My Lords, while not wishing to stifle debate or discussion in any way, and recognising the strength of feeling in this House, it may be helpful if at this stage I say a few words about the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, Amendments Nos. 160B and 160C, and Commons financial privilege. As set out in the Marshalled List before us, the Commons have disagreed to Lords Amendment No. 160 and give as their reason financial privilege. The guidance in the Companion is quite clear: where the Commons have given a privilege reason, the Lords do not insist on their amendment. This is a longstanding convention. The Companion continues by stating that noble Lords, "““may offer amendments in lieu of amendments which have been disagreed to by the Commons on the grounds of privilege””."
By convention, any amendment in lieu must not clearly invite the same response from the Commons. The House authorities have advised that Amendments Nos. 160B and 160C do not breach the convention.
With this advice and the conventions between the two Houses in mind, I urge the House to confine its debate to the substance of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, and to refrain from questioning the reasons asserted by the other place.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 25 November 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
705 c1358-9 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:21:55 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511798
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511798
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_511798