Proceeding contribution from David Heath (Liberal Democrat) 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
I would like the Minister to explain one simple fact. The argument that he is putting forward is the diametric opposite of what the Lord Chancellor put forward as an argument in the all-party talks on the future of the House of Lords. In those talks, we had a consensus on the merit of having a period when a person who had resigned from the House of Lords was not able to stand for election to this House. Why is the Minister putting forward the opposite argument to that advanced by his Secretary of State?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 504 c765
- 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
- 2024-04-21 19:39:51 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615047
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615047
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_615047