Skip to main content

1-20 of 154 results for subject:Enforcement

Legislation X
Commons Bill (HL) 2005-06

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

More
Commons Bill (HL) 2005-06 (154)

Subject

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Commons Bill (HL). Committee stage fourth sitting (afternoon). Clauses 38 to 60 agreed to, clauses 38, 39, 41, 42 and 60 as amended. New clauses considered. Schedules 1 to 6 agreed to, schedules 1, 2 and 6 as amended. Bill, as amended, to be reported (Bill 173 2005-06).

Type
Debates on bills; Public Bill Committee proceedings
Date
27 April 2006
Reference
SCD
House
House of Commons

Commons Bill (HL). Lords committee stage fifth day. Grand Committee off the floor of the House (Moses room). Clauses 36-57 agreed to, Clauses 36,39,41,42,50 and 53 as amended. Schedules 3-5 agreed to, 3 and 5 as amended. New clauses considered. Bill reported with amendments (Bill 39 2005-06). (Fifth Day)

Department
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Committee of the Whole House (HL)
Type
Committee proceedings; Debates on bills
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c241-300GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 210:"Page 20, line 28, leave out ““to”” and insert ““having rights in relation to, or occupying the land potentially affected by,””" The noble Duke said: Amendment No. 210 is intended to clarify the meaning of Clause 36(8), which gives consent to works on common land. The Bill provides that,"““consent given...

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c255GC
House
House of Lords

Before the noble Lord withdraws the amendment, do the Government intend that unauthorised agricultural activities will vary according to the views of different organisations in different places?

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c288-9GC
House
House of Lords

Perhaps I may ask a question which has struck me. The Minister has spoken to Amendment No. 207 to subsection (6)(d) dealing with the taking or working of minerals for which no planning permission has been given. I live under a regime slightly different from that which exists down here. In Scotland,...

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c254GC
House
House of Lords

That will be a very useful contribution to have on the record. I am most grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c261GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 213:"Page 21, line 12, leave out subsection (6)." The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment. Would retrospective permission be available only to works that have been commenced or completed before the passage of this Bill through Parliament, or is it the Government’s intention to allow certain...

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c256GC
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to the Minister for his approach and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 36, as amended, agreed to. Clause 37 [Consent: general]:

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c255GC
House
House of Lords

Our Amendment No. 247 is grouped with the government amendments. First, as we are reviewing and redrafting all the laws of commons, it seems strange that the Government are taking the attitude of saying, ““There are a whole lot of laws and we have not had time to look at them””. One...

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c293GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 216:"Page 21, line 41, after ““case,”” insert ““except that covered in paragraph (b),””" The noble Duke said: This is a probing amendment. Is it the Government’s intention that a court may make a removal and restoration order even in a case where the consent is in order but...

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c260GC
House
House of Lords

I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply—that it is not tied to the date of the passage of the Bill through Parliament. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 37 agreed to. Clause 38 [Consent: procedure]:

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c257GC
House
House of Lords

Our Amendment No. 239 is grouped with Amendment No. 238. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, has made some interesting arguments about what should be included as a ““relevant authority””. I am very conscious that the Minister has said that she will redraft the whole area, so I will merely follow up on what our...

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c287GC
House
House of Lords

Having once before taken some interest in hybridity, I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Elvel. On Question, amendment agreed to.

Member
Duke of Montrose (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c295GC
House
House of Lords

If the local authority were able to gain even caretaker ownership of the land it should be possible, under the powers of the Bill as it stands, that the commons registration authority residing in the local authority could construct a new commons association. At least that would secure the good...

Member
Lord Livsey of Talgarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c282GC
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to the noble Baroness for bringing forward the amendment. We discussed the position of the National Trust at earlier sittings of this Committee. If the noble Baroness can give us an assurance that the trust is content with the amendment—I certainly have heard nothing to the contrary—I...

Member
Baroness Byford (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c273GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 230:"Page 34, line 32, leave out paragraph 3 and insert—" ““3   (1)   Section 29 of the National Trust Act 1907 (c. cxxxvi) (powers exercisable over common or commonable land) is amended as follows. (2)   Renumber the existing provision as subsection (1). (3)   In that subsection, for ““consists of common or commonable land”” substitute ““is land...

Member
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c272-3GC
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 233:"Page 23, line 20, leave out ““may””" The noble Lord said: Clause 43 deals with an important issue—that of land which is registered as common land but has not been claimed by any owners. In moving Amendment No. 233, I shall also speak to the other amendments in the group....

Member
Lord Greaves (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c273-5GC
House
House of Lords

I shall seek to answer the noble Lord, but I am conscious that this area of inter-relationship and responsibility is one of the most complex. As my noble friend Lord Williams of Elvel said, there is an overlap here with the clause stand part debate that will follow. I shall...

Member
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c280-1GC
House
House of Lords

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 239 not moved.] Clause 44 agreed to.

Member
Lord Livsey of Talgarth (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c289GC
House
House of Lords

My understanding is that they would inevitably vary according to local circumstances. That is a common-sense response rather than a well advised response, so if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Duke. It is best not to debate the priorities of Natural England because this is currently...

Member
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
14 November 2005
Reference
675 c289GC
House
House of Lords