Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
We have had extradition treaties with the United States since 1796 and, for most of that time, those relationships have been uncontentious. The only criticism has been that procedures are often slow. Indeed, we heard about cases in which people waited eight or 10 years to be extradited. I am pleased that, under the Extradition Act 2003, such lengthy processes before someone can even stand trial, which are not in the interests of justice, will no longer take place. The Government have a responsibility to review and modernise the UKs extradition laws, as that has not been undertaken thoroughly since 1870. The Home Office published a full review of extradition law in March 2001, which was well before 9/11a point that has already been made. Many right hon. and hon. Members said that the treaty and the Act dealt only with crimes related to terrorism, but that is not the case. The Act deals with our relationship with a particular country and it covers all crimes, not just terrorism. I have a record of our debates in Standing Committee, in which the United States was designated as a country that did not require prima facie evidence. We made it clear that the designation, which changed our relationship with the United States, did not just apply to terrorism. Much of the debate, if anyone chooses to read it, was about different kinds of crime.
Mr. Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab): How would my hon. Friend regard a British firm whose criminal activity led to the destruction of thousands of peoples lives, their homes, pensions and their childrens education? What if we wanted to bring back to this country someone to give evidence on the international ramifications of such activity, but another sovereign legislature refused to accept our claim? We should not forget that we are talking about international law and international crime.
Joan Ryan: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend makes the case for the measure.
I shall
concentrate on a few issues that arose in our debate. First, the
Liberal Democrats requested a debate because they said that there had
not been enough time or scrutiny. When the treaty was ratified, it was
laid before the House for 21 days with an explanatory memorandum. It
was submitted to the Select Committee on Home Affairs under the
Ponsonby rules,
which hon. Members can read in Erskine May. There was
therefore an opportunity to examine the treaty, and it was dealt with
in the way that new treaties are normally dealt with. The Extradition
Bill proceeded through both Houses in an appropriate period, as is the
case with any Bill, so hon. Members had an opportunity to comment on
it. When the designation was made, it was subject to affirmative
resolution in Standing Committee in both Houses, as normal.
Conservative Members did not oppose the measure, but I accept that the
Liberal Democrats did. We could therefore say that there is honourable
opposition from our Liberal Democrat colleagues, but Conservative
Members did not express opposition to the Bill, to the treaty during
the 21 day-period in which it was laid before the House, or to the
order in Committee. Provisions in the European convention on
extradition were incorporated in the Extradition Act 1989 by a
Conservative Government, who did not ask for
natural
It being Three hours after the commencement of proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker interrupted the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) and put the Question forthwith:
The House proceeded to a Division.
Mr. Alex Salmond (Banff and Buchan) (SNP): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am sure that you are well aware, Erskine May makes it clear that, in this House, according to ancient practice, votes should follow voices. In my distinct observation, Government Front Benchers shouted, No, on the Division, but I have not seen any of them vote in the No Lobby. Will you therefore explain whether Erskine May has been observed by Government Front Benchers and confirm that that is the practice of this House? Perhaps you will even suggest why the Government are not voting in the Division.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) has misinterpreted what is set out in Erskine May. The best thing that we can do is wait to see the result of the Division.
Adjourned at six minutes to Four oclock.
Index | Home Page |