Proceeding contribution from Lord Bassam of Brighton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 10 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
That is a fair point, and one that is acknowledged in the legislation. It is one of the protections that are part of the process to be gone through. Regulations are put in place from the best of motives. Sometimes it is discovered subsequently that the measure of regulation is not appropriate, does not work, is excessively burdensome and adds costs. The noble Lord asks about the consumers. Some regulations probably cost consumers because of how they operate. We have attempted in the Bill to improve and strengthen the procedures put in place under the 2001 Act, which built on the 1994 Act put in place by noble Lords opposite when they were in Government. We are trying to ensure this time around that the important work that we have done so far under the 2001 Act can be built on so that it works better and is more precise and better defined. In that way, the protections are there when they need to be and we can remove unnecessary costs and burdens on business and make the regulatory regimes much simpler and easier to understand. This will enable us to bring together the important regulatory bodies, which really should be working together as a single regulator, to work much more coherently and simply. Noble Lords opposite have a very simple choice to make: either they can join the Government in the important practical work of enhancing and improving our regulatory regimes and ensuring that we do not have regulatory burdens, or they can continue to force the Government to muddle along by deleting the clause. I have not heard a convincing argument from noble Lords opposite against the Government’s deregulatory programme. I rather thought that they shared our agenda. If they do not, they and their colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches may try to strike out the clause. That retrograde step would send out entirely wrong messages not just within the political system but to the business communities, in particular, and voluntary organisations, which are very much behind this Bill and our attempt to improve the regulatory framework in this country. I hope that the Committee will think long and hard before attempting to wreck or disassemble our Bill, which has virtue and value. That is not just the opinion of the Government, it is more widely held outside your Lordships’ House. I recommend that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c490
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Accountability Audit Costs Business Bureaucracy Annual reports Delegated legislation Common law Consumer information EU law Exemptions Government departments Legislation Law Commission Legislative drafting Protection Powers Small businesses Regulation Impact assessments Legislative reform orders
- Legislation
- Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-01-26 17:13:16 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336102
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336102
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_336102