Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Lord Dubs (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 April 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Public Bodies Bill [HL].

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

It does partly, but Amendment 96 is a little stronger, as it would mean that, when faced with an order, we could simply amend it without any preconditions. If I understand it correctly, the other amendment has a precondition in it, whereas this one does not. My argument is that that would be right not just for this Bill but for the run of orders.

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
726 c1567 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Devolved matters Consumers Agriculture Conservation Closures Coastal areas Devolution Finance Flood control Environment Legislative competence Forestry Forestry Commission Environment Agency Drinking water Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Protection Public bodies Public consultation National Assembly for Wales Parliamentary scrutiny Non-departmental public bodies Trade unions Wales Welsh Government Citizens Advice Marine Management Organisation Consumer Council for Northern Ireland Regional flood defence committees Consumer Focus Statutory instruments
Legislation
Public Bodies Bill (HL) 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk