All 2 Debates between Lord Colwyn and Lord Jenkin of Roding

Wed 20th Jul 2011

Localism Bill

Debate between Lord Colwyn and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Wednesday 20th July 2011

(13 years, 4 months ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jenkin of Roding Portrait Lord Jenkin of Roding
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly entitled to speak to an amendment that has not been moved because, as the clerks will tell one, an amendment belongs to the House. I have to say, though, that it is totally contrary to the spirit and conventions of this House that someone should seek to speak to an amendment that has not been moved. We cannot stop the noble Lord, but I hope that he will do so extremely briefly. I have a number of other amendments in exactly the same situation, and I do not intend to say anything about them at all.

Lord Colwyn Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
- Hansard - -

If the noble Lord speaks to the amendment, he must move it.

Energy Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Colwyn and Lord Jenkin of Roding
Monday 17th January 2011

(13 years, 10 months ago)

Grand Committee
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Lord Colwyn Portrait The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Colwyn)
- Hansard - -

We are back now on the original Marshalled List. The manuscript amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, is on a separate piece of paper and is included in this group.

Lord Jenkin of Roding Portrait Lord Jenkin of Roding
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

My Lords, I begin with an apology that I did not table this amendment until this morning. Last week we were fairly heavily involved on various energy matters and I am afraid I only got round to it over the weekend. Compared with the substantial points outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, this is a very minor point and is solely about drafting.

I suggest an amendment to the first line of Clause 2(7) because it refers to the wrong paragraph in the subsection above. Clause 2(7) seeks to enlarge and define the matters that were included in subsection (6)(a). Therefore, for Clause 2(7) to refer to subsection (5)(b)(ii) is wrong because that only refers to the order. I mentioned subsection (6). I beg the Committee’s pardon—it is subsection (5), but it refers to matters in subsection (5)(a) and not subsection (5)(b). I wonder whether it is a misprint or whether there is some hidden matter of drafting which I have not appreciated.