Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will not be surprised that I do not support these amendments. We have been very clear throughout about the purpose to which these provisions should be put. I can be telegraphic in responding to these amendments. I endorse absolutely the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, in his recitation of the succinct summation made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Grand Committee. I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, in his slight bemusement, but I understand the position in which the noble Baroness is placed.
The noble Baroness says that Part 1 should be restricted to terrorist offences. She knows that I disagree with the narrowing of the provision to terrorism, not least because of a real difficulty in separating pure terrorist acts from subsidiary terrorist acts. We know, regrettably, that many terrorists groups participate in other forms of criminal activity of a very serious nature. To differentiate between those two would be intolerable.
The amendments would lose the great benefits afforded to this country by the framework decision. We would lose the very real benefit of being able to seek the return of nationals from countries who
currently refuse to extradite their own nationals. We would lose the benefit of being able to extradite those who commit fiscal offences. We would also lose the benefits of the efficient and effective extradition that the instrument would give us with our fellow member states.I cannot accept the analyses of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, or my noble friend Lord Stoddart. My noble friend said that everything was being done in order to harmonise European law. In fact, this is the antithesis of harmonisation, because these revisions seek to respect the integrity of the internal system of each state and to apply the law on that basis. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says. He challenges me to go further than I did in Committee. I am afraid that I feel unable to give him greater satisfaction. We have said very clearly that the systems in Europe comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. We have dealt quite extensively with the provisions in Articles 6, 8 and others. That would benefit from further repetition.
Therefore, I disagree with the noble Baroness that the narrowing of the provision is proper or justified in any way. Furthermore, to seek to expunge the framework decision, which in effect is what the provisions seek to dois fundamentally flawed and would be outwith what we agreed. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness not to press the amendment. However, if pressed, I shall resist.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I begin by addressing the very proper remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, who tried to take me to task on the basis that I appeared to be inconsistent. Indeed, he thought I was inconsistent. The Minister rode to my defence, and I hope to improve it even more. I was not able to leap to my feet and say, "But excuse me, it is not quite as bad as it looks" because the rules on Report say that I have to sit and await my opportunity.
The first amendment I moved today looked at the Bill and found it wanting, in the sense that the Government lacked a definition of its own purpose. I was therefore tryingmischievously perhaps the Government might sayto assist them by putting in a proper purpose clause. But that was the purpose as they see it. This amendment says something about how I see the Bill and what I want to do about it. So in that sense I was not being inconsistent. It perhaps shows a difference between the Government's approach and my approach to Part 1.
Like the Minister, I shall try to be brief after that explanationit is not an excuseto the noble Viscount. Unlike the Minister, I accept the analysis put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, her noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon and my noble friend Lord Lamont. It would have taken a Damascene conversion for either of us to resile from the position that we have taken. She will therefore understand why I wish to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 101; Not-Contents, 163.
Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.11 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 4 and 5 not moved.]
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page