Skip to main content

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