Emergency Extradition Debate, House of Commons

12th July 2006

Mr. Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): May I begin by thanking Mr. Speaker, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing this emergency debate to take place?

I submitted a petition to the previous Home Secretary in October last year. It was signed by 18,000 people who wanted to express concern about a constituent of mine. I realise that this debate has been allowed because of the concern felt by parliamentarians, the business community and ordinary lay citizens about the case of the so-called NatWest three who, under the terms of the UK-US extradition treaty, will board a plane for Texas tomorrow. I fully understand the huge amount of publicity that that case has generated, with or without a PR company, but I want to speak on behalf of my constituent. He faces extradition to the US , but he has not garnered the same amount of publicity in the mainstream or financial press. He is not photogenic, middle class or white, but it is important that I put on record my constituent's concerns about his treatment.

Babar Ahmad is of a similar age to me and, like me, he was born and raised in Tooting. I have known him on and off for the past 12 or 13 years. Other hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), have spoken about the NatWest three facing two years of custody in Texas, but Babar Ahmad has already spent two years in custody in this country, in Belmarsh and Woodhill prisons.

Some Opposition Members have explained their abstention in the vote on the treaty on the grounds that they thought that it applied only to terrorists. They have said that they did not realise that it would involve bankers being sent to America . That presents a problem for the people who have signed the petition about Babar Ahmad, and it is one reason why some of us have expressed concern that there are parallel judicial systems in this country—one for so-called terrorists, and another for so-called ordinary criminals. Like the NatWest three, Babar Ahmad should be presumed innocent until he is found guilty. Moreover, he is in fact innocent, as I shall explain later.

I want to describe Babar's background, as it is worth putting that on record. He is known locally in Tooting as a caring and helpful member of our community. He has worked with people of all ages—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must advise the hon. Gentleman that this case is sub judice and that therefore he cannot continue to refer to it.

Mr. Khan: Thank you for that clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The case is sub judice, as it comes before the High Court this week, so I shall not refer to it. Instead, I shall concentrate on the general matters of principle arising out of the extradition treaty.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman must be clear that he cannot refer in any way to a case that is before the High Court at the present time. He can talk only on the general subject of the extradition treaty, and must make no reference to that particular case.

Mr. Khan: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

None of us can say, with our hands on our hearts, whether the three people facing extradition to the US at present are innocent or not, but it is clear that the British police and the Serious Fraud Office have decided not to charge or prosecute them in the UK . The Crown Prosecution Service has done the same thing, where it has been the appropriate prosecuting authority. To me, that is a good indication of innocence, but the more important question has to do with principle and perceived injustice.

People who are subject to extradition say that they are happy to face the music here in the UK . Other hon. Members have said that they are not against extradition as such, but that they do oppose the principle that underlies it. However, when all the evidence in a case has been collected in this country and all the people involved have remained in this country at all times, it seems appropriate for them to be tried here. That is the point of the forum clause to which reference was made earlier in the debate.

People who express concern about the current extradition treaty have been caricatured as somehow anti-American. That is unfair. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to the case of Lotfi Raissi, of which I know that Ministers are well aware. That case took place before the new UK-US extradition treaty, and the high thresholds then in place meant that it was possible to ascertain that the evidence underlying the extradition claim was flawed.

The Solicitor-General: If I remember correctly, that case revolved around a question of identity. Similar evidentiary standards applied as in extradition cases, so it is very unlikely that a different decision would have been reached if the case had arisen after the extradition treaty had been agreed. I know that my hon. Friend is familiar with these matters, but I suspect that that is what would have happened.

Mr. Khan: I am afraid that the Solicitor-General is wrong about that. The evidence in that case was challenged, something that could not happen under the new regime. However, I do not want to speak about a single case, as I am interested in the principle underlying these matters.

Mr. Redwood: Will the hon. Gentleman accept an assurance from me that Opposition Members think that justice must be blind to status, colour, creed and everything else? The point that we are making today would apply to anyone: people who are thought to have committed an offence in Britain should be tried here by a proper prosecuting authority. If they are not found guilty as a result, they are innocent.

Mr. Khan: I cannot accept the blanket assurance that the right hon. Gentleman offers, since some Opposition Members today have said that they abstained two years ago because they believed that the cases of people charged with terrorist offences would go through on the nod. Quite rightly, the Lotfi Raissi case has been widely trailed in the press and attracted a great deal of attention, but what about all the other cases involving people facing extradition?

Mr. Hogg: May I assure the hon. Gentleman that many Opposition Members—including my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and I—made very powerful arguments against the use of Belmarsh prison? We were entirely blind to the colour or the ethnic provenance of the people held in Belmarsh. The use of that prison was wrong, and we have said so repeatedly.

Mr. Khan: I do not question for one second the right hon. and learned Gentleman's commitment on these issues. I was asked to accept a blanket assurance about the attitude of Opposition Members on these matters, and I have explained why I cannot do so.

Concerns have been expressed in the debate about the reciprocity of the treaty. I accept that the evidentiary thresholds in two different legal jurisdictions will not be exactly identical, but people are worried that we have lowered the threshold and that it is not now possible to challenge prima facie evidence. Reference has been made to article 8 of the treaty, and to the forum clause. That provision relates to people who have never left the UK and to evidence that has been found only in the UK . The evidence that the US is relying on in the NatWest three case was obtained as a result of a search carried out in the UK , so why are the people involved not being charged in the UK ?

Mr. Winnick: Like other speakers, I confined myself to the three people due to be sent to the US this week. That is because I realised that other cases are sub-judice, as Mr. Deputy Speaker made clear earlier. Otherwise, does my hon. Friend accept that I would have included those other cases in my remarks?

Mr. Khan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Of course, I am happy to give a blanket assurance that I accept that everyone on this side of the House will be consistent when it comes to issues of justice.

The press coverage this week has described the steps taken by my noble Friend Baroness Scotland to persuade colleagues in the US Senate to ratify the treaty. I hope that Ministers will understand that those of us making representations about these matters are not anti-American, but the lack of ratification has caused increased anti-American feeling around the country. That is unfortunate, because we merely want to ensure that we have an extradition treaty that is consistent and fair, irrespective of who is being extradited and of the offence that has been committed.

Mr. Boris Johnson ( Henley ) (Con): I begin by saying how much I share the views of the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) and by reminding him of the many times we have shared platforms in defence of our respective constituents.

Mr. Khan: I exclude completely from previous remarks the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson) who has become a friend—with a small f—and who has been consistent in his concern about the issue before us.

Mr. Johnson: I am grateful.

click here for the full text of the debate