Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Police and Justice Bill.


Police and Justice Bill

I can be relatively—indeed, exceedingly—telegraphic. At the beginning of her response to this debate, the noble Baroness accused both me and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of conflating the issues. I hope that when she reflects on what has been said today, she will disagree with her own assessment. Both the noble Lord and I have made clear from the outset that there were two distinct issues in the debate. The first was ratification; the second was reciprocity. The noble Baroness has said very little about ratification. She has not explained to your Lordships’ satisfaction—I trust, when we come to the vote—why the United States should be having its cake and eating it, why it should have all the benefits and none of the burdens of the treaty—not that the burdens of the treaty are very great. I can understand that, for a short period, that might be acceptable; but for two and a half years, it is not.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c649 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Access Children Criminal proceedings Crime Courts Computers Cameras Audit Commission Arrest warrants Evidence ICT Extradition Inspections Documents Functions Internet International law Police Powers Prisoners Pornography Police authorities Reciprocal arrangements Sentencing Treaties Sexual offences Trials Right of search USA Computer viruses Cryptography Hacking
Legislation
Police and Justice Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk