Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Strathclyde (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill.


Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Richard, and indeed to the Lord Speaker. It is true that there is a lacuna in the procedure and when I discovered this about half an hour ago I suggested that the Procedure Committee should look at it. In the normal course of events, there is an underlying assumption in the Companion that the mover of the manuscript amendment would feel so moved as to not move the amendment. However, as I said earlier, under the terms of self-regulation the amendment is ultimately in the hands of the House. There is no Motion before the House. There is the possibility of a closure Motion or indeed the Motion that the noble Lord be no longer heard. Both are quite heavy-handed. I dare say that if the noble Lord insisted on moving his amendment the House would take a pretty dim view of it, and if he tried to convince the House of the merits of his case I suspect he would not succeed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c14 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Accountability Crime City of London Council tax Finance Governing bodies Eligibility Greater London Dismissal Police Local government finance Public appointments Mayor of London Political impartiality Metropolitan Police Standards Witnesses London Assembly Community safety partnerships Police and crime commissioners Police and crime panels
Legislation
Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk