Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2010
4.30
pm
The
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Meg
Hillier): I beg to
move,
That
the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003
(Amendment to Designations) Order
2010.
The
Extradition Act 2003 has played a vital role in ensuring that the
UKs extradition relations with countries around the world work
efficiently and effectively. Today, in an effort further to improve
international co-operation, we are seeking to add Libya to the schedule
of territories designated as extradition partners under part 2 of the
Act. If the order is passed, Libya will no longer be a refuge for
international criminals seeking to evade justice. We hope the measure
will go some way towards tackling serious and organised crime
internationally.
We
are concerned with further secondary legislation required to amend the
2003 Act. The measure affects the UKs extradition arrangements
with Libya, and reflects the fact that the UK and Libya signed an
extradition treaty and exchanged instruments of ratification.
Designation of Libya as a category 2 territory will enable the
advantages of the treaty to be given full effect in the UK. The
extradition treaty between the UK and Libya was signed by the then
Foreign Office Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Bill
Rammell), and the Libyan Minister for European Affairs in November
2008. That treaty was one of a package of measures designed to increase
co-operation between the law enforcement agencies of the two
countries.
The
treaty was negotiated as part of a package of judicial co-operation
measures, which also included agreements on mutual legal assistance in
criminal matters, prisoner transfer, and mutual legal assistance in
civil and commercial matters. That package of measures as a whole will
play a vital role in improving judicial co-operation between the UK and
Libya. Importantly, the measures were an integral part of wider
discussions with Libya to improve the UKs diplomatic relations
with the country, which is, of course, a matter that is very much in
the hands of my Foreign Office
colleagues.
The
treaty allows extradition to be requested for any offence that attracts
a maximum penalty of at least 12 months imprisonment
in both the UK and Libya. The evidential requirements set out in the
treaty mean that both the United Kingdom and Libya must provide a prima
facie evidential case against anyone they wish to
extradite.
Mr.
Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): Will the Minister
tell the Committee how the administrative oversight occurred, who was
responsible for it and how it was
discovered?
Meg
Hillier: I can write to the hon. Gentleman to give him
details on that. There are currently no extradition arrangements
between the UK and Libya outside a number of international
conventions.
Mr.
Burns: Will the Minister give
way?
Meg
Hillier: Will the hon. Gentleman let me finish my opening
comments?
Mr.
Burns: The Minister has not answered my
question.
Meg
Hillier: I have given an answer and the hon. Gentleman
will have to be content with
that.
Meg
Hillier: Well, the hon. Gentleman might not be content,
but I have, nevertheless, given an answer. As I was saying, there are
no formal extradition arrangements between the UK and Libya apart from
a number of international conventions to which we are both party. Those
conventions deal with a limited number of specific offences concerning
serious criminal conduct, such as terrorism or drugs
smuggling.
The
introduction of a formal basis for extradition for conduct covered by
the bilateral extradition treaty will lead to a more efficient and
effective extradition process between our two countries. That is
preferable to the ad hoc provisions in domestic extradition law on
which we have had to rely before for many serious crimes, including
rape and murder. Such crimes do not fall under the international
conventions to which I have referred. An advantage of the new
arrangements is that we will improve our ability to achieve justice for
British victims of serious crime. The extradition treaty between the
United Kingdom and Libya will provide both Governments with a sound
framework for future co-operation on a formal
footing.
We
have made it clearI hope that all hon. Members would agree with
thisthat we will not allow criminals to escape justice by
crossing international borders, as I said at the outset. We are
committed to assisting our international partners in doing the same. I
invite hon. Members to consider the order before the Committee, which
will enable us to work closely to ensure that criminals do not evade
justice and that we can extradite people from
Libya.
4.34
pm
Mr.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): It is a delight to serve
under your chairmanship, Mr. Cummings. I am grateful to the
Minister for setting out the Governments reasons for
introducing the order.
Before I
raise a number of detailed issues with the Minister, we should remind
ourselves that the decision to extradite a British citizen to the
jurisdiction of another state should never be taken lightly. In
allowing extradition, it is quite right that a judge should be
satisfied of the evidence and of the likelihood of a fair trial. It is
also important to remember our human rights obligations, and that
applies to any country to which, or from which, we might extradite
someone. When the Minister replies, I would be grateful if she
reassured the Committee on those general principles and on a number of
specific points about the 2009 treaty with Libya and the
order.
