Proceeding contribution from Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 17 January 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill and Committee proceeding on Energy Bill [HL].
Energy Bill
I followed the noble Baroness in the Second Reading debate and was somewhat surprised to agree with her on a number of issues. I have one question for her. As a consequence of this amendment—were it to be accepted—we would have not 52 but 53 statutory instruments flowing from the Bill. Paradoxically, one of the great critics of the ill defined character of this legislation will also add to it. Frankly, on this occasion, it is justified and I am happy to support the noble Baroness. As a general rule, however, I do not think that either of us—or many of us in this Committee—want to see any more orders being left to the rather inadequate, consultative and therefore scrutinising, approach that both Houses have. I hope that it will be a negative resolution in both Houses.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 724 c51GC
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords Grand Committee
- Subjects
- Cost effectiveness Conservation Competition Building regulations Housing Fees and charges Energy Insulation Heating Ministerial duties Procurement Ministers Standards Welsh Government Green deal scheme
- Legislation
- Energy Bill (HL) 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 20:54:00 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_700994
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_700994
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_700994