Does the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that there is an intellectual contradiction in the position put forward by his right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary, in that on the one hand he wishes to cloak himself in defending our ancient liberties, but on the other hand he puts forward three alternative ways in which a Government could circumvent those protections—first, post-charge questioning, secondly the use of the Civil Contingencies Act, and, thirdly, banging people up after they have been charged when at the point of being charged there is a less than 50 per cent. chance of their being convicted? I understand those positions, but that is an intellectual contradiction. Either one supports those ancient liberties, which seems to be the centrality of the right hon. Gentleman's position, or one does not. One cannot have it both ways.
Counter-Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Rob Marris
(Labour)
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 c730-1 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:47:53 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460266
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460266
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_460266