We are talking about hypotheses. If my hon. Friend does not think that any group would have a locus standi to petition in the event that a hybrid instrument had been deemed, there would be no harm in allowing the hybrid instrument procedure, because it would not make any difference. Perhaps neither my hon. Friend nor I are wise enough to know exactly what is behind all this, but paragraph 6 is phrased as it is because somebody thinks that private interests might well be prejudiced as a result of the procedure. Under the hybrid instrument procedure, those interests would have a right to petition in the other place and ““they”” might wish—I do not know who ““they”” would be—to preclude that right or opportunity from those aggrieved petitioners.
Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Christopher Chope
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Friday, 19 October 2007.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Building Societies (Funding) and Mutual Societies (Transfers) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
464 c1085 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:03:33 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418355
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418355
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418355