House of Lords
Tuesday, 16th July 2002.
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
Government-Press Relations
Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether their relationship with the press is satisfactory.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, a functioning democracy requires a competent government and a free press. Both exist in this country at this time. The relationship is therefore entirely satisfactory.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I am delighted to see that the Government and the country still believe in a free press. But why, with a free press, do the Government feel obliged to spend so much time, effort and taxpayers' money in manipulating the press to see things from their point of view? Spin is self-defeating in the end and the Government must know that. Meanwhile, how much is the Government's publicity machine costing and is the taxpayer given value for money?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, doing the job I do I try to emulate the lily of the field: I toil not, neither do I spin.
Lord McNally: My Lords, has the Leader of the House yet had the opportunity to read Hugo Young in this morning's Guardian? He gives a good assessment of the Government's record as a news provider. He says,
- "It has not been a reliable bearer of honest news about its own record. It has not been good with statistics. It promised much, claimed too much and delivered too little [in] the era when spin equated with mendacity".
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, complacent? Moi? The fact is that all political organisations, however unsuccessful—for instance, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives—expend money on press relations. Speaking for myself as an entirely helpful and impartial observer, if the Liberal Democrat and Conservative Central Offices are paying money to have their message put across, I advise them to ask for the money back.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, are not the Government the biggest advertiser in this country? Will the noble and learned Lord tell us what is the total spend of taxpayers' money on advertising by all government departments?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, of course the Government advertise. We have been advertising for police officers and so at the moment have the largest number of police officers there have ever been. We shall have 130,000 police officers on the beat next year. The figure the noble Baroness may be looking for is the Central Office of Information advertising spend which, in 1986-87, at modern-day prices, was £191,600; at 2001 prices the spend in 2001 was £192,000—hardly any difference at all. I advise those noble Lords who may be obsessed with spin to consider whether or not there is too much froth in the approach generally. All organisations want to put their message over. The Government have done that rather well in two successful general elections.
European Arrest Warrant
2.39 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government:
- Whether Parliament is free to refuse or amend the European arrest warrant as agreed by Her Majesty's Government on 13th June in the Justice and Home Affairs Council of the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant was adopted at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 13th June and cannot itself be amended. However, the European arrest warrant will come into operation in the United Kingdom if the Bill to give effect to it is approved by this Parliament. Naturally Parliament is free to refuse or amend the Bill, the draft of which was published on 27th June.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. But if the British Parliament refuses or amends the arrest warrant, will we be in breach of our treaty obligations? Is not one of the most unsatisfactory aspects of our relationship with the European Union and one of the least known that once the executive has agreed or been out-voted on a new law in Brussels, Parliament must rubber stamp it or the United Kingdom is in breach of its treaty obligations? Sometimes, though not in this case, that can result in payment of unlimited fines in the Luxembourg court. Therefore what is the point of Parliament debating and scrutinising EU legislation if the executive signs up to it anyway and we become a rubber stamp?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I repeat that Parliament has a completely free hand in this respect and there is nothing that the executive can do to compel it to respond in a certain way. However, I am confident
that, when we have properly considered the draft Bill, Parliament will approve it because it is in the interests of the British public. We have an extensive system of scrutiny in this House and the other place to ensure that the United Kingdom does not sign up to any measure of the Justice and Home Affairs Council before we have had clearance of the scrutiny processes and are sure that it is in the interests of the British public to do so.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the power to refuse extradition on human rights grounds, as set out in the draft Bill and the White Paper, will cover cases where conviction of the defendant involves a breach of his human rights; for example, where it would be contrary to his right to freedom of speech?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord is exactly right. To put it beyond any doubt, the draft Bill will make clear that we will not extradite in any circumstances where we consider there is a probability that doing so would breach the prisoner's human rights.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, at the meeting of Sub-Committee E the noble Lord told myself and other Members that if Parliament decides not to pass this legislation in a Bill there can be no infraction procedures by the Commission. I understand, however, that the Commission believes that it can introduce infraction procedures. Can the Minister tell us whether he or the Commission is right? If Parliament does not agree to the provisions for the European arrest warrant, will there be political rather than legal consequences? What would those consequences be?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord's question invites a relatively easy answer. I shall not change my view. Therefore, he must draw his own inference as to who is right or wrong. It is of course possible that there has been a misunderstanding as to exactly what are the respective roles.
The position is clear. In the unlikely event that Parliament decided not to pass legislation to put the framework document on to the face of European legislation, as is its right. Westminster law would prevail. It would be open to a member state, if it so wished, to take action for non-compliance against the British Government in the European Court. I do not envisage those circumstances coming about for reasons I have already explained.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the noble Lord thinks this is a reasonable measure. He also says that there has been pre-scrutiny. My recollection is that there was a proposal to introduce a European arrest warrant in legislation that passed through this House and that that provision was removed. Is that the pre-scrutiny he was referring to, or has there been some other?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord has the advantage on me. I am not certain that I connect with
what he has referred to. The pre-scrutiny I was referring to was the deposition in October last year in both this House and the other place of the draft framework agreement which led to a most careful and thorough process of scrutiny in both Houses. The British Government reserved their agreement to the framework agreement until scrutiny had been cleared in both Houses.
Earl Russell: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the most practical place to hold the European Council of Ministers accountable is in the European Parliament? When did he last hear the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, recommend that course?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the honest answer is that I cannot recollect the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, having recommended that course.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, with great respect, I was under the impression that the appropriate committee did not receive sufficient time for scrutiny. I should like to hear from the noble Lord whether the legislation before the House will or will not provide that persons who have committed an act which is a crime in other European countries but not in ours will not be extradited? That has been the position so far. The proposal was that that should change. Can he tell us what the situation is and what the legislation will provide for?
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page