Member

My noble friend was right to highlight the importance of legal consistency. We have already discussed definitions during the passage of the Bill, and I think we will discuss further definitions as we move forward with it. But my noble friend Lord Howard was right to draw attention to the references to existing terms in legislation. We have particular concerns, as does my noble friend Lord Dobbs, about what the Government mean by “ornamental purposes”. We question what this could entail, what the consequences might be and how the tribunal judges are expected to interpret its meaning. Equally confusing is the inclusion of “personal interest”. Although a colony of termites might sound unlikely, people keep all kinds of pets, and it is a very possible scenario, I suggest. We believe that, beyond merely weakening the structural elements of any property, such issues could undermine the very foundations of the Bill.