Skip to main content

1-20 of 205 results for subject:Speaker

Session X
2005-06

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

Statement on ministerial statements and time alloted to opposition parties to reply.

Lead member
Speaker
Type
Speaker's statements
Date
1 November 2006
Reference
451 c299
House
House of Commons

moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 83: Page 7, line 10, leave out paragraph (d) and insert- ““(d) in such cases as he considers appropriate, consult the Law Commission, the Scottish Law Commission or the Northern Ireland Law Commission, and”” Page 7, leave out line 14. Page 7, line 15, leave...

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1369
House
House of Lords

moved AmendmentNo. 110A: Page 12, line 24, at end insert- ““(12A) Subsections (4) to (6) of section 15 shall apply in relation to the disclosure of representations under subsections (3)(b) and (8)(b)(i) of this section as they apply in relation to the disclosure of representations under subsection (2)(f)(ii) of that...

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1384
House
House of Lords

I will work through the grouped amendments and the stand part clauses. I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is trying to achieve with his amendment because it would mean that the only principle of good regulation left in Clause 23 would be the...

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1391-3
House
House of Lords

moved AmendmentNo. 109: Page 12, line 12, leave out subsection (11). On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendment No. 110 not moved.]

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1384
House
House of Lords

moved AmendmentNo. 77: Page 6, line 11, leave out ““, 2(5) or 3(5)”” and insert ““or 2(5)”” On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 10, as amended, agreed to. Clause 11 [Northern Ireland]:

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1366
House
House of Lords

It is absolutely right that a compatibility test should be required here in the same way as is the case for a Bill. It is already an accepted practice that when affirmative resolutions are madeto approve secondary legislation, a statement of compatibility should be made by the Minister introducing them....

Member
Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1370
House
House of Lords

The power to remove or reduce burdens resulting from legislation is provided in Clause 1. As well as removing or reducing burdens, new burdens could also be added. It is important that orders should be able to impose new burdens. When an order removes a burden, this will often need...

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1373
House
House of Lords

This is a rather complicated group, headed by my noble friend Lord Norton’s Amendment No. 91, with a large number of amendments and a diverse collection of noble Lords putting their names to each. We have a number of amendments down on behalf of the Conservative Front Bench, some of...

Member
Lord Henley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1376-8
House
House of Lords

moved AmendmentNo. 61: Page 4, line 28, at end insert- ““( ) In this section and sections 5 to 8, to ““restate”” an enactment means to replace it with alterations only of form or arrangement (and for these purposes to remove an ambiguity is to make an alteration other than...

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1358
House
House of Lords

The situation would be the same as it is under the 2001 Act. I will come on to the independence of regulators and the role of Parliament. I do not think that the way in which the 2001 Act has operated has given rise to any difficulties in this regard....

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1342-4
House
House of Lords

Of the various choices helpfully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I favour Amendment No. 62, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. I do not suppose he would say that it is perfect or comprehensive, and if there were any doubt it would...

Member
Lord Borrie (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1350-1
House
House of Lords

Goodhart.

Member
Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1345
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 79: Page 6, line 34, at end insert- ““( ) An order under this Part which creates any new primary legislation or amends or repeals any existing primary legislation must be made in accordance with the affirmative resolution procedure or the super-affirmative resolution procedure. ( ) In...

Member
Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1366-7
House
House of Lords

moved AmendmentNo. 78: Page 6, line 15, leave out ““, 2(5) or 3(5)”” and insert ““or 2(5)”” On Question, amendment agreed to. Clause 11, as amended, agreed to. Clause 12 [Wales]: [Amendment No. 78A not moved.] Clause 12 agreed to. Clause 13 [Procedure: introductory]:

Member
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1366
House
House of Lords

I understand that this is a probing amendment and I hope that I can satisfy noble Lords why the provision is in the Bill in this form. Clause 10 makes clear how the Bill works in relation to matters devolved to the Scottish Parliament. The general position is that orders...

Member
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1365-6
House
House of Lords

I am grateful to the noble Lord. I shall want to study carefully what he has said but he has gone a long way to explain that the Sewel convention will not apply to such incidental matters. I think that that answers my question. In those circumstances, I beg leave...

Member
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1366
House
House of Lords

moved Amendment No. 76: Page 6, line 11, leave out from ““not”” to end. The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment therefore I do not think that the pre-emption will apply. With Clause 10 we move north of the border. The clause ensures that orders made under Part...

Member
Lord Jenkin of Roding (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1364-5
House
House of Lords

I support my noble friend as I have added my name to the amendment. It raises important questions about situations where consequential amendments are made but the Scottish Parliament has not invited Westminster to legislate for it. The legal position is clear—the provision would extend to Scotland—but are there not...

Member
Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1365
House
House of Lords

I thank the Minister for that response, but it was not satisfactory. In the end it comes down to his relying on the same arguments as were put forward for the 2001 Act, and simply saying that the provisions will continue on that basis. I will look carefully at what...

Member
Lord Henley (Conservative)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
19 July 2006
Reference
684 c1364
House
House of Lords