My Lords, it is absolutely right that the noble Lord has offered to have further discussions with the noble Baroness about this amendment, and I welcome that. Clearly we are not going to have another opportunity to discuss my amendments to do with ““close and constant””. The noble Lord said that ““close and constant”” would be too prescriptive in the Bill and would destroy the balance he is seeking to ensure. However, after the noble Lord, Lord Bichard, expressed disquiet about the balance in the Bill, will the Minister agree to have further discussion with us about the words ““close and constant””? The noble Lord says that the consultation will be launched but that he will not be able to provide the Government’s response to the consultation before Report. I am slightly alarmed. The consultation is to be welcomed, but then we are going to be expected to decide what is going to be in the Bill before we know the Government’s response to the consultation, and that seems a bit topsy-turvy to me.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 December 2011.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c638 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 14:29:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792336
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792336
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_792336