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?
Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Reid of Cardowan
(Labour)
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 c266 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:08:26 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483319
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483319
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483319