Proceeding contribution from Lord Ahmed (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.
Terrorism Bill
I oppose the amendment. But, first, I apologise to the Committee that during the Second Reading debate I mentioned that 23 people were charged. Actually they were convicted and not charged, but I mentioned that more than 800 people had been arrested under the Terrorism Act. I apologise and I understand that the Minister has sent a letter to correct my slip of the tongue. I oppose the proposal for 90 days, first, because of civil liberties and, secondly, because I am not convinced that 28 days is not sufficient when the police can place people on bail with conditions, take their passports and impose a lot of conditions, including the requirement to report and so on. But, more importantly, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Condon, who, in his excellent contribution, said that this proposal would be counter-productive. Members of the Muslim community already feel that the legislation now going through Parliament—whether it is the Terrorism Bill, the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Bill or the Identity Cards Bill—is targeted at them. We can argue all day about whether that is the case, but other people are telling them that this legislation is targeted at their community. I have listened to passionate speeches in which it has been said that there is a threat of terrorism. I agree that the Government have a duty to protect our citizens, and the police have a very difficult job working under extremely difficult circumstances. We know that the police asked for 90 days, but ACPO also said, ““Do not close down places of worship””. The Government have not taken much notice of that. When we have trouble at football grounds, pubs and other places, we do not close down those premises but we lock up the criminals. I feel that some noble Lords are taking things out of context and saying that, whenever the police ask us for something, we have to deliver. The police will not solve complicated criminal cases just because they are given a 90-day period or any period of extra time. They need the support and co-operation of the communities. I feel bad because members of the Muslim community feel that they are under attack and that this legislation is targeting them. I believe that many more people will be giving excuses for those who do not want to co-operate.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 676 c1181-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Civil liberties Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Appeals Administration of justice Detainees Crimes against property Communication Electronic surveillance Evidence Intelligence services Judges Police Prosecutions Proscribed organisations Police custody Politics and government Scotland Terrorism Remand in custody Time limits Telephone tapping Cryptography Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Terrorism Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:55:24 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286331
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286331
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_286331