My Lords, that was a welcome intervention. It is precisely why my noble friend Lord Northesk felt that the Government drafting could not be improved: he felt that it was so defective that one could not achieve the right result, so he wants to take out that section. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was trying his best to find a better definition that could adequately deliver the safety of use for those properly using the tools—the good guys as opposed to the bad guys, as my noble friend put it.
I agree with my noble friend that there should be further time for consideration. I know that there is not much time between Report stage and Third Reading, but there will be one week and one day, which is more than there is occasionally. An e-mail will wing its way to my noble friend from me tomorrow, but I am sure that by the time this is on the internet at lunch time he will already be reading the results of our deliberations. I am sure that he will contact all of us to see what needs to be done betwixt now and time for tabling amendments at Third Reading next Tuesday. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 10 October 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c218 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:10:19 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350568
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350568
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_350568