rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I begin by thanking Members from all parts of the House for the wonderfully warm welcome that I have received over the past few days. In many ways it reminds me of joining an aircraft carrier as a midshipman but without being shouted at. I gather that happens later on. It is certainly just as easy to get lost here. I am all too conscious of the unusual circumstances of my appointment, being the first active-list military Minister since the late noble and gallant Field Marshal Earl Alexander of Tunis in the Conservative Administration of the early 1950s, but be assured I am very aware of the duty I owe the House and will do my utmost to fulfil it. I owe so much to this wonderful country and the opportunities it gives to its people.
My father was born deep in the New Forest, the son of a Hampshire farm labourer and later a gamekeeper who died as a result of illness stemming from his injuries sustained serving on the western front with the Royal Artillery during the First World War. As a result, my father was then brought up in South Wales by his Welsh mother who remarried a coal miner. I was born in a police flat on Brixton Hill, my mother’s father being in the Metropolitan Police. He competed for Great Britain in the last London Olympics the year that I was born. At the age of seven months I sailed with my mother by troop ship to Singapore where my father, an Admiralty civil servant, was serving. Thereafter we lived in Devon, Fife, the Thames Valley and Strathclyde. Thus I was educated in both England and Scotland. As you can imagine, this background has given me strong English, Scottish and Welsh connections and I feel I understand what Britishness means. I love my country and its way of life. It is under threat and if I can do anything to strengthen the safety and security of our people while a Minister, then I feel I will have succeeded.
When introduced on Monday, I was aware that my title provoked some interest, not least among the fishing fraternity. For clarity I felt I should explain where Spithead is and I thought I would use the words of the Solent chart book of 1898, which says,
“Spithead may be defined as bounded on the north by the Spit Sand, on the east by the Horse and Dean Sands, on the south by Stourbridge Shoal and Mother Bank, and on the west by West Ryde Middle”.
I hope that is a lot clearer. Probably enough about me, but I enjoy racing keel boats, not too successfully, over and around Spithead and my wife has always made it clear that the two most useless things in a sailboat are an umbrella and a naval officer.
When I accepted the Prime Minister’s offer of employment, I did not expect that my maiden speech would concern the complicated and high-profile area of extradition policy. I have been on a steep learning curve to assimilate the issues we are here to debate and I crave your Lordships’ forbearance. We are concerned here with further secondary legislation, required to amend the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003 and the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003. This instrument affects the United Kingdom’s extradition arrangements with three countries: Algeria, Gibraltar and Bosnia-Herzegovina.
First, the order reflects the fact that the United Kingdom and Algeria signed a bilateral extradition treaty on 11 July 2006 and exchanged instruments of ratification on 25 February 2007. Designation of Algeria as a category 2 territory will bring this treaty into force in the United Kingdom. The extradition treaty between the United Kingdom and Algeria, signed by my right honourable friend, the then Home Secretary, Dr John Reid and the Algerian Justice Minister on 11 July 2006, is one of a package of measures, including a treaty on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters, a treaty on judicial co-operation in civil and commercial matters, an agreement on the circulation of persons and readmission, and an exchange of letters between the former Prime Minister and the President of Algeria which forms the basis of the deportation and assurances procedure.
These measures are designed to increase co-operation between our two countries. The extradition treaty allows extradition to be requested for any offence that attracts a maximum penalty of at least 12 months in the United Kingdom and Algeria. The evidential requirements set out in the treaty mean that both the United Kingdom and Algeria must provide a prima facie evidential case against any person whom they wish to extradite.
There are currently no formal extradition arrangements between the United Kingdom and Algeria outside a number of international conventions to which we are both parties and which deal with a limited number of specific offences mostly associated with terrorism. The introduction of a formal basis for extradition for conduct covered by the United Kingdom-Algeria treaty will lead to a more efficient and effective process for extradition between the two countries. This will be preferable to relying on the ad hoc provisions in domestic extradition law for the many offences, such as murder or rape, that do not fall under the international conventions to which I referred. Indeed, one of the advantages of the new arrangements is that we will improve our ability to achieve justice for British victims of serious crimes. For clarity, I should add that, although deportation and extradition procedures are distinct, the principle of relying on credible assurances should be as applicable to extradition as it has been to deportation. We have already successfully deported individuals to Algeria. The human rights requirements applied by the UK courts that approve deportation are the same requirements that will be applied by the courts in future extradition cases.
Secondly, the order also designates Gibraltar as a category 1 territory, as Gibraltar has implemented its own legislation giving effect in Gibraltar to the streamlined and simplified European arrest warrant. Although Gibraltar is not an EU member state, Article 299.4 of the Treaty on European Union 1993 provides that the treaty applies to,
“the European territories for whose external relations a Member State is responsible”.
In addition, Article 33 of the Council framework decision on the European arrest warrant confirms that these arrangements apply to Gibraltar. Gibraltar has designated the United Kingdom as a state for the purposes of the European arrest warrant, and has incorporated the European arrest warrant into its own legislation. Likewise, the United Kingdom needs to designate Gibraltar as a part 1 territory so that extradition between the UK and Gibraltar can be effected by the European arrest warrant procedure. The order amends the relevant part of the Act accordingly, and ensures that the United Kingdom continues to comply with our obligations under the framework decision. Gibraltar will thus become the 27th territory to which European arrest warrant procedures will apply to extradition arrangements with the United Kingdom.
