I am talking only about the future. The amendment refers quite explicitly to the future. I hope I am repeating myself correctly; I said that if it was suggested that the present arrangements are sufficient, then that would imply that the introduction of the new legally enforceable target made no difference. That is what I was saying. I am not talking about whether the report was insufficient in the past. We did not have a legally enforceable target in the past but we are going to in future. That is why I suggested that new arrangements would be required. So we are looking to the future, not the past, and I should be very interested to know why the proposer and the Minister—if indeed they are not going to accept the amendment—think that new arrangements should not be required in the future.
International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tugendhat
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 6 February 2015.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
759 c1004 
Session
2014-15
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-11 18:28:40 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-02-06/15020644000260
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-02-06/15020644000260
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-02-06/15020644000260