---

14 Jan 2002 : Column WA127

Written Answers

Monday, 14th January 2002.

Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group

The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:

What was discussed and what decisions were taken at the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group on 20 December.[HL2182]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Amos): The group issued a strong statement on Zimbabwe and agreed that the situation there constituted a serious and persistent violation of the Commonwealth's political values and the rule of law. CMAG added Zimbabwe to its formal agenda. The group also agreed that Pakistan should remain suspended from the councils of the Commonwealth; Fiji's suspension should be lifted, though Fiji (and Solomon Islands) should remain on the agenda so that CMAG might continue to monitor developments in these two countries; and that The Gambia be dropped from CMAG's agenda now that Decree 89 had been repealed.

A copy of the concluding statement of the meeting has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Firearms Incidents Involving Police Personnel

Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:

What are the scope and extent of the review by the Police Complaints Authority of firearms incidents involving police personnel.[HL1853]

The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Rooker): I refer the noble Baroness to the reply I gave Lord Graham of Edmonton on 20 November, (Official Report, col. WA 123).

Political Asylum

Lord Hylton asked Her Majesty's Government:

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 4 December (WA 115), how many persons seeking political asylum in the United Kingdom have been refused bail since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 came into effect.[HL1877]

Lord Rooker: I regret that the requested information is not held centrally and could be obtained only by examining individual case files at disproportionate cost.

14 Jan 2002 : Column WA128

Firearms Consultative Committee

The Earl of Shrewsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:

Whether it is their intention to extend the life of the Firearms Consultative Committee beyond the current period ordered by Parliament.[HL2057]

Lord Rooker: The Government are currently awaiting publication of the Firearms Consultative Committee's (FCC's) 11th annual report and will consider the future of the committee once this has been received.

The Earl of Shrewsbury asked Her Majesty's Government:

On how many occasions the Firearms Consultative Committee has met during the last two years.[HL2058]

Lord Rooker: The Firearms Consultative Committee has met seven times during the last two years. In addition, there were nine sub-group meetings in which members of the Firearms Consultative Committee (FCC) were involved.

European Arrest Warrant

Lord Monson asked 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 Rooker: The 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 Rannoch asked 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]

14 Jan 2002 : Column WA129

Further 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 Rooker: Following 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

14 Jan 2002 : Column WA130

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.

British Grand Prix

Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:

What further measures they will take to ensure that the Northamptonshire and Thames Valley police forces co-operate to ensure the smooth flow of traffic during the British Grand Prix weekend. [HL2145]

Lord Rooker: I have no reason to believe that co-operation between the forces concerned is other than excellent, although clearly the police are not able to guarantee that there will be no delays to traffic at an event as popular as the British Grand Prix. The smooth flow of traffic at the Silverstone site should however be assisted by the improvements to access, circulation and parking arrangements announced last month by the promoters of this year's event, Octagon Motorsports Ltd. We understand that £10.6 million will be committed to the completion of such improvements before the Grand Prix on 7 July. I will seek confirmation from the two police forces as to the traffic management arrangements once the improvements are completed.

---