I am sure that the Secretary of State will have digested that point from my right hon. Friend.
This is an orphan Bill, which is decoupled from the long-term reforms required to tackle climate change and keep water affordable. Why does the Bill, which affects two areas—the south-west and London—not mention those two areas? Is it because that would make it a hybrid Bill, which would require full and proper scrutiny in the other place? Is it because by not mentioning those two areas and drawing the Bill widely, the Secretary of State is able to define it as a money Bill, which means that it receives only a cursory one day's scrutiny in the other place? What possible reason could she have to fear their lordships' scrutiny of this worthy and timely Bill? We can surmise that she is keen to get her short Bill through Parliament—an endeavour that does not seem to have been properly communicated by the Whips to her own Back Benchers, if today's sudden change of business is anything to go by.
Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Mary Creagh
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 29 February 2012.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
541 c357 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 15:37:46 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_814111
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_814111
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_814111