UK Parliament / Open data

Commons Bill [HL]

Proceeding contribution from Lord Rooker (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 July 2006. It occurred during Debate on bills on Commons Bill [HL].
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 97 to 99. Noble Lords will recall from earlier debates that the National Trust had some concerns about the impact of the Bill on its interests. We gave various assurances in both Houses, and directly to the trust, that substantially resolved its initial concerns. However, one particular issue was still troubling the National Trust while the Bill was in the other place, and Amendments Nos. 97 to 99 responded to that. The trust argued that the power we were taking in Clause 44 to amend works provisions in local Acts was simply too broad, and could allow us to interfere unduly in the powers available to an organisation such as itself that had promoted its own legislation. On reflection, we agreed with this point and amended the Bill to limit the scope of the power. The amendments make it clear that apart from giving effect to Schedule 4, the sole purpose of Clause 44 is to enable any existing consent criteria or procedures for works done under local or personal legislation, or under provisional order confirmation Acts, to be made consistent with the criteria and procedures set out in Part 3. I understand that as a result of these amendments, the trust is content that its interests will not be prejudiced. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 97 to 99.—(Lord Rooker.)
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c1019 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Back to top