I thank my noble friend for that. I was just giving the Minister a chance to explain how it would be funded—my noble friend hit the nail on the head—which is why I tabled that amendment. The day-to-day expenditure may be a source of argument between local authorities that eventually come to an agreement, one hopes. The Minister has optimistically dismissed my noble friend’s amendment. However, there is a very real issue with capital expenditure and I do not think that we have heard a sufficient explanation from the Minister. In part, this is an issue of the Government trusting local government and the IFCAs to come up with appropriate solutions. It seems micromanagement to include in the Bill something such as this which cannot be done. Whether the IFCA or the local authority borrows the money, it will be subject to the same public spending rules, so why deny them the right to do it? I am sure that before Report the Minister will be able to afford me a better explanation of where the capital expenditure will come from.
Marine and Coastal Access Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 16 March 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
709 c91 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 00:11:08 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538770
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538770
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_538770