Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Reid of Cardowan (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 June 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2).


Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

I have no wish to add to my right hon. Friend's burden of explaining some of the contradictions in the concessions that have been made to get the Bill through, but because I agree with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), let me ask the Minister this simple question. The Bill establishes a principle of extending the use of intercept evidence in a coroner's court. Why is it necessary to do so in this Bill, here and now, when our own inquiry is under way and will report in the not too distant future, and when we are awaiting the Bill on the coroners' process? Why is it not possible here to wait, but in Scotland—another part of the United Kingdom—it is possible, on a matter of national security, to wait until its inquiry has resulted, and when, moreover, responsibility for national security on such an issue will be handed over from this House to the First Minister in Scotland?


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
477 c266 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Codes of practice Crime prevention Criminal investigation Crime Administration of justice Detainees Armed forces Devolution Coroners Juries Intelligence services Documents Northern Ireland Police Public participation Police interrogation Terrorism Security Anti-terrorism control orders
Legislation
Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08
Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk