Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) 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
In a way, I am delighted that the noble Baroness has moved this amendment because it tells me that certainly part of the Chamber—and that has been echoed in the past few minutes—is keen to see deregulation and the use of this order-making process actually happen. My noble friend Lord Desai put his finger on the point by saying that it was not due to ministerial inertia that the 1994 Act did not do the business—I have no doubt that it was the same when the Conservatives were in government—but it is because the procedures binding the order-making procedure have so inhibited Ministers that we have not been able to make better use of the 2001 Act. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, say about how this proposal would work. I am not sure that it is necessarily the right approach. The Minister may not want to use the order-making process to deregulate; it may be better to put it in primary legislation or deal with it in guidance. To try to impose a three-month timetable could end up being counterproductive. I certainly like the enthusiastic spirit behind the amendment. I am not going to give a commitment that we will come back with something similar. I certainly want to reflect on the argument because it is undoubtedly of value. I am grateful to the party opposite for beginning fully to engage with what we are trying to achieve. In those terms I have to say that I reject the amendment because I do not think that it will achieve what it seeks. There are mechanisms for the public to propose regulatory simplification, as I explained, through the portal process, which has had a measure of success to date. We are committed to responding to those proposals within 90 days. That mechanism has worked quite well. But I like the spirit behind the amendment. I will reflect on whether there is some merit in it. I doubt whether I shall table an amendment that moves it forward in the way the noble Baroness seeks. I do not think it would work as she would like, and in some senses it would be counterproductive, particularly where there are other mechanisms for achieving what the noble Baroness seeks to do through the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c107-8
- 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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-22 00:13:20 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334351
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334351
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_334351