Police and Justice Bill

I rise to support the new clause that has been tabled by my right hon. and hon. Friends. We can understand why the Government have introduced a new extradition regime. The events of 9/11 are an important political context. I think that we would all agree that extradition laws needed to be updated and speeded up. However, that has been done at the cost of explicit due process, equity and fairness. Many critics of the treaty with the United States quite rightly cite the lack of reciprocity, which we have heard mentioned many times in the Chamber today. They suggest that the treaty is unbalanced, unfair and leaves UK citizens at a great disadvantage compared with US citizens. They are right. Unless the legislation is amended, UK business men and citizens will become increasingly vulnerable to over-zealous and extraterritorial US prosecutors. There is inequity not only in the process, but in the application of the law. It cannot be right that UK citizens alleged to have committed crimes in the United Kingdom, with perhaps the vaguest of links to any criminal activity in the United States, can be extradited without the requirement for prima facie evidence. In many cases, we no longer have physical borders when it comes to white-collar crime. Cybercrime and commercial crime through the internet is increasing. We need to be mindful of that. Nevertheless, cases need to be driven by evidence. Like the UK, the US should be required to provide evidence amounting to probable cause. Instead, the Government have created an extradition regime that has lowered the evidence threshold for the United States authorities alone. They have entered into an agreement that allows the US authorities to use extradition powers that perhaps go far beyond what the Government originally envisaged—to be fair to them. I would like, if I may, to ask the Minister on a point of law whether the 2003 extradition treaty is actually ratified. We know that the 1972 treaty was ratified here in the United Kingdom and in the United States, but the 2003 treaty was ratified in the United Kingdom, but not in the United States. Was the treaty ratified? There are 44 cases involving people who might go to the United States, and I believe that 12 UK citizens have already left the country and gone to the US. If the treaty has not been ratified, is there not a case to say that the Government or the judicial process have acted ultra vires, or beyond their legal powers? There might be a strong case to answer on that, and I would be interested if the great legal minds in the House would like to advise me on the matter either inside or outside the Chamber. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) rightly said in his most excellent speech, there are many friends of the United States on both sides of the House. I declare an interest because my wife is a US citizen. However, we need to move to a position at which there is equity, fairness and reciprocity so that US-UK relations are safeguarded.