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
My hon. Friend the shadow Attorney-General and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) answered that point. The circumstances were different—it was necessary to establish a prima facie case, and the Home Secretary had a residual discretion to refuse extradition. Perhaps I can deal with the other question that the Solicitor-General and the Leader of the House posed about why my party abstained and did not oppose the arrangements when they came before the House. With the benefit of hindsight I wish that we had not abstained, but the Solicitor-General and the Leader of the House appear to contend that we should have known better than to rely on assurances from members of the Government. They are right: we should have known better. Next time they ask us to rely on assurances from their colleagues, I have no doubt that my Front-Bench colleagues will remember their words today.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 448 c1426-7
- 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 15:22:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337019
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337019
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337019