Lib Dems force emergency extradition debate

2.12.50pm UTC (GMT +0000) Wed 12th Jul 2006

Speaker Martin grants Lib Dem request for a debate on extradition

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP has succeeded in his bid to force a Commons debate on the extradition treaty between Britain and the US less than 48 hours before the "Nat West Three" are due to be extradited. The speaker's decision to grant the urgent adjournment debate is the first time one has been approved since the debate on Afghanistan in March 24th 2002.

Liberal Democrat Shadow Home Secretary, Nick Clegg MP

Commenting, Nick Clegg said "It is vitally important that ministers come to the House to answer questions on this lop-sided treaty they have tried to brush under the carpet. On the eve of the Nat West three's extradition, it is only appropriate that this treaty is discussed fully in the House of Commons."

"This treaty was negotiated in secret and granted only cursory scrutiny in December 2003, where only the Liberal Democrats voted against the proposals. We must make up for the absence of scrutiny then with a full debate."

Nick Clegg's speech in full:

Mr Speaker, I seek leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter that I believe should have urgent consideration, namely the US-UK Extradition Treaty and the case of the three Nat West employees.

The Prime Minister's defence of this lop-sided treaty in this House last week posed more questions than it answered. The British people simply do not understand why we are stringently enforcing a treaty still not ratified in Washington; why three British citizens will be extradited on Thursday when our own judicial authorities saw no reason to prosecute them here in Britain; and why there appears to be such an imbalance between the minimal information required to extradite a UK citizen to the US, compared to the more substantive justification required to extradite US citizens to the UK.

This is an issue of overwhelming public interest, and there is an urgent and pressing need for a full debate in the House.

It has been a real struggle to get the government to acknowledge the significance of this issue. A letter placed in the library of the House last month reveals that the extradition treaty was not even raised during the visit of the US Secretary of State to the UK at the end of March - despite the Foreign Secretary's assurances on 21 March that he would write to the Secretary prior to her visit.

This is at a time when extradition from the US to the UK has dropped from 6 cases in 2003 - before the Extradition Act - to 2 last year but more than doubled - to 13 cases - for extradition in the other direction.

Mr Speaker, this treaty was negotiated in secret and granted only cursory scrutiny in this House in December 2003, where the only members of this house who signalled their objections were my honourable and Rt Hon friends the members for North East Fife, Somerton and Frome, and Southport.

I applaud their foresight and know that there is now a strong feeling on all sides of the House that we should make up for the absence of scrutiny then with a full debate in the House today, not least in view of the controversy surrounding the fate of the 3 Nat West employees.

I understand from contacts we have had with US officials, that there is some disagreement over whether the terms of the treaty are in fact reciprocal or not. But even if there is a debate to be had on these details, it is difficult to understand why the Government should enact such an important piece of legislation without also exercising the political pressure in Washington that is only this week belatedly being brought to bear to encourage the US Congress to enact its side of the bargain.

Mr Speaker, in keeping with Standing Order 24, I hope I have demonstrated that this is a specific and important matter that merits the full and urgent attention of the House.