| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Slynn of Hadley: My Lords, even accepting that it may sometimes be justified in extradition matters to adopt simplified procedure and even to set less stringent tests, does the Minister not accept that, as a matter of good government and even good international practice, the procedure should be carried out only when it is done fully on a bilateral or reciprocal basis? If it is correct that at the moment the traffic is only in one direction, should the United Kingdom not suspend the practice—I insist "the practice"—until the United States accepts in practice that what is good for the goose is good for the gander—I hope that that is not a politically incorrect way of putting it—and accepts that the practice should be carried out on a reciprocal bilateral basis?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand the import of the noble and learned Lord's question. In fact, the practical consequences of what we are doing now are very reciprocal. We make applications to the US. It adheres to those and makes applications to us. I express our genuine disappointment that the United States' authorities have not found the time or energy to ratify the provision. We are pushing the issue very hard.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the State Department has disclosed under the American Freedom of Information Act, a message sent on, I think, 26 March 2003 from the American embassy in London to the State Department? That message, discussing the effect of the treaty on extradition to the USA, said:
"Key changes will include streamlined extradition procedures and the lowering of evidentiary requirements for extradition from the current 'prima facie' standard to a standard based on probable cause".
We know that what happened was that the evidential standards were not lowered; they were abolished altogether. Why was there that change in plan, and when did it happen?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not know about that particular memo. The standards have not been abolished. The noble Lord participated fully in the whole of the passage of the Bill, which is now the 2003 Act. We went through all the safeguards. I regret to say that it is simply not correct that there is no evidential standard; there is. Robust information needs to be provided, and that is provided properly.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, the Minister is always elegant in defending the indefensible. Does she not agree that this is now clearly an unequal treaty—unequal in substance because it deprives British citizens but not American citizens of some of their existing rights; and unequal in process because, whereas the Government tumbled over themselves to bring the treaty into effect, the United States Senate, as the Minister has acknowledged, is still sitting on its hands? Would it not be better to reverse the Order in Council and negotiate a treaty with the United States that is equal in substance as between the rights of our citizens and equal in process, in that it would come into effect when both sides were satisfied with it?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the view that it is unequal in process and substance. The noble Lord will know that before the 2003 Act there was a degree of unequalness in treatment because we demanded of the United States that it produce evidence on a prima facie basis and it demanded of us "probable cause". What has now happened is that it demands "probable cause", and the information that we demand of the US is equivalent to that "probable cause".
So now, contrary to what has happened before, there is parity. We are able speedily to extradite the properly identified people. Also we are asked and able to make proper application to the US, to which it responds always. I agree that there is disappointment about the formality of ratification not having taken place, but I reassure the House that it does not materially affect substance.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that she is confident that the extradition treaty defines dual criminality to the point where there is no danger that a UK citizen could be extradited when he or she has not acted illegally under UK law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the treaties that we have already, the operation of the 2003 Act and the assurances that we have received from the United States allow me to say with confidence that there is no concern in that regard. It gives us all comfort that the United States authorities have always abided by the promises and undertakings that they
15 Jun 2005 : Column 1200
have given this Government—and, indeed, previous British governments—and that we have been able to rely on those promises.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, are the Government content that a British citizen—for instance, a businessman trading on both sides of the Atlantic—can be hauled over to the United States, to spend possibly a year in gaol, on the ground that he may have committed an offence in this country and no action has been taken against him in this country? Are the Government content with that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that consideration of extradition is based on where it is most appropriate for trials to take place. So, for instance, if a matter occurs in another country and all the evidence is there and all the witnesses are there, it is perfectly proper to make an application for extradition. If an offence is committed in this country, we, too, have an opportunity to decide whether a proper prosecution should take place here. That remains the position. It was the position before, and it is still the position now.
MG Rover
3.4 pm
Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
What parts of the inquiry by the Financial Reporting Council into the collapse of MG Rover are not included in the terms of reference of the inquiry now being made under the Companies Acts; and when those parts will be published.
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, before I answer the Question, I should declare an interest as a former partner in Price Waterhouse and, as such, I hope, a future pensioner of PWC, the administrators of MG Rover.
The Companies Act inspectors have been asked to examine all the issues raised by the Financial Reporting Council in its report to the Secretary of State.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, bearing it in mind that the collapse caused the loss of 6,000 jobs directly and many others indirectly and that £427 million disappeared down a black hole while the four directors received £40 million for salaries and pension rights, may I clarify whether I understand exactly what the Minister said in his reply? Will the Government, by one means or another, report on all the matters in those two reports in full and unequivocally? Will they ensure that nothing is hidden or concealed, particularly with regard to the role of the DTI in the sale of Rover to Phoenix?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: In short, my Lords, yes. The FRRP report obviously looked at the question of compliance with accounting requirements under the Companies Act, and the report was submitted to the
15 Jun 2005 : Column 1201
Secretary of State. I should make it clear that that report will not be published. The Secretary of State has been advised that releasing it would be prejudicial to those potentially affected by it and to the regulatory process. However, the Secretary of State has specifically requested that the report of the inspectors be delivered in a form that can be made public. The remit of the inspectors is to examine the issues raised in the FRRP report, as well as all the issues leading up to the appointment of the administrators.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer went to Beijing and sought to persuade the Chinese to purchase MG Rover, was he aware of the enormous liabilities that have now become apparent, which the Chinese would have inherited? In view of the huge resources that the DTI applied to the automotive industry, if he was not aware of them, why not?
Lord McKenzie of Luton: My Lords, as regards what the DTI was aware of, in view of some of the rumours that were circulating during 2004 it was working closely with the company to try to understand exactly how matters were progressing. The DTI and others worked hard to try to achieve a joint venture agreement with the Chinese company Shanghai Automotive because that was seen as being in the best long-term interests of MG Rover. I do not know who was privy to what with regard to the detailed liabilities of MG Rover, but the report that has been requested should bring those matters fully to the attention of the Secretary of State and, it is to be hoped, into the public domain.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |