UK-US Extradition Treaty

Of course I accept the Solicitor-General’s words at face value, but I repeat that the term is pejorative and could have been regarded as prejudicial had it been used in relation to a case that was still before a British court. It is extraordinary that it was almost claimed that a prima facie case had been proven against those individuals, despite the fact that no court has had the opportunity properly to examine the evidence and irrespective of the points made by the judge in the initial case. Let me now discuss the general points on which the debate has focused. There is real concern about the asymmetry of the arrangements. That is nothing to do with the fact that the treaty is yet to be ratified—a fact that, to many people in this country, adds insult to injury. Even if the treaty were ratified tomorrow, it would remain an unfair treaty that the Liberal Democrats would oppose. I almost welcome the fact that it has not been ratified, because that might give us the opportunity to renegotiate. The Government have behaved in an extraordinary fashion. First, let us consider ratification. The then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), in a written statement on 31 March 2003—our first opportunity to know about the treaty—said:"““Before the treaty can come into force it needs to be ratified by the United States Senate.””—[Official Report, 31 March 2003; Vol. 402, c. 42WS.]" As a statement of fact, that is true. Before the treaty can come into force, it has to be ratified by the Senate. What he omitted to mention was the fact that the British Government would not bother with bringing the treaty into force, but would instead ensure that its provisions came into force long before the Senate had had even the opportunity to not consider it. It is almost irrelevant whether the treaty is ratified, because the British Government, in an apparent attempt to curry favour with the US Administration, have already enacted all its provisions into our law. Secondly, there is the matter of reciprocity. We have heard what I can only describe as sophistical arguments from the Law Officers and other Ministers about the equivalence of the provisions. I simply cannot reconcile their statements with what was plainly said by Home Office Ministers when we considered the orders made under the 2003 Act. In the Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) stated:"““In contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States, we will need to submit sufficient evidence to establish ''probable cause''. That is a lower test than prima facie but 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 December 2003; c. 7.]" It is impossible to reconcile that with what the Prime Minister said today and what the Law Officers have been saying in both Houses over the past two days. Thirdly, there is the matter of application. We were told explicitly by Ministers that there was a limit to the application of the measures. I challenged that in the Committee, but was told by the hon. Member for Don Valley that"““We do not have such a range of offences involving financial crime. The cases mentioned by the Financial Times—such as price fixing—would not apply. Dual criminality would have to exist.””—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 26.]" That is directly countermanded by the fact that dual criminality was expressed in the form of the catch-all conspiracy to defraud provision, which meant that the individuals in the very case to which attention was drawn in Committee are now subject to extradition proceedings, so I cannot talk about the matter further. Throughout the early stages of the legislation, we heard the refrain that it was all about terrorism. I do not want to dwell on the Conservatives’ position, because I welcome their support today. I utterly respect what the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) said. I agreed with everything he said, which is a rare occurrence indeed. He admitted that the Conservatives had been gullible in believing what the Government said, he acknowledged that mistake and said that he would recommend to his right hon. and hon. Friends that they avoid repeating it. I exempt the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who was a member of the Standing Committee and failed to vote on the draft order, who said"““perhaps the US-UK arrangements are a little less unbalanced than the Liberal Democrat spokesman has suggested””.—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 19.]" Well, he was wrong—they were every bit as unbalanced as I suggested and the right hon. Gentleman has now come to realise the folly of his position. The fact is that it was suggested that the legislation was to deal with big crimes and terrorism, when it was clear that it would apply to every offence that carried a tariff of more than one year’s imprisonment. That was clear to me right from the beginning. We have an imbalance in the evidential requirements. The American authorities have to do little more than establish identity and the grounds for issuing a warrant—a much lower evidential test than anyone else must meet. We know that huge mistakes are made as a result of misidentification. Mr. Derek Bond, a rotary club member from Clifton in Bristol, was arrested in South Africa on the basis of CIA information that he was an international gangster and money launderer. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) was right in Committee when he said:"““However, I ask those who feel tempted or disposed to vote for the orders to wait until a constituent is the subject of extradition proceedings on the basis of identification alone. I am willing to bet my bottom dollar, since we are talking about the US, that they will be beating at the doors of the Minister and the Home Office to say how unfair and unreasonable our provisions are that allow for their constituents to be treated in that way.””—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 15 December 2003; c. 21.]" That is what we have seen today. We should be concerned about the fact that we are dealing with 50 different state jurisdictions, plus the federal jurisdiction. Who knows what applies to Guantanamo Bay? We should be worried about the extra-territorial jurisdiction claimed by the Americans and about retrospectivity. Most of all, we should be concerned that we alone of the 132 states with which the US has bilateral extradition arrangements are willing to allow our citizens to be extradited on the basis of such a low and unequal burden of proof. A Minister acting under duress could not have signed a worse treaty and I object to that supine acquiescence, not because I am anti-American, but because a sovereign power such as Britain should defend the interests of British citizens. We are not a wholly owned subsidiary of the US. I urge the Government, even at this late stage, to consider tabling amendments to the Police and Justice Bill in another place, to consider revisions to the Extradition Act 2003, and to consider renegotiating the treaty. They should not be afraid to abrogate it, because it has been abrogated by the American Senate, which refused to ratify it. Let us deal with a situation that the people of this country recognise as unfair and which, I am pleased to see, the vast majority of hon. Members recognise as unfair, too.