My Lords, the noble Baroness is not alone. Like her, I read the current wording to allow the injunction to do anything at all, with Clause 34 being in the way of an example, rather than a restrictive list. Can the Minister explain whether we are right and, if so, why on earth the Government are doing that? What other possible restrictions or requirements might be imposed? The list in Clause 34 is already enormously vague, covering all sorts of aspects of a respondent's life, from their pets to their clothing. Surely to goodness that flexibility is quite sufficient for the purposes.
Policing and Crime Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Skelmersdale
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 13 October 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Policing and Crime Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
713 c176-7 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:14:32 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583591
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583591
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_583591