Part of Onshore Wind Turbines (Proximity of Habitation) – in the House of Commons at 9:30 pm on 3 November 2009.
David Howarth
Shadow Secretary of State for Justice
9:30,
3 November 2009
I sympathise very much with the intention behind the Amendment. I do not think that it would do any harm to include a responsibility in the code and the Bill to ensure that public money is spent wisely. My only worry relates to the use of the word "fiduciary", which gives the impression that the relationship between civil servant and Government is similar to the relationship that used to exist between local councillors and their authorities in the days of surcharging. The word "fiduciary" always cropped up in surcharging cases.
Given the vast amounts of public money that go through Departments, it would be entirely wrong to open up civil servants to the possibility of having to repay perhaps billions of pounds to the public. I do not think that that was the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, but perhaps he should rethink the wording of the amendment on a future occasion.
A parliamentary bill is divided into sections called clauses.
Printed in the margin next to each clause is a brief explanatory `side-note' giving details of what the effect of the clause will be.
During the committee stage of a bill, MPs examine these clauses in detail and may introduce new clauses of their own or table amendments to the existing clauses.
When a bill becomes an Act of Parliament, clauses become known as sections.
As a bill passes through Parliament, MPs and peers may suggest amendments - or changes - which they believe will improve the quality of the legislation.
Many hundreds of amendments are proposed by members to major bills as they pass through committee stage, report stage and third reading in both Houses of Parliament.
In the end only a handful of amendments will be incorporated into any bill.
The Speaker - or the chairman in the case of standing committees - has the power to select which amendments should be debated.
