My Lords, I made it clear to the noble Baroness that I could not accept Amendments 10, 11 or 12—all three go together. The point I was trying to make is that we want to get this wording right, and I do not want to be bound by precisely those words. We have moved pretty fast since the end of our consultation and the end of the independent inquiry. We have brought forward this amendment, which we announced last week. I then made it clear that we would have further discussions with NAPO on this matter. That is what I want to do. I do not want to bind us before we have those discussions by accepting the precise wording of those amendments. That is why I made it clear in my opening speech that we wanted to address the spirit behind them but that we wanted to discuss these matters further. I cannot accept Amendments 10, 11 or 12, but the noble Baroness has heard the commitment I have made. With that, I hope that when we finally get to those amendments—I appreciate that we have one or two debates to go before then—she will feel it is not necessary to move them. We can discuss them after another place has discussed them.
Protection of Freedoms Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Henley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 March 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Protection of Freedoms Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c33 Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:04:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_816619
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_816619
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_816619