My Lords, I have a good deal of sympathy with the view that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, has just expressed; it is a view that one hears frequently when talking to, as it were, the man on the Clapham omnibus. I rise neither to support nor to oppose the amendment at this stage. I have not checked with ACPO to see whether it would prefer a lift from three years to six, but in a straw poll it would probably agree that six years would be a help. However, it is incumbent on me to point out that ACPO has already expressed the view that it is comfortable with three years, following the Scottish model, and the ability to go further.
I wait to hear what the Minister says, but the nub of this is the question of balance and proportionality. It is necessary to follow to a large extent the judgment in Marper, which we all remember and which started this debate in the first place. What the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, has said is very pertinent; I drift very much towards his point of view. Still, I would like to hear what the Minister says, particularly on the question of balance, proportionality and how that affects the Marper judgment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dear
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 31 January 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
734 c1508 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 19:11:15 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_805609
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_805609
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_805609