Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) 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

No, my Lords, it is very clear. In Clause 1, we are talking about any ““relevant authority”” and relevant authorities are listed in subsection (5). That could be extended. If it was extended, to use ““relevant authority”” in subsection (2) would not include paragraph (k) of subsection (5). The noble Lord is making a mountain out of a molehill. As I understand it, it is quite clear. Should it be extended, it would then be: "““A failure on the part of any person to act in accordance with the provision””," ““person”” in its legal sense would include paragraphs (a) to (j), but would also include paragraph (k) if my right honourable friend had extended those who are covered by it by using subsection 5(k) so to do.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
733 c318GC 
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