---

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, my noble friend has thrown me somewhat by a cross-reference to the health service when I have been briefed on drivers' hours. I shall make the obvious points. There is an additional safeguard to the Working Time Directive on drivers' hours requirements under EU legislation, which is implemented by us. The operation of our very important transport industry would be profoundly difficult if all waiting time were included. It would mean that double-manning of lorries, for example, would be almost impossible to implement because of the excessive cost. Cost factors are important in an industry that is open to such competition.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the new regulations will apply to drivers of foreign lorries while in this country? If so, will the prosecution take place within this jurisdiction or in the jurisdiction from which the lorry has come? Is he satisfied that the enforcement facilities available here will cater for about half a million vehicles?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, there is no provision for roadside tests in relation to the Working Time Directive. The infringement of the law by lorry drivers from foreign parts would relate to drivers' hours as measured by the tachograph on vehicle inspection. If that infringement occurred within the UK, it would be prosecuted accordingly.

Earl Attlee: My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as president of the Heavy Transport Association. Are owner/drivers excluded from the regulations, and if so, why?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the issue of owner/drivers is carefully defined under the law to ensure that there is no evasion of the requirements by moving
 
12 Jan 2005 : Column 251
 
people who are directly employed into what might look like the owner/driver sector. There are clear, watertight regulations for each, but the answer is straightforward. Of course, the owner/driver would be governed by the driving hours regulations, but the purpose of the law is not to circumscribe the amount of hours that an owner/driver puts into his business.

Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, once this directive comes into force, operating costs to the industry will rise by perhaps more than £3 billion and the number of trucks on the roads will probably increase by between 2 and 3 per cent? When British operators face substantially higher costs than their EU counterparts, what are the Government doing to make them more competitive?

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, because of those considerations, we sought derogation over a long period —since 1993—before implementing these new regulations. They have been the subject of extensive consultation. As the noble Viscount, rightly identified, there are costs to the industry, but those costs are being borne by the industry right across Europe. They relate to the proper safeguarding of the working time of people who work in the industry and are backed up—as I indicate again—by the regulations on drivers' hours to guarantee issues of road safety.

Lord Berkeley: My Lords, following the question of the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, the original Working Time Directive excluded owner/drivers right across Europe—until 2009 I believe. Therefore, will the Minister confirm that although owner/drivers are covered by the drivers' hours regulations, as he said, the owner/drivers Working Time Directive will not apply? I trust that the Government will take care to ensure that people do not turn themselves into owner/drivers to get round these regulations.

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that was exactly the point I sought to emphasise in my response to the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. We are concerned that there should not be slippage across one category of driver to another, and we have firm regulations in place to ensure that that does not occur. As I have indicated, this directive relates to workers in the industry who are employed.

Extradition: UK and USA

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I wish to make it clear that I am not referring to any particular case.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the working of the extradition treaty, signed in March 2003, between the United Kingdom and the United States.
 
12 Jan 2005 : Column 252
 

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are satisfied with the current extradition arrangements with the United States. Some provisions of the new treaty were given effect in the United Kingdom on 1 January 2004 via the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003. This has already improved our extradition arrangements with the United States. The full benefits will be realised when the United States gives the treaty effect in its own law.

Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply, which makes it clear in her own words that the Government gave effect to parts of this treaty on New Year's Day even through the United States' Senate has not ratified the treaty and, according to my information, is not likely to do so in the near future.

Since this is, as the House has discussed, an arrangement under which the Americans no longer have to support their requests for extradition with prima facie evidence while we have to continue supporting our requests to them, is this not an unequal treaty, which is likely to undermine confidence in our arrangements? Would it not be sensible, even at this stage, to renegotiate it so that we obtain for our citizens the safeguards which the French and Irish in their negotiations obtained for theirs?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not agree that the arrangement is unfair. The noble Lord will know that prior to the introduction of the 2003 Act we were not obliged to produce prima facie evidence in support of our applications to the United States, whereas we demanded prima facie from it. The new position is, we believe, an appropriate one. We had a long and detailed debate during the passage of the Bill in 2003, and the Government fully explained why we believe that this is a proportionate and proper response to one of our oldest and most trusted partners.

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, have the Government made any investigation of the prospects of ratification, or are they simply accepting anodyne assurances from the American Government that this will happen at some time in the future? Why will not the Government abandon their supine position and revoke the designation of the USA under Section 71 of the Extradition Act, at least until the Senate does ratify the treaty?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government do not accept the assertion made by the noble Lord that we have been supine. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that the United States Senate can decide when it will consent to the treaty. We have been assured that this matter is being dealt with expeditiously. There is no reason for us to believe that it will not appropriately go through the process. We are all aware that in the interim there has been an election in the United States and that its Senate will not
 
12 Jan 2005 : Column 253
 
come back into being for some time. Those are practical realities, but there is no reason to believe that any improper delay is in place in this situation.

Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that her answers raise serious concerns? Her Government have decided that British nationals can be extradited to America more quickly without any reciprocity in the near future. That affects their rights. In particular, it is almost impossible for a foreign national to obtain bail before an American court. In the light of these quite draconian measures, introduced at the behest of the American Government, will she make a statement that they will be used only in cases relating to terrorism?

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot accept what the noble Lord has just said. The new arrangements regarding the evidential requirement are not precisely reciprocal, but they are comparable. The Americans have demanded for some time that we provide probable cause. That was the position under the old Act when we demanded of them a prima facie case. Their probable cause is very similar to the information base that we now demand. For the many who say that it was unfair to the Americans in the past, it is more proportionate now. The provisions in our Act are robust. We went through them in detail in this House. There are appropriate safeguards to make sure that extradition takes place only when it is merited and in accordance with our law.

---