The point that I was raising was not about funding or querying why the local panels would be put on a statutory footing. My query was: if the local panels are being put on a statutory rather than a voluntary footing—which we are not arguing about—why not also put the requirements that the Secretary of State will be expected to meet on a statutory footing as well, rather than putting those on an optional basis? That is what is provided for in the Bill, but the Minister is reiterating that the Secretary of State does anyway what I am seeking to put on a statutory basis. Why not put that on a statutory footing in the same way as the activities of the local panels will be put on a statutory rather than voluntary footing?
Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Rosser
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 January 2015.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Counter-Terrorism and Security Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
759 c297 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-05-22 10:01:36 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-01-28/1501293000032
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-01-28/1501293000032
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-01-28/1501293000032