Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Dixon-Smith (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 15 March 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill.


Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill

My Lords, it seems that we have a difficulty. The Minister has said that there are two case precedents where people have used this sort of abbreviated title, but I still rather fancy that it is bad use of the English language and bad use of legislation, and I would prefer not to see it there. I am not sure that we can take the argument any further. There is only one way of resolving the matter; either I withdraw my amendment or I press it to a vote. If I withdraw it, I might feel inclined to bring it back at Third Reading after further discussions. I think perhaps that I will do that. The noble Baroness is looking concerned, so maybe I could not do that. If I cannot do that, perhaps the best thing to do would be to get it out of the way. I wish to test the opinion of the House. On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to? Their Lordships divided: Contents, 76; Not-Contents, 215. [Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
679 c1255 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Birds Conservation Climate change Countryside Biodiversity Finance Environment protection Functions Imports National Lottery Public bodies Non-departmental public bodies Sustainable development Wildlife Rural areas Regional development agencies Rural Development Service Commission for Rural Communities Natural England
Legislation
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk