Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) (No. 2) Order 2005

rose to move, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) (No. 2) Order 2005. The noble Lord said: I can be brief, as I believe that this does not contain anything difficult or contentious. The Extradition Act 2003 received Royal Assent on 20 November 2003. It underwent fairly intense scrutiny in the House and another place, so I do not propose to go over arguments of principle again today. That is not our job. However, we are concerned with the 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. That will include Italy in the Part 1 order, as it has now transposed the framework decision on the European arrest warrant into its national law. As the Committee will know, Italy is the last remaining EU member state to implement the necessary domestic legislation to allow it to operate the European arrest warrant. All EU member states are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. We have extradition relations with them, previously under the European Convention on Extradition. The United Kingdom has now been operating the European arrest warrant since 1 January 2004. I am pleased to report that the new procedure is working very well. From the introduction of the arrest warrant procedure on 1 January 2004 until 30 June 2005, 110 people were arrested in the UK on European arrest warrants issued by other member states. In other member states, 58 people were arrested on European arrest warrants issued by the United Kingdom. We have surrendered 59 requested persons to other member states, and 42 people have been returned to the United Kingdom under the new arrangements and procedures. Currently, subjects of straightforward European arrest warrant requests are being extradited in both directions, on average within three to four weeks of the person being arrested on an arrest warrant. With the permission of the Committee, I shall illustrate how effective that process has been. NCIS received a request for a Romanian national who had been wanted by the German authorities for a series of armed robberies of jewellery stores and banks in Leipzig in 1996. His accomplice had been convicted, but the subject of the European arrest warrant had escaped and was sought internationally. On 24 March this year, he was stopped at Gatwick airport by the Immigration Service, which discovered Interpol’s interest through its own systems. He was provisionally arrested under Section 5 of the Extradition Act 2003 by the Metropolitan Police and was produced before an appropriate judge within 48 hours. He was surrendered to the German authorities on 14 April to face trial for the robberies. With regard to requests issued by the United Kingdom, our authorities had identified a person as being involved in drug importation, following a seizure at Dover of £19 million worth of heroin, cocaine and cannabis. Subsequent investigations showed that the person played a pivotal role in several importations by transporting the drugs, utilising the haulage company that he owned. He pleaded guilty in court, admitting to involvement in at least nine separate importations and was bailed to await sentencing while the trial of his co-conspirators continued. That person then absconded to Cyprus and was arrested in August 2004 under the European Convention on Extradition. The Cypriot courts refused the request on a technicality. Cyprus was designated as a category 1 country on 27 July 2004, and a European arrest warrant was issued on 4 November. Within a week, the person had been arrested and, despite vigorously contesting the arrest warrant through a series of appeals, he was returned to the United Kingdom on 21 January this year. That person was subsequently sentenced to two terms, one of eight and a half years and one of four years, for conspiracy to import class A and class B drugs respectively. Following a Proceeds of Crime Act hearing, a confiscation order for £339,000 was made in May this year. That illustrates that the European arrest warrant is proving to be a valuable tool in ensuring that fugitives do not evade justice. I accept that concerns have properly been raised about the rights of fugitives who are the subject of a European arrest warrant. I point out that our courts are not simply rubber-stamping warrants issued by other member states and surrendering individuals to those states without offering them proper safeguards. To date, eight European arrest warrants have been refused by the courts. The reasons for refusal have varied and include the view that insufficient information was contained in the warrant or that conduct listed in the warrant did not meet the definition of an extradition offence under the Act; the passage of time; and reasons of double jeopardy. I trust that the Committee will have no objections to the order. The tragic events of 7 July here in London reinforce the need for an effective and simplified extradition process that retains important safeguards to protect an individual who may find themselves the subject of an extradition request. I have outlined the purpose of the order, and I hope that with the explanation that I have provided the Committee will agree the order in due course. I invite the approval of the order. I beg to move. Moved, That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) (No. 2) Order 2005.—(Lord Bassam of Brighton.)