Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 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
A large number of amendments in this large group are in the names of myself and my noble friend Lord Maclennan. I refer to Amendments Nos. 92, 93, 97 to 100, 103 to 105, 108, 110 and 111. Before I get onto my own amendments, I find the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, extremely persuasive. It is important that powers to deal with orders of this kind should as far as possible be parliamentary rather than ministerial, given that the amount of scrutiny that Parliament will be able to give them would be far less than for primary legislation. My only comment on the noble Lord’s amendment is that the super-affirmative resolution procedure should apply unless within 30 days both Houses of Parliament determine that another resolution would be appropriate. Our amendments as a whole aim to ensure that any recommendation made by a Select Committee would be final. Amendment No. 92—which would not be moved if Amendment No. 91 were approved—would mean that a final decision on whether the Minister’s selection of the appropriate method was correct would rest with the committee and could not be overruled by Parliament as a whole. Similarly, on our other amendments, we are concerned that a committee’s decision to recommend that an order should not be proceeded with in either House should, again, be final. The procedure under this Bill should be broadly consensual. If there is enough opposition to persuade the Select Committee to recommend that the order should not be proceeded with, it is inappropriate to proceed further. The prospect of votes being called in either House to override that recommendation, especially when those votes are whipped, is an unattractive one. Our amendments would allow an immediate restart of the reconsideration process. I prefer the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, for a two-year moratorium on reintroduction of an order of this kind, with one exception. A recommendation made less than two years before the end of a Parliament should not bind a subsequent Parliament. Otherwise, however, I accept the amendments in this group on that point as preferable to my own as regards the time at which orders can be resubmitted. For these reasons, it is desirable that a committee’s recommendation on these issues in either House should be final.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 684 c1376
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Devolved matters Accountability Delegated legislation Committees Constitutional and administrative law Human rights Judiciary Exemptions Government departments Functions Legislation Powers of entry Parliamentary procedure Parliamentary scrutiny Regulation Utilities Voting rights Taxation Speaker Statutory instruments
- Legislation
- Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 10:50:13 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_339410
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_339410
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_339410