Extradition Act 2003 (Amendment to Designations) Order 2010

My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for his introduction of this order. The Explanatory Memorandum on the treaty, on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website, describes it as, ""one element in a package of judicial co-operation measures"," which will, ""enhance our ability to work in close co-operation with … Libya on a range of judicial co-operation issues"." There is an obvious question: have we missed out because of the eight-month delay? Are there any consequences from that? I had thought that there was a good deal of coverage of the treaty at the time. My memory may be serving me wrongly, but there has been particular interest in Libya and our relations with that country. Indeed, in preparation for this afternoon, I read an announcementissued by the Ministry of Justice in the summer, at the time of the controversy surrounding Mr al-Megrahi, that the agreement was now in force. Obviously it has not quite noticed either. However, we are where we are and one does not want to spend too much time on criticisms of the administrative problems. Following on from this, is there anyone in this country whose extradition is currently sought by Libya? Is there anyone in Libya whose extradition the UK currently seeks? The central question—the point on which the noble Baroness finished—concerns the safety of extradition to Libya. Amnesty International—which is not permitted to visit—has described this in damning terms and I intend to quote a number of extracts from its most recent report because it is important to put them on the record. The report states: ""Libya’s human rights record and continuing violations cast a shadow over its improved international diplomatic standing. Freedom of expression, association and assembly remained severely restricted in a climate characterized by the repression of dissident voices and the absence of independent human rights NGOs. Refugees, asylum-seekers and migrants continued to be detained indefinitely and ill-treated. At least eight foreign nationals were executed. The legacy of past human rights violations remained unaddressed"." It continues: ""The government did not tolerate criticism or dissent and maintained draconian legislation … political expression and group activity is banned and those who peacefully exercise their rights to freedom of expression and association may face the death penalty. The authorities continued to take action against anyone who openly addressed such taboo topics as Libya’s poor human rights record or the leadership of Mu’ammar al-Gaddafi"." The report refers to the State Security Court, ""whose proceedings do not conform to international fair trial standards … The defendants did not have access to court-appointed counsel outside the courtroom and … were not allowed to appoint counsel of their own choosing"." It further states: ""The right to freedom of association was severely curtailed … The authorities failed to address the long-standing pattern of impunity for perpetrators of gross human rights violations ... There were persistent reports of torture and other ill-treatment of detained migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers"." It refers to the mass expulsions of nationals of various countries and states: ""At least 700 Eritrean men, women and children were detained and were at risk of forcible return despite fears that they would be subjected to serious human rights abuses in Eritrea"." I do not find the report reassuring. I am aware of the provisions of the Extradition Act and the "procedural safeguards"—the term used—in place to protect against extradition in particular circumstances. I have given the Minister notice of my question—although not long notice, I accept—about how this works. Does the court consider the regime in general terms or can it consider only the circumstances of the individual in question? Does the individual have to persuade the court of his vulnerability? To put it another way, what is the presumption, what is the burden, on the individual? I find it difficult to imagine how an individual who is seeking to persuade a court that he is in particular danger because of the human rights attitude of the country which is seeking his extradition can provide evidence of that. I also have a technical question. Am I right in thinking that the order, and the treaty that is the context for it, supersede the memorandum of understanding for protection against torture that this country had with Libya? Does that now apply only to deportation?