Proceeding contribution from Baroness Browning (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 12 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Police (Detention and Bail) Bill.
Police (Detention and Bail) Bill
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for adding that information. I hope that I have been able to allay some fears that the timeframe needed was a result of the Home Office—or, for that matter, anyone else—being dilatory. Had the judge’s and the initial QC’s advice not both indicated that this was not likely to be as far reaching as it subsequently turned out to be, I might accept some of the criticisms. However, the Government have acted as quickly as possible in the circumstances. I understand that the GMP did ask the Supreme Court for an early hearing. I gather that it was initially given a date in the autumn and, when pressed, the date was brought forward to July. I will soon come on to some of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. I hope that I have satisfied noble Lords about the timeframe and the Government’s intentions with the wider issues that have been spoken to by noble Lords, including particularly my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, about the need for consultation and a fresh look at bail and its conditions. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, that the Law Society and the Bar Council will, of course, be invited to take part in the consultation. We will make sure that all partners in this matter are fully engaged in the consultation, because I know that they will have a lot to contribute to this. I am also very grateful to my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who, as ever, brings a very measured response to these matters. We have also heard from the noble Lords, Lord Condon and Lord Dear, who have had many years of experience in policing in this country. I was rather struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in pointing out the operational difficulties that the police currently have to manage, said that no other court decision has had the scale and magnitude regarding operational policing as the one that is before the House tonight. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dear, that, again, one of the things that always strikes me, having come from another place to your Lordships’ House in the not too distant past, is that the first-hand experience that noble Lords contribute to these debates is what not only makes them of a very high quality but helps to inform the way in which we legislate and proceed in these very difficult matters. When the Association of Chief Police Officers presented us with clear evidence of the adverse impact of this judgment on the ability of the police to investigate offences and protect the public by enforcing bail conditions, we had a duty to act as a Government, and I believe we have quickly done so. From the debate, it was evident that your Lordships accept the need for fast-tracking this legislation, for the most part. If anything, this is one of those occasions when, notwithstanding the issues that noble Lords have raised, the House has acted and come together to make some progress and help resolve a very urgent problem. The House would rightly have been sceptical had we sought to introduce a fast-track Bill on the back of an oral judgment, given that the judge in the Hookway case said at the time that the consequences would not be, "““as severe as might be feared in impeding police investigations in the vast majority of cases””." We now know that assessment of the operational ramifications of the judgment to be misconceived but, as I explained, that became apparent only after the written judgment on 17 June. Professor Michael Zander QC has been cited around the House. I understand that Michael Zander is someone whom noble Lords feel confident in citing because of his reputation in the field. I do not want to let go the opportunity to cite him myself. He said: "““The Home Office has been criticized for being a bit slow off the mark. But measured from the date when it received the transcript of the judgment, it dealt with the problem in a little over three weeks—which, as these things go, is not bad going””." We have all prayed in aid Professor Zander; he sounds a pretty good sort of chap to me. I have not met him, but his judgment is clearly respected on all sides of the House.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 729 c627-8
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Bail Police Powers Supreme Court Remand in custody
- Legislation
- Police (Detention and Bail) Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 18:08:51 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759725
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759725
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_759725