§ Lord Monsonasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 12 December (WA 207), whether the European arrest warrant will empower the prosecuting authorities in another European Union state to secure the extradition of a British subject or other United Kingdom resident for allegedly uttering a xenophobic remark (a) on British soil; (b) in a non-European Union state, or (c) on the high seas. [HL2088]
§ Lord RookerThe framework decision on the European arrest warrant provides that a state may refuse to execute a European arrest warrant if the conduct in respect of which extradition is sought occurred outside the requesting state and the requested state does not claim extra territorial jurisdiction over the conduct in question.
We intend to give effect to this provision in the domestic legislation required to implement the European arrest warrant. It will therefore not be possible to secure extradition using the European arrest warrant in the circumstances listed.
§ Lord Pearson of Rannochasked Her Majesty's Government:
Further to the statements by the Lord Privy Seal on 17 December (HL Deb, cols. 39–41) which features of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant they agreed as binding at the Laeken European Council; and which features were left open for possible amendment by national legislatures; and [HL2122]
129WAFurther to the statements by the Lord Privy Seal on 17 December (HL Deb, cols. 39–41), what powers Parliament possesses to amend or reject those features of the European framework decision on the European arrest warrant which they agreed as binding at the Laeken European Council; and [HL2123]
Further to the statements by the Lord Privy Seal on 17 December (HL Deb, cols. 39–41), whether, when they agreed the framework decision on the European arrest warrant at Laeken on 14 December, they were aware that the House of Lord Select Committee on the European Union had written to the Home Office on 13 December to confirm that its scrutiny reserve remained in place; and, if so, what is the status of their commitment not to agree new laws in Brussels which remain under scrutiny by the Select Committee of either House of Parliament. [HL2124]
§ Lord RookerFollowing the Italian Government's statement on 11 December that they could accept the text of the European arrest warrant which emerged from the JHA Council on 6–7 December, COREPER II (Ambassadors) on 12 December noted provisional agreement on the text of the European arrest warrant framework decision contained in document 14867/1/01 COPEN 79 REV 1, subject to the requirement to reconsult the European Parliament and national parliamentary scrutiny reservations from five member states, including the United Kingdom. The Laeken European Council on 14–15 December welcomed this development in paragraphs 17 and 45 of its conclusions.
The Government do not consider that this constitutes an override of the Parliamentary Scrutiny Reserve Resolution. Lord Brabazon's letter of 13 December to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office, Bob Ainsworth, following his appearance before the House of Lord Select Committee on the European Union on 12 December, appears to support this view. The letter states that, "the Decision remains subject to a number of parliamentary scrutiny reserves, including our own. This does not in our view preclude heads of Government at Laeken drawing attention to the substantial progress which has been made on the text and emphasising the importance of the European arrest warrant. As has been said it will be a 'cornerstone' of judicial co-operation".
The text of the European arrest warrant framework decision was not formally submitted to the Laeken European Council, as the annex to the Laeken conclusions makes clear.
The Government understand that the new opinion of the European Parliament may not now be available before February. The Council will need to consider this opinion before it can adopt the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.
Article 34(2)(b) of the Treaty on European Union provides that framework decisions shall be binding upon the member states as to the result to be achieved but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of the form and methods and that they shall not entail 130WA direct effect. Implementing domestic legislation will therefore be required which will need to respect the framework established by the framework decision.
The Government intend to implement the framework decision in its entirety in order to comply with their treaty obligations. This will form part of the Government's wider reform of extradition law and procedures in a Bill to be presented to Parliament shortly.
While the framework decision establishes binding rules in many areas, in some areas it leaves it open to member states to decide whether or not to apply a provision or to take a particular course of action. For example, under Article 2(4) member states may decide whether or not to apply the dual criminality test for offences not covered under Article 2(2). Other parts of the framework decision are designed to be implemented in accordance with national law. For example, Article 13 provides that all decisions relating to the detention of an indvidual should be made "in accordance with the law of the executing Member State". It would be open to national legislatures to amend domestic implementing legislation within the confines of this discretion afforded by the Framework Decision without the member states being in breach of its obligations under the treaty.