House of Commons portcullis
House of Commons
Session 2009 - 10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2010



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: John Cummings
Baldry, Tony (Banbury) (Con)
Blunt, Mr. Crispin (Reigate) (Con)
Burns, Mr. Simon (West Chelmsford) (Con)
Davies, David T. C. (Monmouth) (Con)
Fallon, Mr. Michael (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia (Leicester, West) (Lab)
Hillier, Meg (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department)
Holmes, Paul (Chesterfield) (LD)
Huhne, Chris (Eastleigh) (LD)
Laxton, Mr. Bob (Derby, North) (Lab)
Lazarowicz, Mark (Edinburgh, North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)
McCabe, Steve (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury)
McDonnell, John (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Moon, Mrs. Madeleine (Bridgend) (Lab)
Salter, Martin (Reading, West) (Lab)
Touhig, Mr. Don (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)
Mark Oxborough, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee

Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee

Tuesday 9 March 2010

[John Cummings in the Chair]

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 UK’s 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 UK’s 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 UK’s 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.
The Chair: Order.
Meg Hillier: I have given an answer and the hon. Gentleman will have to be content with that.
Mr. Burns: Or not.
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 clear—I hope that all hon. Members would agree with this—that 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 Government’s 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 Government’s 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 someone’s 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 today’s 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 Libya’s 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 Britain’s interest, it is also in Britain’s 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 Minister’s 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:
“Libya’s human rights record and continuing violations cast a shadow over its improved international diplomatic standing.”
The view is echoed by the US State Department’s most recent annual human rights report. I raise the issues not to rehearse familiar arguments about human rights alone—arguments that can be applied to a regrettably large number of countries, including some with which we have extradition treaties—but 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 Minister’s reply.
4.43 pm
Paul Holmes (Chesterfield) (LD): Any step forward in extradition treaties that tackle international crime is welcome. However, given Libya’s track record—we 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 world—we 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 Libya’s 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 2009—just three months ago—that the UK Government have highlighted the Libyan model as an example of good diplomatic relations. However, the organisation argues that the
“transformation in Libya’s foreign policy has not galvanized an equivalent transformation of Libya’s 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 International’s report said of Libya’s 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 people’s minds about extraditing people to a country such as Libya.
I would appreciate the Minister’s 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 individual’s circumstances?
4.48 pm
 
Contents Continue
House of Commons 
home page Parliament home page House of 
Lords home page search page enquiries ordering index

©Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 10 March 2010