Localism Bill

Unfortunately when irony appears in Hansard it appears to be totally serious. I realise I am being bold tangling with the expertise that has been brought to bear both by the two noble Lords who have spoken and have their names to the amendment and the authorities they have cited. I do not see in the clause the problem they describe—the possible extension from predetermination to predisposition. The word ““etc”” in the clause heading I can see might be a little confusing and possibly in Clause 25(1)(a): "““an allegation of bias or predetermination, or otherwise””." But I regard the ““otherwise”” as meaning ““or not””, not as a different attitude. I start by not being able to follow the noble Lords down that route. Are the important words not the ones that we debated at a previous stage, in Clause 25(2), ““just because””? That subsection is not exclusive. It does not describe the only circumstances that might amount to predetermination but approaches from the other side. It says that if a decision-maker demonstrates or has done these two things—or has done the first thing and the matter is relevant to the decision—that does not of itself mean that he has predetermined; nor does it mean that he has not. That approach is much more effective than the one provided in the amendment, which seems to spell out all the circumstances that would amount to predetermination. I am sure that noble Lords have great imaginations, but I doubt whether any of us could imagine all the circumstances that need to be covered. I am afraid that I cannot support the amendment.