| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman is right. Other distinguished American lawyers have repeatedly made similar points. They cannot believe that this country so readily agreed to such a one-sided set of arrangements.
The Solicitor-General referred rather contemptuously to what he described as a “fracas” that I had with the President of the United States when I was Leader of the Opposition. It is true that I had a disagreement with the President of the United States, but the Solicitor-General appears to believe that there is something dishonourable or embarrassing about taking a view different from that of the President of the United States. The difference between him and me is that I do not believe that to maintain good relations between this country and the United States, it is necessary for the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to be a poodle of the President of the United States.
The case that has given rise to the debate and the widespread concern behind it involves three British subjects who are accused of a crime committed in this country, largely against their British employers, who do not wish to press charges. The prosecuting authorities in this country do not wish to press charges, either. My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General referred to article 7.1 of the European convention on extradition—the forum clause, which obliges the court to take account of the matters that I described. If it had been incorporated in the 2003 Act, as it is in the extradition arrangements between the Irish Republic and the United States, it is at least open to question—I put it no more strongly; we cannot know the outcome—whether those men would have been extradited.
It would surely be an affront to our standards of justice and everything that the House should defend if those men found themselves in a Texas jail for up to two years before even having the opportunity to answer the charges against them.
The Solicitor-General: I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman the same opportunity as I gave the shadow Attorney-General to explain why, if the forum clause is so important, the Conservative Government decided not to include it in their 1989 legislation.
Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) answered that point. The circumstances were different—it was necessary to establish a prima facie case, and the Home Secretary had a residual discretion to refuse extradition.
Perhaps
I can deal with the other question that the Solicitor-General and the
Leader of the House posed about why my party abstained and did not
oppose the arrangements when they came before the House. With the
benefit of hindsight I wish that we had not
abstained, but the Solicitor-General and the Leader of the House appear
to contend that we should have known better than to rely on assurances
from members of the Government. They are right: we should have known
better. Next time they ask us to rely on assurances from their
colleagues, I have no doubt that my Front-Bench colleagues will
remember their words today.
Mr. Redwood: The expertise of my right hon. and learned Friend on such matters is renowned and he is making a powerful case. However, is not the crucial point the fact that there is no charge pending and apparently no intention of charging those people in Britain, where the alleged events took place? That shows how supine the Government are. They will not stand up for innocent British citizens against the arbitrary use of power elsewhere.
Mr. Howard: My right hon. Friend is right. The Solicitor-General appeared to regard it as important that several potential witnesses were in the United States. He has apparently overlooked the invention of the aeroplane and the possibility of bringing people from the United States, as frequently happens, to give evidence in this country’s courts. There is no reason why that should present difficulties.
The Prime Minister referred to the assurances that have been given about bail. The hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) asked about that earlier in the debate. It has been said that the United States prosecuting authorities will not oppose bail if the three men comply with “appropriate conditions”—I believe that I have quoted the Prime Minister correctly. What are appropriate conditions? The American courts will determine them, and we have no reason to suppose that they will depart from their precedents for what conditions are regarded as appropriate. Indeed, it would be extraordinary if they did so. We know that it is customary for American courts to demand the posting of a high value bond and to set onerous conditions before bail is granted.
I fear that, in the light of what has been said this afternoon, we will not be so easily taken in by the Prime Minister’s assurances. It behoves us in future to be considerably more sceptical about assurances from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government.
Mr. Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD): The Prime Minister’s efforts in connection with bail highlight the inadequacies of the arrangements. If we could have confidence in the treaty and if it was founded on the principles of justice, we would not have to witness the spectacle of Law Officers running around trying to procure bail on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Howard: I agree. It is not too late to avert the injustice that we all fear.
The
Solicitor-General: I am grateful to the right hon. and
learned Gentleman for giving way twice. I want to
refer to my earlier point. He gave me an answer that he may wish to
reconsider. He said that he and the Conservative Government did not
include a forum clause in the protections in the Extradition Act 1989
because of a requirement for a prima facie case. However, the 1989 Act
incorporated the provisions of the European convention, the key
provision of which was the removal of the requirement for a prima facie
case. It does not therefore make sense to claim that there was a
requirement for a prima facie case. The 1989 Act removed that
requirement in relation to European
countries.
