Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 December 2005. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Terrorism Bill.


Terrorism Bill

I am grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose. As always, we missed his voice on Scotland and I was glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, was in her place; otherwise we would have been quite lost. She is not here today but she normally is. I say a special thank you to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, who did me the great courtesy of writing to me on these issues. I am able to tell him that I am very happy to accept Amendments Nos. 117 and 125. There is an argument about whether they are absolutely necessary but we think that it is right to accept them because they add a degree of precision and clarity which we think is welcome and necessary for the reasons outlined by the noble and learned Lord. However, we will resist Amendment No. 118. It would be inappropriate to accept it as it would prevent senior police officers applying for extensions to detentions under Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act in Scotland. That would reverse the current arrangements under which police officers can apply for such extensions. We see no reason why we should reverse the existing situation or create an arrangement in Scotland which is different from that in the rest of the UK. However, I assure noble Lords that that is not just the Home Office view; indeed, the current Lord Advocate takes the view that it would be inappropriate to have powers in Scotland which are different from those in the rest of the UK in this respect. As the noble and learned Lord knows from his time as Lord Advocate, we take very seriously the advice given to us by the Lord Advocate in such situations and we believe that the current balance in that regard is right. I repeat that I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his ongoing scrutiny of this Bill, which has been very helpful. I am pleased to support his Amendments Nos. 117 and 125, but I respectfully suggest that he should choose not to press Amendment No. 118, bearing in mind what his brother Lord Advocate has to say about the issue.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
676 c1148-9 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disclosure of information Civil liberties Admissibility of evidence Criminal proceedings Codes of practice Appeals Administration of justice Detainees Crimes against property Communication Electronic surveillance Evidence Intelligence services Judges Police Prosecutions Proscribed organisations Police custody Politics and government Scotland Terrorism Remand in custody Time limits Telephone tapping Cryptography Sunset clauses
Legislation
Terrorism Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk