§ 3.20 p.m.
§ Baroness Blatchasked Her Majesty's Government:
When they will amend the Human Rights Act 1998 in order that known terrorists in the United Kingdom who are wanted by other countries may be extradited.
§ The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker)My Lords, the United Kingdom takes its international obligations very seriously. Fulfilling obligations towards its extradition partners does not entail any amendments whatever to the Human Rights Act 1998.
§ Baroness BlatchMy Lords, does the Minister agree that, where a country requests the extradition of a known terrorist from the United Kingdom, and we refuse to extradite on the basis that that country has the death penalty as part of its judicial system, it does not make sense to be more concerned about the human rights of the terrorist than about the protection of our people and the cost to our taxpayers?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, at the moment 10 people are held in extradition custody. They may or may not be sent back once the extradition process is completed. However, as I indicated yesterday, where a country has the death penalty, we will not return anyone to that country unless we receive confirmation that the death penalty will not be exercised. That is perfectly normal. It was the policy of the government of whom the noble Baroness was a Minister. It is acceptable to the United States. It is not a problem. We have not had any difficulties in that respect with countries which have sought extradition. Not many of our extradition partners still retain the death penalty. But that is the position and we do not intend to deviate from it.
§ Lord McNallyMy Lords, does the Minister recall that during the long years of Conservative government, his party and mine campaigned for the incorporation of the European convention into British law? Its passing into law was one of the early successes of this Government. Will he confirm that he sees that Act as part of our integral civil liberties and human rights, and not as a piece of fair weather legislation to be derogated from when the waters get choppy?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Even if we were prepared, after 50 years plus, to pull out completely from the European Convention on Human Rights, simply not having the Human Rights Act here would not alter the law. All it would mean is that British citizens who wished to exercise their rights would have to go through Strasbourg, and it could possibly take years and years for them to get justice. The Human Rights 679 Act did not alter the law in this country or bring any new rights to our citizens. It enabled them to exercise, via the British courts, rights which have existed for more than 50 years.
§ Baroness BuscombeMy Lords, yesterday, in regard to the reluctance of the Government to resort to deportation of terrorists, the Minister said:
the noble Lord is asking me to derogate not only from the European Convention on Human Rights, but in fact to get out of something to which this country has been a signatory under both Governments for over 50 years".—[Official Report, 14/11/01; col. 565.]Will he now confirm that that statement was incorrect? Will he confirm that the European Convention on Human Rights makes no provision restricting, in any way, the right of states to deport alien nationals from their territory? Will he further confirm that, until the Soering case, decided in the court in Strasbourg in 1989, the executive—that is, the Home Secretary—had the power to deport on grounds of national security?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, I shall take advice on this matter. However, I shall stick to the words that I used yesterday in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. I am not aware—again I shall take advice—that we have knowingly extradited anyone in the past without the derogation that they would not receive the death penalty. The Home Secretary has made the Government's policy absolutely clear: he will not allow anyone to be deported who he knows will face torture or the death penalty. That is not to say that we shall not extradite to a country which retains those rights, provided we receive an assurance that the penalty will not be exercised.
As one of the answers I gave yesterday has been quoted by the noble Baroness, I should tell her that, at col. 566 of Hansard, I gave an answer in error to the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. The list of proscribed organisations has not changed since 11th September. I was in error. I was thinking of the Treasury list of organisations which have had their assets frozen. The list remains at 35 organisations.
§ Lord Stoddart of SwindonMy Lords, what would be the position if Osama bin Laden came to this country as an illegal immigrant, was subsequently arrested and the United States demanded his extradition?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, the case would go through due process because we have an extradition treaty with the United States. Provided that all the legal technicalities involved with the warrant from America are completed to the satisfaction of the British courts, and provided that the United States does what it has done in every other case—that is, gives an assurance that the person concerned would face justice but would not be executed—that person could be extradited.
§ Lord RotherwickMy Lords, could not the law be wrong where a terrorist, who may have killed women and children in another country, can gain entry to our country under asylum laws, live in the sanctuary of our country and be paid for by taxpayers?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, if the person is a known terrorist he cannot claim asylum. The asylum convention, under 1F, does not allow known terrorists to claim asylum. If a claim for asylum is found to be false—if the person lied when he came in and we did not have the full facts and information—it can be dealt with subsequently and we can take action in that respect. If the person is in this country and under the jurisdiction of the British courts, irrespective of whatever heinous crimes he may be guilty of, we will not extradite him knowing that he will face execution or torture. That is not to say that he will not be extradited, but we will not take that action. We have to live at a higher level than the terrorist vermin. That is our policy and we shall not change it.
§ Lord Davies of CoityMy Lords, being in complete sympathy with our law on capital punishment, can my noble friend tell the House the extent to which terrorists abroad are committing atrocities and using this country as a haven in the knowledge that they will not be extradited to countries which have capital punishment?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, if I had the information to answer my noble friend we would probably have a few more people locked up. Ten cases are currently going through the extradition process as a result of requests from the USA, France, Spain, Italy and Algeria. I do not know about the policy decisions of our partners, but the policy decisions of this country are absolutely clear. One of the reasons for the proposals in the Anti-terroism Crime and Security Bill, which will come before the House shortly, is to deal with those who abuse the rules and policies of this country, so they will not be free to roam this country.
§ Lord Pearson of RannochMy Lords, is it not a bit much that we cannot extradite Mr Osama bin Laden to the United States of America because he might face the death penalty, whereas British subjects now face the prospect of being arrested, on the say-so of a Belgian magistrate, to stand trial in Brussels, without habeas corpus and without trial by jury? Have we not got things a bit muddled up?
§ Lord RookerMy Lords, there is no death penalty in Belgium; there is no torture in Belgium. The death penalty remains in some states of the United States of America. It is like comparing chalk and cheese.