There may be one, two or three good reasons why there should be the 12-month period, with the power of public acquisition during that period. Fundamentally, what is important is the question of hybridity. I assume in relation to the period of 12 months that the Government have received advice from their legal advisers that it is safe and copper-bottomed. What shorter period would be safe and copper-bottomed? That is where we go into the area of doubt. I do not know whether it is possible to have a definitive decision on this matter. Am I right in thinking that, in fact, the Speaker of the House of Commons certifies hybridity, in the same way as he certifies a money Bill? Has he given any indication of his attitude to a month? If a month is either impossible or dangerous, then most certainly this House should not contemplate any amendment along those lines.
Banking (Special Provisions) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Elystan-Morgan
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 21 February 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Banking (Special Provisions) Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
699 c283 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 23:44:53 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446918
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446918
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_446918