I apologise to the Committee if there is some confusion. The intention behind the amendment was that the Secretary of State should make provisions about the giving of advice by an existing governing body. By the time this legislation is in place, the existing governing body will be the IPC. It will be independent. I agree that the wording of Amendment No. 204 is somewhat obtuse, but we thought that it was clear.
I am grateful to the Minister. Unknowingly, he has been remarkably helpful. One of the first tasks of the commission will undoubtedly be to read the record of the processes by which the legislation was arrived at. Undoubtedly, the answers he has given me, if they do nothing else, will guide the IPC on how to deal with the question of advice to applicants. We always have this wretched business on the Floor of the House of flying blind in many ways, but in answering us the Minister has inadvertently given the IPC a framework for doing its job. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 205 to 209 not moved.]
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50 [Obtaining information about interests in land]:
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dixon-Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 16 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c890-1 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:55:57 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500883
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500883
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_500883