Skip to main content

1-20 of 216 results for subject:"Crime prevention"

Legislation X
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Coroners and Justice Bill 2008-09 (216)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

In supporting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument, may I respectfully remind him that there is a one-liner throughout next week, so there would be plenty of time to deal with these very important issues? Murder and jury-free inquests are vital issues that we should all be able to...

Member
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c56
House
House of Commons

I am afraid that the conclusion that I have come to is that that is right. I will come back to that point later, when I address how the Government have changed their proposals, because the changes have not dealt with that precise point. The fourth reason why the Government's...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c68
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend should be clear that our new clause 14 never allows a jury to be excluded, no matter what the circumstances. That is where we fundamentally differ from the Government. In fact, the Government's concessions are insufficient precisely because they still allow the jury to be entirely removed....

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c70-1
House
House of Commons

The concerns that we have all expressed about there being an open door on this matter are similar to those we expressed about surveillance issues. In that context, the Government assured us that such surveillance would be conducted only in narrow circumstances, but the door was then opened to a...

Member
John McDonnell (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c79
House
House of Commons

Is not the truth that there is a quid pro quo between the United Kingdom and some of its friends, particularly—but not exclusively—the United States? Our Intelligence Services Act 1994 makes lawful in English law any activities that our agents undertake abroad, and vice versa. Basically, in United States law,...

Member
Andrew Mackinlay (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c69
House
House of Commons

I have given notice twice in the House that I wished to raise the question of the inclusion of Northern Ireland in schedule 9, a matter that is covered in this group of amendments. I notice that clause 5(2) includes a provision to ensure that the definition of the purpose...

Member
Andrew Mackinlay (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c82
House
House of Commons

May I take the hon. Gentleman back to the point he made about judicial review? In the light of his answers to the Liberals' questions, does he accept that a judge would not be in a position to judge the merits of the Government's decision? As he said, the judicial...

Member
Oliver Letwin (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c112
House
House of Commons

I rise primarily with the aim of interesting the House in my amendment. It would strike out schedule 9, which effectively extends clause 7 to Northern Ireland. I also want to express some dismay, however. Clause 11, which is preoccupying the House this evening, is based on exceptional circumstances relating...

Member
Andrew Mackinlay (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c97-8
House
House of Commons

The Under-Secretary charmingly and disarmingly introduced the motion, but I am afraid that it does not attract the House. It is outrageous that, in the two days set aside for Report, the Government have already spoiled the afternoon by making not only one statement, but two. We accept that it...

Member
Lord Garnier (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c52-3
House
House of Commons

May I say how warmly I welcome the arrangement that has been made by the Government and their accommodation with the Administration in Edinburgh? My recollection of history is not entirely in line with what the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) has just said. I pay tribute to the...

Member
Robert Key (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c130
House
House of Commons

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of Members of Parliament have been involved in inquests such as that for Stephen Lawrence, who was one of my constituents, or the inquest that might have been held for Jay Abatan, another of my constituents, in my constituency. I had...

Member
Peter Bottomley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c139
House
House of Commons

I wonder whether the Lord Chancellor overstates a judge's latitude for determination in this matter. From my reading of amendment 97, the judge does not have the capacity to determine more than whether a protected matter would need to be revealed in order for the inquest to take place, and...

Member
David Heath (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c79
House
House of Commons

With great respect, I have not even finished my sentence. Their position is very different from that taken by most of those who signed the amendment to delete the existing clause 11. The hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that there can be non-jury inquests, but he also says that their...

Member
Jack Straw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c78-9
House
House of Commons

I think that the hon. Gentleman is misreading it. The judge has to decide that it is necessary to hold an inquest without a jury to avoid the given matter being made public or being unlawfully disclosed. As the de Menezes case made clear, plenty of other measures can be...

Member
Jack Straw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c79
House
House of Commons

The Secretary of State's defence would be easier to follow if he had not turned through 180 degrees. At the moment, he is telling us that the terms are all right because they are terribly narrow, but he has just told us that the amendment is light years away from...

Member
Lord Deben (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c80
House
House of Commons

I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I would just say this: it will be for the Secretary of State to make a judgment on national security grounds, or the other grounds set out, but doing so does not determine whether a jury is dispensed with. The Secretary of State...

Member
Jack Straw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c79
House
House of Commons

I simply disagree with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is of note to the House that the position of the official Opposition is—

Member
Jack Straw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c78
House
House of Commons

The problem with the planned system is that once it is on the statute book, it will be used far more frequently than any resort to inquiries under section 2 of the Inquiries Act. Once the system is an established procedure, it will be quite easy for Secretaries of State...

Member
Dominic Grieve (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c78
House
House of Commons

No, it isn't.

Member
Dominic Grieve (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c78
House
House of Commons

I will give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), followed by my hon. Friend, and then I need to bring my remarks to a close.

Member
Jack Straw (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
23 March 2009
Reference
490 c81
House
House of Commons