Proceeding contribution from Lord Peston (Labour) 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]
On Amendment 35, is the Minister saying that he is absolutely confident that, within our normal arrangements, this amendment is not needed because it would be inconceivable for the office to refuse to appear before the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House on the grounds that it was none of its business? Is he saying categorically that he knows that it could not refuse—to use my noble friend Lord Eatwell’s word—a reasonable request from the Economic Affairs Committee to appear before it? Is he absolutely certain that is so, because the amendment went down to get a reply that said it is not needed?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 722 c109GC
- 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 20:51:36 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686554
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686554
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_686554