Legend:Nick Clegg, Deputy Prime MinisterDominic Grieve, Attorney GeneralMichael Howard, former Home SecretaryBoris Johnson, Mayor of LondonJames Brokenshire, Home Office MinisterDavid Heath, Deputy Leader of the CommonsCurrent Senior Ministers voting
UK-US Extradition Treaty12.38 pmMr. Nick Clegg (Sheffield, Hallam) (LD):
I beg to move, That this House do now adjourn.
Leave having been given on Tuesday 11 July under Standing Order No. 24.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing this debate to be held on a matter of tremendousseriousness and urgency. We are all aware that tomorrow morning, three British citizens areto be extradited to the United States on the basis of an unfair, imbalanced treaty that theGovernment negotiated in secret and to which they devoted the most cursory parliamentaryscrutiny imaginable. Although it is too late to alter the fate of the so-called NatWest three,except in terms of pressing for bail, in which we support any efforts that the Government areable to make, it is not too late to abandon that treaty, which is not yet in force in internationallaw, but which we have chosen, inexplicably, to implement unilaterally.We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have objected to the extradition arrangements with theUSA ever since the text of the new treaty was published in May 2003. We spoke and votedagainst the orders implementing our end of the treaty in December 2003. We have tabled aBill in the House to restore the need for prima facie evidence to be provided by US authoritieswhen requesting extradition. We have supported in another place amendments to the Policeand Justice Bill that would suspend our implementation of the treaty. The purpose of thoseparliamentary initiatives has been to prevent serious injustice for those who face extradition tothe USA or may do so in future
—
injustice because the extradition treaty and its enactmentthrough the Extradition Act 2003 is manifestly unfair to British citizens.
Mr. Chris Mullin (Sunderland, South) (Lab):
Several times in the past 24 hours or so, thehon. Gentleman has made the point that parliamentary scrutiny of the measure was minimal,but, in fact, the draft Bill was the subject of a fairly detailed Home Affairs Committee report.The Committee made a number of recommendations, many of which were sympathetic to hispoint of view, and some of which were implemented.
Mr. Clegg:
It is true that the report was published. However, the hon. Gentleman knows thatthe treaty was negotiated in secret and the text was only published two months later
—
a day
before the Whitsun recess, I believe. Then, it was the subject of no more than 90 minutes’
scrutiny in the Committee.
Mr. Mullin
rose
—
Mr. Clegg:
I need to make progress
—
many hon. Members want to speak.
Hon. Members:
Give way!
Mr. Clegg:
We did not see the treaty.
12 July 2006 : Column 1397
Mr. Mullin:
There were many sessions of hearings on the subject
—
many.
Mr. Clegg:
Did the hon. Gentleman see the treaty before the report was published? I thinknot. The full text was published two months later.In recent days, the Government have claimed in strong terms that the treaty is reciprocal
—
aclaim repeated by the Prime Minister today. They say that the arrangements with the UnitedStates are, despite all appearances, reciprocal and equivalent. As my noble Friend LordGoodhart said in another place last night:
“That is simply and totally incorrect.”—
[
Official Report, House of Lords,
11 July2006; Vol. 684, c. 630.]Let me explain. Article 8 of the UK-US extradition treaty sets out the new proceduresbetween the two countries. It states that the requesting country
—
either the United Kingdomor the United States
—
must provide
“a statement of the facts of the offense(s)”.
Then, in paragraph 3(c), an additional burden is placed on the United Kingdom whenrequesting an extradition from the United States. The provision requires:
“for requests to the United States”—
to the United States only
—
“such information as would provide a reasonable basis to believe that the person
sought committed the off
ense for which extradition is requested.”
That fulfils the now well known requirement for “probable cause” for extradition from the
United States, in line with the terms of the US constitution. However, there is no requirementfor any corresponding information for extradition from the United Kingdom.Before the issue hit the headlines, the Government admitted that lack of reciprocity. In aCommittee of the House on 15 December 2003, the hon. Member for Don Valley (CarolineFlint), then a Home Office Minister, said:
“when we make extradition requests to the United States, we will need to submitsufficient evidence to establish ‘probable cause’.”
She acknowledged that that is a lower test than the previous prima facie standard, but addedthat it was
“a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that.”—
[
Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation,
15 December2003; c. 7.]
In another place, on 16 December last year, the noble Baroness Scotland repeated the samesentiment in almost identical terms.
Those admissions of two and a half years ago are in total contrast to the Prime Minister’s
statement to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir MenziesCampbell) last week, that
“it is n
ot true that the United States has a different evidential burden from thiscountry. The probable cause, which is the burden that the United States places oncountries that want to extradite from the United States, is analogous to what we nowprovide under
the Extradition Act 2003.”—
[
Official Report
, 5 July 2006; Vol. 448, c.
807.]The Government cannot have it both ways. The treaty does, as I have explained, placedifferent evidential burdens on the two parties. Either it is not reciprocal, as Ministers haverepeatedly confirmed for months,
12 July 2006 : Column 1398
or
—
miraculously
—it is now reciprocal, in accordance with the Prime Minister’s
pronouncements last week and today.
Mr. Michael Wills (North Swindon) (Lab):
I want to understand the point that the hon.Gentleman is making. He is saying that the treaty between the United States and the UnitedKingdom is asymmetrical. Can he tell us which extradition treaties are exactly symmetrical?
Mr. Clegg:
I know of no other extradition treaty that is as asymmetric as that treaty. All theextradition treaties covered by the Extradition Act 2003, as the hon. Gentleman probablyknows, are almost entirely reciprocal. That is why they are covered by the Council of Europeconvention and the European arrest warrant, which are founded on a symmetrical relationshipbetween the two parties.
Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con):
Would the hon. Gentleman careto tell the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) that the 1972 treaty between theUnited States and the United Kingdom was extremely balanced?
Mr. Clegg:
Indeed. For reasons that seem to have escaped the Prime Minister and othermembers of the Government, it was balanced between the burden of probable cause in theUnited States and the necessity for the US authorities to present prima facie evidence inBritish courts. At the time, that treaty was considered by all legal experts and GovernmentMinisters to be balanced in its application.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Jack Straw):
Not true.
Mr. Clegg:
I accept that the prima facie burden was slightly higher than probable cause, butwe have wildly over-compensated by removing the prima facie burden altogether.To return to the NatWest three, that case is not the be-all and end-all of this debate. It is thetip of the iceberg, and it has highlighted a wider problem
—
the Government signed a lopsidedtreaty that short-changes the interests of British citizens and people under our judicialprotection. It may be the case, as the Prime Minister suggested today, that the extraditedindividuals could have been extradited under the terms of the 1972 treaty. It is perfectly
possible that in initiating extradition proceedings against the NatWest three, the USauthorities presented sufficient evidence to meet the higher hurdles under the 1972 treaty. Thepoint is that we do not know, because under the new provisions, there is no cross-questioningor examination of the substantive evidence that they present. Much more importantly, they are
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
12 July 2006 : Column 1429 for Extradition of Nat West 3: Commons Debate 12 Jul 2006 Annotated
1.1K
Reads
0
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
