Police and Justice Bill

That is the argument that I have been trying to rebut, and I am sorry that I have thus far not been able to persuade the right hon. Gentleman of its merits. I will make only one other point, because much of the ground that we have covered has been canvassed before. The response of the Government, unlike that of the right hon. Gentleman, to the arguments that have been put against them has been thoroughly wretched, inconsistent, contradictory and increasingly desperate. Despite the words of Baroness Scotland that are on record, they have refused to acknowledge that there is no reciprocity. Indeed, the Prime Minister is on record as having denied in the House that there was any difference at all in the evidential arrangements applying to this country and to the United States. Sometimes the Government say that there is reciprocity, yet sometimes they say, as the Home Secretary seems to have done, that perhaps there is not reciprocity, but that it does not matter. When it suits Ministers, however, they are only too happy to rely on the importance of reciprocity. On 11 July, Baroness Scotland resisted an Opposition amendment that would have required a judge deciding on extradition to take account of the fact that the United Kingdom authorities had decided not to prosecute—that is the forum argument that we have been discussing—by saying:"““In the interests of justice, the United Kingdom took the view…that extradition could proceed where the person was wanted for conduct committed at least partly in the United Kingdom, providing that the UK had the same jurisdiction to try the conduct if it had occurred outside the UK.””—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 July 2006; Vol. 684, c. 654.]" When it suits the Government, the argument for reciprocity is important, convincing and compelling, but when reciprocity is inconvenient to them, it can be dismissed with a wave of a peremptory hand. The injustice of the present arrangements has been the subject of widespread comment and concern inside and outside the House. In the Financial Times last Wednesday, Sir Martin Jacomb, a former chairman of the Prudential insurance company and a highly respected figure in the business community, drew attention to their unfairness. He said:"““parliament has a duty to safeguard the liberty of the individual against the State and this is a case where it must act quickly.””" I commend his words to the House, and urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to vote accordingly.