Oral question asked in the House of Lords, by Lord Razzall (Liberal Democrat). It was answered on Monday, 19 November 2007.

Regulatory Reform Orders: DBERR

Question: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the substance of the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, goes to what the Government are doing to deal with the excessive regulation of industry and business? While I am sure that the Minister will not accept that the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill only touches the surface of these problems, does he accept that in practical terms it would be far better if the Government stopped gold-plating European directives and introduced sunset clauses on all regulations, thus bringing them to an end on a specified date unless their continuation was justified?

Answer: My Lords, I heard the noble Lord’s speech in our debate on this issue last Wednesday, and he will be delighted to know that impact assessments are made on every regulation that comes in. Apparently, it is one of the requirements that his party supports. On sunset clauses, I think that the Liberal Democrats should perhaps think again. The trouble with such clauses is that they remove certainty, and while business wants deregulation, what it wants more than practically anything else is certainty. If there is to be a sunset clause after two, three or four years, the regulations will not have the certainty they deserve.

Secondary information

Type: Oral question
Reference: 696 c659
Session: 2007-08
Oral question type: Supplementary
Chamber / Committee: House of Lords chamber
Subjects: Regulation Regulatory reform orders Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Legislative reform orders
Link: View this Oral question on www.publications.parliament.uk