Thirdly, the House will be aware that the 2006 Statutory Instrument No. 3451 designated Bosnia-Herzegovina as an extradition partner under the European Convention on Extradition. The order reflects that, under that convention, the time limit for requesting a state to submit full extradition papers in support of a request for a provisional arrest is now 40 days as opposed to 60 days. That longer time limit of 60 days was contained in the old United Kingdom-Yugoslavia bilateral extradition treaty, which previously governed the UK’s extradition relations with Bosnia-Herzegovina.
The amendments are necessary to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with its obligations under the relevant international extradition agreements. I hope that, given my explanation, the House will approve the order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24 May be approved. 19th Report from the Statutory Instruments Committee.—(Lord West of Spithead.)
My Lords, to me falls the signal honour of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, on his maiden speech. He has had a glittering career, as I am sure your Lordships are all aware. Following Dartmouth, the noble Lord has served in one capacity or another in no fewer than 14 ships. Most memorably for the noble Lord, and for all of your Lordships, the noble Lord was commanding the frigate “Ardent” on 21 May 1982 in the south Atlantic when she was mortally struck. The noble Lord was the last to abandon his doomed ship, subsequently receiving the Distinguished Service Cross for his gallant conduct and exemplary leadership.
The noble Lord’s career as a staff officer proved as distinguished as it had in battle. He became Commander-in-Chief Fleet in November 2000 and in September 2002, as your Lordships well know, he was appointed First Sea Lord and Chief of the Naval Staff. In 2004, already an admiral, he was appointed Knight Grand Cross of the Most Honourable Order of the Bath.
We are so fortunate to have among us a man of the stature of the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead. Your Lordships’ House is immensely enriched by his arrival. I assure the noble Lord that he will find that Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition are rather more urbane than his opponents in the south Atlantic. Metaphorically speaking, the noble Lord may, from time to time, detect the rattle of small arms fire; but missiles are rarely launched.
The choice of extradition as the subject of the noble Lord’s first speech could not better exhibit the noble Lord’s reputation for courage. A little while ago the Government sought the agreement of your Lordships’ House, under Article 3 of the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003, to remove the obligation on the United States of America to establish a prima facie case in our courts against someone for whom it requested extradition. For motives that your Lordships have never been able to fathom, the right honourable gentleman Mr Blunkett, then Home Secretary, had made this astonishing unilateral concession in a treaty negotiated and signed in private. Not even his Minister of State knew of these events. That was one of those occasions when missiles were fired in your Lordships’ House.
Happily, we are not faced with a similar situation today. Only one of the three treaties merits some words of caution and that concerns Algeria. The Part 2 designation here retains the obligation on the Algerian authorities to make out a prima facie case. However, even if such a case is satisfactorily made out, our obligations under both the European Convention on Human Rights and the International Convention on Torture prohibit us from returning someone to Algeria if there is a real risk of torture.
I am aware that the Government have signed a memorandum of understanding with Algeria about the treatment of deportees and that, previously, in 2004 their Government promulgated a charter for peace and national reconciliation. However, until then Algeria was indisputably engaged in the systematic abuse of human rights. Are the Government carefully monitoring the human rights situation in Algeria and in particular the fate of deportees? Can the noble Lord assure us that no one will be extradited to Algeria if, in the Government’s view, there is a discernibly real risk of torture, and that if they and the individual concerned disagree about the nature of the risk, it will be open to the individual to argue his case in the courts of this country?
It is worth reminding ourselves in this context that the Government’s obligations go beyond the merely diplomatic. Any citizen of this country involved in the enforced return of an individual to a foreign country, whether he knows or ought to know that that person is at real risk of torture, is complicit in the conduct of the delinquent state by virtue of the International Convention on Torture. He is therefore committing an international crime for which he can be prosecuted in his domestic courts or in the International Criminal Court.
My Lords, perhaps I may also from these Benches extend a warm welcome to the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, whose distinguished career has been so eloquently described by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. He joins a very select band in this House of those who have been born into a police family. He should know that I spent my first five years in a police station in north Wales—living there I hasten to say. When the noble Lord described his interest in small boats, I pricked up my ears as the captain of the Lords eight, which lost by one length along the river here a week ago. I see that some members of the team are with us today and I trust that the noble Lord will put himself forward for competition for a place in our boat next year, with a view to gaining our revenge on the Commons.
I have nothing to say on the order regarding Gibraltar and Bosnia-Herzegovina, but I have a great deal to say about extradition to Algeria. We regard the order as hopelessly premature. Existing at the moment is a case in the Court of Appeal involving Mustapha Taleb and others. It was argued in June and the judgment is awaited. The whole point of that judgment is to investigate dangers to people who are either deported or extradited to Algeria. For the Government to bring forward this order at a time when the judgment has not been received is extremely unfortunate.
