Proceeding contribution from Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 14 December 2011. It occurred during Debate on bill on Welfare Reform Bill.
Welfare Reform Bill
My Lords, first, may I ask a question of the Opposition at this point? There has been no claim that this amendment is consequential, and it clearly is not consequential. I say so in a spirit of wishing to elucidate information and explanation from the Opposition, and it is not necessarily overtly hostile, because the Opposition are looking rather puzzled. The Opposition have not at any time said that this is consequential. It is the view of the Government, on advice, that something that refers to regulations is so clearly not consequential upon the earlier loss. I wonder if the noble Lord could say, for the benefit of the House and before the Minister is able to take a decision, why he considers it to be consequential.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 733 c1326
- Session
- 2010-12
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Disability Childcare Benefits rules Carers Cancer Criminal injuries compensation Housing benefit Domestic abuse Exemptions Interviews Landlords Medical treatments Payments Private rented housing Social security benefits Working hours Social rented housing Self-employed Consumer prices index Housing occupancy Shared housing Employment and support allowance Universal credit Severe disability premium
- Legislation
- Welfare Reform Bill 2010-12
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 14:26:46 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795457
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795457
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_795457