Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 299:


30 Oct 2003 : Column 403

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am endeavouring to set a record for brevity in moving this and the following amendments by saying that they simply tidy up definitions in the Bill. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 300:


    Page 114, line 26, at end insert—


""magistrates' court" and "court" in relation to extradition proceedings means a District Judge (Magistrates' Courts) designated for the purposes of Part 1 or Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003 by the Lord Chancellor;"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 301 to 303:


    After Clause 204, insert the following new clause—


"RECEIVABLE DOCUMENTS
(1) A Part 1 warrant may be received in evidence in proceedings under this Act.
(2) Any other document issued in a category 1 territory may be received in evidence in proceedings under this Act if it is duly authenticated.
(3) A document issued in a category 2 territory may be received in evidence in proceedings under this Act if it is duly authenticated.
(4) A document issued in a category 1 or category 2 territory is duly authenticated if (and only if) one of these applies—
(a) it purports to be signed by a judge, magistrate or other judicial authority of the territory;
(b) it purports to be authenticated by the oath or affirmation of a witness.
(5) Subsections (2) and (3) do not prevent a document that is not duly authenticated from being received in evidence in proceedings under this Act."
After Clause 204, insert the following new clause—


"WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND ADMISSIONS
(1) The provisions mentioned in subsection (2) apply in relation to proceedings under this Act as they apply in relation to proceedings for an offence.
(2) The provisions are—
(a) section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) (proof by written statement in criminal proceedings);
(b) section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) (proof by formal admission in criminal proceedings);
(c) section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (c. 28) (proof by written statement in criminal proceedings);
(d) section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 (proof by formal admission in criminal proceedings).
(3) As applied by subsection (1) in relation to proceedings under this Act, section 10 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (c. 80) and section 2 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 have effect as if—
(a) references to the defendant were to the person whose extradition is sought (or who has been extradited);
(b) references to the prosecutor were to the category 1 or category 2 territory concerned;
(c) references to the trial were to the proceedings under this Act for the purposes of which the admission is made;
(d) references to subsequent criminal proceedings were to subsequent proceedings under this Act."
After Clause 204, insert the following new clause—

30 Oct 2003 : Column 404


"BURDEN AND STANDARD OF PROOF
(1) This section applies if, in proceedings under this Act, a question arises as to burden or standard of proof.
(2) The question must be decided by applying any enactment or rule of law that would apply if the proceedings were proceedings for an offence.
(3) Any enactment or rule of law applied under subsection (2) to proceedings under this Act must be applied as if—
(a) the person whose extradition is sought (or who has been extradited) were accused of an offence;
(b) the category 1 or category 2 territory concerned were the prosecution.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to any express provision of this Act.
(5) In this section "enactment" includes an enactment comprised in, or in an instrument made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament."

On Question, amendments agreed to.

12.30 p.m.

Clause 206 [National security]:

[Amendment No. 304 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 305:


    After Clause 208, insert the following new clause—


"SERVICE OF NOTICES
Service of a notice on a person under section 53, 55, 57, 129, 130 or 131 may be effected in any of these ways—
(a) by delivering the notice to the person;
(b) by leaving it for him with another person at his last known or usual place of abode;
(c) by sending it by post in a letter addressed to him at his last known or usual place of abode."

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 306:


    After Clause 208, insert the following new clause—


"COMPATIBILITY WITH THE CRIME INTERNATIONAL (CO-OPERATION) ACT 2003
The Secretary of State shall certify that the provisions of this Act are compatible with the provisions of the Crime International (Co-operation) Act 2003."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 306 re-tables a new clause which we put forward in Grand Committee. We had a useful debate then about the crossover between the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill and this Bill before your Lordships' House today. Both Bills are progressing through Parliament at the same time. It seems clear that the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill will achieve Royal Assent before the Extradition Bill. The provisions in both Bills are sufficiently close for your Lordships to have concerns about their compatibility.

The Crime (International Co-operation) Bill allows policemen to pursue criminals in this country for up to five hours for the purposes of surveillance. The Extradition Bill allows an arrest warrant to be issued by a foreign authority for the arrest of a criminal who has crossed over into the United Kingdom.

