I very much agree with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, on Amendment 1. Of the two amendments under discussion, I prefer that of my noble friend Lady Hanham, because her proposed new subsection (2A)(d) would cover what is in Amendment 1. It specifies: ""any other people or organisations they consider relevant"."
It is far more important for the police to discuss the position with parents rather than children because they need the parents’ co-operation. To some extent, the problems of young people today arise because parents very often do not start to teach their children discipline and the difference between right and wrong at a young age.
The children covered by Amendment 1 could be as young as three or four. They may well have to be consulted if this amendment becomes law. I do not think that that would be right, because they are too young to know. The police could go and talk to youth groups or clubs. That would be an opportunity for those young people—those approaching 16 or over 16—to talk to the police and answer their questions on community policing. I would prefer Amendment 2 to go forward because Amendment 1 is misconceived.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Swinfen
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 22 June 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
711 c1355-6 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:21:11 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569251
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569251
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_569251