Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Monday, 3 July 2006. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.


Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, that the Sale of Goods Act 1893 is a masterpiece of parliamentary draftsmanship. There was a golden period of parliamentary draftsmanship, which ran roughly from about the late 1880s until the First World War, when the parliamentary draftsman were brilliant at producing quite simple, easily understandable Bills, dealing with issues like the sale of goods and the Partnership Act 1890, which was extremely clear and, effectively, lasted for over a century. To get a bit closer to business, I must say that I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for his support of my amendment. I return the compliment by expressing support for his. We are ending up in a thoroughly untidy situation here. It is increasingly clear that Clause 1(5) and subsections (3) and (5) of Clause 4 are themselves hard to understand. If they go into the Act, as it will become, they may well be prime targets for the necessary orders. The position on consolidation is extremely complex. We all agree that consolidation enormously helps lawyers and lay people to understand what the law is. We have a situation where, if it is pure consolidation, you must have a consolidation Bill because the definition of ““restatement”” makes it clear that you cannot restate legislation unless it does more than merely restating it. If you are consolidating with a few changes, you can use a restatement procedure. You cannot consolidate with more substantial changes because you are doing something more than restating the law. We are getting into a great state of confusion. There are undoubtedly serious problems with the provisions that this group of amendments looks at. I intend to take this away, and I expect that we shall come back; not necessarily with Amendment No. 17 in its present form, although I would not rule that out. Alternatively, we will come back with something else, taking into account the nature of tonight’s debate. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 18 not moved.]


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c105 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Crime Administration Business Delegated legislation EU law Legislation Ministerial powers Mergers Scotland Regulation Wales Legislative reform orders
Legislation
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk