Lest it be thought that no one on this side shares the views of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, I associate myself with them. I said at Second Reading that I thought that the levy was a tax. It was made clear by the Minister that it was not. When the question of Treasury involvement was raised today, it was made clear that that was not because it was a tax. The heart and guts of this are precisely in the regulations. It is deeply offensive for a framework Bill depending on regulations to be put before us when those regulations need a lot more work before they are brought forward. I say in a non-partisan way—I do not associate myself with some of the more emotive remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—that my noble friend the Minister would do a service to the Chamber to accept that a substantial case is being made. It is not the way for the Government to proceed and I hope that they will think again.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Woolmer of Leeds
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 23 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1340 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:33:32 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503143
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503143
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503143