I will give way in a moment.
It is clear that particular cases that we cannot discuss in the House have motivated some of the current concerns, but I am certain that those concerns are misplaced. The proposed amendments would have the effect of requiring the US once more to provide prima facie evidence with its extradition requests, as it did before the legislation of 2003, along with the subordinate legislation that came into effect.
As we have said on many previous occasions, the 2003 Act provides a better and faster approach to extradition than previous legislation. It applies not only to the US, but to all our extradition partners. Some 47 other countries have exactly the same agreement with us, and we have exactly the same extradition arrangements. It may throw some illumination on the issue if I mention some of those countries—for example, Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Barbados, Chile, Colombia, the Cook Islands, Macedonia, Jamaica, Kenya and the Russian Federation. Where else can we go? There is Turkey, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Australia, as I have said, Canada, Zimbabwe and the United States of America.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Joan Ryan
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 10 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c406 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:53:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_322552
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_322552
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_322552