My Lords, when the Minister speaks to her Amendment No. 28, will she explain why it is necessary to include new subsections (1B) and (1C) and say whether they are limiting? I would use the list-principle argument that she used against me on the previous amendment to ask whether the subsections restrict the Secretary of State. When there is a change of government and a new Secretary of State, there is bound to be a change in some of the national policy statements out of pure politics. If we go back to 1997, the new Labour Government would have changed the national policy statements on roads and nuclear power. When a new Secretary of State takes over for an incoming Government, he will review the national policy statement. There might have been a manifesto pledge to build more roads or whatever the infrastructure might be. I am concerned that new subsections (1B) and (1C) are a little limiting in that respect. I would therefore be grateful if the Minister paid particular attention to that. She will not have been surprised to hear what I have said, because I raised much the same point in Committee.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Caithness
(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 c407 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 22:58:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506863
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506863
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506863