Shadow Minister for Legislative Affairs Mrs. Browne Evans asked about the legal responsibilities involved should a prisoner escape to the United States where she said some police officers have a "shoot first, ask questions later mentality''.

Mrs. Browne Evans also questioned the whether evidence would be made to conform to established rules.

Mr. Barritt responded that the bill merely set out a mechanism for the transfer of evidence and did not in any way transgress the established rules of evidence.

He said that all accused persons should, as far as possible, be made aware of what they face when they are charged and their trial is in another country.

But Mrs. Browne Evans returned to the question of consent again when she questioned a clause which refused a prisoner the right to change their minds once they had already gave their consent to testify against someone else.

Mrs. Browne Evans said that people do change their minds often after they have made statements.

Mr. Edness pointed out that they could change their minds, but only if everyone else agreed that the reason for their decision was a reasonable one.

Moreover, Mr. Edness said this bill also allowed the Minister responsible to monitor the various kinds of substances that are being brought in legitimately.

If these substances were then being used to make illegal drugs, they would then be added to a list which already contains such substances as LSD and amphetamines.

The most heated exchanges, however, were had over the issue of a two-year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine on conviction, for any person convicted on indictment who knowingly provides false information.

Mrs. Browne Evans said the normal procedures in the English system were for their to be a maximum and minimum sentence and fine.

A judge, she argued could then use his/her discretion when passing sentence.

Mrs. Browne Evans said that it made little sense for the Government to have set a two-year prison sentence limit coupled with an unlimited fine.

Furthermore, she said that by setting a two-year prison term, Government had applied a weight to the gravity of the offence but had pushed the decision about the fine into the judge's lap instead of showing the leadership they are supposed to demonstrate as elected officials.

Mr. Barritt responded that with time, a body of jurisprudence will grow and provide guidance for judges.

He pointed out that there will always be problems with maximum and minimum fines and what this bill did was to give the judges absolute discretion.

Mr. Trevor Woolridge (PLP) said that unlimited fines would also present a difficulty for lawyers who, on appeal, wouldn't have a basis for saying that the fine meted out did not suit the crime.

He warned fellow MPs to look further ahead into the future as they debated this legislation and not react solely on the feelings that have been generated by the recent crime wave.

Rev. Woolridge called on Mr. Edness to accept the Mrs. Lois Browne Evans' more than 30 years experience as a lawyer, and to take the concerns she raised more seriously.

Mr. Edness said that given the fervent opposition to some parts of the bill he was going to hold discussions within his own party and with the Attorney General's chambers on those issues.

The bill was passed.