My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords for their contribution to this short debate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blair of Boughton. It could be that giving “provisional findings”, which are not the ultimate findings, could create a false sense of expectation in the complainant and so forth. However, the question was around not whether that should be there but the reason for it being there. As the noble Lord, Lord Blair, said, there may be a sensible reason for taking it out in the new legislation, but I failed to hear a sensible reason for why it was formerly in primary legislation but will no longer be. Perhaps between now and Report we may be able to unearth that reason. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Paddick
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 26 October 2016.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
776 c216 Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-16 09:37:09 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-10-26/16102659000109
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-10-26/16102659000109
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-10-26/16102659000109