Crime (International Co-operation)

---

[back to previous text]

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. She stated that the Government do not feel that as a general principle people should be able to withdraw consent. I agree. As a general principle, they should not be able to withdraw consent, but there are exceptional circumstances.

Although I acknowledge the Minister's point that the warrant is produced only at the last minute—I am not sure how last-minute it is, but I accept that it would be towards the end rather than at the beginning of the process—there are still occasions when something occurs between the issuing of the warrant and its execution. Family intimidation, to which the hon. Member for North Down referred, is a clear example. The prisoner might get a message at the very last minute to say that if he attends something will happen to a member of his family. I am not suggesting that I want to allow people to change their minds by making up stories, but the Government need to reflect on whether they want to be as absolute as they are being at present. If an eventuality such as the one to which the hon. Lady referred occurred and something did happen to a family member, we know where the mud would stick: it would be on the Government who authorised the transfer.

Caroline Flint: I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman. In considering the different circumstances under which a final decision not to transfer might be made by the Secretary of State, there could be a number of issues. One of the problems is coming up with all those examples of exceptional circumstances.

The warrant authorises the transfer of the prisoner only; it does not require it. That is why we do not want the validity of the warrant to be affected by withdrawal of consent. We shall not transfer if the Secretary of State considers it unwise, but we do not want to withdraw the warrant and go back to the beginning of the process. If certain circumstances arose—I have mentioned a few, such as a national emergency in the country of destination or a person being unwell and unfit to travel; the hon. Member for North Down suggested another circumstance—there is an opportunity for the Secretary of State to act. We want to ensure that at the end of the process there is a safeguard, so that we do not undermine all the work that has been done preceding the warrant's authorisation.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for trying to clarify the situation. There remains the fundamental point about the decision being that of the Secretary of State or somebody acting on his behalf, or that of the prisoner who wants to withdraw their consent. I envisage a situation where threats have been issued against the prisoner's family, but the Secretary of State refuses to take them seriously. That is not, by any means, unimaginable.

Lady Hermon: I can give the hon. Gentleman a concrete example. I am referring to a young man, the late Alan McCullough. He was only 21 . He was encouraged to come back to Northern Ireland by paramilitaries who assured him that he would be safe. He was taken prisoner, tortured and executed. At his

Column Number: 204

funeral yesterday, the same group threatened his mother, sisters and partner—all women—with execution if they gave evidence in a court under any jurisdiction.

Mr. Paice: That is a telling intervention. I am grateful to the hon. Lady, as what she says gives considerable substance to the concerns that I have expressed. It is clear that the Minister will not accede to my amendments or even to the principle, so there is little point in pushing it at this stage. Clearly, she has not yet got to the point that her predecessor reached, who used to stand up and say that he had been given a load of garbage to read out. He said words to that effect last week, which is probably why he was promoted. It is a practice that we should encourage.

Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Given that the previous Minister said that, it strikes me as extremely appropriate that he went back to the Whips Office.

Mr. Paice: Yes. Clearly, I cannot expect the Minister suddenly to change tact. It would be unrealistic of me to do so.

Caroline Flint: I remind the hon. Gentleman that what we are facing under the clause is exactly what we faced when discussing the 1990 Act that the Conservative party passed. Such transfers are in respect not of participating in proceedings, but of assisting UK investigations.

Mr. Paice: I am grateful to the Minister. I was fully aware of what she meant. We have mentioned the 1990 Act when discussing almost every group of amendments since we started proceedings a week ago. It seems that, when the Government do not want to change the Bill, they say, ''Well, this was in the 1990 Act'', and then they change that Act in other areas because they believe that it needs changing. The Minister's predecessor paraded that odd argument last week. I hope that it will be the last time that we hear it while she is responsible for the Bill.

Caroline Flint: Don't hold your breath.

Mr. Paice: Well, perhaps the message will get through to those who write Ministers' briefs that such an argument is pointless. We all accept that, after 13 years, legislation needs to be re-examined. If the 1990 Act were perfect, most of the Bill would not be before us. It has had to be drafted because of the need to change provisions to meet the new conventions that we have signed up to during the intervening period.

I shall not pursue the issue now. With utmost respect for the arguments advanced by the Minister, I hope that she will understand the worry that is felt about such matters. The hon. Member for North Down has described particular circumstances that add immense substance to our argument. We may wish to return to it later in our proceedings, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 48 to 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Column Number: 205

New clause 4

Persons under 18 years of age

'The Secretary of State may by order provide that the provisions of this Part shall apply with modifications in respect of persons under 18 years of age to take into account the needs of such persons.'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Paice: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause has been touched on. I shall come clean at the beginning of the debate. We have been upbraided in Committee several times for rehashing arguments that have been advanced in another place. However, such a debate needs to be held in Committee. The other place literally spent only a few minutes discussing the impact of the Bill on young people. The Minister may suggest that it will not apply in many cases but, when considering proposed legislation, we must reflect on what might happen, not what we think will happen.

Given overseas processes, the hearing of witnesses on television and by telephone and the transfer of prisoners, which we have just debated, I argue strongly that the Bill could affect people under 18 years of age. As responsible hon. Members, we must all recognise that people under the age of 18—and those who may be significantly so—have specific needs that must be addressed. They cannot necessarily be treated in the same way as an adult. As an aside, I emphasise the point on legal advice that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome made earlier, and on which he rightly forced a Division. That is even more important for young people.

There are also issues about the role of parents or guardians. Should they be present in all the circumstances that we have discussed in the many clauses that make up part 1? Should they have any role in the decision-making process, including, for example, the one that we have just debated on giving consent to being transferred abroad?

There is an issue about whether delivering by post to somebody who is not yet an adult is right. There is an alternative point, which is the reverse of what I have just said. If an individual is being charged with something that took place overseas, what happens if they would be tried in a youth court in this country but the overseas authority does not have facilities for youth courts? Would we necessarily be happy with them being tried in an adult court? There are implications with regard to human rights legislation, which must also be taken into account. Clause 30(5) requires an oath to be given. If a person gives an oath, they are opening themselves up to the accusation of perjury if they break it.

I give these examples because all of them illustrate why special measures must be put in place for young people. I am not suggesting that young people should be exempt from the provisions of part 1 because most young people should accept the responsibilities that one naturally gains as one grows up. However, provisions should be made for special arrangements. The purpose of new clause 4 is open and straightforward. It simply states that the Secretary of

Column Number: 206

State may make orders for the part of the Bill to apply with some modification. That modification could be simple. It might state that, where the individual concerned is under 18, their parent or guardian must be present at all times.

However, I am not trying to write the provisions. What I am saying is that the Bill should include recognition of the special arrangements that are necessary for young people. In light of that, I hope that the Minister will understand the import of the new clause. She might not like the words of the new clause, and I am not wedded to them, but I want her to recognise that it is a serious issue. The Committee has considered a substantial range of legal measures, many of which break new ground and could affect young people, and we have to recognise that special arrangements need to be made for them.

I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my new clause.

 

---

Prepared 17 June 2003