Proceeding contribution from Iain Duncan Smith (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
As Leader of the Opposition at that time, it was clear to me—and to all my colleagues—that the main reason why we acquiesced to the speed with which this provision was pushed through was that the Government said that it was absolutely vital in the pursuit of terrorists. There were other aspects to it, but terrorism was the key driver, which the Government should not resile from. Will my hon. Friend please ask the Government a very simple question? Apart from the details that my hon. Friend thinks might be wrong, or which there might be problems with, what is it that the Government object to? The reality for all of us in this place is that when this provision was pushed through, the Government never said that parity was unimportant. Surely parity is vital, so why do the Government not act?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c1417
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-02-25 15:21:39 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336994
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336994
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336994