Results 1-15 of 15 for terrorism speaker:Peter Lilley

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Programming of Bills (Suspension) (17 Jun 2009) has video

Peter Lilley: ...by the Speaker. For example, the Government deliberately restricted the time for debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill so that dozens of new clauses were not debated; on the Counter-Terrorism Bill Members had only three hours to discuss 16 new clauses and 60 amendments covering crucial issues such as post-charge questioning and control orders; and on the Climate Change Bill...

Oral Answers to Questions — Home Department: Immigration Review (9 Jul 2007)

Peter Lilley: ...2000, quite apart from the many issued to doctors and nurses from Asia? Although the issue was recently highlighted by the appalling fact that a handful of these people were apparently involved in terrorism, is it not also appalling that we are asset-stripping Africa of the resources that it so desperately needs to cure its own people?

Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill (28 Jun 2005)

Peter Lilley: ...of a multiplicity of Departments, the Government have moved from prime reason to prime reason as to why they are introducing this measure. Before the election, the prime reason was combating terrorism. Incidentally, when the Government introduced their proposed entitlement card—as it was then called—and listed the 10 uses to which it would be put, they did not include combating...

Written Answers — Home Department: Control Orders (7 Apr 2005)

Mr Peter Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the security agencies which advised the Government that control orders were necessary to control international terrorism, broken down by date on which the advice was given.

Written Answers — Home Department: International Terrorism (5 Apr 2005)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...State for the Home Department whether the security services have advised the Government that powers to imprison suspected terrorists without normal trial would be helpful in tackling international terrorism.

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill (23 Feb 2005)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...been true on this occasion. The Government have made rather pathetic attempts to use the Bill both to burnish their own credentials and to tarnish the Opposition's credentials on the treatment of terrorism. I have to say that that makes it more difficult to give them support, because we cannot but have doubts when powers are introduced in a partisan manner that they may be used in a...

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill (23 Feb 2005)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...efforts to bring known terrorists to trial, and to have them convicted." But, as it turned out, "many of those netted by the security forces had little or nothing to do with involvement in IRA terrorism." We know the consequences of that. They were threefold: it was not just, first, that individuals were wrongly interned and thereby often radicalised; it was that the guilty were left free...

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill (23 Feb 2005)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...to work round the situation themselves. There are even greater reasons why the security forces ask for more than the Government can concede now. They know that if they are unable to prevent a major terrorism event—God forbid—it is better for them to be able to say that the Government refused them something than to say that the Government offered everything that had been asked...

Orders of the Day — Prevention of Terrorism Bill (23 Feb 2005)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...Secretary is making, but is there anything in the Bill that limits or restricts the use of the qualitatively different powers that he is seeking to those who indulge just in this extreme form of terrorism, or are they available for use against any kind of terrorism that he may choose?

Orders of the Day — Identity Cards Bill (20 Dec 2004)

Mr Peter Lilley: .... When the Government were under attack for waste in the public services, they said that this would be an entitlement Bill, frankly admitting that it would have little role to play in combating terrorism. When they were under attack for their failure to control immigration, they said that the Bill's prime purpose would be to control illegal immigration. When the focus groups told them that...

Home Affairs (29 Nov 2004)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...here. How will they be able to make work an identity card system covering all 60 million people in this country? When identity cards have been tried elsewhere, they have failed to prevent crime, terrorism, fraud or illegal immigration. Because systems that exist elsewhere do not work in practice, the Government propose to introduce a system that exists nowhere and hope that it will turn...

Iraq (Judicial Inquiry) (22 Oct 2003)

Mr Peter Lilley: ..., you have to be aware that the world has not become less risky, but more, as new threats have replaced old threats. The Soviets may no longer be threatening to bury us, but there are threats from terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, instability and so forth." It was manifest that here was an organisation which, like all organisations, had to talk up the threats for which it had...

Written Answers — Home Department: Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act (15 Mar 2002)

Mr Peter Lilley: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many foreign citizens have been detained under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001.

Oral Answers to Questions — Prime Minister: Engagements (24 Mar 1999)

Mr Peter Lilley: The Deputy Prime Minister will know from our joint visit to Omagh after the tragic bombing there that I recognise his abhorrence of terrorism and share his determination to make the Good Friday agreement work. I know that he will share my disgust at the sight of the murderer of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick laughing in court after he received three life sentences and boasting to his...

Asylum Seekers (Benefits) (24 Jun 1996)

Mr Peter Lilley: ...escaping persecution come here because they trust this country and do not trust the country they are leaving. They come here to seek our liberties and protections—not because they are in terror of this Government. If they were, they would go somewhere else. There is a legal distinction between those who claim at the port and those who claim in-country, in that it is more difficult...