Clause 55
Policing and Crime Bill
4:30 pm
Vernon Coaker (Minister of State (Policing, Crime & Security), Home Office; Gedling, Labour)
I apologise. I was not trying to be disrespectful to the hon. Gentleman. I take the point he is trying to make that what he has pointed out could be consequential to all of this. That does not alter the fact that it is unnecessary. Nobody disagrees with the point that has been made.
Sir Nicholas, if you remember in the evidence sessions, I was delighted with the inclusion of new section 153D in the Bill. I sometimes go to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and have a good relationship with it. The hon. Gentleman knows that I spend a lot of time defending the need for human rights to be protected in legislation. The Home Office and I have had many fruitful discussions with the JCHR to try to do better with respect to human rights compliance. One reason for this provision is the fact that I—along with the Home Office—am increasingly determined to ensure that human rights provisions are contained explicitly within legislation.
The hon. Gentleman was here this morning when I mentioned that Liberty had said that though some improvements, debates and discussions might be needed—which is what we are having—this is not a titanic battle of principle. This is not necessarily a decision to extradite. It is to return someone pursuant to an undertaking. Any decision to extradite—or any of these matters—has to be compliant with the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. As for the involvement of the courts—to which the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Hornchurch referred—the Secretary of State is accountable to the courts of the land. Although he or she may make the initial judgment, such decisions, as we have seen in the past, can be judicially reviewed. There has to be an undertaking that everything done is consistent with that.
A couple of other points were made by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. The terms of proposed new section 153D make it clear that a person cannot be returned pursuant to a temporary surrender undertaken where to do so would breach the ECHR. It is explicitly there. Whether a return would breach the ECHR would be considered at the moment of return. So any matters arising after extradition to the UK, for example regime change, would be taken into account at that time. Again, some of the things that the hon. Gentleman is pointing out—such as, what happens if this happens—are partly what would be used to inform the decisions made as to whether somebody should be returned. As to the idea of leaving this to the discretion of the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State does not have any discretion when it comes to acting in a way that is ECHR-compliant. She has to act in that way. I became slightly agitated because it is unlawful to do otherwise. This is the point that I was emphatically trying to make to the hon. Gentleman.
As he mentioned, dual criminality is the principle that the crimes for which a person is sought must be offences in both countries for extradition to take place. He will know that there are 32 categories of offence—the most serious cases—for which dual criminality is not needed for a European arrest warrant to be issued. He mentioned the case of Dr. Toben, who was the subject of an EAW request from Germany for holocaust denial and was arrested at Heathrow in October 2008. Germany sought his extradition under the offences in the EAW for which dual criminality does not apply: xenophobia, racism and computer-related crime. The hon. Gentleman will also know that Dr. Toben was ultimately discharged by the courts. The judicial process worked.
The principle of mutual recognition underpins law enforcement instruments within the EU, including the EAW, and key to that is member states’ trust of each others’ legal systems. I have said to his hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield that if the hon. Gentleman became an EU Minister, he would have to be very careful about saying that he did not trust the legal systems of other EU members. One of the conditions of becoming an EU member is having a legal system based on the principles that we all expect. None the less, we do not have to return somebody. The terms of the Extradition Act 2003 make it clear that if there are concerns about the fairness of a court system in a country, section 20 prohibits surrender to another member state.
I ask the Committee to resist amendments 72 and 74. I do not see the need for them and they are unnecessary as compliance with the ECHR is implicit in the Bill. To show that I am not only kind to the main Opposition spokesmen, I will say that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has a point with amendment 73. I hope that he relays this to his colleagues on the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The amendment refers to other international treaties, which should be taken into account when looking at issues of temporary surrender, extradition and so on. In my view, the need to take into account other treaty obligations, for example, the UN refugee convention, is implicit in the terms of the ECHR. However, I will look at what amendment 73 suggests, which is whether the Bill needs to be more explicit about the fact that as well as complying with ECHR regulations and requirements, some other conventions should be adhered to.
Although I was fairly robust on amendments 72 and 74 and the general points about compliance with the ECHR, I hope that the esteemed member of the JCHR will look at what I have said about amendment 73—I am frightened of the JCHR. I think that the hon. Gentleman has an important point about what may need to be in the Bill. Human rights considerations are extremely important to me, which is why the proposed new section is in the Bill. Everything that he is seeking to achieve through amendments 72 and 74 is already achieved through the provisions in the Bill. With those remarks, I ask him to consider withdrawing the amendment.