| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 110 [Implementation of the third pillar]:
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 14:
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 14, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. These are genuine drafting amendments. We are not trying to change the Bill. I can assure the House that we are not trying to pull a fast one. The amendments are purely technical to ensure that the references to the 1995 and 1996 Conventions on Extradition are legally correct.
The conventions were established under Article K.3 of the Treaty on European Union. Clause 110(2) should refer to that article rather than to one of the renumbered articles in Title VI of the treaty, which replaced the K-numbered articles. I beg to move.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, before the House agrees the amendments, I should like to put one or two questions to the Minister about the scope of what are now Clauses 110 and 111 of the Bill. As the noble Lord has said, they will import into legislation what is now Article 31, or what was Article K.3 before the Amsterdam treaty, together with the 1995 and 1996 Conventions on Extradition.
The first question arises because Article 31 is to be amended by the Treaty of Nice—assuming that that treaty is ratified—to give greater substance to Eurojust, to the European judicial network, and to Europol. Can the Minister tell the House how the Government see what I think we would all agree is the pan-European police force developing? In particular, do the Government envisage that members of Europol will be able to arrest people in this country without a British policeman in attendance?
Secondly, and perhaps far more important, is there any truth in the suggestion that the officers of Europol will have immunity from negligence? If that is so, why?
Finally, I shall put a more generic question concerning the clauses as amended by the Government. It is clear that we are witnessing a three-pronged attack on some of our most fundamental civil liberties, all inspired far more by Brussels' quest for power than by any reasonable attempt to control terrorism. The first prong consists of these clauses in the Bill, which noble Lords have now substantially
My question concerns the third prong of this very worrying assault; that is, the Treaty of Nice itself. In his amendments, I believe that the noble Lord has assumed that the treaty will be ratified. Do the Government agree that the measures originally proposed in these clauses, along with any that may emerge in the arrest warrant, could be brought into force under the existing treaties, but especially if the Treaty of Nice is ratified? In other words, if the Nice Treaty is ratified, or even if it is not, surely all these matters could be dealt with without any need for the Bill or for the arrest warrant? Perhaps they would have taken longer, but I think that it is important to know where we stand in the development of the competencies of the European Union. I should be most grateful for the Minister's response.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is kind of the noble Lord to give me an opportunity to revisit the third pillar. However, I shall decline the invitation. I have just moved two amendments, exactly the same as each other, which seek to change references to X31" from XK.3" mentioned in two separate lines in a clause over which a major debate was held yesterday in this House. I would remind the noble Lord of that. The Government made a major modification to the Bill by time limiting to 1st July 2002 implementation of the third pillar.
I have been assured by my noble friend to my left that Europol is a good thing. The Nice Treaty has not been ratified and therefore the noble Lord's question is hypothetical. We shall have to wait until ratification has taken place. I do not know anything about immunity from negligence, except to say that such immunity would not strike me as a good thing in any walk of life. I should add that that comment should not be construed as a change in government policy. As regards the issue of UK citizens living in this country being arrested without the need for the presence of UK policemen, I find it extremely difficult to believe that such a move could be contemplated.
I almost regret to have to say to the noble Lord that there will be bags of opportunities to debate these issues when we deal with the legislation which has already been forecast for next year. I want to take the comments of the noble Lord seriously because I realise that these are important issues. I am told continually that matters are dealt with differently in this House; we are more measured and precise. We have achieved a far better scrutiny of the Bill than would normally be the case on the Floor of the other House, even when it has more time to deal with business. However, I have to say to the noble Lord that when dealing with an amendment that seeks to change a reference to X31" from XK.3", I am limited in what I am prepared to respond to in the debate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I accept that we shall not cover all the points that I have put to the noble Lord, but he has been warned.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 15:
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth My Lords, the Minister is true to his word and this amendment has the total and 100 per cent support of the right reverend Prelates concerned about the implementation of the third pillar.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 16:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I do not want to debate particle physics but I cannot help but wonder whether we are not entering the realm of Bills and anti-Bills. Only a year ago, we passed a Terrorism Bill and now we are passing an Anti-terrorism Bill. The four-letter word at the beginning of the Bill's Title is a little out of place and for the sake of consistency—and all those who may refer to these matters in future—it would be better if the measure were named the Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.
Lord Elton: My Lords, presumably this is an anti-crime Bill as well. If it is not necessary to state Xanti-crime", why is it necessary to state XAnti-terrorism"?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, as I have discovered at three departments in the past four years, there are lots of rules on the titles that one can and cannot give to a Bill. I first became aware of that long before I entered the other place, in respect of the Fair Rent Bill of the now noble Lord, Lord Walker. We thought that was a very political title and there was much debate about it.
We need to differentiate this measure from the Terrorism Act 2000. I am not aware of anyone referring in the press or on the wireless to anything other than the Anti-terrorism Bill—its Short Title. We should keep it as that. That title might annoy people when they look for the measure in an alphabetical index but it is important to avoid confusion with the 2000 Act. At this late stage, we cannot justify such a substantial change to the legislation.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the Minister's response does not surprise me. I take the opportunity to thank him and his colleagues in respect of a period of arduous and solid work on the Floor of the House. We have not always agreed, inevitably, but I hope that relationships have remained amicable. I am grateful to
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in eight days of very hard work and also the Government Chief Whip, the Chief Whip of the Liberal Democrats and my own Chief Whip. They have between them worked hard to keep the show on the road for eight days. It is not usual to acknowledge them but the usual channels seem to have worked very well in respect of this Bill. I want to thank some real trojans, who have had a difficult time—the staff in the Public Bill Office. They are not usually thanked—and nor are the staff in the Whips' Office, who have the daily grind of trying to make sense of our demands for groupings. I am happy to place those thanks on record.
(a) revise the whole or any part of the code issued under section 102; and
(b) issue the revised code.
(9) The preceding provisions of this section shall apply (with appropriate modifications) in relation to the issue of any revised code under section 102 as they apply in relation to the first issuing of the code.
(10) Subsection (9) shall not, in the case of a draft of a revised code, require the Secretary of State to consult under subsection (2) with any communications providers who would not be affected by the proposed revisions."
Page 66, line 25, leave out X31" and insert XK.3"
6.15 p.m.
Page 66, line 28, leave out X31" and insert XK.3"
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Ampthill): My Lords, I believe that this amendment is to be moved formally and that the right reverend Prelate will not accuse the Minister of any mischief.
16 Page 75, line 23, leave out XAnti-"
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page