Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 5 July 2011. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Localism Bill.


Localism Bill

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The amendment would have operated not only in circumstances where there was differentiation between different sorts of authorities but where there was no differentiation, because presumably, in making the judgment, the Secretary of State would have had to take into account a certain amount and range of information. I was simply seeking a situation where, when it came to the information to be taken into account in making the determination, either everyone will be in the same category or there will be different categories, but either way this should be transparent and included in the report that goes to the House of Commons. If the Minister says that that would inevitably be the case and it would be covered in the report, I am happy that that is on the record and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 129LZA withdrawn. Amendments 129LZAA and 129LZAB not moved. Amendment 129LZB Moved by


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
729 c142 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Conditions of employment Community interest companies Community development Assets Business Buildings Council tax County councils Employment Land Expenditure Increases District councils Local government Property transfer Planning Public bodies Business rates Referendums Procurement Local government services Parish and town councils Provident societies Voluntary organisations Sports Social enterprises
Legislation
Localism Bill 2010-12
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk