I am grateful to the noble Lord for allowing me to come back on him, because he misunderstood. I was asking about the costs and the funding of positive requirements. Although I mentioned the cost of proceeding with the breach of an IPNA, that was not the point I raised when I intervened on the noble Lord. He must have had an earlier note. I am asking if I had understood his point about the cost of positive requirements and whether the Government would make any contribution, bearing in mind the additional burdens doctrine. Was he saying that there will be no additional costs in pursuing positive requirements?
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Smith of Basildon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 18 November 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
749 c823 Session
2013-14Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2022-06-07 14:10:30 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-18/1311197000015
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-18/1311197000015
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-18/1311197000015