Environment Bill Debate
Full Debate: Read Full DebateBaroness Fookes
Main Page: Baroness Fookes (Conservative - Life peer)Department Debates - View all Baroness Fookes's debates with the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberI am sorry; I would like to make a few comments about Amendment 24. I thought the agreement was to Amendments 22 and 23.
I am just putting the amendment. As far as I am aware, Amendment 22 has passed, so we now come to Amendment 23.
Amendment 23
I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this short if somewhat one-sided debate and, of course, to the Minister for his characteristically courteous and speedily delivered response.
In view of the time, I do not seek to summarise the excellent points made in support of these amendments. I simply pick up one point made by the Minister when he spoke of the need for certainty, which, as our Amendment 27 accepts, is an important factor in the court’s discretion. The need for certain outcomes needs to be balanced against the need for lawful outcomes, which is I think the point that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, was making; that balance can be performed by the courts only in the individual case and not by preordaining the result.
Having listen carefully to the Minister, I see a stark contrast between the wish to portray these clauses as an effective series of remedies and the reality that they fall well short. I regret that the Minister has not been able to give the requested assurances and, for that reason, I propose to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 27.
I am so sorry. I meant to move the amendment but put only Amendment 27 to the vote. I must apologise that I did not rehearse myself in the proper language.
I only need the noble Lord to move formally Amendment 27.
Amendment 27
Amendments 31 and 32 have been pre-empted so I shall not be calling them.