Exactly—my hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why, when looking at this issue, their Lordships' House and a Joint Committee of both Houses regarded the hybrid instrument procedure as sacrosanct—as a cherished means of preserving the rights of individuals, which should not be prejudiced by a hybrid instrument. The whole purpose of the procedure is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West says that he does not think that a set of circumstances will ever occur when it will be triggered. That is fine, but why not leave the power in the Bill?
Our noble Friend Lord Naseby raised this issue in the debate in the other place on 10 July. The Minister present said in response that, given the ““sheaf of notes”” that he had on hybridity, he would write a full letter about it to our noble Friend. That letter, dated 12 July, was placed in the Library of the other place on 17 July, as deposited paper 2007/563. I intend to quote briefly from it—if I can find it from among my papers. [Interruption.] The Minister, helpfully, has a copy. Perhaps she—
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 c1086 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 12:03:35 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418359
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418359
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_418359