| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord could make the contribution that he has just made to a number of countries in regard to how they give aid. I think I have made it clear that the United Kingdom's policy is very different from that of the United States. I also hope that I make it clear that the United States is not alone in being a country that we wish to persuade to operate its aid in a rather different way. The noble Lord says that the policy is short-sighted. It is also putting a very difficult task in the path of James Baker, who is embarking on a series of visits to a number of countries including France, Germany and Russia, in order to persuade them on debt forgiveness. So I think that a lot of what the noble Lord has said is right on the mark.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, could the Minister explain whether this was a decision for the United States Government or for the Coalition Provisional Authority? Could she perhaps say whether there is any distinction between the United States Government and the Coalition Provisional Authority, and whether Her Majesty's Government have any formal part in the process of decision-making within the CPA?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Lord has asked a huge question and I think that we have to make this clear. The decision that the
United States made is not about the totality of aid to Iraq. It is not about the 33 billion dollars pledged at Madrid. It is about the 18.6 billion dollars of supplemental funding under the US Foreign Assistance Act. It does not apply, of course, to aid from other countries. Moreover, it does not apply to Iraq's own resources from oil. It applies solely to the United States money. Actually, if I may say so, it is something of a liberalisation from the United States' usual policy, which is to grant primary contracts only to United States companies. So what the world is now seeing as a very restrictive practice is in fact in many ways a policy that is liberalised from the norm.The noble Lord asks about the different ways in which decisions will be taken, which is a complicated question. There is the international reconstruction fund facility, set up at Madrid, and there is also the Development Fund for Iraq, both of which will play a role. I shall write to the noble Lord with the details on that and place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, is it not the case that a great many countries would like to contribute to the reconstruction of Iraq so long as the United States pays for it, just as they were very happy to be members of NATO under the protection of the American defence umbrella when the American taxpayer was paying for it? Is it not a piece of infernal impudence on the part of the French and German Governments to try to tell the Americans how they should spend their own taxpayers' money?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say that I think that the case of our friends in France and Germany would be considerably strengthened if they did not tie their own aid to trade.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, in a speech last night, and again just now, the noble Baroness referred to the United States' policy of, on the whole, tying its aid to its trade. However, I do not quite see what that has to do with the present discussion. What the United States is doing in this case is discriminating against countries which it believes were trying to stab it in the back over its Iraq policy, which is a very different matter. Even those countries will, of course, have access to some of the subcontracts from the Iraqi contracts that are placed. So are the Government in favour of what the United States is doing—which as she rightly says is wider, less discriminatory and more liberal than its previous policy—or are they against? I am not at all clear from her answers.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: I do not know why not, my Lords; I thought that I was very clear indeed. The noble Lord says that these matters are very different, but they are not very different. This is placing a restriction and tying aid to trade. It is to that which Her Majesty's Government object. I made it very clear to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, and to my noble friend Lord Gilbert that we do not think that the tying of aid to trade is right. The noble Lord used
rather pejorative language about the United States stabbing people in the back. I have already made it clear that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lamont—who on this occasion was very statesmanlike in the way that he put his question—when he says that it would better serve the interests of what the United States is trying to achieve in other areas if it acted more as the United Kingdom Government do in looking at the needs of countries in terms of aid in its own right and then looking at the awarding of contracts on the best value for money. I would hope to persuade not only our friends in America but also our friends elsewhere in the world that our policy is right.Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [HL]
3.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, I beg to introduce a Bill to promote the reform of the statute law by the repeal, in accordance with the recommendations of the Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission, of certain enactments which, except in so far as their effect is preserved, are no longer of practical utility, and to make other provision in connection with the repeal of those enactments. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Business of the House: Standing Order 47
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to allow the Consolidated Fund Bill to be taken through all its stages today.—(Baroness Amos.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Consolidated Fund Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Bill read a second time; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order 47 having been dispensed with (pursuant to Resolution of this day), Bill read a third time, and passed.
Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 2 Territories) Order 2003
3.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a large order, encompassing as it does some 108 countries. Nevertheless, I think it fair to say that our arguments on it will come down to the inclusion of one country—the United States—in the list of countries not required to provide prima facie evidence to accompany its extradition requests. Certainly, that is the force of the Motion standing in the name of the Liberal Democrats. I will, if I may, leave that issue to the end of my remarks. First, I should like briefly to say something about the rest of the order.
The Extradition Act 2003 received Royal Assent on the last day of the previous parliamentary Session. It underwent fairly intense scrutiny in both your Lordships' House and another place, so I hope that we can avoid going over the arguments of principle again today.
