Extradition Bill – in a Public Bill Committee at 3:30 pm on 9 January 2003.
Division number 8
Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 4 - Person arrested under Part 1 warrant
Division number 9
Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 4 - Person arrested under Part 1 warrant
Anne Begg
Labour, Aberdeen South
With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 19, in
Clause 4, page 3, line 2, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'a High Court'.
No. 22, in
clause 7, page 3, line 32, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'a High Court'.
No. 25, in
clause 7, page 4, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
No. 26, in
clause 7, page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (6).
No. 27, in
clause 7, page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (7).
No. 30, in
clause 9, page 5, line 7, leave out subsections (1), (2) and (3) and insert—
'( ) The judge shall have all the powers of a High Court judge in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and the powers of an equivalent judge in Scotland.'
No. 31, in
clause 10, page 5, line 24, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'a High Court'.
No. 38, in
clause 27, page 11, line 12, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 39, in
clause 27, page 11, line 19, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 46, in
clause 35, page 15, line 24, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 47, in
clause 35, page 15, line 35, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 48, in
clause 37, page 17, line 1, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 51, in
clause 43, page 20, line 17, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 53, in
clause 44, page 21, line 14, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 55, in
clause 51, page 24, line 10, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 58, in
clause 54, page 25, line 27, leave out 'appropriate' and insert 'High Court'.
No. 62, in
clause 57, page 27, line 1, leave out 'the appropriate' and insert 'a High Court'.
No. 66, in
clause 60, page 28, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
No. 67, in
clause 60, page 28, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
Mr Nick Hawkins
Conservative, Surrey Heath
We are talking about only a small number of cases, which we discussed in the previous debate on Clause 3. We believe that there should be senior judicial scrutiny and Intervention, and so tabled amendments Nos. 18 and 19. We also tabled consequential amendments to a raft of other clauses, which I do not need to go through as they are all to the same effect. We hope that the Government will at least consider the Amendment. We suspect that others might make a similar point in Another place, as those with senior judicial experience may have views about the matter, and we believe that there may be several concerns about the way in which the powers are to be used by the ''appropriate'' judge. The appropriate person should be a High Court judge; I need say no more than that.
Alistair Carmichael
Shadow Spokesperson (Energy and Climate Change), Liberal Democrat Spokesperson (Energy and Climate Change)
It falls to me again to make the picky Scottish point. A judge of the High Court is a very different thing in Scotland than he or she is south of the border. The High Court of Justiciary, as it is properly known, is usually referred to in criminal legislation as a court of criminal jurisdiction, whereas I am told that a High Court judge in England and Wales
is a civil court judge. In any event, my recollection from Second Reading, although I cannot lay my hands on the exact section, is that the hearings in Scotland are to be held before the sheriff of Lothian and Borders sitting in Edinburgh, who is not a judge of the High Court or indeed the High Court of Justiciary. The matters are complex, but I doubt it is necessary to take the time of one of the judges of the High Court of Justiciary of which there are only 22 or 23 in Scotland. While I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath point, I do not think it is helpful if these provisions are to be laid, as indeed they must be laid, as a piece of United Kingdom legislation.
Bob Ainsworth
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department
We have simplified the process and yet the Opposition want to elevate the matter, right from the start, to the High Court. They would even have a High Court judge deciding whether the person brought before them was the right one. It gets even more absurd. Currently about 30 per cent. of fugitives consent to their extradition. The Opposition amendments want to make it certain that they can do that only in front of a High Court judge, taking up High Court time even when there is no dispute.
The Bill makes it clear what the judge must consider before he consents to extradition. If the request falls foul of any of the bars to extradition, it must be refused. If the judge decides that there is a risk that the person's human rights could be breached, extradition must be refused. The criteria to be considered are clear and would be the same whether a High Court judge or district judge were considering them.
Terrorist crimes are obviously serious matters but district judges at Bow street magistrates court have dealt with them for a long time. I am confident that they will be able to continue to do so. Their decisions can be challenged in the High Court and, with permission, in the House of Lords.
As I said, there are flaws in the current extradition system but I do not believe that the seniority of the judges that deal with them is as big an issue or that there is any justification for the amendments. I ask the Committee to reject them.
Mr Nick Hawkins
Conservative, Surrey Heath
I did not expect the Minister suddenly to agree to our proposals, but I remind him that we are talking about a new kind of procedure. The European arrest warrant is a major departure. We are talking about a small number of requests each year. It seems appropriate, particularly when some of the problems of extradition cases have taken up the time of the superior courts—we talked this morning about the Pinochet case having to go up to the House of Lords not once but twice—and when we are talking about a massive extension in the law and erosion of our civil liberties, that a High Court judge should consider these matters.
