Proceeding contribution from Lord Howard of Lympne (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 12 July 2006. It occurred during Adjournment debate and Emergency debate on UK-US Extradition Treaty.

UK-US Extradition Treaty

I will deal with that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when, if I am fortunate enough to catch your eye, I have the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Why has the Solicitor-General used the wholly prejudicial description ““the Enron three”” in relation to those British subjects, when the company that they are accused of defrauding, NatWest, is British, and when the British authorities have decided to take no action in respect of acts committed in this country? Why has he engaged in that entirely prejudicial description of those British subjects?

Secondary information

Type: Proceeding contribution
Reference: 448 c1404
Session: 2005-06
Chamber / Committee: House of Commons chamber
Subjects: Civil liberties Evidence Extradition Enforcement Treaties Enron Reciprocal arrangements Serious Fraud Office USA US Congress NatWest Three
Legislation: Extradition Act 2003
Link: View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk

UK-US Extradition Treaty

Secondary information

Librarians' tools