My Lords, I, too, was pleased to add my name to this important amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who has set out his concerns powerfully today and in Committee. I have little to add to what my noble friend has said. I would merely commend the work of the Joint Committee, which did an excellent job, and say that while the Government have rightly recognised the practical impossibility of having to push through emergency legislation in a state of national emergency while Parliament is dissolved, they still have a duty in many ways to take seriously the committee's concerns over the ability of Parliament to legislate in certain emergency situations in order to provide powers necessary to extend the detention period to 28 days.
Perhaps most importantly, I echo the committee's concerns over the serious risk of jeopardising a fair trial if Parliament is to be provided with enough information properly to scrutinise whether the extension was necessary. As my noble friend has said, the scrutiny of legislation within such a short deadline is of course extremely difficult. Indeed, it could be dangerous if Parliament came to the wrong conclusions. The amendment is a measured response to the concerns which were expressed by the Joint Committee and, as has been said, it provides the Secretary of State with an option to bring in emergency legislation by order in certain circumstances where it is deemed truly necessary and expedient.
It is not mandatory but it is enabling. The Government, if they so wish, could still rely on emergency primary legislation. However, if there were concerns about the balance between having sufficient information to inform debate and the risk of jeopardising a fair trial, they could introduce an executive order. As my noble friend has said, this amendment makes entire common sense; as she also said, we must be able to trust in the judgment of the Secretary of State during times of national emergency. I believe that she should, in these rare circumstances, have the power available to her.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c71-2 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:18:53 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807572
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807572
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807572