My Lords, this has been a very useful and helpful discussion. Indeed, the noble Baroness went a long way to helping us further our objectives by tabling her amendment and particularly by accepting the removal of the word ““exceptionally””. That was definitely one of the words that those who have discussed this matter with us were concerned about.
I hear what the noble Baroness said about the possible conflict of interest in my amendment, in which I am in effect asking a lawyer to do what we criticised the process for doing, and sit on both sides of the fence at the same time. I shall have to study the matter with care to be absolutely sure that where we finish up—given the government amendment and the change that she has accepted—is an ideal situation. Subject to that minor caveat—if we need to do anything about that, we can do so at Third Reading—for now I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Dixon-Smith
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 6 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c374 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 22:57:41 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506810
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506810
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506810