The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) and I disagreed on some aspects of the Bill in Committee and on Report, but I agree with her that, having already discussed the problems relating to the programming of the Bill, we now find ourselves in the unusual position of having the timetable messed around with again. The maximum opportunity seems to have been taken to wrong-foot hon. Members who have been following the Bill closely and who might wish to know at what point today the various issues will be dealt with.
Time has been set aside to discuss important, controversial issues relating to the first group of amendments and the infrastructure planning commission, and I echo what the hon. Lady has said about the importance of having enough time for hon. Members on both sides of the House fully to air those issues. I suspect that, as in our previous discussions, there will not be unanimity on either side of the House. It is ridiculous that we will then have just a couple of hours in which to debate five further groups of amendments. That does not do justice to the range of topics that we are being asked to consider, particularly those that appear under the heading of ““Existing planning regimes””. A diverse set of issues has been raised, and I know that hon. Members—particularly Back-Bench Members—want to raise some very valuable points. However, it will be difficult for the House to give those issues the time that they clearly deserve. I therefore share the hon. Lady's concerns about how the programme motion has been pushed forward today.
I am a relatively new Member of the House, but I understand from older hands that things were not always done in this way, and that there used to be a great deal more time in which to consider matters such as these. I am used to the concept of programme motions, but, even in the three years that I have been here, I do not think that I have seen an example such as this, in which two quite restricting stabs have been made at ensuring that we do not have enough time to consider all the issues at hand. I very much regret the fact that this programme motion has been put before us today.
Planning Bill (Programme) (No. 3)
Proceeding contribution from
Dan Rogerson
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 25 June 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
478 c321 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:10:28 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486555
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486555
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_486555