Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Bridget Prentice (Labour) in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.


Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I have no intention of refereeing between parliamentary counsel and the Law Commission to decide who employs the better draftspeople. Any drafting changes made by the commission to draft legislation would be subject to consultation, and it could reflect on the responses. A Minister may wish to make a material change. Provided that the order remains an order to implement Law Commission recommendations, they should be able to do so. The change proposed might be as a result of consultation after the publication of the report. It might be that a change is proposed to make the recommendations of the commission more generally accepted. Indeed, as I said earlier, the scrutiny Committees themselves might wish some changes to be made. The correct approach is not to rule out changes, but to allow the proposals to come forward and be considered by the Committees. For that reason, I ask the House to resist amendment (b) to new clause 21.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c800-1 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Administration Costs Business Delegated legislation Juries EU law Government departments Legislation Law Commission Ministerial powers Northern Ireland Powers Public sector Parliamentary scrutiny Small businesses Regulation Reform Trials Taxation Legislative reform orders
Legislation
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk