Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Goodhart (Liberal Democrat) 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

moved Amendment No. 29: Page 7, line 17, at end insert ““, and ( ) a statement that in his view the provisions of the order are compatible with the Convention rights (as defined in the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42)).”” The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the first of two amendments in my name involving the Human Rights Act 1998. Amendment No. 29 requires a statement to be made that the provisions of a draft order put before either House are compatible with convention rights. That requirement is based on Section 19 of the Human Rights Act. It does not, of course, include the second limb of Section 19, which enables a Minister to make a statement that the Bill is incompatible with the convention rights but the Government wish to proceed with it. I think that has happened only once, when an amendment was made to a Bill in your Lordships’ House against the wishes of the Government, who took the view that it was inconsistent with the Human Rights Act, therefore they had to make a statement of incompatibility when the Bill moved to the Commons. It is plainly inappropriate that the procedure under the Bill should be used if the Minister is unable to give a statement of compatibility. Any order made under those circumstances would be seriously controversial, and it would therefore be wrong to introduce it. A Minister should be able to give an order a declaration of compatibility before it can be introduced. In practice, a statement of compatibility does not apply to primary legislation only; it has also become a convention that one is made in the case of statutory instruments subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as a result of a decision pronounced some years ago by the late Lord Williams of Mostyn. It is plainly appropriate to require a statement of compatibility for draft orders made under the Bill. This simple amendment would involve no difficulties in practice but it would at least concentrate the Government’s mind on the human rights implications of a draft order before they introduce it. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
685 c1368-9 
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