New clause 14 makes clear some of the specifics involved. If the Government have things they think should be additional, that debate needs to be had. I suspect that this will not be the end of the matter in this House and that their lordships will want to look very closely at whether there is a better route to achieve the same end.
Nobody is trying to end up in a different place in this regard, but the process of emergency legislation that the Government are using is a mistake. In essence, they have already accepted the principle that there should, in exceptional circumstances, be an additional power. They have accepted that in relation to Dissolution and effectively said that it should be present at other times. The issue is simply about how we make sure that the Secretary of State, if he or she were to have that power, would then be circumscribed by Parliament and by other bodies. Undoubtedly, High Court judges and the Director of Public Prosecutions make decisions that do not allow the Secretary of State to act gratuitously. However, we prefer the route that new clause 14 lays out, and I hope that the Government will think again. I do not expect that we will want to divide the House on this matter, but I hope that their lordships will look at it again.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Chris Bryant
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
533 c268-9 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:24:22 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771679
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771679
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_771679