Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2025
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 17 July be approved.
Relevant document: 34th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, we live in an increasingly interconnected world, where crime knows no borders. International co-operation should be promoting justice and we should be helping to try to keep the public safe. That is really important to do. Accordingly, the instrument I bring before your Lordships’ House today will enhance our extradition arrangements and bring compatibility between our domestic and international legal frameworks governing extradition co-operation. The order was welcomed in the House of Commons earlier this month, where all sides of the House were able to support it. I welcome the chance today to probe some issues, following the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
I start by explaining a bit more about what these changes mean. The order amends the designation under the Extradition Act of three states: Chile, Hong Kong and Zimbabwe. I will take each in turn, starting with Chile. Chile’s designation is required as it recently acceded to the 1957 European Convention on Extradition, something that the UK has been a long-standing supporter of. In the light of this change, it is appropriate and necessary that Chile’s designation be amended from a Part 2, category B territory to a Part 2, category A territory. That change means, in effect, that Chilean extradition requests will no longer require the provision of prima facie evidence, streamlining co-operations to reflect the underlying international legal framework that is now in place.
It is worth reflecting that this designation is not simply a matter of administrative convenience. It is a recognition of Chile’s commitment to international legal standards and a reaffirmation of our own dedication to maintaining robust and principled extradition agreements. It will enhance the efficiency of judicial co-operation, reduce unnecessary delays and ensure justice can be pursued swiftly and fairly.
I turn to Hong Kong and its de-designation. As Members will be aware, the UK suspended its extradition treaty with Hong Kong in July 2020. This move was taken in response to the imposition of national security legislation by the Chinese authorities—legislation which was and remains wholly incompatible with the principles underpinning our extradition framework and the rule of law. Since the suspension, there has been no formal treaty framework in place to underpin extradition co-operation with Hong Kong. The order before your Lordships’ House today formalises this reality, removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Act, thereby aligning its status with that of other non-treaty jurisdictions.
I want to be crystal clear about the impact of this legislation, because this goes to the nub of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has brought before the House today. For the avoidance of any doubt, it does not reinstate extradition co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong. It does not create any new powers for government. It does not change any powers of the UK courts to consider extradition requests.
I am aware, obviously, of concerns raised regarding the safety of pro-democracy activists and critics of the Chinese Government who sought refuge in the United Kingdom. I assure your Lordships that we take our responsibilities towards those potentially at risk of persecution extremely seriously, and that our courts remain independent and vigilant in upholding the rights and freedoms of all individuals. This de-designation is a necessary step to accurately reflect the international legal position in domestic law. It protects the integrity of our extradition process and safeguards the rights of those Hong Kongers in the UK who fled political repression. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect on that explanation. My point is that it does not change where we are.
Finally, I turn to Zimbabwe, which the order de-designates. Zimbabwe was originally designated as a Part 2, category B territory on the basis of its participation in the London scheme for extradition within the Commonwealth, which is a multilateral treaty arrangement that underpins co-operation among Commonwealth nations. However, as Members will know, Zimbabwe withdrew formally from the Commonwealth in 2003. As such, the legal foundation for its designation under the Act has since ceased to exist. De-designation now, therefore, is not a reflection of any change in our diplomatic position, but rather a necessary legal correction, given that the current designation is incompatible with the UK’s domestic legal framework and international obligations.
Zimbabwe’s continued designation, if I can be frank with the House, was an oversight which has spanned multiple Governments, and which we are today putting right with this order. More broadly, the issue highlights the potential for a country to remain listed under Part 2, despite the underlying treaty or arrangement no longer being in force. I therefore confirm to the House that measures have now been put in place to strengthen co-ordination between policy, legal and operational teams to ensure that designation status accurately reflects the relevant frameworks in a timely manner, which it did not in the case of Zimbabwe.
To conclude, extradition is a vital tool in our fight against cross-border crime. Offenders should not escape justice by crossing borders. This order ensures that our system remains principled, effective and fit for purpose. I look forward to listening to the noble Baroness, but at this time I commend the order to the House.
Amendment to the Motion
Baroness Brinton
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the Order makes changes to the extradition arrangements with Hong Kong at a time when a fair trial can no longer be guaranteed in Hong Kong due to the National Security Law; further regrets that the Government did not carry out a full consultation, preventing those who will be affected from expressing their views; and in the light of the special responsibilities of the United Kingdom to Hong Kong, calls on the Government to set out robust protections to ensure that no Hong Kongers are extradited for politically motivated purposes.”
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for meeting me to discuss this statutory instrument and my concerns, which are outlined in my amendment to the Motion before your Lordships’ House. As it makes clear, my concerns extend to only one of the three countries specified in the SI—Hong Kong—because of its specific and different status.
