Proceeding contribution from Lord Skelmersdale (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2009. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Policing and Crime Bill.
Policing and Crime Bill
My Lords, the noble Baroness is not alone. Like her, I read the current wording to allow the injunction to do anything at all, with Clause 34 being in the way of an example, rather than a restrictive list. Can the Minister explain whether we are right and, if so, why on earth the Government are doing that? What other possible restrictions or requirements might be imposed? The list in Clause 34 is already enormously vague, covering all sorts of aspects of a respondent's life, from their pets to their clothing. Surely to goodness that flexibility is quite sufficient for the purposes.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 713 c176-7
- Session
- 2008-09
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Codes of practice Crime prevention Appeals Crime Alcoholic drinks Crimes of violence Anti-social behaviour Bottles Licensing Harassment Licensed premises Injunctions Glass Local government Police Powers Public places Packaging Prices Plastics Sales Young people Anti-social behaviour orders
- Legislation
- Policing and Crime Bill 2008-09
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:14:32 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583591
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583591
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583591