UK Parliament / Open data

Police and Justice Bill

Proceeding contribution from Lord Elton (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
My Lords, the monitoring period will be very important. In view of the short time in which the revised measure was brought forward and then extensively amended, we, too, will be watching closely what goes on in that period. I regret that I have not been a party to the discussions in tabling the amendments, so I apologise for any ignorance. I would like an assurance from the Minister that the specific requirements for the publication of programmes of inspections do not preclude the inspector making unannounced inspections, which are crucial to the efficiency of the system. Secondly, I am concerned by Amendment No. 10D, which gives the Secretary of State power in conjunction with a great panoply of authority—the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General. I should like to know why they are brought in as well when there is to be a direction for a joint inspection, presumably by the inspectors subject to those Ministers. If overused, that could undermine some of the liberty of action that we secured in our original amendment. My third request is much more general. I hope that the Minister will carry it to whichever is the appropriate committee—it may be more than one. It would be immensely helpful when there are numerous amendments to a very long amendment if the lines could be numbered. We are asked to look to line 134. It took me quite some time to get there and I must admit that I missed some of the things that the noble Baroness was saying. If that could be addressed, I should be most grateful.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

686 c280 

Session

2005-06

Chamber / Committee

House of Lords chamber
Back to top