Proceeding contribution from Lord Dodds of Duncairn (Democratic Unionist Party) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 November 2005. It occurred during Debate on bill on Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill 2005-06..
Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
Is not the Minister guilty of adopting a somewhat contradictory approach? In the previous debate, he said that we should have an early deadline because progress was being made and we should be optimistic. However, he now says that we should disregard Lord Carlile’s advice and retain section 108 on the ground that it may be needed at some point, even though it has never been used in the past seven years. Moreover, he said in Committee that it was important to retain the option as paramilitary activities overlap further with acquisitive crime. That is exactly the argument put forward by hon. Members on these Benches in the previous debate, and the Minister argued against it. Is there not a clear contradiction in that?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 440 c319
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Administration of justice Army Costs Juries Evidence Intimidation Judges Northern Ireland Police Organised crime Powers Proscribed organisations Terrorism Security Trials Scheduled offences
- Legislation
- Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 11:39:31 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281896
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281896
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281896