Proceeding contribution from Lord Strathclyde (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 July 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill.
Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill
My Lords, is this not a very sorry tale? It has one benefit in that it demonstrates how wise we were in this House to pass this legislation over two days when another place had to rush it through in a matter of hours. Can the Minister explain why these amendments were tabled so late last night, why my noble friend Lord Kingsland was not given copies of them, and when the Government were made aware that amendments would be required? I do not know if the noble and learned Baroness the Attorney-General would be the right person to offer that advice. Further, when were Ministers first advised that amendments would be required, and could this not easily have been done before the weekend?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 703 c1102
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disclosure of information Criminal proceedings Common law Intimidation Protection Property Magistrates' courts New Zealand Witnesses Trials
- Legislation
- Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-01-04 09:30:01 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492514
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492514
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_492514