I can be relatively—indeed, exceedingly—telegraphic. At the beginning of her response to this debate, the noble Baroness accused both me and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, of conflating the issues. I hope that when she reflects on what has been said today, she will disagree with her own assessment. Both the noble Lord and I have made clear from the outset that there were two distinct issues in the debate. The first was ratification; the second was reciprocity.
The noble Baroness has said very little about ratification. She has not explained to your Lordships’ satisfaction—I trust, when we come to the vote—why the United States should be having its cake and eating it, why it should have all the benefits and none of the burdens of the treaty—not that the burdens of the treaty are very great. I can understand that, for a short period, that might be acceptable; but for two and a half years, it is not.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Kingsland
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 11 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c649 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-16 21:02:04 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336649
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336649
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336649