The reason for my concerns is that most of the Hong Kongers in the UK are holders of a British national (overseas) passport—an arrangement made after the UK’s 100-year lease of Hong Kong expired in 1997. The UK Government then made BNO arrangements for the people of Hong Kong to confirm the special status and relationship they had for over a century, when they were ruled by the British and felt British. Most importantly, these days they feel that they have a stronger tie to the UK than to China.
In 1997, many Hong Kongers felt that they were being deserted by the UK Government. At the time, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, my former colleague Lord Ashdown and many others said that we must, as a nation, recognise our responsibilities. In the House of Lords we continue to hold successive Governments to this standard.
We are told that the SI in front of us aims to correct an irregularity in relation to the arrangements for extraditing a Hong Konger at the request of China, which have been in place since 2020. As the Minister outlined, Hong Kong is designated under category 2 in Part 2 of the Extradition Act 2003, which requires prima facie evidence to the UK judicial system. In the past, Hong Kong was designated under the UK-Hong Kong extradition treaty of 1997. However, this was suspended in 2020 following the imposition by China of national security legislation containing provisions that, as the Minister said, were incompatible with the treaty. I will put it more bluntly: a fair trial in Hong Kong can no longer be guaranteed.
China’s treatment of those who disagree with it remains completely incompatible with that treaty. Protesters are repeatedly imprisoned, and prisoners who are British, such as Jimmy Lai, are treated very badly and not to a standard that our extradition processes would ever want to support. That is why Hong Kong was given a blanket “no extradition” in 1997.
The Minister says—and I hear him—that there are protections under the new proposals in this SI to look at cases on a case-by-case basis. This means that the Chinese Government could try to call for the extradition of Hong Kongers who may have both British and Chinese nationality.
The other point in relation to Hong Kongers living in the UK is that, in the last few years, there have been many reports to the police of China’s inappropriate behaviour through its agents in the UK. This includes mainland Chinese students physically attacking Hong Kongers in the streets; Hong Kongers having to move house because of threats from China; and Hong Kongers not using social media because China will use that to harass and intimidate them. This is the behaviour of a country that might try to submit extradition demands purely to get at Hong Kongers with BNO passports whom it might wish to pressure further.
I am very grateful to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, whose 34th report, published on 11 September, quoted Hugo Keith KC stating that
“it looks like the government is seeking to reverse, through a sleight of hand, the practical consequences of suspending the [UK-Hong Kong] treaty”.
In that same report, the Government responded by saying that much of that reporting is false. I am grateful for the Minister explaining earlier why he believes that to be the case, but there has been no direct explanation to our Hong Konger community here in the UK. Those people need to understand why China might not behave in the way that I have outlined and why the change in designation will give them the full protection that they need.
As I understand it, the argument runs that protection is there for extradition on a case-by-case basis, but how can that protect targeted individuals if the application itself is spurious? Once commenced, a request for extradition would cause significant anxiety to the individual concerned and their family, both here and in Hong Kong, not to mention incurring legal costs, none of which would have happened under the blanket refusal that we had before. Is it worth moving to this case-by-case basis when Foreign Office Ministers repeatedly call out China for its egregious treatment of those who disagree with it—not just Hong Kong?
In paragraph 10 of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report, the Home Office noted that this brings Hong Kong into line with other non-treaty partners under the Extradition Act 2003. Can the Minister tell your Lordships’ House how many other countries with non-treaty partners have residents with British or British national (overseas) passports, because of our historic responsibility for them for well over 100 years?
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, for their contributions. While we on this side do not believe a regret amendment is necessary, I thank her for bringing to light the plight of Hong Kongers. As has already been mentioned, the case of Jimmy Lai ever serves as a reminder of how people’s freedoms continue to be curtailed.
The removal of Zimbabwe from the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003 is certainly not controversial. It unfortunately left the Commonwealth in 2003, and as such has not been party to the London scheme for extradition in the Commonwealth since that date. As the Minister has already quite correctly mentioned, the fact that Zimbabwe has not since been de-designated represents nothing more than an oversight, and it is right that the Government are correcting that. Similarly, it is welcome that the Government are designating Chile in this order, following their accession to the 1957 extradition convention.
The final change—the change targeted in the Liberal Democrats’ regret amendment—is the removal of Hong Kong from Article 2 of the 2003 order. This reflects the fact that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020 following the national security law and the crackdown on pro-democracy activists by the authoritarian communist regime in China. Since the treaty is suspended, there is currently no formal framework for extradition between the UK and Hong Kong, and that is right: we should not be under an obligation to extradite anyone to a state with the kind of repressive laws we now see in place in Hong Kong. The removal of the designation does not represent any change in our policy, therefore; it simply formalises the position that there is now no extradition treaty in force between the UK and Hong Kong. I completely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, that the rights of Hong Kongers must be protected, but I do not believe this draft order will do anything to detriment them. They will not be at any more risk of extradition than before.
