Proceeding contribution from Lord Norton of Louth (Conservative) 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, I understand where the Minister is coming from. I was not implying that there was unrestricted power to introduce through an order a term of imprisonment for anything other than what is prescribed in the Bill. He is right about what the measure could be introduced for. It is narrowly limited by the Bill. I do not question that. As the Minister recognises, there probably will not be a great meeting of minds on this. I still have two problems with the measure. I would not object to a change in wording that made clear that where an offence was introduced it was to replace one in order to reduce a burden. My concern is with its being introduced completely freestanding as a new offence. I have two sticking points. One is simply the point of principle. I refer to the point I made about principle versus convenience. The argument for the Bill is one of convenience. On the point of principle, even if narrow limitations are applied, as the Minister said, if the measure imposes a term of imprisonment that is a new offence. Parliament should have the opportunity to probe that measure and amend it through primary legislation. I believe that the Minister referred to it as a technical restriction. However, I consider that it is a very important point of principle. The other point is more general and has been an underlying theme of our debates today. The Minister said that the Government had given an assurance that contentious measures would not be introduced. As we keep pointing out, while we accept his word, he cannot necessarily commit his successors. Given that I have those problems with the measure, I shall want to reflect further on it. I see the point about the possibility of replacing an offence. I shall want to reflect further on that, but it is not a point that I wish to press this afternoon. I hear what the Minister says, but, as he says, we are coming at the matter from slightly different perspectives. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendments Nos. 23 and 24 not moved.] Clause 8 [Excepted enactments]: [Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.] Clause 12 [Procedure: introductory]:
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c1362-3
- 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 21:06:13 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355341
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355341
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355341