Proceeding contribution from Michael Fabricant (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 22 May 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill.
Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck) raises an interesting point, so yes, I will ask the Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) seemed unable to answer me; I was quite shocked. [Interruption.] Fifteen guineas? Does ““connected with”” mean, in law, owned by? If it does not mean owned by—and I suspect that it does not—what is the boundary that controls whether an entity falls within the ambit of new clause 22? The Minister was very clear in his explanation. He used the words ““owned by””, and we all understand what that means. That would mean having a 51 per cent. share or more in an organisation if shares were issued, or however else ownership is defined. Why, for the sake of clear English, is not the word ““ownership”” used, and what is the difference between ““connected with”” and owned by?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 460 c1157
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Complaints Councillors Administration Elections Electoral Commission Exemptions Local government Wales Trusts Local Government Ombudsman Local Government Boundary Commission for England Standards Board for England
- Legislation
- Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:39:23 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398814
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398814
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_398814