Mr. Howard: I was not in the Home Office in 1989, and I therefore had nothing to do with the Act. However, the point that I made to the Solicitor-General when he referred to other European countries is relevant. Our arrangements with other European countries are entirely reciprocal. We are considering our arrangements with the United States. The point has been made repeatedly and clearly in the debate that the arrangements with the United States are not reciprocal.
It is not too late for the injustice to be averted. It would be perfectly possible for the Government to introduce emergency legislation to remove the United States from the list of countries designated in the Extradition Act 2003. It would not take long. It could be done in an hour in the House and an hour in the other place. The Government should take that action without delay.
2.29 pm
Mr. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): May I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing this emergency debate to take place?
I submitted a petition to the previous Home Secretary in October last year. It was signed by 18,000 people who wanted to express concern about a constituent of mine. I realise that this debate has been allowed because of the concern felt by parliamentarians, the business community and ordinary lay citizens about the case of the so-called NatWest three who, under the terms of the UK-US extradition treaty, will board a plane for Texas tomorrow. I fully understand the huge amount of publicity that that case has generated, with or without a PR company, but I want to speak on behalf of my constituent. He faces extradition to the US, but he has not garnered the same amount of publicity in the mainstream or financial press. He is not photogenic, middle class or white, but it is important that I put on record my constituent’s concerns about his treatment.
Babar Ahmad is of a similar age to me and, like me, he was born and raised in Tooting. I have known him on and off for the past 12 or 13 years. Other hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), have spoken about the NatWest three facing two years of custody in Texas, but Babar Ahmad has already spent two years in custody in this country, in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons.
Some
Opposition Members have explained their abstention in the vote on the
treaty on the grounds that
they thought that it applied only to terrorists. They have said that
they did not realise that it would involve bankers being sent to
America. That presents a problem for the people who have signed the
petition about Babar Ahmad, and it is one reason why some of us have
expressed concern that there are parallel judicial systems in this
country—one for so-called terrorists, and another for so-called
ordinary criminals. Like the NatWest three, Babar Ahmad should be
presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Moreover, he is in fact
innocent, as I shall explain
later.
I want to describe Babar’s background, as it is worth putting that on record. He is known locally in Tooting as a caring and helpful member of our community. He has worked with people of all ages—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must advise the hon. Gentleman that this case is sub judice and that therefore he cannot continue to refer to it.
Mr. Khan: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The case is sub judice, as it comes before the High Court this week, so I shall not refer to it. Instead, I shall concentrate on the general matters of principle arising out of the extradition treaty.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be clear that he cannot refer in any way to a case that is before the High Court at the present time. He can talk only on the general subject of the extradition treaty, and must make no reference to that particular case.
Mr. Khan: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
None of us can say, with our hands on our hearts, whether the three people facing extradition to the US at present are innocent or not, but it is clear that the British police and the Serious Fraud Office have decided not to charge or prosecute them in the UK. The Crown Prosecution Service has done the same thing, where it has been the appropriate prosecuting authority. To me, that is a good indication of innocence, but the more important question has to do with principle and perceived injustice.
People who are subject to extradition say that they are happy to face the music here in the UK. Other hon. Members have said that they are not against extradition as such, but that they do oppose the principle that underlies it. However, when all the evidence in a case has been collected in this country and all the people involved have remained in this country at all times, it seems appropriate for them to be tried here. That is the point of the forum clause to which reference was made earlier in the debate.
People who express concern about the current extradition treaty have been caricatured as somehow anti-American. That is unfair. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the case of Lotfi Raissi, of which I know that Ministers are well aware. That case took place before the new UK-US extradition treaty, and the high thresholds then in place meant that it was possible to ascertain that the evidence underlying the extradition claim was flawed.
The
Solicitor-General: If I remember correctly, that case
revolved around a question of identity. Similar
evidentiary standards applied as in extradition cases, so it is very
unlikely that a different decision would have been reached if the case
had arisen after the extradition treaty had been agreed. I know that my
hon. Friend is familiar with these matters, but I suspect that that is
what would have
happened.
Mr. Khan: I am afraid that the Solicitor-General is wrong about that. The evidence in that case was challenged, something that could not happen under the new regime. However, I do not want to speak about a single case, as I am interested in the principle underlying these matters.
Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman accept an assurance from me that Opposition Members think that justice must be blind to status, colour, creed and everything else? The point that we are making today would apply to anyone: people who are thought to have committed an offence in Britain should be tried here by a proper prosecuting authority. If they are not found guilty as a result, they are innocent.
