HC Deb 04 April 1967 vol 744 cc142-4
Mr. Taverne

I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in page 12, line 25, after 'effect', to insert: '(except for purposes of the references to the United Kingdom in section 3)'. The effect of this Amendment is to base the operation of the double criminality rule provided under Clause 3(1,c) on the law of England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not on the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.

There was some debate in Committee about whether or not one should restrict it to the law of England. It was felt by the Government that, since these proceedings may be brought in a Scottish court, it would seem absurd to have a double criminality rule which prevented a Scotsman being returned for something although it was an offence against the law of Scotland. Therefore, it would seem desirable to have the law of England and Scotland and, since I stand in fear of being accused of discrimination against Northern Ireland, which was a charge made once or twice in Committee by hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies, we felt that Northern Ireland law should also be had regard to. On the other hand, clearly it would be inconvenient to have to find out what would be the law of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, and those, therefore are excluded.

As for the law of Scotland and Northern Ireland, in practice this will not lead to many difficulties, because there are no substantial differences in the law of the different parts of the United Kingdom over the range of offences specified in the first Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Taverne

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

I suspect that everything which should have been said about the Bill has been said by now. Substantially, it represents the scheme which was agreed at the Commonwealth Law Ministers' Conference. As far as we are aware, the principles which were there established have been accepted or certainly have not been found unacceptable by the different parts of the Commonwealth. It was then agreed that the Law Ministers would recommend it to their respective Governments and, as far as I know, no objections have been raised.

I am glad that we have been able to enact legislation speedily in this country, and I must say how much we appreciate the assistance and the constructive criticisms which right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have made in the course of the passage of the Bill. It shows that the United Kingdom is concerned to implement the scheme agreed by the Law Ministers, and I hope that it will encourage other Commonwealth Governments to follow the example of Australia and Nigeria also, and that soon there will be a uniform code throughout the Commonwealth.

8.40 p.m.

Sir J. Hobson

I do not intend to take up much time with further debate on this Bill. We had a very good debate on many points on Second Reading and in Committee. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for the thanks expressed by him, and we from our side thank him for his assistance to the House and to the Committee at every stage of the Bill in explaining the provisions and advancing the arguments so carefully and clearly, even if we did not always find ourselves in agreement with him.

I will not, even at this stage, conceal that I am not entirely happy about the Bill. The whole basis on which it proceeds is that one ought to deal with fugitive offenders between this country and the Commonwealth on precisely the same basis as one deals with fugitive offenders between this country and all foreign countries, however distant and remote they may be. I have always taken the view, and I hope I have expressed it throughout the proceedings on the Bill, that the relationship between this country and the Commonwealth ought to be of a special nature, and one of the features of a close association between states is the desire to assist each other in the administration of justice.

To the extent that for this purpose we are putting the Commonwealth on a basis of equality with all other foreign countries instead of giving it a special position, is, I consider, a diminution of that special relationship between this country and the Commonwealth. However, we have been through all the arguments in favour of the Bill at every stage, and I do not think that it would be tolerable or useful to add anything further.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.