I support those amendments. We have some amendments in this group, too. I endorse everything that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said. To have the list of people who one should consult is ridiculous. It should be left to local circumstances, because there are different bodies in different places. I have just said that we have bodies such as the Haven Gateway and the Thames Gateway, and obviously they should be consulted, but they should not be in the legislation.
My two amendments have been suggested by the Association of Colleges, and I agree with its point. The Learning and Skills Council is mentioned in two parts of the legislation. However, legislation has just been given a Second Reading in the other place that abolishes the Learning and Skills Council and sets up a skills funding agency, if I have it right, and a young people’s learning agency. There is already something in the Bill that is going to be abolished in the coming months, with two new bodies set up in its place. That highlights the ridiculous nature of listing all these various bodies as the Government have done.
Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Hanningfield
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 9 February 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
707 c266-7GC Session
2008-09Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:14:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527349
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527349
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_527349