Extradition: Mr Manzarpour

– in the House of Lords at 11:00 am on 30 March 2006.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Earl Attlee Earl Attlee Conservative 11:00, 30 March 2006

asked Her Majesty's Government:

For how long and for what reasons Mr Ali Manzarpour, a British-Iranian dual national, has been held in a Polish prison in connection with extradition proceedings to the United States.

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

My Lords, Mr Ali Manzarpour was arrested in Poland on 17 February 2005 under a US-issued international arrest warrant requesting his extradition to the US on charges that he attempted to export a biplane from the United States to Iran via the UK illegally and other items from the US to Iran via Austria illegally.

Photo of Earl Attlee Earl Attlee Conservative

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. Am I correct in my understanding that Mr Manzarpour is not a US citizen and that he has never been to the United States? Does the Minister believe that Mr Manzarpour has contravened any UK, EU or Polish law?

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

My Lords, I can confirm that Mr Manzarpour is not a United States citizen. I do not know whether he has ever visited the United States, so I am not in a position to answer that. With regard to the exports, he had applied to the United Kingdom authorities for a licence to export a light aircraft to Iran, and it was issued on 26 May 2004. The application was circulated for advice to the FCO and to the MoD, as normal, and was considered against published criteria. That is the position, as we understand it. We believe that that is the position in European law, although I understand that some lawyers who are expert in European law may have a different view. The United States believes that there is a founded case. I cannot answer for Polish law, because the case is before Poland's courts at the moment.

Photo of Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart Spokesperson in the Lords (Shadow Lord Chancellor), Constitutional Affairs, Advisory Team On Legal Matters, Cross-Portfolio and Non-Portfolio Responsibilities

My Lords, is this not an example of the US Government's aggressive use of the powers to obtain extradition and of the submission by too many countries—including, in other cases, our own—to those excessive demands?

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

My Lords, the United States has a straightforward ban on exports to Iran, which might be regarded as excessive in the House or elsewhere, but it is at least clear. It is going no further in this case, so far as I can tell, but it is putting these matters into its extradition case in the Polish courts. It is an open-court procedure. The whole argument for and against will be heard and has been heard thus far in the Polish courts.

Photo of Lord Waddington Lord Waddington Conservative

My Lords, is it not correct that, in exporting the goods to Iran from Britain, Mr Manzarpour broke no British law and, if he had remained in Britain, there would have been no question of his being extradited to the United States? If that be correct, why are we not protesting vigorously to the American authorities at their attempt to have Mr Manzarpour sent to America from Poland to stand trial for acts that took place in Britain and that were not contrary to our law?

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

My Lords, I hoped that I had expressed the view in an earlier answer that Mr Manzarpour had gone through the processes and had obtained the permits that he needed lawfully in the United Kingdom. At least one of the items—the biplane—was sourced from the United States. It takes the view that that was in contravention of its law and that is the basis on which it sought the international warrant. I am clear in my own mind that the United States has a right to do so under its law, and it is a matter for the Polish authorities to consider whether they have to comply with the request for extradition.

Photo of Lord Howe of Aberavon Lord Howe of Aberavon Conservative

My Lords, is it not the case that earlier this week the Polish court of appeal quashed the conviction—in doing so, it stated that the conviction was groundless and unacceptable—and that the case is going for retrial? Is it not also the case that Mr Manzarpour has spent more than 12 months in a Polish gaol and has been refused bail even in the present circumstances? Should not the Secretary of State take up the case, as a matter of urgency, with his Polish and American counterparts?

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

My Lords, the appeal court ruled that the case should be sent back to a regional court to be considered again under a new judge. We are monitoring that situation closely and have made clear our continuing interest. It does not appear to me to be uncommon that, in general, cases take a long time to go through the courts in Poland. The facts as the noble and learned Lord has put them are right: for just over 12 months Mr Manzarpour has been in custody and without bail. I understand the proposition that is made. We are taking a close and active interest in the case, and we are looking after the rights of Mr Manzarpour as well as we can.

Photo of Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford Shadow Minister, Foreign Affairs, Deputy Leader, Parliament, Shadow Minister (Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs), Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, over and above that, as the case obviously has political as well as judicial implications, are not my noble friend Lord Waddington and my noble and learned friend Lord Howe entirely right that we should be raising the wider aspects with the United States authorities? Can the Minister assure the House that we are in discussions with the United States about the wider implications, aside from the judicial processes? As the issue is basically about US sanctions on technology to Iran, will the Minister accept a slightly wider question and tell us whether the new UN Security Council proposal—not a resolution—to warn Tehran about its civil nuclear programme could lead to further sanctions, including changes in our own law and the tightening generally of sanctions on Iran?

Photo of Lord Triesman Lord Triesman Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Foreign & Commonwealth Office, Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Foreign and Commonwealth Office)

My Lords, in general—not in this particular case—issues concerning the transfers of technology and when they do or do not comply with United Nations regulations are discussed regularly with the United States. I do not intend to speculate in the House today about whether there will be further sanctions. We are not at that point. We want a discussion in the Security Council about Iran and its current nuclear programme, a matter on which we have exchanged views in the House frequently, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to make those discussions more difficult by speculating on whether sanctions will be the result of them.

Photo of Lord Rooker Lord Rooker Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, Deputy Leader of the House of Lords

My Lords, we must move on. We are well into the eighth minute.

R

More important to keep to time limits then...

Submitted by Robert Naether Continue reading