My answer to the noble Lord is that paragraph (c) is simply designed to maintain—as the Government say they wish to maintain—the existing common law principle, which is that the judge will indeed look at all the circumstances of the case and decide whether there has been unlawful predetermination. I am not seeking to change the common law position; I am seeking to maintain it. The Minister has the same objective; he does not have the objective—as I understood him—of changing the substance of the common law. The objection to Clause 25 is that, on its wording, that is precisely what it will do, or there is a real risk it will do that. That is why it needs further consideration.
In the hope that the result in your Lordships’ House is neither predetermined—
Localism Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Pannick
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 October 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Localism Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c1042 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-01-22 18:40:12 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779670
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779670
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_779670