I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman thinks that he is making a clever point, but I assure him that he is not. The principle is that we in this country do not hold people without charge and without trial. That is the starting point, which is mitigated by the necessity of concluding investigations and of proceeding in a judicial way. If, as I hope he will, the hon. Member for Walsall, North presses his proposal, the question facing us will be: is it better to have 90 days, as in the Bill, or 28 days? I take the view expressed by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), who is now grinning, thinking that she made a clever point. Twenty-eight days is 62 days less than 90 days and is therefore to be preferred, but it is still not what we want in the Bill. We have made that abundantly clear throughout our proceedings.
Terrorism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 2 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Terrorism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
438 c913 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-09-24 15:59:30 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273640
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273640
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_273640