I did not say this in my opening remarks, but we entirely understand the Government’s sensible amendment No. 30, and support it. I was interested to listen to the Minister’s supportive remarks about the gist of my proposal in amendment No. 4—although he had some doubts about the precise wording—because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Ms Angela C. Smith) went out of her way to damn my amendment, and went as far as suggesting that clause 44 already contained a reference to the inspector having to have good reason. Her version of the Bill must be different from mine.
I appreciate the Minister’s intention to consider the matter in another place, although it would be better to have done it in this House; ideally, all amendments should come to this place before they go to the other place. That would address part of our concern, but not our fundamental concerns about clause 44 in its entirety. That is what the other amendments, and new clauses 1 and 2, are supposed to deal with, in replacing clause 44.
I have developed a considerable respect for the Minister, and he has dealt with the Bill helpfully and sensibly, but his arguments in the last few minutes have been thin, to say the least.
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
James Paice
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 11 October 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
437 c197 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:34:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264904
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264904
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_264904