Skip to main content

1-11 of 11 results for member:"David Howarth"

Legislation X
Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Counter-terrorism Bill 2007-08 (11)

Subject

More

Publisher


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

There are many people with doctorates in my constituency.

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 November 2008
Reference
483 c253
House
House of Commons

The hon. Gentleman is making a very powerful case. Does he accept that the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is strengthened if one looks at the detail of what the Government are proposing in new clause 22? New clause 22(5) states that the...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 June 2008
Reference
477 c361
House
House of Commons

To add to what the hon. Gentleman is saying, the point that has just been made applies to any number, whether it is 42 or 90.

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 June 2008
Reference
477 c374
House
House of Commons

I am interested in that point. Did Lord Carlile inform the Committee that the US federal material witness statute has been held by the federal court in Idaho not to apply at all to suspects?

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
11 June 2008
Reference
477 c367
House
House of Commons

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble), who made a number of very important points. On this issue, it is also a pleasure and honour to follow both the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) and the hon. and learned...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2008
Reference
477 c252
House
House of Commons

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the point of principle should be decided together, and not simply be a matter of precedent? Is it right in principle that a matter of such importance should be dealt with by the judge and not by the jury, even in...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2008
Reference
477 c232
House
House of Commons

It is extraordinarily dangerous. I know of only one other provision that allows the Government to interfere in some way—although this has been disputed—with an investigation in progress. This is the superintendence power of the Attorney-General over the director of the Serious Fraud Office in respect of its investigations, which...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2008
Reference
477 c252-3
House
House of Commons

That is a very important point. For example, in a case of a death in custody, if the Secretary of State for Justice, who is responsible for the prison system, were to exercise such powers, he would in effect be a judge in his own cause. We do not need...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2008
Reference
477 c253-4
House
House of Commons

I agree. In fact, those provisions are quite confusing. The special coroner can be removed for misbehaviour—it should be asked in that context who decides what constitutes misbehaviour, and on what grounds—or can be effectively removed through revocation of the certificate. The question then arises whether a new certificate can...

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2008
Reference
477 c254-5
House
House of Commons

Will the Minister give way?

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
10 June 2008
Reference
477 c267
House
House of Commons

Zimbabwe.

Member
David Howarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
1 April 2008
Reference
474 c655
House
House of Commons