I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, would respond to that, but I think that he would express gratitude to the Minister for establishing the precedents—this House likes its precedents. I still think that ““expedient”” in all other definitions, which have not been quoted by the Minister but which my noble friend referred to, has a deprecatory sense; that is even in the Oxford English Dictionary. ““Necessary””, ““desirable”” or ““appropriate”” might be more suitable here. The noble Lord is clearly trying to make this legally watertight—to coin a phrase—so that it will not be challenged. So be it; that is right. I suspect that ““expedient”” is just as likely to be challenged by some clever lawyer as the other words that we have referred to as possible alternatives. Nevertheless, this is, I am sure, not an issue on which we want to spend any more time. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment 101ZA withdrawn.
Amendment 101ZB not moved.
Clause 64 agreed.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tyler
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 23 February 2009.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
708 c83 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:54:13 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530734
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530734
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_530734