Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her response. I thank also my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their support. The Minister’s reply to the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, illustrated only too well how cunning government departments are in answering questions about the ECHR. The response was fascinating, being essentially that there is ““necessary”” and ““necessary””, and that, for the purposes of the ECHR, ““appropriate”” equals ““necessary””. That seemed to be what the Minister was saying. It is clearly highly dangerous to quote the ECHR in these circumstances, because you get an Alice in Wonderland type of response. However, I was very grateful for the remainder of the Minister’s response. Her undertaking to consult on the statutory guidance will, I think, be welcomed by all concerned. Some of the examples that she gave might not be considered ““necessary””, although, as I said in my opening contribution, if licensing authorities are able to impose 64 conditions on a takeaway, they do not lack powers. I am not going to push this. We have had a good debate over two stages of the Bill. I have tried to express the concerns of the trade on this matter. I hope that that dialogue will continue in the statutory consultation so that ““appropriate”” is confined —so that it is not equivalent to ““suitable””, and certainly not equivalent to ““convenient””. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 304A withdrawn. Amendments 304B to 305 not moved. Clause 121 : Early morning alcohol restriction orders Amendment 305ZA Clause 121 : Early morning alcohol restriction orders Amendment 305ZA Moved by