Mr. Khan: I cannot accept the blanket assurance that the right hon. Gentleman offers, since some Opposition Members today have said that they abstained two years ago because they believed that the cases of people charged with terrorist offences would go through on the nod. Quite rightly, the Lotfi Raissi case has been widely trailed in the press and attracted a great deal of attention, but what about all the other cases involving people facing extradition?
Mr. Hogg: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that many Opposition Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I—made very powerful arguments against the use of Belmarsh prison? We were entirely blind to the colour or the ethnic provenance of the people held in Belmarsh. The use of that prison was wrong, and we have said so repeatedly.
Mr. Khan: I do not question for one second the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s commitment on these issues. I was asked to accept a blanket assurance about the attitude of Opposition Members on these matters, and I have explained why I cannot do so.
Concerns have been expressed in the debate about the reciprocity of the treaty. I accept that the evidentiary thresholds in two different legal jurisdictions will not be exactly identical, but people are worried that we have lowered the threshold and that it is not now possible to challenge prima facie evidence. Reference has been made to article 8 of the treaty, and to the forum clause. That provision relates to people who have never left the UK and to evidence that has been found only in the UK. The evidence that the US is relying on in the NatWest three case was obtained as a result of a search carried out in the UK, so why are the people involved not being charged in the UK?
Mr.
Winnick: Like other speakers, I confined myself to the
three people due to be sent to the US this week. That is because I
realised that other cases are sub
judice, as Mr. Deputy Speaker made clear earlier. Otherwise, does my
hon. Friend accept that I would have included those other cases in my
remarks?
Mr. Khan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I am happy to give a blanket assurance that I accept that everyone on this side of the House will be consistent when it comes to issues of justice.
The press coverage this week has described the steps taken by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland to persuade colleagues in the US Senate to ratify the treaty. I hope that Ministers will understand that those of us making representations about these matters are not anti-American, but the lack of ratification has caused increased anti-American feeling around the country. That is unfortunate, because we merely want to ensure that we have an extradition treaty that is consistent and fair, irrespective of who is being extradited and of the offence that has been committed.
2.39 pm
Mr. Boris Johnson (Henley) (Con): I begin by saying how much I share the views of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and by reminding him of the many times we have shared platforms in defence of our respective constituents.
Mr. Khan: I exclude completely from previous remarks the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who has become a friend—with a small f—and who has been consistent in his concern about the issue before us.
Mr. Johnson: I am grateful.
I think all of us agree, on both sides, that this issue has nothing to do with what kind of person may be involved or what kind of constituent presents himself or herself before us. It is an issue of justice and reciprocity, and that is why it is arousing such strong passions across the country. We are all starting to see those feelings expressed in our e-mail in-boxes, and the Minister should be aware of them, as I am sure he increasingly is.
The feeling prompting the rage and fury that surrounds this issue, and which has actuated many comments in the debate, is, I am afraid to say, a certain anti-Americanism. On that, I agree with the Government: anti-American points are sometimes scored in this debate, and that is a great shame. It is sad and regrettable, and it is all the more reason why the best and kindest thing we could do for the special relationship, for which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has laboured so long and on which he has spoken so eloquently, is to remove injustice and asymmetry and to restore confidence in the British people that their extradition arrangements with America are fair to them.
David
T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con): I thoroughly agree, but does
my hon. Friend not also agree that the Americans could send an even
more positive message about the importance of the special relationship
not
only by offering reciprocity but by returning to Britain some of the IRA
murderers who live freely in the United States at the
moment?
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point; that is the very reason why the Senate has, as has repeatedly been said, been so tardy in ratifying the treaty, and why, indeed, I think it highly unlikely that it will ratify it.
David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD) rose—
John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD) rose—
Mr. Johnson: I should give way with pleasure, although I really ought to rattle on.
David Howarth rose—
Mr. Johnson: Go on.
David Howarth: The hon. Gentleman’s point about ratification of the treaty seems to contradict in part what he said before. Because the treaty is inherently unequal, it might be a very good thing that the Senate will not ratify it. What we should do is go for a new treaty that is more equal.
Mr. Johnson: The point is well made. The problem of the absence of reciprocity was, of course, introduced by the 2003 treaty, which replaced—
John Hemming: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Johnson: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall try to address the point made by his colleague.
The absence of reciprocity was introduced by the signing of the treaty, which we enacted in the Extradition Act 2003. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe rightly used the verb—or adjective—poodle. It was a poodle-like act of— [Interruption.] It is, indeed, a noun. It is also, however, a verb: to poodle is a verb—we poodled.
