Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Pannick (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Monday, 31 October 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

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—


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
731 c1042 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Complaints Compulsory purchase Councillors Conduct Council tax Fees and charges Land Greater London EU law Fines Infrastructure Increases Fire and rescue services Local government Motor vehicles Litter Planning Business rates Referendums Parish and town councils Local plans Mayoral development corporations Standards Sustainable development Social rented housing Tenants Rescue services Homes and Communities Agency Infrastructure Planning Commission Tenant Services Authority Petitions
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk