Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for his support. His

12 Nov 2003 : Column 1434

announcement that he would not join me in the Division Lobbies reminds me of Talleyrand's remark that he had heard a speech often that changed his mind, but his vote never.

As regards the issues of translation and bail, I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, for the example that he gave of the plight in which lorry drivers find themselves in many European countries. There are few Members of the House of Commons who do not have constituents who have fallen into such a situation.

The noble Lord referred to Spain being a particular problem. Again, I am deeply disappointed that the Foreign Office is so obdurate about not giving information with regard to British citizens who have been detained in Spain and whether they have been charged or subsequently released without being charged. It is incredible that we can discuss these issues without officials in the Foreign Office being prepared to take off their jackets, do some work and give Parliament answers to questions in the normal way in which other departments have to answer questions. Those in the Foreign Office sometimes believe that they are far too grand to answer questions in Parliament.

The Minister referred—as he and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, have done throughout the passage of the Bill—to the European convention. He quite fairly rehearsed the rights that a person accused in a continental court would have under the convention. Those rights exist but, as regards legal aid and translation facilities, they seem to have had no effect whatever in raising standards. As I said, legal aid does not exist in most Mediterranean countries and translation facilities are not available in France, Portugal and Spain.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I may clarify one point. I have been in correspondence with a former trustee of Fair Trials Abroad about the situation in France, where translation facilities are available but their quality falls short.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, if I recall rightly, Fair Trials Abroad states on its website that in the cases that have come to it—which, of course, are not necessarily typical but are cases that, by definition, have a problem—it has not come across one that came up to the standards required. That is what the noble Lord—I see that he is nodding—will see on the website. Certainly it gives many, many examples.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, if it is as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, says it is and a judge, on the evidence put before him, thinks that that case is made, he will refuse to extradite.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, yes, although what good that will be to a lorry driver who is arrested while driving through Spain, I do not know. I agree that that does not come under the Bill.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, we are talking about extradition. That is what the Bill is about.

Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, I totally accept that. I conceded that in my reply to the Minister.

12 Nov 2003 : Column 1435

However, I am not entirely persuaded that a lorry driver threatened with extradition will be able to challenge on those grounds and will have the assistance of noble and learned Lords from this House. But we shall see.

The Minister also said that we have been extraditing people for 100 years. The conditions under which we have extradited people to continental Europe over 100 years have progressively changed. The prima facie rule, as Ministers have constantly reminded us, disappeared in 1989. That was a big change. We are now in a situation where Ministers are seeking to accelerate the process and to very much reduce the length of time that extradition cases take. As I have observed before, that is likely to mean that there will be more extradition cases.

As the Minister quite rightly pointed out, some countries have not even made requests for extradition because they feared the British system was so lengthy. That has been one of the arguments for the Bill. If correct, it will mean that people on the Continent will be less reluctant to make requests for extradition from this country. So there will be more extradition cases. If there are more extradition cases, and if these are genuine issues—as a number of people have said they are—they will arise again and again.

We have debated this matter several times. I am disappointed with the Minister's reply—although I am grateful, as always, for his courtesy and the information he has given me—but I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]

6.15 p.m.

Clause 72 [Arrest warrant following extradition request]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 21:


    Page 40, line 7, leave out "it appears to the judge" and insert "the judge has reasonable grounds for believing"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 73 [Person arrested under section 72]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 22 to 24:


    Page 41, line 1, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 2 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"


    Page 41, line 9, at end insert—


"(4A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge." Page 41, line 10, leave out "(2) or"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 74 [Provisional warrant]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 25:


    Page 41, line 37, leave out "it appears to him" and insert "he has reasonable grounds for believing"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

12 Nov 2003 : Column 1436

Clause 75 [Person arrested under provisional warrant]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 26 to 28:


    Page 42, line 40, leave out from beginning to first "as" in line 41 and insert "A copy of the warrant must be given to the person"


    Page 43, line 4, at end insert—


"(4A) If subsection (2) is not complied with and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge may order his discharge." Page 43, line 5, leave out "(2) or"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 76 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under section 72]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 29:


    Page 43, line 41, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 77 [Date of extradition hearing: arrest under provisional warrant]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 30:


    Page 44, line 15, leave out "there are exceptional circumstances" and insert "it to be in the interests of justice to do so"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 133 [Return of person to serve remainder of sentence]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 31:


    Page 72, line 18, after "sentence" insert "if and"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 143 [Issue of Part 3 warrant]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 32:


    Page 79, line 10, leave out "is reason to believe" and insert "are reasonable grounds for believing"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 157 [Search and seizure warrants]:

[Amendment No. 33 not moved.]

Clause 163 [Entry and search of premises on arrest]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 34:


    Page 92, line 20, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 165 [Entry and search of premises after arrest]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 35:


    Page 94, line 9, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 173 [Delivery of seized property]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 36 and 37:


    Page 98, line 42, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"


    Page 99, line 13, leave out "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable grounds for believing"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

12 Nov 2003 : Column 1437

Clause 188 [Re-extradition hearing]:

Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 38:


    Page 107, line 30, leave out "the person must be taken to be discharged" and insert "and the person applies to the judge to be discharged, the judge must order his discharge"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief. In moving Amendment No. 38, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 39, both of which stand in the name of my noble friend Lady Scotland of Asthal.

On Report, we removed the various references in the Bill to "taken to be discharged" and instead provided for an automatic right of discharge where the appropriate time limits are breached. I fear we missed one reference to "taken to be discharged" and the amendment seeks to correct that omission.

This is not a resigning matter for either Ministers or officials, but I regret that we did not spot it earlier. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page