Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Henley (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 12 March 2012. It occurred during Debate on bill on Protection of Freedoms Bill.


Protection of Freedoms Bill

My Lords, I made it clear to the noble Baroness that I could not accept Amendments 10, 11 or 12—all three go together. The point I was trying to make is that we want to get this wording right, and I do not want to be bound by precisely those words. We have moved pretty fast since the end of our consultation and the end of the independent inquiry. We have brought forward this amendment, which we announced last week. I then made it clear that we would have further discussions with NAPO on this matter. That is what I want to do. I do not want to bind us before we have those discussions by accepting the precise wording of those amendments. That is why I made it clear in my opening speech that we wanted to address the spirit behind them but that we wanted to discuss these matters further. I cannot accept Amendments 10, 11 or 12, but the noble Baroness has heard the commitment I have made. With that, I hope that when we finally get to those amendments—I appreciate that we have one or two debates to go before then—she will feel it is not necessary to move them. We can discuss them after another place has discussed them.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
736 c33 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Children Disclosure of information Databases Criminal records Codes of practice Biometrics Crimes of violence Convictions Employment Health services Electronic surveillance Freedom of information DNA Evidence ICT Judiciary Harassment Powers of entry Personal records Protection Powers Negligence Vetting Vulnerable adults Surveillance Research Right of search Stalking Disclosure and Barring Service
Legislation
Protection of Freedoms Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk