Proceeding contribution from Lord McKenzie of Luton (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 26 October 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
My Lords, it is on the record in these debates. The amendment seeks to do a number of things in addition to that. If the independence of the regulator means that in no circumstances by way of order could we look to address some of the regulatory burdens that may be imposed on the regulated, subject to all the protections in here, it is entirely reasonable that we would want potentially to raise those matters with regulators. Regulators would have the opportunity to be consulted, for their views to be known, for their views to be published, and to influence the process if they disagree. But what if they agree with the Government? Why does it undermine their independence if we allow through the order-making process what they and Government want and what is good for regulation to be denied them under this Bill? That does not seem to be a logical position. We have reflected on safeguards. For the reasons that I have set out, the Government do not believe that this amendment is appropriate. Certainly, it is not our view. It is right to allow economic regulators to have access to a legislative route to implement worthwhile regulatory reform where appropriate. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has been in correspondence with a number of the economic regulators on this issue. Members of this House should be aware that Postcomm, for instance, on 8 August 2006 in a letter to the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, asked the Minister to consider the application of the super-affirmative procedure in order to give the industry the maximum degree of reassurance in relation to the exercise of the powers in the Bill. Therefore, Members can see that Postcomm has made a suggestion that we believe could deliver a balance between ensuring that the order-making powers can be used for appropriate purposes while at the same time providing, as Postcomm says, the maximum degree of reassurance to industry. Members of this House will acknowledge that the Government have listened carefully to this House and the other place throughout the passage of this Bill. We continue to listen and should Members indicate that they think an alternative approach to this Opposition amendment is appropriate, the Government will consider this further and return with an appropriate amendment at Third Reading. We would of course consult with Opposition parties on the drawing up of the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c1352-3
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Crime Bureaucracy Delegated legislation Church of England Human rights EU law Government departments Legislation European communities Ministerial powers Railways Mergers Parliamentary procedure Regulation Utilities Reform Taxation European economic area
- Legislation
- Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:05:13 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355332
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355332
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355332