I reassure my noble and learned friend that we shall come back to it shortly. I hope that we are able to deploy the arguments more fully in Amendment No. 48.
I find it difficult that we must leave the schedule to the vagaries of an order-making process. To have these new serious crime prevention orders is a serious step. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew referred to the need for flexibility on some occasions. He is right. The Government argue for flexibility throughout, but the Government’s flexibility tends to be a straitjacket for everybody else in how they can or cannot behave.
We shall need to look at this more closely, particularly when we have had an opportunity to look at the Government’s justification for what is in the schedule when we get to Amendment No. 48. Forthe moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Serious offences]:
Serious Crime Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 March 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Serious Crime Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
690 c770 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:34:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385152
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385152
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_385152