My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but if the desire is to give all this freedom to local authorities, I am still not clear why Clause 56 is needed at all. As has been pointed out, Clause 55(8)(c) states, “must … specify the period”, so you cannot just say, “We’ll just whack it in and see what happens”, and Clause 57 allows for variation. While I am on my feet and so as not to interrupt later, in case the Minister does not have the answer in his notes, I would be interested in his response to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, as to the objection to changing “must” to “may” in Clause 56(5), so that there might be a less onerous process for the renewal of orders.
Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Harris of Haringey
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 25 November 2013.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
749 c1250 
Session
2013-14
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2013-12-20 05:17:44 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-25/1311263000078
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-25/1311263000078
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-11-25/1311263000078