Is not the Minister guilty of adopting a somewhat contradictory approach? In the previous debate, he said that we should have an early deadline because progress was being made and we should be optimistic. However, he now says that we should disregard Lord Carlile’s advice and retain section 108 on the ground that it may be needed at some point, even though it has never been used in the past seven years. Moreover, he said in Committee that it was important to retain the option as paramilitary activities overlap further with acquisitive crime. That is exactly the argument put forward by hon. Members on these Benches in the previous debate, and the Minister argued against it. Is there not a clear contradiction in that?
Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dodds of Duncairn
(Democratic Unionist Party)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 30 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Terrorism (Northern Ireland) Bill 2005-06..
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
440 c319 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:39:31 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281896
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281896
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_281896