Proceeding contribution from Baroness Henig (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Police and Justice Bill.
Police and Justice Bill
As ever, my noble friend has gone some way to reassure me. I have listened very carefully to everything that has been said. I fully agree that guidance is just that—guidance. We should not be too prescriptive. I share that view. The problem is, as we all know, that local councils and CDRPs differ in quality. My guess is that the good ones will, indeed, follow the guidance; my worry is that the fair or possibly weak councils will be those where guidance may not be followed. That is precisely where the problems will arise, and why I wanted to have a little more prescription to avoid what will otherwise be difficulties in certain areas. I would like a bit of consistency here. In debates on earlier parts of the Bill when I was arguing for flexibility, my noble friend assured me that the Government needed reserved powers. While most police authorities would of course be responsible, he said, the Government needed reserved powers because there would be one or two that might be difficult. If that is the case for police authorities, is it not also the case for weak councils? We should be flexible throughout the Bill, and that includes a whole number of areas that we have already had discussions on, which includes issues with reserved powers and police authorities. If my noble friend is offering to be flexible there, I would feel more able to be flexible here. On the other hand, if we are going to be prescriptive because police authorities will cause problems, I submit that that is the case with councils and therefore we need to be consistent and be prescriptive for them as well. In that spirit I draw some comfort from what my noble friend said but I feel that there are issues which we may well have to return to at a later stage, both here and also—I did not have time to say this earlier when we were discussing them—on CDRPs. But, for now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 105 to 113 not moved.] Clause 17 agreed to. Schedule 6 [Interpretation and modification]: [Amendment No. 114 not moved.] Schedule 6 agreed to. Clauses 18 to 20 agreed to.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c411-2
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Children Databases Accountability Crime Bail Administration of justice Arrests Anti-social behaviour Community relations Equality Fixed penalties Fines HM Inspectorate of Prisons Local government Offenders Parents Police Powers Membership Prisons Publicity Police authorities Police cautions Race relations Victims Social rented housing Anti-social behaviour orders Parenting contracts Parenting orders Crime and disorder reduction partnerships Hate crime
- Legislation
- Police and Justice Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-02-02 10:09:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335491
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335491
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_335491