We are concerned here with the secondary legislation required to bring the Act into force. Our aim is to bring the Act into force for 1st January 2004, which will enable us, inter alia, to comply with our obligations under the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.
This order designates all of the United Kingdom's extradition partners other than those being designated as category 1 countries in order to operate the European arrest warrant. As I mentioned, that amounts to some 108 countries. Seven of those countries are EU member states. If I may, I shall explain when we come to the next order why those countries are not for the time being in Part 1.
As well as those EU member states which are not yet ready to operate the European arrest warrant, this order designates all of our remaining extradition partners as category 2 partners. Every country with which we currently have general extradition relations is being redesignated. No new countries are being added and no countries are being dropped. Paragraph 3 lists the 40 or so countries that are not required to supply prima facie evidence with their extradition requests. For the most part, those are the non-EU parties to the Council of Europe Convention on Extradition and are countries that do not currently have to provide prima facie evidence.
For the avoidance of doubt, I should make it clear that though the European Convention on Extradition operates under the auspices of the Council of Europe, it is not geographically restricted. South Africa is a party to it which is why South Africa appears in the list.
For all of these countries there is no change to the evidential standard which they will have to meet. There are four countries whose inclusion in the list
represents a change. One of these is the United States which, as I mentioned earlier, I shall come to in a moment.The other three are Australia, Canada and New Zealand. These countries are all trusted Commonwealth partners. During the parliamentary passage of what became the Extradition Act 2003 we gave notice in both Houses of our intention to remove the prima facie requirement from these three countries, and I am pleased to say that no one appeared to object. Indeed, it is perhaps a little curious that, notwithstanding the lack of reciprocity, no objection was made to their inclusion in the other place by any party, not least the Liberal Democrats, if I may respectfully say so.
Having trailed that I was going to do so, let me now turn to the thorny issue of the United States. If this order is approved, the United States will no longer be required to supply prima facie evidence to accompany extradition requests that it makes to the United Kingdom. This is in line with the new bilateral extradition treaty signed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier this year.
By contrast, when we make extradition requests to the United States we shall need to submit sufficient evidence to establish "probable cause". That is a lower test than prima facie but a higher threshold than we ask of the United States, and I make no secret of that. The fact is that under the terms of its constitution the United States of America cannot set its evidential standard any lower than "probable cause".
As noble Lords know, the United States is a mature democracy that respects individual rights. We do not demand prima facie evidence of countries such as Albania, Turkey or Romania, and therefore we fail to see why we should impose a more stringent test on the United States of America.
Nor do we see why the absence of complete reciprocity affects this. We have to take an objective decision about what standards we believe incoming extradition requests should meet. We do not see how that is affected by the fact that another country cannot, for very good reasons, reciprocate.
We are in the business of protecting our citizens and those within our jurisdictions. If a non-prima facie requirement would be acceptable if the United States did likewise, we ask rhetorically why is it suddenly unacceptable because its constitution prevents it doing so?
Complete reciprocity has never been a feature of our extradition arrangements. As your Lordships will know, for many years certain other countries have, for constitutional reasons, been unwilling to extradite their own nationals. The United Kingdom has never had any such reservations. Our extradition relations have reflected that. In other words, we have been in the position where the United Kingdom has been willing to extradite even though in corresponding circumstances the other country would not be prepared to extradite.
We have accepted that situation for over 100 years both because we have realised that complete reciprocity will not always be possible and because we have respected the imperatives of other countries' constitutional arrangements. Exactly the same arguments apply in this instance.
Incidentally, I hope that this point will appeal particularly to noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches as the legislation which allowed for all these lopsided extradition arrangements—the Extradition Act 1870—was enacted by a Liberal government!
There is another important, and more modern, precedent that I should point to. Having extradition relations of this kind with the United States would not be unique in Europe. Exactly the same evidential provision can be found in the bilateral extradition treaty between the United States of America and Ireland which dates from 1984. Perhaps more significantly, exactly the same can be found in the bilateral treaty between France and the United States which is less than 10 years old.
Whatever unjustified suggestions there may be about the United Kingdom, or even Ireland, being more deferential to the United States, I trust that none of your Lordships would seriously imply that France is a nation which is subservient to the United States or automatically does its bidding. The fact is that both Ireland and France have accepted the restraints imposed by the terms of the United States constitution. They see nothing wrong with treaties that impose differential evidential requirements and I believe that we should follow their example. I therefore invite your Lordships to approve this order and to reject the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 3rd December be approved [2nd Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page