I was going to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I do not agree with the example he used. I was very firmly in favour—my case has still not prevailed—of anything remotely attached to a terrorist cause having a proper terrorist statute associated with it. I did not want a terrorist tariff, which we found terribly cumbersome, and I did not want always to rely on the Explosives Act 1875 or whatever. I wanted to give a proper footing in terrorist legislation, as we did for DNA in the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008.
I am not saying, hand on heart, that since 1997, every statute and new offence passed by the Government has been absolutely necessary. I would be foolish if I did. In fact, I spent much of my three and half years in the Home Office telling people that if it is not absolutely necessary, we are not having it.
Crime and Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Tony McNulty
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 18 January 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Crime and Security Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
504 c103 
Session
2009-10
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-11 09:58:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_610434
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_610434
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_610434