Proceeding contribution from Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 November 2010. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL].
Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill [HL]
I am glad that we are starting to get the matter addressed, but this is Committee stage and it is no good, if I may say so, taking a Civil Service attitude of, ““We’ll think about anything that comes in””. This is Committee stage. I have made a proposal and suggested the document should be shorter, not longer. I know that it is a draft. I have said that, if the Minister cannot explain why intergenerational is the one bit of fairness that is picked out, why not leave out ““intergenerational”” and just say ““fairness””? Could we actually engage here, please? What is the answer?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 722 c90GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Audit Fiscal policy Economic situation Economic policy Forecasts Public expenditure Parliamentary scrutiny Public finance Office for Budget Responsibility
- Legislation
- Budget Responsibility and National Audit Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 20:49:40 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686497
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686497
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686497