Asked by
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to amend the
Extradition Act 2003 to remove the list of Part 1 countries which
can demand extraditions showing no evidence of any prima facie
case to answer.
The Minister of State, Home Office () (Con)
My Lords, the Government have no plans to make extradition
requests from EU countries subject to the prima facie case
requirement. Under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, we
have robust and streamlined extradition arrangements with part 1
countries. These safeguard the individual and the process, and
they enshrine key domestic legislative protections not previously
contained in the European arrest warrant framework decision.
(Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that those arrangements
with EU countries, otherwise known as part 1 countries, are no
longer fully reciprocated? For example, Germany no longer offers
the same facilities in return. Will she confirm that our
arrangement with the United States is wholly unbalanced: it does
not treat us in the same way that we treat it? Why do we hold
justice so cheap that we are willing to send our people abroad
without prima facie evidence of a case, when other civilised
countries sensibly and properly refuse to do the same in
reverse?
(Con)
My noble friend asks a number of questions. On his last, it is
not the case that we send people abroad without prima facie
evidence; the countries that we do not require prima facie
evidence from are EU countries that have signed up to the
convention on extradition. Part 2 countries include the US and
the Five Eyes trusted partners.
(LD)
My Lords, a review of the United Kingdom’s extradition
arrangements, presented to the Home Secretary on 30 September
2011, said:
“We have concluded that the prima facie case requirement should
not be re-introduced in relation to category 1 territories.”
Has anything changed since then to make such a conclusion
invalid?
(Con)
No, it has not. In fact, two reviews were presented, both from
your Lordships’ House: the Baker review and the one by the noble
Lord, .
(Con)
My Lords, further to the Question asked by my noble friend , can the Minister come back
again to the point about the need for total equivalence and
reciprocity with all countries? Can the Minister also tell the
House whether there will be a further parliamentary review of the
Extradition Act and the extradition treaty with the US?
(Con)
My noble friend will know that we regularly review legislation
and, as I have just said to the noble Lord, , there were reviews in both
2011 and 2015 into our arrangements. I say to him and the House
that a prima facie requirement has not existed for over 30 years
for any other Part 1 countries—namely, the EU member states—or
the Part 2 European Convention on Extradition countries. For the
Five Eyes countries in Part 2, it has not existed for nearly 20
years.
(Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for answering what is a really
important Question and for confirming, as I understand it, that
the Government have no plans to amend the Extradition Act 2003.
Can the Minister say a little more about what impact leaving the
European arrest warrant has had on the numbers of criminals
either extradited or subject to possible extradition in the last
18 months—or, indeed, in the months and years to come?
(Con)
The noble Lord will of course know that 2021, last year, was far
from business as usual, given the context of the pandemic, which
impacted both the courts and international travel on both sides.
As anticipated, the calendar year figures for 2021, which are now
out, show a reduction in volumes in relation to arrests in the UK
on incoming extradition warrants from the EU, surrenders from the
UK to the EU, and outgoing requests made by the UK. However, if
noble Lords look at the financial year figures, which run for an
extra three months until March of this year, it reveals an
improving picture: the total number of arrests on incoming
warrants from the EU was directly comparable to the previous
financial year, and surrenders on incoming warrants were, in
fact, up by 30%.
(CB)
My Lords, following on from earlier questions, can the Minister
confirm that it is still the case that people who are claimed to
be guilty of crimes committed in this country can be extradited
to the United States under the unbalanced extradition law we have
with them at the moment? Does the Minister feel that this is a
correct way to treat UK citizens when the US Government take the
line that wire fraud is involved? It is a faulty concept.
(Con)
I say to the noble Baroness that we have in fact refused far more
extradition cases to the US than they have to us by quite a large
margin.
(Lab)
When we left the European Union, our relations with Germany
stopped. Have we negotiated anything as a replacement?
(Con)
The noble Lord goes quite nicely back to one of my noble friend
Lord Moylan’s questions about Germany. Germany is not alone in
not extraditing its own nationals, but we have processes in place
which completely adjust to that fact—it is nothing new and
nothing unusual now.
(Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is there any person in the United Kingdom who is exempt
from the extradition provisions?
(Con)
I know where the noble Lord is leading. I will not comment on
that; I will get him an answer in writing to that.
(Lab Co-op)
In writing?
(Con)
Yes.
