Proceeding contribution from Lord Kingsland (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 2 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
My Lords, I do not understand the distinction between clarity and certainty that has legal force and clarity and certainty that does not. You either have clarity and certainty or you do not. If a document is clear and certain, it seems just as likely to be binding in law as a clear and certain document that has been declared binding in law. If I may respectfully say to the Minister, he is making a distinction without a difference. He is not demonstrating the confidence in the transposition guide that he manifested so trenchantly on Report. There may be good reasons for rejecting my amendment, but I do not think they have been advanced from the government Dispatch Box. However, we are at Third Reading, and attached as I am to the text of my amendment, like the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I will not press it. I think that I am right in saying that this is the last amendment of Third Reading; therefore, events will be moving quickly to a close. I believe that the Minister will agree that this Bill has had a rather bumpy ride in another place and in your Lordships' House. It has generated more than the usual amount of controversy. Mercifully, in this instance, controversy has proved fruitful. The Government have responded to what may accurately be described as a storm of protest from many quarters. Above all, it is accepted that the attempt to blur the distinction between primary and secondary legislation was wholly misplaced. The removal of the Law Commission clause and the exclusion of amendments of constitutional importance have also improved the text immensely. It is a great shame that the Government have not been so receptive over maintaining the independence of the economic regulators. We can only hope that the memory of Mr Byers’s conduct towards Railtrack and the scrutiny of orders made under this Bill will suffice. I hope that, this time, government words lead to action. We remain unconvinced that this Bill was ever necessary to reduce the burden of red tape and excessive regulation that suffocates British business. We still feel that the departments could do much more, by secondary not primary legislation. However, we have decided to give the Government the benefit of the doubt. I hope that we see real improvements. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c425-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Codes of practice Devolved matters Crime Business Devolution Delegated legislation Constitutional and administrative law Human rights EU law Exemptions Law Legislation European communities Legislative drafting Ministerial powers Powers of entry Powers Regulation Reform Taxation Statutory instruments Legislative reform orders
- Legislation
- Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 21:12:32 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357603
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357603
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357603