My Lords, we have cashless in the LASPO Bill and I hope that it will deal with this problem.
We have to consider the other important points that need to be dealt with. One of those—and, again, this is why I am interested in how the Opposition voted on the previous amendment—is whether the powers of entry are adequate and what powers of entry need to be given to the police. We can look at these matters, first, in the LASPO Bill and consider further regulation in due course.
I welcome the support of the Front Bench opposite for further action in this area. Obviously, there is more that we can do. I do not think that this is the right way of going forward at this stage because, as I said, we want to bring forward amendments in the LASPO Bill on Report. I can give an assurance that as soon as possible thereafter, by whatever legislative means is appropriate, we will bring forward the further amendments that need to be made, particularly to the Scrap Metal Dealers Act 1964. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 6 February 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
735 c54 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:20:02 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807549
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807549
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_807549