Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 87 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 87A.

Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 87:


Page 29, line 23, after ("broken,") insert ("or").

The noble Viscount said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 93. This provides a further alternative for the conditions for

19 Jul 1999 : Column 752

the arrest of a detainee while on bail. It is an alternative and not cumulative. The alternative is set out in Amendment No. 93, which seeks to insert the words:


    "there is reasonable suspicion that the arrested person will"

fail to observe bail conditions.

The effect of the amendments is to ensure that a sheriff, justice or adjudicator must have more than just a suspicion that a person will break a condition of the order and that there must be a reasonable belief for their action. I beg to move.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: In this group, there are a number of government amendments. Perhaps I may start by setting out the reasons for the government amendments. To some extent, that may deal with the points made by the noble Viscount.

As presently drafted, Clause 40 provides for the arrest of a person who has broken, is breaking or is likely to break, a condition of bail. We propose to withdraw the provision for the arrest of a person who is breaking a condition of bail. Given that there is a power of arrest in respect of those who have broken a condition of bail, I hope that the Committee will agree that it is unnecessary to make specific provision for those who are breaking a condition of bail. The amendment is also consistent with the current subsection (10) of the clause, which omits reference to "is breaking" in a similar context.

I can understand the civil liberties arguments, to which the noble Viscount referred, which underlie Amendments Nos. 87, 88, 89 and 93. Under the Bill as it stands, it would not be the case that someone released on bail would be liable to arrest on suspicion. The power to arrest under subsection (1) depends on an immigration officer or constable having reasonable grounds for believing that the person concerned has broken, or is likely to break, the conditions of his bail.

Once arrested, the person would come back before the court under this clause. The power of arrest is therefore subject to quick and keen scrutiny by the courts. Therefore, I am unable to accept removal of the power to arrest in the event of "reasonable belief" that a person is likely to break a condition of his bail which would be necessitated by Amendments Nos. 87 and 88.

Although we must naturally have regard to the rights of the individual, I am slightly surprised at the indifference shown by Amendment No. 89 to the third party giver of a security or surety. That is someone chosen by the detainee; and if that person has doubts about the prospects of reappearance of the person bailed and wishes to be relieved of his obligations as a surety or security, there must be some way to address those concerns and to bring the matter back before the court. That is in response to the point about sureties.

Amendment No. 93 would remove the court's power to reset bail where it is satisfied that the person before it "is likely to" abscond and would replace it with such power where "there is reasonable suspicion" that the arrested person will abscond. I consider that for an immigration officer or constable to have reasonable grounds for believing that a person is likely to abscond is stronger than merely to have "reasonable suspicion".

19 Jul 1999 : Column 753

On that basis, the current wording of the Bill is, in my view, preferable to that proposed in the amendment. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw that amendment.

Government Amendments Nos. 88A, 89A, 89B and 89C are consequential to the new power to require the giving of security by third parties under Clause 38, and are designed to clarify that a person who has given security on behalf of a detainee may inform an immigration officer or constable of his belief that a person bailed is about to abscond, thus leading to arrest without warrant.

Following concerns expressed over what "as soon as practicable" meant in subsection (8) of Clause 40, government Amendment No. 92A provides a clearer and more precise description of the time-scales within which a person, following his arrest under this clause, would be brought before the appropriate court. They are in line with the Bail Act 1976, which makes similar provision in criminal cases but also recognises that there are some days within the year when a court does not sit, and for reasons of practicality excludes Christmas Day, Good Friday, and Sundays from the 24-hour period. It would be sensible and reasonable to introduce a similar recognition into the Bill by means of Amendment No. 93A.

Amendments Nos. 90A and 92A describe the circumstances under which a person will be brought before the appropriate court. They ensure that, in any case where an arrested person has been brought before an immigration officer and that officer has not released the person concerned, he will be brought before the court for it to decide whether to re-release him and, if so, on what conditions.

Turning to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, I must first oppose the removal of subsection (6) by Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. The noble Baroness has not yet moved them, but perhaps I may get my retaliation in first. The removal of subsection (6) would prevent the opportunity of bringing an arrested person before an immigration officer where the time set at which the arrested person's bail requires his appearance before such an officer happens to be within 24 hours of the arrest.

I can see no reason to prevent such an arrested person being required to appear before an immigration officer following his arrest in such circumstances, as he would have been imminently appearing before such an officer in any case had he remained out on bail.

On Amendment No. 92, I hope that our similar proposals will address the noble Baroness's concerns and will be accepted as removing the necessity for it. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to accept the government amendments and I ask the noble Baroness not to move her amendment.

Viscount Bridgeman: We shall read carefully what the Minister says on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

19 Jul 1999 : Column 754

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 87A:


Page 29, line 23, leave out (", is breaking").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 88A:


Page 29, line 25, leave out from ("if") to end of line and insert ("a person other than the person bailed ("a third party")--
(a) has agreed to act as a surety in relation to a recognizance entered into under section 38; or
(b) has given security on behalf of the person bailed under that section.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 89A to 89C:


Page 29, line 27, leave out ("surety") and insert ("third party").
Page 29, line 31, leave out ("surety's") and ("third party's").
Page 29, line 32, at end insert ("or to have the security given returned to him").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 90A:


Page 30, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("be") in line 9 and insert--
("(8) Subsection (8A) applies if a person has been arrested under this section and--
(a) neither subsection (6) nor subsection (7) applies to him; or
(b) he has been brought before an immigration officer under subsection (6) but has not been released.
(8A) The arrested person must").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 91 and 92 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 92A and 92B:


Page 30, line 15, at end insert--
("( ) If subsection (8A) applies, the arrested person must be brought before the person or court concerned--
(a) as soon as is practicable after his arrest; and
(b) if subsection (8A)(a) or (c) applies, in any event within 24 hours after his arrest.").
Page 30, line 17, leave out ("(8)") and insert ("(8A)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]

Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendment No. 93A:


Page 30, line 27, at end insert--
("( ) In reckoning any period of 24 hours for the purposes of this section, no account is to be taken of Christmas Day, Good Friday or any Sunday.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 40, as amended, agreed to.

19 Jul 1999 : Column 755

Clause 41 [Procedure]:

Viscount Bridgeman moved Amendment No. 94:


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page