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

As the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said, the effect of the order is to transfer Italy from Part 2 to Part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, which somewhat accelerates the procedure for extradition. Over the years, there has been a good deal of concern about the notorious delays in procedures in the Italian courts. There used to be, and perhaps still is, a tactic used in some commercial civil cases, known as the ““Italian torpedo””: if one of the parties wanted to delay a decision on a case for as long as possible, the objective was to find some reason for commencing the proceedings in Italy. That was a matter of civil law, but considerable delays are by no means unknown in criminal law. The United Kingdom and Italy both signed up to the European arrest warrant, which we support in principle. The transfer of Italy from Part 2 to Part 1of the Extradition Act simply applies obligations that have already been accepted by both parties. Therefore, this is different from the designation of the USA under Section 84 of the Extradition Act in December 2003, something that I have criticised severely on a number of occasions as not being reciprocal and not being required by any treaty then in force. In this case, the obligations are reciprocal, and they are incorporated in a treaty in the form of the framework decision, which is in force. Therefore, we certainly will not oppose the order. I hope that the Government will press for the adoption of the proposed draft framework decision on minimum standards of procedure, which will help to ensure that rights to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights are satisfied throughout the European Union.