I always enjoy exercise in response to the noble Baroness. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, will excuse me if I make a couple of points.
The noble Baroness had to address herself to two issues, both policy and process. My questions were predominantly about process—whether this was the right constitutional way to go about removing a clause that is fundamental to the Bill. I do not feel that she has yet assured me on that point. She referred to the fact that the Government putting the clause into the Bill was very much part of how they were bringing their planned policy forward, and that it was in response to her right honourable and honourable friends in another place saying, ““We don’t believe you, our Government—prove it””. What a thing to have your own colleagues say that. The Government putClause 12 in as their get-out to provide flexibility, as she said. That was not overwhelmingly popular with her honourable friends in another place, as she will know, but I suspect that it was seen as better than nothing.
We must consider whether or not the affirmative procedure is appropriate. That will happen when we consider my Amendment No. 99. I am conscious not only of the time, as the Minister looks at the clock, but of the fact that my Chief Whip is sitting behind me. If I were to start voting against every Home Office affirmative order that I thought was plain wrong, I do not think that I would be long for this life. I hear what the Minister says and I know that she has done all she can to argue the Government’s case. We remain adrift.
Next week, if the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is persuaded not to oppose the Question that Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill, when we reach my AmendmentNo. 99, I would be grateful if the Minister could show me any recent Home Office legislation in which the Government have sought to remove by order a clause that is fundamental to a Bill. We shall have to see whether that fits neatly with what they are seeking to do in this Bill. I could not research that, given my resources, but, no doubt, the Minister will have the facts at her fingertips.
Offender Management Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Anelay of St Johns
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 June 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Offender Management Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
692 c1119-20 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:30:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400641
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400641
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_400641