Not much. I speak as something of a walking expert on the topic, having listened to debates in the House and chaired a body where another body had to have regard to our recommendation. It was a council, which promptly read it and completely ignored everything we said and did something completely different. One could come up with reasons, which would be fairly broad, for the purpose of complying with that requirement. That is why I am concerned with that particular provision. I would like to see even that requirement firmed up, given the limitations of having to have regard to it. It is an extremely soft one in law. That is what I was trying to address by this wording, rather than removing ““may have regard to”” and requiring compliance. I think that is something that may well be worth reconsidering.
Electoral Administration Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Norton of Louth
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 23 March 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Electoral Administration Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
680 c228GC Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:33:39 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_312132
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_312132
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_312132