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, I thank the noble Lord for those questions. I will try to answer them as best I can. The guidance is a document which changes from time to time to deal with changing circumstances. Indeed, in our earlier debate we touched on how it might be used as the mechanism to deal with the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville. Part of that guidance requires the regulatory impact assessment to be produced when transposition takes place. That sets out the analysis that must be undertaken. The guidance is on the Cabinet Office website; all departments are aware of it; it is updated regularly; and it is expected that it would be complied with. If the noble Lord is unable to access it readily, perhaps he will let me know and I should be happy to provide him with a copy and the documentation that surrounds it. On the European Court of Justice, under the proposed amendment legislation cannot be introduced in the UK that is not absolutely necessary to implement a Community obligation or right. If, under the drafting of that Community obligation or right, there is uncertainty about what it might mean, when it is transposed into UK legislation there would be a risk—would there not?—that somebody could come along and say that this is doing more than is absolutely necessary. Therefore, there is another area for contention about how that legislation is introduced. I think that that is the key point. We read the amendment as precluding dealing with social aspects of legislation. It seemed to me to be an absolute issue—that you should not do anything that was not absolutely necessary to implement the Community obligation. One would think that that would mean that, other things being equal, if there were a range of dates for its implementation you would have to introduce it at the latest period that you possibly could because it would be doing more than was necessary to do so earlier—for example, where you would have to take advantage of all the derogations. How would that impact on what is proposed? The issue of timing and some of these points are touched upon in the interim report of my noble and learned friend Lord Davidson. That might be worth a review. I hope that I have dealt with the key points the noble Lord has raised. If not, I will try again.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 685 c1390
- 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 21:06:04 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355377
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355377
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_355377