My Lords, it seems that we have a difficulty. The Minister has said that there are two case precedents where people have used this sort of abbreviated title, but I still rather fancy that it is bad use of the English language and bad use of legislation, and I would prefer not to see it there. I am not sure that we can take the argument any further. There is only one way of resolving the matter; either I withdraw my amendment or I press it to a vote. If I withdraw it, I might feel inclined to bring it back at Third Reading after further discussions. I think perhaps that I will do that. The noble Baroness is looking concerned, so maybe I could not do that. If I cannot do that, perhaps the best thing to do would be to get it out of the way. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 215.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dixon-Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c1255 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 11:53:47 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_308985
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_308985
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_308985