We poodled in implementing the treaty before the Americans had even ratified it, thereby—the point the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) was trying to make—negating the symmetry that pre-existed in the 1972 extradition treaty, which involved a rough parity. We have reached consensus that that parity was not totally perfect, but it certainly was not as asymmetrical and imbalanced as the arrangements into which the Government have entered now. The plain fact is—the Minister must accept it, as the point has been made to him beyond peradventure—that the United States does not now have to supply prima facie evidence. The key difference therefore is that a British national can be supramagnetically suctioned to America without any scrutiny of the evidence, as, on Thursday, the three are about to be, whereas the Americans would never allow that to happen to any of their nationals. That is the fundamental problem. We are failing to protect our nationals.
John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are a lot of odd things about this situation, not least the word “reciprocal” and the fact that we have had demonstrations without the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Galloway), but also the fact that if an offence had been committed under UK law, it would have been tried within the UK? If an offence has been committed, it was committed within the UK, but because it is not charged in the UK, people are to be extradited.
Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman certainly shows that he has been following the debate keenly and is dead right.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I am not sure of that.
Mr. Johnson: I sought to be generous to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) in order to prevent further interventions from the Liberal Democrats.
The Prime Minister and the Solicitor-General have told us that the three suspects, whom they brought into the debate, would have been extradited anyway under the terms of the 1972 arrangements. I am not at all sure that they can possibly know that. I am not at all sure that they have any right to say that in this House. The propositions that have been put, and which have obviously persuaded the Solicitor-General—who calls the men the “Enron three”—of their potential culpability, have never been tested in a court or a judicial proceeding in this country. That procedure would have taken place under the previous arrangements, and that is the procedure that has been wiped out by the Government’s poodle-like acquiescence in the treaty. The Solicitor-General is clutching at the Dispatch Box as if he wants to intervene; perhaps he does not, so I shall move on.
That is the injustice at the core of this debate, and that is why we should suspend the treaty, undesignate America as a category 2 country, and do justice by our people. Anyone who seeks evidence of the imbalance and asymmetry in our arrangements with America may look at the numbers. Look at the numbers going from this country to America, which had, last time I looked, a population approaching 300 million, and the number that America is sending to us. More than 40 a year go to America—
Dr. Andrew Murrison (Westbury) (Con): Forty-five.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend says 45. And two or three a year come from America. I make no comment on the respective criminalities of the two populations, but that seems extraordinary. I see the Solicitor-General reaching for the statistics; he should apprise himself of the basic data. They are patently unreciprocal and asymmetrical.
I was
interested earlier to hear a Labour Member—the hon. Member for
North Swindon (Mr. Wills)—say that all extradition treaties were
asymmetrical. Did anyone catch that? He said that all extradition
treaties were asymmetrical and that we should not complain about it.
That seemed to be the gist of it. The fact is that he is, of course, as
he was in much that he said,
wrong. There is reciprocity in the Euro-warrant system, for instance.
Among the many things that we do in common with our European friends is
that we allow some measure of political decision making over whether or
not a crime was committed in our jurisdiction.
If we want to get around the problem, and I know that the Solicitor-General does, we should implement the course I have urged on him in an early-day motion, signed by many Members on both sides of the House, which is to insert article 7 of the 1957 convention on extradition into our arrangements with America, so that a British authority may decide whether or not, in the interests of justice, the crime—if there was a crime—took place in this jurisdiction. That would be a clear and elegant solution to the problem. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe pointed out, that is a basic protection that the Irish give their citizens and the French give their citizens. Why cannot we give that protection to our citizens? I look forward to hearing the response of the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan).
James Brokenshire (Hornchurch) (Con): My hon. Friend makes a powerful and persuasive point. Is it not a case not only of justice being done but being seen to be done? If a matter has a direct nexus with this country, it is essential that that matter should be disposed of here so that we can send a clear message that if something is criminal and happens here, we will deal with it and that we will not rely on other authorities to deal with matters that we should be dealing with ourselves.
Mr. Johnson: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I am grateful to him. It is incredible: what comment are we sending to the outside world about the seriousness with which we take white-collar crime if the allegations that the Solicitor-General was happy to read out earlier are so trivial and footling that we take no account of them in this country but none the less think them serious enough to be tried in America? It is quite extraordinary.