I have one question for the Minister. Give that Hong Kong will now be treated the same as all other non-treaty states under the Extradition Act, requests will be made and assessed on a case-by-case basis. I am grateful for the Minister’s comments in his opening remarks, but I ask again: can the Government absolutely assure the House that they will not co-operate with the authorities in Hong Kong regarding the extradition of Hong Kongers, so that we are never complicit in the subjugation of Hong Kongers by the Chinese Communist Party?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for the very broad support that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, has given for the order. Essentially, the speakers today have agreed that the measures regarding Zimbabwe and Chile are necessary, right and proper; the only queries we have had relate to Hong Kong, so I will park Chile and Zimbabwe and concentrate precisely on Hong Kong in winding up.
I hope I have given the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, a very clear assurance in my opening remarks, but, for the avoidance of doubt, this instrument does not place any new obligations on the UK Government to seek extradition from these countries or, indeed, to accept extradition from them, particularly in relation to Hong Kong. It also does not change any of the powers available to the UK courts to consider any extradition request on its individual merits; it does not impact on the power of UK judges to bar extradition; and, particularly in relation to Hong Kong, it does not revive the suspended treaty, and nor does it create any new powers. On the contrary, as the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, recognised, it formally recognises the suspension by removing Hong Kong’s designation under the Extradition Act 2003.
On the specific question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Davies, requests will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I cannot guarantee that no extradition will ever take place, for the reasons we have said, but it will be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and will not be automatic. We remain steadfast in our commitment to protecting those who have sought refuge here; importantly, no individual will be extradited where there is a risk of persecution. I hope that satisfies the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton.
The British national (overseas) route for Hong Kongers is a historic and moral commitment. Those with BNO status and their eligible family members can apply to come to the UK. Since that route has opened, close to 225,000 visas have been granted to Hong Kongers.
I hope that today’s debate and the comments I have made give reassurance. If I may, I will take away the detailed questions the noble Baroness has asked, but I hope that that is a general reassurance. I will also look at what we can do over and above this debate to ensure that we give notice of the impact of all three orders, so that that is widely known by those who may be impacted, and that some reassurance is given.
Baroness Lawlor (Con)
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, very much for describing things so well. Notwithstanding all the assurances the Minister is giving, is there not still a danger that the People’s Republic of China can put pressure on the UK Government for extraditions, through trade diplomacy or elsewhere, and that we have no way of knowing or checking what the evidence is?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
As I have said, we are regularising the situation with the legislation before the House today. The position is that there can be case-by-case basis issues, but I have been very clear that the UK Government will act against persecution and that we recognise the rights of Hong Kongers, including in the United Kingdom, to enjoy and live a fruitful and free life without persecution.
I hope that that gives the noble Baroness assurance, but she will understand that, obviously, I cannot give a complete 100% assurance on all occasions, because there may be cases where extradition for both parties is the right thing to do. It is on a case-by-case basis, not an automatic decision, and it will be dealt with on a judicial basis as well.
The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has asked me again whether I will meet with her and with the noble Lord, Lord Alton—to whom I again send my best wishes for a speedy recovery—and I will happily do that and meet with a small representative group. If I personally cannot do it, I will make sure that another Minister in the department does so, because we have the immigration Bill, the Crime and Policing Bill and several others in November. If there is a need for a speedy meeting, we will arrange for a Minister in the Home Office to meet with the noble Baroness.
With those comments, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her regret amendment and that the House will agree the order, which I believe is sensible and proportionate.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all the speakers. I thank the Minister for repeating the strong, hard processes that he believes are in place to protect Hong Kongers. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, for agreeing that Hong Kongers need very specific protection, and for the question on whether the UK would entertain or support an application from China for extradition; the Minister’s response on that was also helpful. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness for talking about indirect influence on the Government, which continues to remain a concern for us—as I am sure it is for the Minister as well—so I am grateful for his response.
The reason I tabled the regret amendment was about the difference between hard processes and soft power. Hong Kongers remain concerned that they will be further under threat, and I am grateful for the hard processes that the Minister has given. I am also grateful for the promise of a meeting, because I think that will help people within the community to feel that their concerns are being listened to and that they will know where to go if there is a concern about China pressing for extradition from the UK in the future. On that basis, I beg to withdraw my regret amendment.