Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rosser (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 December 2011. It occurred during Committee proceeding and Debate on bill on Protection of Freedoms Bill.


Protection of Freedoms Bill

My Lords, the Minister said that his concern is about delay, and I will come back to that in a moment. If that is his concern, it does not explain why he does not accept Amendment 110, which relates to the private sector and those who may be covered by Clause 33(5)(k), since there is no intention at the moment of introducing it into these areas, and therefore it would be possible without causing a delay to agree to an inquiry there. I take it that in view of the fact that the Minister has not accepted it in relation to Amendment 110, it is a fundamental objection to an inquiry, not simply about delay because Amendment 110 would not result in a delay.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c300GC 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Admissibility of evidence Data protection Codes of practice CCTV Biometrics Crime Alcoholic drinks Anti-social behaviour Electronic surveillance Educational institutions Local government Personal records Powers Public appointments Pupils Standards Information Commissioner's Office Tobacco Sales Schools Young people Security Office of Surveillance Commissioners
Legislation
Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk