Police and Justice Bill

moved, as an amendment to Motion B, at end to insert, ““but do propose AmendmentNo. 84E as an amendment to Amendment No. 84C: "84E: Leave out lines 47 to 57 and insert—""““3C Paragraphs 3A and 3B shall come into force on the day on which this Act is passed.””" The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have just two brief points to make in response to what the noble Baroness said. First, we are in the same position on the question whether the forum amendment would involve renegotiation of the treaty. As I understand it, she maintains—and I agree—that the United States, not having yet taken the final step of exchange of instruments and ratification could, in theory, decide not to proceed with the exchange of instruments, in which case the treaty would not come into force. On the other hand, if they proceed with the exchange of instruments of ratification, because the forum matter is, as she said, outwith the treaty, the treaty would be perfectly valid without any renegotiation. I understand that to be the position, and I think that that is the answer to the question from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. The Minister’s only other argument is that this would delay extradition. To a slight degree, that must be correct, but it is also true that the real reason why extradition took so long in this country is that, on several occasions under the old procedure, matters had to be referred to the Home Secretary for a decision. There was a judicial review each time the Home Secretary took a decision. This was clearly abused. Under the new procedure, whether or not the forum amendment is accepted, there will be no scope for similar discretionary decisions by the Home Secretary, so the main cause of delay will be excluded. What is left of delay is a price plainly worth paying for justice. I therefore still firmly believe that the forum amendment should be added to the Extradition Act. My immediate thought, on learning of the position of the Conservative party on this issue, was of a poem that many noble Lords will know: "““The grand old Duke of York,""He had ten thousand men,""He marched them up to the top of the hill,""And he marched them down again””." If one substitutes the name of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, for that of the Duke of York, and 200 Peers for 10,000 men, that is exactly the position which the Conservative party is in now. It is not only feeble but positively shameful, and I hope that a number of noble Lords on the Conservative Back Benches will join the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in supporting us in the Division Lobby. In December 2003, we were the first party to battle against what we saw as unjust extradition when we opposed in both Houses the order that gave to the USA the right of extradition without evidence. If, as seems all too probable, that battle is about to come to an end, we will at least have fought it to the last. I beg to move. Moved, as an amendment to Motion B, at end to insert, ““but do propose Amendment No. 84E as an amendment to Amendment No. 84C””.—(Lord Goodhart.) On Question, Whether the said Motion (No. B1) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 96; Not-Contents, 174. On Question, Motion B agreed to.