Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Goodhart: Simply on a drafting point, why is a reference to the belief of the Secretary of State in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause? Surely whether arrangements have or have not been made is a question of clearly ascertainable fact. Why do we not simply leave out the words,

Lord Filkin: I was asked whether the powers under Section 15 of the 1989 Act have ever been used. The answer is yes. An outgoing request to Morocco was successful under this provision in a large fraud case in 1999. Even if that had not been the case I would nevertheless—despite advice from officials—have felt that it was prudent to keep the power given a joint wish for adequate powers to combat international crime.

As to the word "belief", I suspect the issue turns on its defendability, but I am racking my brains and hoping that an idea comes to me. I am advised that the Secretary of State certifies the arrangements. We shall have to give the matter more thought and more time. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will bear with us. I apologise for not being sufficiently inspired at this point.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

On Question, whether Clause 189, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: Perhaps the Deputy Chairman can advise me. The previous amendments related to new clauses. Are they incorporated in this or not, or are we on different numbers?

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC24

5 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No, if I have understood the noble Lord's question correctly. That is why I made them go through the rigmarole for each clause.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: There is not a separate debate?

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: No. This is a separate matter now, referring to the previous amendment that was moved by the Minister. If you wish to debate clause stand part, you can do that.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: I think I would be out of order. Unfortunately, I had a point on a previous new clause which was proposed as an amendment and I was wondering whether there was a "clause stand part" opportunity for me to raise the issue that I omitted to raise earlier because I was not quick enough.

The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If I may say so, the noble Lord had an opportunity to do that, and that is why I raised each one separately.

Lord Filkin: If it would help, outside the Committee we would be pleased to have a conversation with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, on the point to see whether we can deal with it through correspondence.

Clause 189, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 190 negatived.

Clauses 191 to 193 agreed to.

Clause 194 [Bail: Scotland]:

The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 250:

    Page 107, line 14, at end insert—

"( ) In the application of the Extradition Act 2003 to Scotland, references to granting bail shall be read as references to admitting to bail."

The noble Earl said: This amendment is not a difficult one and does not distort the Bill in any sense at all. I suggest that the context for this amendment is the long-standing habit of United Kingdom Bills riding roughshod over Scottish legal terminology. This is not a devolution issue, but a pre-Union issue that has been running for a while and I believe that we should draw it to a close.

This is a United Kingdom Bill that focuses on all three legal jurisdictions. There is no reason why we should not get right the terminology for all three, particularly as Clause 194 deals only with bail in Scotland. The amendment clarifies that where the Bill refers to "granting bail", which I believe is the correct expression in England and Wales—it may be in Northern Ireland but I am not qualified to say so—the expression in Scotland is "submitting to bail". The amendment ensures that that expression is recognised by the Bill so that this part of the Bill will read more easily in Scotland. It merely concerns getting right the terminology. I beg to move.

Lord Davies of Oldham: I understand that this point was raised at the very useful meeting held on 21st May

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC25

with the noble Earl, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Carnegy. At the end of that meeting my noble friend asked the Scottish Executive officials who were present to consider whether an amendment was necessary to meet the point. Since then we have considered the issue carefully indeed. I am mindful of the modest way in which the noble Earl presents the charge that the legislation often rides roughshod over Scottish sensitivities. I certainly do not want to be a party to that. The amendment is a minor one, but it concerns the correct legal terminology in Scots law for the liberation of a person on bail. The amendment would have the effect that where references are made in the Bill to "granting bail", such reference will be construed in Scotland as references to "admitting a person to bail".

We do not believe that the amendment is necessary. As we understand it, the Scottish courts would have absolutely no difficulty at all in understanding the term "granting bail". I am advised that the expressions "granting bail" and "admitting a person to bail" are both used in the legislation setting out the law in relation to bail in Scotland. Neither expression is definitive; they are interchangeable. There is certainly no great point of principle here and we do not believe that both references need to be put in the Bill. I hear with the greatest respect the point made by the noble Earl, but in this area I feel that we are discussing a matter that is very acceptable in Scottish courts, so I hope he will not press the amendment.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: On this occasion, I think that the Government have done extremely well in setting the Bill into Scots law. We had a meeting, which is unprecedented, at which they explained everything and they then wrote to us. I see no offending phrase referring to bail in the wrong way; the noble Earl may have spotted one, but I cannot see it.

We must give credit where credit is due on the matter. It is not easy to legislate for England and Wales and for Scotland at the same time when so many devolved matters are included. Personally, I very much appreciate what has been done in that respect. I realise that the noble Earl is using the amendment to make an important point which I am sure will come into play in future, but on this occasion, we really cannot pick holes in the way in which the matter has been dealt with. I have been rather disappointed not to have been able to score a single direct hit during the Committee, because I rather enjoy doing that.

Lord Davies of Oldham: And you usually do.

The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I certainly acknowledge the use of the meeting which we had beforehand and hope that that may become part of the more normal format for legislation. The Minister's answer only heightens for me the corrupting effect that UK legislation has had on Scottish legislation. I agree that as in both Scotland and England we all attempt to speak English, we can of course understand the difference between granting bail and admitting to bail.

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC26

I am unhappy with the Minister's answer. I draw his attention to the corrupting effect in Scotland which has led to our appearing to have three verdicts: guilty, not guilty and not proven. The origins of that in Scotland are that, historically, cases were either proven or not proven. But juries then started coming in with the English words "not guilty", which was not the correct terminology. So we have ended up with an unsatisfactory situation. Based on the corrupting effect of that, I should have liked the correct terminology to be used. However, we are in Grand Committee, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 194 agreed to.

Clauses 195 and 196 agreed to.

Clause 197 [Extradition for more than one offence]:

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 251:

    Page 110, line 2, leave out "with specified modifications"

The noble Lord said: I tabled this probing amendment and asked for a stand part debate on Clause 197 at the same time in order to elicit a little more detail from the Ministers on the provisions and effect of the clause. Clause 197, entitled:

    "Extradition for more than one offence",

is remarkably brief. I am concerned—I think I have cause to be—that in only four lines, the Secretary of State is given power by order subject to the negative procedure to modify the provisions of the Bill in relation to a extradition requests for more than one offence. The Explanatory Notes are hardly more helpful or explanatory, because they consist of only three lines. They give no comprehensible explanation of what is intended.

At first glance, it seemed to me that there was a dangerously fine line between providing for modifications for multiple offences and overriding the speciality rule, which we have discussed at great length during various debates in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Davies, mentioned the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. I was heartened by its comments when it stated:

    "This clause allows the Secretary of State to modify the provisions of the Bill in cases where there is more than one offence for which extradition is requested. The extradition procedure will be the same as it is set out in the Bill. There will be a procedure for accommodating multiple requests which will be laid out in the order. It is possible for an extradition request to be submitted for multiple offences and provision should be made for that. An order made under this power will be subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 209(5). This is felt to be the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny given the technical nature of this provision".

I take it, then, that the purpose of the clause is to allow for one extradition request to be made for someone accused of multiple offences committed at the same time. It would clearly be nonsense for five individual requests to be made for a number of offences committed simultaneously on one occasion. It would be helpful for the Committee if the Minister would clarify what form those "specified modifications" might take. That is why I tabled

10 Sept 2003 : Column GC27

Amendment No. 251 on a probing basis. The clause would benefit from some proper explanation. The Minister may be able to give us some examples in which the clause would be necessary.

Finally, as far as I can see, the European arrest warrant makes no provision for such circumstances. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister knows of any other countries that have adopted or proposed similar provisions in their domestic legislation. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page