Since we had the advantage of discussing the detail of the Bill, I had hoped that we would have arrived at a better understanding of the import of this part. Of course I hear what the noble Baroness, Lady Harris, says—her view is that this is ““meddling, fiddling, irksome legislation”” and that it gives carte blanche to the Secretary of State. I firmly disagree with that assessment. We will have further opportunities in subsequent amendments to discuss much of the detail of these provisions, so, in this debate, perhaps I may say a few words about some of the recurring themes that we have encountered. I hope that, in doing so, I shall meet the issues raised by the noble Baroness.
I know that the noble Baroness suggests that the provisions in the schedule are evidence of an overly centralising tendency and that this is somehow the last swipe of the departing Home Secretary. However, that is an unjust assessment of the way in which Charles Clarke behaved. One thing that we are all able to rejoice in is that he was very reflective, considerate and considering in the way in which he addressed these issues. I can assure the noble Baroness that her concerns about his approach are not accurate.
If one looks at the provisions in the Bill—
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Scotland of Asthal
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 4 July 2006.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c157 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:20:29 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334444
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334444
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334444