Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord West of Spithead (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 24 November 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Counter-Terrorism Bill.


Counter-Terrorism Bill

My Lords, I beg to move that this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 106 and 133, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 106A and 133A. As noble Lords are aware, we share a common desire to ensure that a coroner’s inquests are completed as soon as possible so that the families of the bereaved can get some sort of closure. We remain committed to finding a way of ensuring that such inquests are Article 2 compliant and that bereaved families and other interested parties are involved to the extent necessary to safeguard their legitimate interests and to properly understand the circumstances of the death of the individual. Against this, we need to ensure that sensitive material is properly protected. This is because disclosure could damage national security or place others at risk. Amendments Nos. 106 and 133, made by this House on Report, would mean that sensitive material could be disclosed to members of the public, and for that reason I ask that the House do not insist on these amendments. Moved, That this House do not insist on its Amendments Nos. 106 and 133, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reasons 106A and 133A. —(Lord West of Spithead.)


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c1295 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Data protection Databases Crime Courts Detainees Death Costs Coroners Electronic surveillance Evidence Genetics Judges National security Personal records Terrorism Remand in custody
Legislation
Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk