Proceeding contribution from Viscount Hailsham (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 26 January 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill.
Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill
Does the Minister understand that what he is saying is slightly different in its general tone from the position adopted by the Secretary of State? The Minister is saying that if we agreed to the amendment, which is intrinsically good, we would send a signal that serious future reform was not intended, but during the previous debate the Secretary of State asked us to accept reforms that, adopting the Minister's argument, send exactly the same signal. Why were we asked to support clause 29 when we are being asked not to support the amendment?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 504 c743
- Session
- 2009-10
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Disciplinary proceedings Crime By-elections Constitutional and administrative law Elections House of Lords Disqualification Hereditary peers Misconduct Political parties Peers Parliament Life peers Reform Resignations
- Legislation
- Constitutional Reform and Governance Bill 2008-09 to 2009-10
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-11 09:57:24 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614986
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614986
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_614986