Proceeding contribution from Jim Murphy (Labour) in the House of Commons on Thursday, 9 February 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
The narrow definition did not allow us to implement specific regulatory reform orders, because of the narrow way in which a legal burden was defined and the way in which a proposal or regulatory reform order, if it only affected a Department, could not be progressed with. There have been specific examples, which I will bring to the hon. Gentleman’s attention in writing if he wishes, in which the Government wished to make common-sense, non-contentious simplification proposals, but because of the tight legal definition in the 2001 Act, we were not able to make the type of progress that we would all have wished to see.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 442 c1054
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Codes of practice Administration Business Bureaucracy Constitutions Delegated legislation Common law Legislative process EU law Government departments Legislation Law Commission Ministerial powers Public opinion Parliamentary scrutiny Regulation Legislative reform orders Sunset clauses
- Legislation
- Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 13:59:18 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299983
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299983
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_299983