Proceeding contribution from Andrew Mackinlay (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on Legislative Process.
Legislative Process
It is the ingenuity point that worries me because it leaves great scope for misunderstanding and avoidance. The US Congress allows mailings, but they are all in the same format. If we are to go down this road, we should opt for parity of treatment, similar format and minimal scope for innovation. We should all have the same degree of communication.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 451 c382
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Debates Legislative process House of Commons Public bills Members Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Public participation Modernisation Reform Select committees Allocation of time motions European standing committees Standing committees Sub judice rule Standing orders Time limits on speeches
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:10:33 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357350
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357350
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357350