30 Oct 2003 : Column 405

In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, speaking for the Government professed to be puzzled by our amendment. He commented that,


    "Acts of Parliament are necessarily compatible with each other. Any later legislation would amend that which preceded it, were there to be any incompatibility".—[Official Report, 10/9/03; col. GC 36.]

That may be true, but in the circumstances it is misleading. The Minister was talking about compatibility on paper. No Act of Parliament can undermine or reverse another without stating so on the face of the Bill by making the required amendments. We were talking about the interaction of the powers provided by the two Bills in practice. Essentially, it is a question of workability.

My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour spoke about the fact that both Bills are about the same conduct; that is, the pursuit by foreign policemen with a view to the potential arrest of a criminal who has strayed on to our shores. In Grand Committee she asked,


    "can the Government assure us that there is no circumstance in which a person could use the powers in one Bill for the purposes of the other?".

In response, the Minister claimed that he was,


    "not really in the right position",

to answer her concerns, and said that the Government would,


    "reflect on that representation and look very carefully at the matter".—[Official Report, 10/9/03; col. GC 37.]

Encouraged by that positive response, we have therefore tabled the amendment again on Report, to find out how the Minister has considered the point and what response the Government have. I beg to move.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I, too, look forward to the Minister's reply and hope that he will be able to enlighten us on my question to him in Grand Committee.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am happy to do so. I hope that the noble Baroness will already have been enlightened from the contents of the letter I wrote to noble Lords. I am grateful for this opportunity. I hope that I can be brief, as we previously covered these issues when they were raised in some detail.

The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right to say that when the amendment was raised in another place the focus of the debate was a somewhat—if I may say so—fanciful anxiety about foreign police officers coming into this country to make arrests using European arrest warrants. The Bill was amended on Report in another place to make it absolutely clear who can execute a European arrest warrant. I was pleased to note that during our debate on the issue noble Lords opposite accepted unequivocally that foreign police officers will not be carrying out extradition functions in this country. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—and with delight, I quote him—said:


    "It is clear beyond peradventure that the Minister and his colleagues elsewhere in government do not wish non-UK constables to arrest people in this country".—[Official Report, 18/6/03; col. GC 306.]

30 Oct 2003 : Column 406

So I hope that we can all agree that this issue provides no cause for bringing back the amendment.

However, when we discussed the amendment in Grand Committee, as the noble Lord indicated, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, sought an assurance that,


    "there is no circumstance in which a person could use the power in one Bill for the purposes of the other".—[Official Report, 10/9/03; col. GC 37.]

We are able, with great pleasure, to give such an assurance. As I say, that was contained in a letter I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 22nd September, and which I hope was copied to all noble Lords who participated in Grand Committee.

The letter said that,


    "there would be no circumstances in which the powers conferred in one Bill—the Extradition Bill or the Crime (International Co-operation Bill)—"—

which came into being today on achieving Royal Assent—


    "could be used for the purposes of the other Bill".

The letter continued by reiterating the fact that both Bills are compatible and that nothing in the Extradition Bill draws upon powers granted in the C(IC) Bill, nor does the C(IC) Bill use powers under the Extradition Bill. Acts of Parliament are by necessity compatible with each other. Later legislation amends that which precedes it, should there be any incompatibility. The only complication arises when two or more pieces of legislation which cross-refer to each other are passing through Parliament at the same time and it is not known which will receive Royal Assent first.

We shall shortly turn to a government amendment which is designed to deal precisely with that eventuality. I do not want to pre-empt discussion of that amendment, although I should make it clear that it is designed to deal with the overlap between this Bill and the Criminal Justice and Courts Bill rather than the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill. I can assure your Lordships that the two Acts, as we hope they will become, with which the amendment is concerned will be compatible with each other as they will with all other Bills which have been or are being passed through Parliament this Session. I really cannot see that there is any necessity for this amendment or what it would achieve. Having read, most fulsomely I hope, all the reassurances into the record, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page