There are a number of issues contained within the consequential provisions in Clause 34. We believe, as others have stated, that the clause is exceedingly tough and draconian on commons associations. References have been made to its possible impact. The Minister must justify the inclusion of the clause, which is consequential on subsection (2) and supersedes a number of Acts of Parliament. It is difficult to determine precisely the impact of the changes of those Acts of Parliament if they are superseded and what effect that would have on commons associations.
It is very simple: first, why is the clause necessary; secondly, why does the Minister require these powers and amendments to existing legislation; and, thirdly, is it because unreasonable powers are being taken in the Bill against the interests of commons associations? The Minister will have to satisfy us on those three questions.
Commons Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Livsey of Talgarth
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 9 November 2005.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Commons Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
675 c233-4GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 01:24:43 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275989
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275989
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_275989