I also draw attention to the latest Amnesty International report published in May of this year about the conditions in Algeria. It is true that Britain entered into a memorandum of understanding in 2006 and received assurances from the Algerian authorities that returnees would not be tortured or ill treated, but a sine qua non of that understanding was that there would be independent monitoring of that return, which has not happened. Algeria continues to refuse to accept independent monitoring of what goes on in its jails. I should like to know the Government’s response to that.
In its recent report, Amnesty International says:
“Torture continued to be used with impunity. There were persistent reports of torture and other ill-treatment in the custody of the Department for Information and Security (Département du renseignement et de la sécurité, DRS), a military intelligence agency which carries out terrorism-related arrests and investigations. Detainees held in DRS custody said they were beaten, tortured with electric shocks, suspended from the ceiling, and forced to swallow large amounts of dirty water, urine or chemicals. They were held by the DRS in secret locations for up to several months, during which they were denied contact with the outside world, in violation of the law”.
That is the position on torture. On enforced disappearances, thousands of people disappeared between 1993 and 2002. Dozens of court cases have been brought to investigate what has happened to them, but there has been no response from the Algerian Government.
In February 2004, the Algerian Government criminalised free speech about the conduct of the security forces, which means that anybody criticising those forces faces a term of imprisonment of up to 10 years. Victims of human rights abuses and their families, defenders, journalists and trade unionists face a range of other forms of harassment and intimidation. Twenty journalists have been prosecuted for defamation after complaints by police officers. Last September, trumped-up charges were brought against two lawyers, Hassiba Boumerdesi and Amine Sidhoum. Fortunately, in April 2007, that was resolved in their favour. It was an attempt to intimidate and deter them from carrying out human rights work.
The noble Lord referred to a treaty of mutual legal assistance. I was talking this morning with that very well known human rights lawyer, Gareth Peirce, who told me that she has been consistently denied a visa and accreditation by the Bar in Algeria, which would allow her to go to that country. She wants to go because seven or eight people voluntarily returned to Algeria in January, resting their confidence on the agreement reached last year to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, referred. Her information is that at least two of them have been tortured in the way that I described. The rest have been subject to arrest and imprisonment for varying periods by the DRS, the military intelligence agency to which I alluded earlier.
The position is in no way satisfactory. It should be proper to bring forward an order of this kind only when we can be absolutely confident that assurances given by the Algerian Government will be carried out. To do it within months as opposed to years is, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, very premature indeed.
I have brought all these matters forward for your Lordships’ consideration so that it is on the record when, in future cases, applications are made to the courts under human rights legislation to prevent the deportation or extradition of people under the powers which your Lordships are being asked to grant today and those powers are being challenged. This is not the moment to bring forward a measure of this kind.
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for the robust and useful debate and for the friendly way in which it has been conducted. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his kind remarks. I was rather embarrassed by them all, but I thank him very much indeed. I shall try to address all the points; if I do not, I will answer them later in writing.
One has to look at Algeria in a very broad context. In the 1990s, it experienced an unpleasant—almost civil—war. President Bouteflika has tried hard to make major changes. As the noble Lord mentioned, he implemented a charter for peace and national reconciliation in 2004, and it is taken very seriously. There has been a revision of the family code, and torture is now explicitly a criminal offence.
As Algeria has become what I would call a proper member of the world community, it is under threat from extremists, and the al-Qaeda Maghreb branch left over from the terrorist period of the 1990s is conducting attacks. There was a very unpleasant attack in Algeria only yesterday in which eight people were killed by that al-Qaeda group—a splinter group of the group that is threatening stability around the world and our own country. It is also of interest that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has looked at conditions in Algeria and been content to allow people to be extradited.
Extradition is of course prohibited by the express provisions of the Human Rights Act as they apply to the Extradition Act. If there is a real risk of torture, the courts will refuse to grant extradition. I am content that that is in place. Indeed, as I mentioned in my opening speech, we have returned people to Algeria. Safety mechanisms are in place there in terms of consular access and access to our embassy, which means that we can monitor the position to that extent.
The US/UK extradition treaty of 2003, was negotiated under exactly the same rules and according to the normal procedures as all other treaties. The treaty was ratified in 2007 and entered into force on the same day. I believe that there is broad reciprocity, and what is really important is that these steps are in the interests of justice. Given that, I think that it was a good thing to do.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his kind remarks. I am not sure whether I would be that good in an eight, but I am willing to have a go at it. I did do some pulling at Dartmouth—we call it that in the Navy rather than rowing—and I would try my best. Regarding his questions on Mustapha Taleb, the Government’s position remains unchanged: in principle, it is safe to return people to Algeria. The Government believe the same in regard to extradition. It is important to flag up that the extradition legislation contains strong safeguards to prevent abuse of the process. It is not appropriate for me to comment on individual cases currently before our courts.
I hope that I have satisfactorily addressed some of the probing and interesting questions put to me. If there are any questions that I have not been able to answer during my inaugural debate, I hope that noble Lords will understand if I write to them in response afterwards.
On Question, Motion agreed to.