The right hon. and learned Gentleman reinforces my point. Frankly, this part of the Bill is an outrage against the traditions of this House and our constitutional traditions.
Only if the cause of death could be independently established—this is the history of coroners' courts—could citizens be sure that there was a whistleblower who would be alert to the corruption of state power. That is precisely why the Secretary of State should not have the right directly to appoint or dismiss a special coroner, and why juries are an essential part of the process of reaching judgments of fact, particularly in cases of death in custody.
We will seek to amend the Bill in Committee before we agree to sacrifice the good elements to get rid of the ugly ones, but there should be no doubt that if we on the Liberal Benches fail to exclude in Committee the provisions for an extension of detention without charge, we will vote against the Bill as a whole. The ugly parts, in their impact and their risks, substantially overwhelm the welcome parts.
Counter-Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Huhne
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 1 April 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
474 c676 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:48:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460164
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460164
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460164