Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I am glad to hear that the Government will reflect on Amendment 241ZB. I am grateful to my noble friend for responding to a couple of amendments that I failed to explain. I have been a little distracted by a domestic crisis. One should not use a BlackBerry too much in the Chamber, but it has been jolly useful this morning. If the receipt is intended as an acknowledgement that the suspension has ended, it seems rather a confusing mechanism. Simply providing that the authority must acknowledge that the suspension has ended would be a great deal clearer. I shall say just a word about the general costs. There is a reference to a cap. I am puzzled by how a cap can be consistent when the fees must reflect actual costs. Perhaps we can pursue that outside the Chamber. I shall also put one thought into the Government’s mind. The references to general costs seem very wide. I am not surprised that they have attracted amendments. They are justifiable if they are a proper proportion of overheads. I wonder whether some wording such as ““directly or indirectly related to the particular application”” might be more reassuring and appropriate. Although some of us are approaching this from different points of view, we might be able to share some thoughts before the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 240Z. Amendment 240Z withdrawn. Amendments 240XA to 240XD not moved. Clause 121 agreed. Clause 122 : Power for licensing authorities to set fees Clause 122 : Power for licensing authorities to set fees Amendments 240XE to 241ZB not moved. Clause 122 agreed. House resumed. Clause 123: Licensing policy statements Amendment 241ZC Moved by