As the
Minister told the Committee, the treaty was signed on 17 November 2008
and ratified in 2009. To follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the
Member for West Chelmsford, the Committee is owed an explanation as to
why the order is being laid only now. I am rather surprised that the
question has come as something of a surprise to the Minister, given
that the explanatory memorandum says that the Home Office was not
informed of these matters until 12 January 2010. It is
rather bizarre that the Home Office was unaware that an extradition
agreement was being made between Libya and the United Kingdom, given
that such a development might involve it in some way, not least in
introducing the order. The Home Office appears to have been blissfully
unaware of the treaty until someone woke up to it in
January.
The same
question was posed to Lord Brett when the order was considered in
another place, and he was unable to furnish an explanation of the
nature of the administrative error. Given that period of notice, it is
only right that the Minister, with the benefit of the advice that I
hope that she is about to receive, should furnish the Committee with a
proper explanation. There must be some explanation sitting underneath
what appears before us in the explanatory memorandum. If there is no
explanation whatever, that will not reflect well on the quality of the
administration supporting the
order.
Mr.
Burns: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point. Like
me, he has no doubt read the Governments explanatory
memorandum. Paragraph 7.2 on page 2 says
that
the
instruments of ratification had been exchanged which is why this Order
is being laid before Parliament
now.
That
was after the discovery of the administrative oversight. In the light
of that, is it not quite extraordinary that the Minister has come here
to persuade us to introduce the order without knowing the history
behind that crucial statement, which the Government give in their own
memorandum as the reason for our being here
today?
Mr.
Blunt: My hon. Friend has made his point extremely
effectively, and I wholly agree. I simply reiterate that if one
produces an explanatory memorandum that refers to an administrative
error, it might be an idea to make some explanation of that error
available to members of the Committee. Somewhere, someone in the
Government knows what happened, and it might be nice if Parliament were
informed.
I turn now
to the standard of proof required of category 2 countries in granting
an extradition request. Sections 71(2) and (3), and sections 73(3) and
(4), of the 2003 Act state that the judge must decide whether to issue
a warrant for arrest on the basis of evidence. Will the Minister
confirm that the requirement for Libya remains the presentation of
prima facie evidence? As she will be aware, the Act allows the
designation of countries in a separate category, for which the word
information is substituted for the word
evidence. That relates to sections 71(4), 73(5), 84(7)
and 86(7). Will the Minister confirm that Libya does not have that
designation and that the Government have no plans to alter its
designation to that effect?
There has
been some confusion about the distinction between evidence and
information. I hope that the Minister will welcome the opportunity to
confirm that
the use of evidence as opposed to
information in the wording of the Act is consistent
with the use of evidence in the wording of the
treaty.
On the
question of human rights, the 2003 Act sets out clearly that
extradition can be barred, to quote from the
Act,
by
reason of extraneous considerations if (and only if) it appears
that
the
request for someones
extradition
(though
purporting to be issued on account of the extradition offence) is in
fact issued for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing him on account
of his race, religion, nationality, gender, sexual orientation or
political
opinions.
In
the case of Libya, the Committee would regard those as sensible
safeguards.
The
Minister made it clear that extradition can only take place where it is
in line with the convention rights within the meaning of the Human
Rights Act 1998. Despite those safeguards, and considering
todays order, what specific reassurances can she give to the
Committee in respect of Libya? Our party is supportive of efforts to
improve diplomatic relations with Libya and to reform Libyas
criminal justice system. Is the Minister aware of any discernable
impact that those efforts have had? Does she agree that if an
extradition treaty between the UK and Libya is in Britains
interest, it is also in Britains interest that the human rights
record in Libya improves sufficiently that a British judge will be
prepared to extradite under the terms of the 2003 Act? It has been put
informally to me that those conditions do not apply at present, and in
current conditions, under the instrument that we are considering today,
it would be unlikely that an extradition request from Libya would
succeed. It is extremely important to have the Ministers
assessment of the efficacy of the work that the Committee is doing
today.
There
remain concerns about the fate of political prisoners in Libya. One of
the more prominent cases involves the father of author Hisham Matar,
whose book In a Country of Men was short-listed for the
2009 Man Booker prize. A recent report by Amnesty International
stated:
Libyas
human rights record and continuing violations cast a shadow over its
improved international diplomatic
standing.
