
Ford, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Foulkes of Cumnock, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Golding, B.
Goldsmith, L.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.
7 Nov 2006 : Column 664
Gould of Brookwood, L.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Gregson, L.
Grocott, L. [Teller]
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haskel, L.
Haworth, L.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Jones, L.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Jordan, L.
Judd, L.
King of West Bromwich, L.
Kingsmill, B.
Laird, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Lewis of Newnham, L.
Lloyd of Berwick, L.
Lockwood, B.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Marsh, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Mason of Barnsley, L.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mitchell, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Manchester, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Moser, L.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Ouseley, L.
Parekh, L.
Patel of Blackburn, L.
Paul, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rogan, L.
Rooker, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Scotland of Asthal, B.
Sewel, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Leigh, L.
Snape, L.
Strabolgi, L.
Tanlaw, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Tenby, V.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Trimble, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Varley, L.
Warner, L.
Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Williamson of Horton, L.
Winston, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Motion B agreed to.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
4.03 pm
A message was brought from the Commons, That they do not insist on one of their amendments to the Road Safety Bill but have made amendments in lieu thereof; they insist on certain of their amendments and disagree to certain amendments made by your Lordships for which they assign reasons.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons message be considered forthwith.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
7 Nov 2006 : Column 665
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |