I thank the Minister for his response. I just reinforce the point, although I am sure that I made it clear, that drafting was never the issue. The wording of the Bill is, of course, appropriate and we support it. The question was really about the processes surrounding the necessary consultation with the House authorities, which the Minister explained was not done in the way that had been suggested by the committee. That point has been noted. He has now read into the record confirmation that the Government would expect that the appropriate processes in place in both parts of Parliament would be followed in the unlikely event of any case being raised in respect of the Bill. I am not sure that I entirely followed him on whether there was a bit of a gap emerging over the protocols that should apply in this part of Parliament. Although it is not a matter for us—I am sure it is way above my pay grade—I hope the Clerk of the Parliaments has noted the point. He is nodding, so I think he has. Perhaps there is something that the Government might wish to raise with him arising from the Bill about the need for a proper protocol to be prepared so that we are ready should this event occur. With that bit of business in place, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 6 September 2016.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
774 c954 Session
2016-17Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2017-02-16 10:11:13 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-09-06/16090640000099
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-09-06/16090640000099
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2016-09-06/16090640000099