The
view is echoed by the US State Departments most recent annual
human rights report. I raise the issues not to rehearse familiar
arguments about human rights alonearguments that can be applied
to a regrettably large number of countries, including some with which
we have extradition treatiesbut to make the point that improved
diplomatic relations between Libya and the UK, of which the treaty and
the order are a signal, need to go hand in hand with an improved human
rights record in Libya.
To conclude,
as we are considering the possibility of extradition between Libya and
the UK, will the Minister say whether progress has been made in
allowing the return to Libya of the Scotland Yard team investigating
the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher? I also want to put on record our
support for the families of IRA victims who are seeking assistance from
the Libyan authorities in their quest for redress, and offer my hopes
that further progress can be made. I look forward to the
Ministers
reply.
4.43
pm
Paul
Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): Any step forward in
extradition treaties that tackle international crime is welcome.
However, given Libyas track recordwe have just been
reminded of an older track record in terms of funding and supporting
the IRA, of shooting a policewoman in London and of wider activities
across the worldwe have to step back and ask some
questions.
Many events
have flowed from the 2007 talks between this country and Libya, which
were about boosting UK trade with Libya. That has happened with some
success. We have had the SAS training Libyan special forces, as it once
trained al-Qaeda and the Khmer Rouge in days gone by. We have had,
allegedly, the al-Megrahi release as a spin-off from those trade talks.
We now have the signing of the extradition treaty on 17 November 2008,
which, as we have heard, was ratified in April 2009. However, the Home
Office was not told about it until January 2010.
As a part 2
designation, there are a number of safeguards that would meet some
concerns about Libyas justice and human rights records.
However, for many people, that certainly does not go far enough. Libya
must provide prima facie evidence rather than just information, as a
part 1 country within the EU would do. However, there must be serious
concerns about a country with such a poor record on human rights. Human
Rights Watch warned in December 2009just three months
agothat the UK Government have highlighted the Libyan model as
an example of good diplomatic relations. However, the organisation
argues that
the
transformation
in Libyas foreign policy has not galvanized an equivalent
transformation of Libyas human rights
record
and
of its internal legal proceedings and processes. In January 2009, Human
Rights Watch called upon Libya to release immediately unjustly detained
prisoners, provide justice to the families of victims of the killings
of 1,200 inmates in 1999 at Abu Salim prison and reform laws that
criminalise free speech and
association.
Amnesty
International, which is not allowed to enter Libya, has reported that
freedom of expression, association and assembly remains severely
restricted in Libya, in a climate characterised by the repression of
dissident voices and the absence of independent human rights
non-governmental organisations. In 2008 at least eight foreign
nationals were executed, and in other Delegated Legislation Committees
on extradition we have talked about extradition to countries that
practise the death penalty, to which this country is opposed. Amnesty
Internationals report said of Libyas state security
court that
the
proceedings
do not conform to international fair trial standards...The
defendants did not have access to court-appointed counsel outside the
courtroom, and...were not allowed to appoint counsel of their
choosing.
I
should declare an interest in that I have probably been a member of
Amnesty International for longer than the 27 years I have been a member
of the Liberal Democrats, or its predecessor
parties.
In
case we think that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch
represent one particular point of view, I point out that even the
United States most recent State Department annual report on
human rights was critical of Libya for torture, arbitrary arrest,
lengthy pre-trial and sometimes incommunicado detention, poor
prison conditions, denial of fair public trial by an independent
judiciary and a lack of judicial recourse for alleged violations. There
must be many doubts in peoples minds about extraditing people
to a country such as
Libya.
I
would appreciate the Ministers response to some specific
questions. What recent human rights concerns or cases has the British
Government highlighted with Libya? The statutory instrument must be
seen as strengthening ties with Libya further, but in January the
Government announced that they would not support that unless assurances
were received about the treatment of those held in detention in the
country, such as Jaballa Matar. What recent assurances has Libya made
to the UK Government in relation to its human rights obligations? As
recently as April 2008, the UK Court of Appeal did not accept
assurances given by Libya that it would respect human rights. Today,
just slightly less than two years later, would the Government be
confident of such an assurance from Libya? If they would be confident,
what has changed, and if not, why are the Government so keen to
implement the extradition
treaty?
Finally,
when a court in this country considers whether to allow extradition, on
the prima facie evidence that has been presented, if the individual
that Libya seeks to extradite wishes to put forward an argument that
their human rights would be abused if they were extradited to the
Libyan legal system, would the court consider general human rights
issues in Libya, which are well documented, or only the specific issues
relating to that individuals
circumstances?
4.48
pm