My Lords, an argument could be mounted to that effect. I prayed in aid my absence from those debates before, so I shall excuse myself. The question is a fair one, but that does not necessarily mean that the balance should come down in favour of not having this process for the NPPF. It is such a hugely important document. One has just to look at the impact assessment of some of the changes being proposed covering town centre and parking policies. These things are very important and really go to the heart of our national life in so many respects. It is about communities, how we conduct our lives and how we plan for the future. To take that formally outwith Parliament does not seem to be right. In the circumstances, I am inclined to test the view of the House on this matter.
Division on Amendment 203L
Contents 140; Not-Contents 217.
Amendment 203L disagreed.
Clause 97 : Abolition of regional strategies
Amendment 203M
Moved by
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 12 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
730 c1766 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 13:35:01 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_772442
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_772442
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_772442