I accept entirely the strictures of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about Scotland, but it would be difficult for me to draft detailed amendments about the difference between the High Court and the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland because I do not have the knowledge. I am glad that there is something called a High Court judge who would be one of 26 or 27 who could consider this. Given that we would be talking
about criminal cases, perhaps it would be appropriate for a High Court of Justiciary criminal judge to consider them north of the border.
Because of the seriousness of the proposed extension of the powers, we felt it important to provide that a High Court judge should examine these cases. We remain of that view and I want to put the matter to a vote.
Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 11.
Division number 10
Adults Abused in Childhood — Clause 4 - Person arrested under Part 1 warrant
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
The House of Commons votes by dividing. Those voting Aye (yes) to any proposition walk through the division lobby to the right of the Speaker and those voting no through the lobby to the left. In each of the lobbies there are desks occupied by Clerks who tick Members' names off division lists as they pass through. Then at the exit doors the Members are counted by two Members acting as tellers. The Speaker calls for a vote by announcing "Clear the Lobbies". In the House of Lords "Clear the Bar" is called. Division Bells ring throughout the building and the police direct all Strangers to leave the vicinity of the Members’ Lobby. They also walk through the public rooms of the House shouting "division". MPs have eight minutes to get to the Division Lobby before the doors are closed. Members make their way to the Chamber, where Whips are on hand to remind the uncertain which way, if any, their party is voting. Meanwhile the Clerks who will take the names of those voting have taken their place at the high tables with the alphabetical lists of MPs' names on which ticks are made to record the vote. When the tellers are ready the counting process begins - the recording of names by the Clerk and the counting of heads by the tellers. When both lobbies have been counted and the figures entered on a card this is given to the Speaker who reads the figures and announces "So the Ayes [or Noes] have it". In the House of Lords the process is the same except that the Lobbies are called the Contents Lobby and the Not Contents Lobby. Unlike many other legislatures, the House of Commons and the House of Lords have not adopted a mechanical or electronic means of voting. This was considered in 1998 but rejected. Divisions rarely take less than ten minutes and those where most Members are voting usually take about fifteen. Further information can be obtained from factsheet P9 at the UK Parliament site.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
During a debate members of the House of Commons traditionally refer to the House of Lords as 'another place' or 'the other place'.
Peers return the gesture when they speak of the Commons in the same way.
This arcane form of address is something the Labour Government has been reviewing as part of its programme to modernise the Houses of Parliament.
An intervention is when the MP making a speech is interrupted by another MP and asked to 'give way' to allow the other MP to intervene on the speech to ask a question or comment on what has just been said.
The Second Reading is the most important stage for a Bill. It is when the main purpose of a Bill is discussed and voted on. If the Bill passes it moves on to the Committee Stage. Further information can be obtained from factsheet L1 on the UK Parliament website.
The house of Lords is the upper chamber of the Houses of Parliament. It is filled with Lords (I.E. Lords, Dukes, Baron/esses, Earls, Marquis/esses, Viscounts, Count/esses, etc.) The Lords consider proposals from the EU or from the commons. They can then reject a bill, accept it, or make amendments. If a bill is rejected, the commons can send it back to the lords for re-discussion. The Lords cannot stop a bill for longer than one parliamentary session. If a bill is accepted, it is forwarded to the Queen, who will then sign it and make it law. If a bill is amended, the amended bill is sent back to the House of Commons for discussion.
The Lords are not elected; they are appointed. Lords can take a "whip", that is to say, they can choose a party to represent. Currently, most Peers are Conservative.
The Opposition are the political parties in the House of Commons other than the largest or Government party. They are called the Opposition because they sit on the benches opposite the Government in the House of Commons Chamber. The largest of the Opposition parties is known as Her Majesty's Opposition. The role of the Official Opposition is to question and scrutinise the work of Government. The Opposition often votes against the Government. In a sense the Official Opposition is the "Government in waiting".
Ministers make up the Government and almost all are members of the House of Lords or the House of Commons. There are three main types of Minister. Departmental Ministers are in charge of Government Departments. The Government is divided into different Departments which have responsibilities for different areas. For example the Treasury is in charge of Government spending. Departmental Ministers in the Cabinet are generally called 'Secretary of State' but some have special titles such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. Ministers of State and Junior Ministers assist the ministers in charge of the department. They normally have responsibility for a particular area within the department and are sometimes given a title that reflects this - for example Minister of Transport.
