Perhaps I may follow up that point. If Clause 5(3) is supposed to in some sense incorporate the notion of government economic policies and the definition of sustainability, it is obscurantist to an extreme degree. The subsection does not say that, and normal reading would not reflect that. It is a sort of philosophical point suggesting, ““Don’t listen to what I say; listen to what I mean””.
I must say that what is written here does not in any common-sense manner refer in a constructive way to the point that we have been discussing. It is nonsensical to suggest that the clause provides the qualification that is required. If by some extraordinarily convoluted legal argument it does, there is an extreme lack of clarity here, and it is the Government's responsibility to make this clear. There is a severe deficiency of drafting in the Bill if the clause purports to refer in a constructive way to the matter that we have been discussing.
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Eatwell
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 December 2010.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
722 c222GC Session
2010-12Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 21:10:13 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688250
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688250
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_688250