I am not going to give way any more on that point.
Finally, the third change suggested by the Opposition, amendment No. 85, requires a future designation of the United States, and the treaty in force, to be consistent. The amendment is badly drafted and obscure, but basically it is unnecessary, because any such designation order must be approved by a vote in both Houses of Parliament, so parliamentary control over future designation orders is already securely in place.
As I said at the beginning of the debate, this is our last opportunity to undo the damage done in the other place and enable the United Kingdom to realise the benefits of the new treaty. Hon. Members should be in no doubt about the consequences of the Lords amendments: they would wreck the chance to ratify the new treaty, wreck our ability to bring more fugitives from justice to book, and make extradition slower and less effective. In the interests of justice, in the interests of victims of crime and in the interests of making this world a safer place, those amendments must go.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Joan Ryan
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 24 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
450 c1400-1 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 14:02:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354318
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354318
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_354318