My Lords, as we are being denied a separate debate on Motions F and F1—albeit by general agreement—perhaps I may, as a layman, point out that an eminent Queen’s Counsel in another place, who happens to be a distinguished member of the Minister’s party, agreed with her on Lords Amendment No. 36—the subject of Motions D and D1—but strongly disagreed with her on Lords Amendments Nos. 81 to 84 inclusive, the subjects of Motions F and F1. Many other honourable Members on the Government Benches felt exactly the same way. That is why the Government’s majority on the second set of amendments eight days ago was very much narrower. I mention that because, although some noble Lords may feel that the Government have a case over Motions D and D1 for the reasons set out just now by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Swansea, they may take a very different view over Motion F1, where I think the Government have absolutely no case at all.
Police and Justice Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Monson
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 November 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Police and Justice Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
686 c294 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 21:11:22 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357444
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357444
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357444