VZCZCXYZ0010
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHLO #0903/01 1061442
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 161442Z APR 09
FM AMEMBASSY LONDON
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 2005

UNCLAS LONDON 000903 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR KENNETH PROPP, L/LEI AND DAPHNE COOK, L/T 
STATE ALSO FOR EUR/WE/UK 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: CJAN KTIA UK
SUBJECT: "NOT QUITE READY YET"-- UK RESPONSE TO USG 
PROPOSAL ON SIGNING OF RATIFICATION INSTRUMENTS FOR MLA AND 
EXTRADITION TREATIES 
 
REF: A. STATE 35727 
     ¶B. 04/15/09 MILLS/CARTER - PROPP E-MAILS 
 
¶1. (U) Foreign Office officials in April 15 and 16 
discussions with Polcouns clarified that: 
 
-- UK internal procedures for entry into force of the 
Instrument to the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty and 
Instrument to the Extradition Treaty (MLA and Extradition 
Instruments) discussed ref A have not/not yet been completed; 
and 
 
-- The UK Government cannot agree to the April 27 signing 
ceremony proposed ref A because the texts of the MLA and 
Extradition Instruments, as well as the texts of the 
Protocols of Exchange for the MLA and Extradition 
Instruments, fall under the "Ponsonby (Parliamentary Sitting) 
Rule."  Under this rule of UK parliamentary procedure, before 
any formal signing of treaty texts such as these can occur, 
the texts must be laid before the House of Commons for 21 
working days.  If, during that time, no Commons Member 
requests a Parliamentary Committee hearing on the texts, they 
can be signed after the 21-day period has passed, but not 
before. (Embassy note.  A working day is defined as a day 
that the Commons is officially in session; as the Commons 
does not sit most Mondays or Fridays, the 21-day period can 
stretch over several months.  End note.) 
 
¶2. (SBU) Polcouns delivered ref talking points and draft 
texts on April 15 to Mark Woodham, U.S. Office Director, who 
was joined by a representative of the Foreign Office's Legal 
Department; Poloff subsequently discussed the status of UK 
internal ratification of the MLA and Extradition Instruments 
with Woodham on April 16.   The result was clarification from 
the Foreign Office Legal Department that the final step in 
the UK's internal ratification process for the MLA and 
Extradition Instruments has not, contrary to previous 
information (ref), been completed.  According to the FCO 
Legal Department, the texts of the Instruments themselves 
have not been published and laid before Parliament as 
required by the Ponsonby Rule.  No reason for the failure to 
do so was given, but Woodham did relay that the Foreign 
Office needs the Home Office, "as the lead policy Department, 
to draft the required Explanatory Memorandum to accompany 
(the texts) when presented to Parliament, but they have not 
yet supplied the document."  The plan now would be for the 
MLA and Extradition Instruments, as well as the Protocols of 
Exchange for the Instruments, to be put before the Commons at 
the same time. 
 
¶3. (SBU) Although Woodham and his Foreign Office colleagues 
agreed that a signing ceremony during the visit of Attorney 
General Holder to London would have sent a positive message, 
they confirmed that there is no mechanism for skirting the 
Ponsonby Rule.  Woodham offered the idea that, if HMG can 
complete its internal legal review of the draft instruments 
and finish other parliamentary formalities, it might be 
possible to officially lay the draft texts before the Commons 
on April 27 and start the 21-day clock running, which would 
provide a talking point for Attorney General Holder and his 
UK counterpart to use with the media during the visit.  The 
Foreign Office officials were careful not to promise a April 
27 presentation to Commons, but told PolCouns they would 
advise by early next week if it was doable.  According to 
Woodham and his Legal Department colleagues, the HMG is now 
energized on the issue and will work to move the texts 
through the parliamentary process "as quickly as possible." 
 
¶4.  (SBU) Woodham said that the mechanism HMG "traditionally" 
prefers for the formalizing of ratification of international 
agreements like those at issue is to convey the Protocols of 
Exchange through diplomatic notes delivered by each 
government's respective embassy, rather than a formal signing 
ceremony.  Given that a signing on April 27 is not now 
possible, Woodham and the Legal Office official predicted 
that this may be HMG's preference for these Protocol of 
Exchange documents as well. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) None of the Foreign Office officials had any 
immediate comments on the proposed draft texts themselves, 
other than to ask for confirmation that the reference in the 
talking points to Jersey, and the parallel process for 
applying the agreements to it, was in fact limited to Jersey 
and did not include the entirety of the Channel Islands and 
the Isle of Man as well.  The individual Channel Islands and 
the Isle of Man are "different legal entities" under UK law, 
though often treated together, and it was important to be 
clear that application to Jersey would not include the others 
without specific reference to them. 
 
 
 
¶6.  (U) Woodham said that his office has responsibility for 
distributing the U.S. draft texts to other UK departments and 
offices that need to review them and will coordinate a HMG 
reply.  He expected to be in contact with Embassy London 
sometime next week with any further comments. 
 
¶7.  (SBU) Action Request for State/L:  Per Foreign Office 
request, Post requests clarification whether the reference to 
Jersey in ref A talking points includes all of the Channel 
Islands or is limited to Jersey itself. 
 
Visit London's Classified Website: 
http://www.intelink.sgov.gov/wiki/Portal:Unit ed_Kingdom 
 
LEBARON