The Minister may be able to amplify the position when he responds. I was left with a twofold impression. I hope that it is not unreasonable; the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. The first aspect was that a case had come to light—it had nothing to do with terrorism, I might add—in which there was a difficulty from the point of view of the state in having the inquest conducted; I emphasise that it was the state's difficulty. In such circumstances, it would suit the state and the police if material likely to help explain the circumstances of a death could not be submitted—because it was intelligence-derived and would cause difficulties. Coupled with that was the fact that, given the problems in the context of terrorism and terrorist-related deaths, or other deaths, I detected that the Government saw a problem in trying to deal with that particular area, that that problem might grow in future, and that the problem was more germane to terrorism.
Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Dominic Grieve
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 10 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2).
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
477 c246-7 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:08:06 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483284
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483284
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483284