HL Deb 04 February 2005 vol 669 cc498-501

12.23 p.m.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 13 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint committee].

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can be brief, as I believe that the order does not contain anything particularly difficult or contentious. The Extradition Act 2003 received Royal Assent on 20 November 2003. It underwent intense scrutiny in your Lordships' House and in another place, and I hope that we can avoid going over the arguments of principle today.

We are concerned here with the further secondary legislation required to amend the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003 and Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003. This is in order to include additional member states that did not implement the framework decision on the European arrest warrant when it first came into force, but which have now done so.

The order thus amends the order that designated those member states as category 2 countries and re-designates them as category 1 countries. Only then can we act on European arrest warrants received from those countries. As your Lordships can see, the order mentions only five countries, rather than the six that might be expected. The five countries have confirmed that they have now implemented the necessary legislation to allow them to operate the European arrest warrant.

The only member state yet to implement the framework decision is Italy. I understand that its domestic legislation is still going through its parliamentary process and that it is, at present, unable to confirm when that process might be completed.

As noble Lords can see, the order contains all the remaining countries that acceded to the EU in May last year. There have been concerns in various quarters that those new member states may not have judicial systems that can support the simplified extradition procedure. There is no evidence to support such concerns. All the new member states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights, and we have had extradition relations with them under the European Convention on Extradition. In any event, the European Commission has provided for a three-year transitional period in which it can suspend the operation of the framework decision in any of those states.

The United Kingdom has been operating the European arrest warrant since 1 January 2004, and I am pleased to be able to report that the new procedure is working well. Between the introduction of the European arrest warrant procedure in January last year and the end of January this year, 49 people have been arrested in the UK on European arrest warrants issued by other member states, and 32 people have been arrested on European arrest warrants issued by the United Kingdom. We have surrendered 25 requested people to other member states, and 22 people have been returned to the UK under the new procedure.

On average, subjects of straightforward EAW requests are extradited just over one month after the receipt of the EAW. For example, a person wanted in relation to drug-trafficking offences that included the trafficking of over 120 kilos of synthetic drugs was surrendered to the Netherlands only 13 days after the receipt of a Dutch European arrest warrant. We are also getting people returned to the UK in record time. An individual who failed to appear at Crown Court in October last year was returned in December, only 15 days after his arrest in Spain. It was an important case. The individual was wanted to face charges of conspiracy to supply controlled drugs; failure to surrender to custody; breach of a previous court order; threats to kill; and two offences of affray. He was found guilty in his absence and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment. A warrant for his arrest was issued by the judge who sentenced him on 15 October. Inquiries to trace the subject resulted in the issue of the European arrest warrant, and he was arrested in Spain on 17 November and extradited to the United Kingdom on 2 December 2004. That illustrates, as, I think, noble Lords will agree, that the EAW is proving to be a valuable tool in ensuring that fugitives do not evade justice.

Concerns have properly been raised about the rights of fugitives who are the subject of an EAW. I would like to point out that our courts are not simply rubber-stamping warrants issued by other member states and surrendering individuals to those states without offering them proper safeguards. To date, six EAWs have been refused by the courts. The reasons for refusal have varied, but they included concerns that insufficient information was contained in the warrant or that the conduct listed in the warrant did not meet the definition of an extradition offence under our national law—the Extradition Act 2003—and reasons of double jeopardy.

I have spoken at length about the chief purpose of the order and will now offer a brief explanation of the remainder of its contents. The order adds a provision designating the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, to reflect the terms of the Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders. That means that any request for provisional arrest of a fugitive made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region does not have to include prima facie evidence. That is in line with the provisions in the agreement relating to provisional arrest. However, prima facie evidence must be provided before extradition can go ahead, and the time limit for the receipt of papers from the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region following any provisional arrest will be 60 days.

The order also amends the original order to apply the relevant time limits for Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala and Mexico. It corrects the existing time limits for Chile, Panama and Uruguay in relation to provisional arrest requests in the earlier order. These relate to the time limit within which relevant documents must be received by the judge when a person is arrested under a provisional warrant and were erroneously listed in the original order. The time limits are derived from the bilateral treaties between the United Kingdom and those states.

I invite your Lordships to approve the order. I beg to move.

Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 13 January be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)

Lord Goodhart

My Lords, Article 2 is, in effect, the automatic consequence of the implementation of the European arrest warrant by the states involved, and we have no objection to that.

Article 3 designates Hong Kong for the purposes of Sections 71(4) and 73(5) of the Extradition Act 2003. I have looked at the extradition agreement with Hong Kong and agree that the order reflects the terms of that agreement. Sections 71(4) and 73(5) deal with the evidence or information that is needed for the issue of the arrest warrant. There is no designation under the much more important power of designation under Section 84(7), which would exclude the need for evidence to show a case to answer before extradition can be ordered. The need for such evidence is provided for by Article 7 of the agreement, which remains in force.

Since the return of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the Hong Kong courts have shown a considerable degree of independence and impartiality and we have no objection to Article 3 of the order. Article 4 deals with time limits for the delivery of documents after an arrest; the times are perhaps surprisingly long, in the days when we no longer rely on sailing ships, but I will not press that matter any further.

Therefore, we do not oppose the order, but I cannot refrain from pointing out that this is a missed opportunity to use the order to revoke the designation of the United States under Section 84(7), in the order made in December 2003. The fact that there is no designation of Hong Kong under Section 84(7) highlights the inexcusable decision of the Government to designate the USA under that power. By the designation of the USA under Section 84(7), the Government have deprived those whose extradition to the USA is sought of the right to have evidence against them tested in a UK court before they can be extradited. That is a right to which they are in fact entitled under the extradition treaty ratified in 1976 and still in force. They will be deprived of that right by the new treaty, but that treaty is not yet in force. Indeed, it is being lobbied against in the USA by the American Civil Liberties Union and by Irish-American groups such as the Ancient Order of Hibernians. As a result of the order made in December 2003, the United States, and the United States Senate in particular, now has no incentive to ratify it.

The merits of the new treaty with the USA are themselves very open to question, but it is surely beyond doubt that the rights under the existing treaty should not be withdrawn until the new treaty is ratified and in force. What has happened also strengthens the case made in debate yesterday in your Lordships' House in a very different context for parliamentary scrutiny of draft treaties and parliamentary involvement in the ratification process.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

My Lords, I take it that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, agrees with the order, and I take it that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, does too. He raised an issue that is not in front of us today. I have no intention of rehearsing that argument again; we know that there is a clear difference between us, although I respect the noble Lord's use of parliamentary time to raise the issue again. We take a different view, and I do not believe that it is appropriate today to reopen that debate.

On Question. Motion agreed to.