The Government seem to have decided on a twin-track strategy in their manipulation of this growing public relations disaster. The Prime Minister comes to the House, as he did earlier, and says that he is very concerned about the fate of the NatWest three and their families. It is a measure of the complete chaos that the extradition treaty has wrought that he is obliged to dispatch senior Ministers around America to plead on behalf of individual cases. It is absolute chaos. That is the compassion that he wants to show on the one hand. However, he then sends his understrapper, the Solicitor-General, to the House, who repeats—very largely—the case against the three. He called them the Enron three as though to prejudge the matter.
Mr. Rob Wilson (Reading, East) (Con): That is a smear.
Mr.
Johnson: I do not necessarily dissent from that. If the
torrent of allegations that the Solicitor-General read out against the
three are so compelling, why cannot he put them on trial in this
country? It is not
too late for him to do that. He has the power at the stroke of a pen.
Given the serious allegations that he has put before the House, he
could command them to be arraigned before the courts in this
country.
The Solicitor-General: I want to make it very clear that decisions about whether the matter is investigated are not made by Ministers; in this case, they are made by the Serious Fraud Office and the director of the Serious Fraud Office—an independent prosecuting service—who took the view that, because much of the evidence was in the United States and the alleged conspiracy was likely to have taken place there, if indeed it ever did, the matter would be better dealt with there. I remind him, too, that the district judge was also concerned that if there was an investigation here, it might in due course result in an abuse of process argument, because of the length of time such an investigation would take. It is appropriate to deal with the matter in the USA.
Mr. Johnson: I would say that I was grateful to the Solicitor-General, but I am not really. Lord Justice Laws himself was amazed that the UK authorities had sought to take no interest in this matter. Because there is no protection and no forum requirement inserted in the current Extradition Act—in the way that I propose and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe agrees that it should be inserted—and because Parliament has failed to protect its citizens in the way that it should, the three are being sucked off to America.
Mr. Hogg: May I suggest an elegant solution building on the solution of my right hon. andlearned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard)? The other place has passed certain amendments, which will come back to this House in October, the effect of which if passed will be to remove the United States from the fast-track procedure. Given that, the Government, pending a decision of this House, should pass the orders referred to by my right and learned. Friend, which would take the United States out of the class of a designated country, at which point the process of extradition would have to cease.
Mr. Johnson: As usual, my right hon. and learned Friend is bang on. It is a simple matter to undesignate America as a category 2 country, as Members on both sides of the House have said.
Mr. Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con): Does my hon. Friend agree that the logical corollary of the statement by the Attorney-General is that any crime involving an e-mail that is routed through a server in, say, California will fall within the jurisdiction of the United States? Does he not think that that is absolutely bizarre?
Mr.
Johnson: The United States Government take a broad view of
their legal jurisdiction. The United States has few limits to its
ambitions in the context of where a crime is committed against the
interests of the
United States. That is a matter for the United States. It is perfectly
entitled to take that view, but it should be a matter for us—for
this House and the Solicitor-General—to protect British citizens
from injustice and the arrogance and abuse of power. I think that the
Solicitor-General would agree that he is losing the argument.
Increasingly, the Government have shown that they are losing the
argument by the panic-stricken measures that they are taking in
dispatching Ministers off around America. I do not believe—as I
think that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) said
earlier, and I wholly agree with him—that it is the will of the
House or the country that these unjust arrangements should persist.
Above all, and paradoxically, I do not even think that it is the will
of America. It is increasingly a matter of embarrassment that
unnecessary hostility and unease is being engendered in this country by
this incompetently negotiated treaty. I urge the Solicitor-General to
have the humility to think
again.
2.55 pm
Mr. George Galloway (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Respect): It is true, as the hon. Gentleman—whoever he was—said, that I was not on any demonstration for these three bankers, although I have been on demonstrations over the last two years on another case that you have precluded discussion of this afternoon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Neither is it any good Labour Ministers trying to slip on their old class warrior clothes, fulminating about the Enron three. Eleven times in his remarks the Solicitor-General of the United Kingdom referred to the three individuals as the Enron three, in what can only have been an attempt to describe them pejoratively, which must be prejudicial and unprecedented from a Law Officer of the Crown in a matter such as this—fulminating about expensive public relations companies. With everything that we know about new Labour and its relationship to the corporate world and to PR companies, the idea that some sin has been created by a PR company being or not being involved is an allegation that can come from almost anyone except new Labour.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |