I support my noble friend in his amendment, to which we have added our names. The issue he has raised is a fundamental one, about which I am sure we would all have the gravest concern, as he does. I hope the Minister can give us some explanation that suggests that what we are reading is not what is intended. Unfortunately, whatever she may say in exculpation, my own view is that the wording in the Bill is the wording that we have to deal with. If that is the case, some revision here will be required. I hope that on reflection the Minister might find that it is possible to give us reassurance, and to say that the Government will reflect on that wording and possibly come up with some mechanism that ensures that the commission itself cannot at a stroke amend the wording of legislation, because that would not be proper.
In this group of amendments I have also tabled a debate on whether Clause 117 should stand part. I do not intend to take the time of the Committee on that debate; it is a consequence of some earlier amendments of ours that we have not dealt with at the moment, and there is no point in dealing with them here.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dixon-Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 20 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c969-70 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 00:48:31 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501661
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501661
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_501661