Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Charles Clarke (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

The police believe that 90 days is right, and the Crown Prosecution Service believes that 90 days is right, for the very detailed reasons that I gave in an answer a moment ago. The security services believe that an extension is right and support the recommendation that 90 days is right, but they do not believe that they are professionally competent to judge whether 90 days is right compared to other times. That issue led to confusion in discussing those matters, not least in front of the right hon. Gentleman’s Committee, the Intelligence and Security Committee, but the whole of the services involved in this support the police position. However, it is the police and the CPS that have the responsibility for conducting these situations. Therefore, all other services have said, ““While we support the case for change in general from what we have seen, and while we support the particular police proposal of 90 days, we think that that particular proposal comes from their policing and prosecutorial experience.””


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c924 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Criminal investigation Detainees Evidence Incitement Judges Police Powers Prosecutions Public interest Police custody Negligence Terrorism Training Remand in custody Encouragement of terrorism Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk