Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2013
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2013.
Relevant document: 1st Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)
My Lords, we are concerned here with further secondary legislation required to amend the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003 and the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003.
The background to this order is that it is necessary given the accession of the Republic of Korea to the European Convention on Extradition and the accession of Croatia to the European Union on 1 July 2013, from which time it will operate the European arrest warrant procedure. In addition, this order amends the time allowed for India to provide the necessary documentation following a person’s provisional arrest to reflect the terms of the bilateral extradition treaty in place between the UK and India. Therefore, three separate countries are the focus of this order.
To take these matters in sequence: first, the Republic of Korea is now a party to the European Convention on Extradition. This requires that extradition requests from the Republic of Korea be dealt with under Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, which in turn requires that the Republic of Korea be designated for the purposes of that part. That is what this order does. In addition, in line with the provisions of the ECE, this order ensures that when the Republic of Korea sends an extradition request to the UK, the request need be accompanied only with information—not evidence—which would justify the issue of an arrest warrant in a comparable domestic case.
The second country involved is Croatia, which, as we have already debated, will on 1 July accede to the European Union. We have considered the particular aspects relating to transitional arrangements. From 1 July, EU extraditions to and from Croatia will cease to take place under the ECE and will instead fall under the European arrest warrant procedure, the EAW. It is therefore necessary to redesignate Croatia as a Part 1 territory to ensure that we comply with our obligations under the framework decision on the EAW.
The third amendment relates to our extradition relations with India. The Extradition Act 2003 provides for a procedure known as a provisional arrest, whereby in urgent cases a state can ask for a person to be arrested in advance of sending the full papers making up the extradition request. Section 74 of the Act states that following a person’s provisional arrest, the extradition request must be received by the judge within 45 days, unless a longer period is designated by order. This allows the Secretary of State to provide for a longer period, where necessary, to reflect the terms of a bilateral treaty.
The UK concluded a bilateral extradition treaty with India in 1992, which has been in operation since 1993. Article 12 of the treaty specifies that following a provisional arrest the request should be received within 60 days. The UK considered that extradition with India was governed by the London Scheme for Extradition within the Commonwealth. Accordingly, India was not included in the list of territories in Article 4(2) of SI 2003/3334. However, we subsequently learnt that the Indian authorities regard the bilateral treaty as the vehicle for extradition between our two countries. This order ensures that this is reflected in our legislation by setting out that in the case of India the judge must receive the papers within 65 days of the person’s provisional arrest. This allows for India to provide the request to the Secretary of State within 60 days, as the treaty provides for, and for the Secretary of State to have five days to certify the request and send it to the appropriate judge.
I hope that noble Lords will understand the background to this collection of separate provisions within a single statutory instrument. The various amendments to the order are necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with its particular obligations under the relevant international extradition arrangements. I hope that, given my explanation, the Grand Committee will consider the order favourably.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
My Lords, again I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation, which was helpful. I wish to raise only two points, one of which is a probing question. I listened carefully to what he said on India. I do not think that I am dumb, but I struggled to follow some of the reasons for the provisions. Perhaps it will be easier when I read Hansard.
The justification given in the Explanatory Notes is the one the Minister just gave, which is that the time limit regarding the extradition arrangements with India requires that country,
“to provide these documents to the Secretary of State within 60 days, and then provides a further five days in order to enable the Secretary of State to provide these documents to the appropriate judge”.
My understanding is that the Government are equalising the time allowed for the extradition procedure in the UK with that in India, but I am not clear why it is necessary. The Minister said that the Indian Government understood that to be the position. Are we changing it because there was a misunderstanding in 2003 when it came through? I would have thought that we would want to move to extradition as quickly as possible, and I am not clear whether this is extending or reducing the time made available, because nowhere in the order or the Explanatory Notes could I find what the time was before it was 60 days. Obviously it has been changed to 60 days from something, but I do not know from what. If it is in the Explanatory Notes, I apologise, but I could not find it when I was looking through them. It would be helpful to have that information on why it is coming through now. Has the current timescale, whatever it is, been in place since 2003 or did it exist before that?
I was very pleased to hear the Minister give such a positive explanation for and account of the European arrest warrant, which is something he and I have discussed before. I know the Government are reconsidering this issue, which has caused enormous concern to others in Europe as we extradite through the European arrest warrant and apply for extradition through the European arrest warrant. Can the Minister tell me how many times the UK has used the European arrest warrant for extradition to and from the UK? As the Government are bringing this order forward today, they clearly regard the order and the extension of the European arrest warrant to Croatia as helpful and desirable. Croatia will be subject to the European arrest warrant but, on the other hand, the Government are now considering withdrawing from all the police and justice measures, which include the European arrest warrant.
I welcome the comments the Minister has made today, and I am sure we will come back to those issues. However, it would be helpful if he can give me some background on the numbers—I am happy for him to write to me on that as I would not expect him to have that figure to hand—and also on the position of India and what the number has changed from to 60.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her willingness to support this statutory instrument. If the noble Baroness reads Hansard, she will see that I covered this point but I will repeat it. Section 74 of the 2003 Act, under which we were operating but the Indians were not, states that extradition requests must be received by the judge within 45 days. That is why we have had to change the timings to the original arrangement we had with India under our bilateral treaty.
Baroness Smith of Basildon
If the misunderstanding is between 45 and 60 days, why has it been changed to 60 rather than remained at 45? It would seem more advantageous to the Government if extradition proceedings took place as quickly as possible.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
It is because the bilateral treaty overrides the Commonwealth agreement of 2003. That is the sole reason. The Indian Government have asserted that the Commonwealth treaty does not apply to India as we already had a bilateral treaty in place, which was not overridden. We are not disagreeing with them because it is, after all, a matter of mutual consent, and we wish to see it as such.
In answer to the question about numbers, the Home Secretary said that she would write to Parliament when the figures are available. I will chase this matter with the Home Secretary so that the figures are made available as soon as possible. I hope I have answered the questions. I think that if the noble Baroness reads Hansard, she will see the background of the Indian case.