With respect, no.
I know that most people are entirely genuine in sharing a desire to see the resolution of those cases. I hope that the House takes what I am saying seriously; in the end the process has to align with the work of the implementation group on intercept evidence, and with what Lord Cullen is saying in Scotland. The perfect place for that will be, if and when it comes to fruition, the coroners reform Bill. However, there is an urgent need in some cases, with regard to article 2 and the Jordan case, to go along these lines.
In other aspects, as in most circumstances, other elements of what is currently on the statute book will prevail. The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 will prevail, where appropriate, as will other provisions in a broader context. We need to get to a stage where the next of kin can get closure, and we need to ensure that we move to get closure for individuals now, rather than waiting, which would be the most convenient thing for the Government to do.
Counter-Terrorism Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
Tony McNulty
(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 c268 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:08:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483328
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483328
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_483328