Skip to main content

1-10 of 10 results for subject:Patients

Member X
Lord Phillips of Sudbury
Subject X
Education

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Phillips of Sudbury, Lord (10)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Education (10)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment 220BA withdrawn. Amendments 220BB and 220C not moved. Clause 172 : Repeal of de-authorisation provisions Clause 172 : Repeal of de-authorisation provisions Amendment 220D not moved. Clause 174 : Objective of trust special administration Amendment 221 Clause 174 : Objective of trust...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 March 2012
Reference
735 c1934
House
House of Lords

I did not want to leap on the noble Lord, Lord Warner, because that would do him an injury, but I wanted to assure him that the amendment does not affect his trotting off to the chap down at Waterloo station. He can buy whatever private patient care he likes,...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 March 2012
Reference
735 c1928
House
House of Lords

My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment 220BB. If passed, they will amend Section 44 of the National Health Service Act 2006, which deals with private healthcare. I am supported in these amendments by three highly distinguished consultants: the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff,...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 March 2012
Reference
735 c1922-5
House
House of Lords

220BA: Clause 164, page 160, line 24, leave out subsection (2)

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 March 2012
Reference
735 c1922
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I first thank the seven Peers who added their voices to the amendment. I thank my noble friend the Minister for an extremely thoughtful and comprehensive reply. None the less, it would be dishonest of me to say that he convinced me on all counts. It is perhaps...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
8 March 2012
Reference
735 c1933-4
House
House of Lords

My Lords, there is very little to add in what has been a remarkably unanimous debate—““Sit down””, says one voice. It is extraordinary that not a single dissentient voice has been heard in an hour and 48 minutes. I hope that the Minister, who has the unenviable task of summing...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
7 March 2012
Reference
735 c1807-8
House
House of Lords

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister’s flow, but this is a valuable opportunity to get to the bottom of this. From what he is saying, a reckless act on behalf of the state would be neither deliberate nor dishonest. If it was reckless, there would be no redress. Can...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2012
Reference
734 c631
House
House of Lords

My Lords, I shall speak in favour of Amendment 60, for which the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has made a strong case. I expect the Minister may say that, ipso facto, an abuse of power is unlawful. The problem is that if that is the argument, the way that sub-paragraph...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2012
Reference
734 c624
House
House of Lords

I cannot resist asking the noble Lord whether he would also class as a failure of the system the fact that more and more legal aid practitioners in immigration and asylum have withdrawn from the scheme altogether, because they tend to be concentrated in city centres and the current rates...

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2012
Reference
734 c617
House
House of Lords

My Lords, after three excellent speeches I will make only one point, following directly from the last point made by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth. What I may perhaps call the Cookson report—the King’s College report—quantifies certain knock-on costs. What it does not do is look at indirect knock-on costs....

Member
Lord Phillips of Sudbury (Liberal Democrat)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
18 January 2012
Reference
734 c690-1
House
House of Lords