I am grateful for that further explanation. I take the point that this will not just be left lying fallow but that there will be some active consideration of it. I still hang on to my point that the active consideration could take place without implementation by having the amendment in the Bill. If not, we will need primary legislation of some sort in the future to bring it into being as part of the data-matching process, if that is what the conclusion is on further analysis. Having the amendment in the Bill does not mean that it has to be activated, because the Minister has to go through a consultation process to do that. As there is going to be this broader look, it seems to me that the Government have reached the wrong conclusion. They could have adapted the Bill to include this amendment even if they never implemented it. I think we have probably been around this enough, unless the Minister wants to say something further.
Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord McKenzie of Luton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 July 2013.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Local Audit and Accountability Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
747 c588 
Session
2024-25
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-08-23 09:20:41 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-15/13071529000102
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-15/13071529000102
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2013-07-15/13071529000102