Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Andrews (Labour) in the House of Lords on Thursday, 13 December 2007. It occurred during Debates on delegated legislation on Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2007.


Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2007

Not for the first time, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her home-spun Suffolk wisdom. I am grateful that the noble Lord took the time and trouble to put the full reasoning of the committee on the record, because that is important. We have done this for the first time and it has shown in our department’s response as well. I note from the correspondence that has gone back and forth between the department and the committee that—I shall not say there was a certain acerbity, but it was an interesting process. As the process evolves, other departments will learn from our experience, which is as it should be. The noble Lord raised the issue of the number of prosecutions, and I can confirm that there have been 11, which were not all successful, so he is right that there have been very few. He also referred to the potential of using other legislation to achieve the same effect, and mentioned the Local Government Act 1985. The jury is still out on which would be the best vehicle, so the department is looking at it closely. The noble Baroness, Lady Scott, was tempted to have a much bigger debate. She opened the door just a crack on the issue of centralisation and burden. I am tempted to send her the 20 departmental simplification plans published on Tuesday 11 December—no one can say they are not up to date—showing how we can reduce burdens on business. For example, in the public sector there are 280 different ways with total net administrative savings of £800 million. The order is an important step forward as a proportionate response in managing change, but it is only one of a number of instruments at our disposal. There is a lot going on, as the noble Baroness said. In terms of what happens next, of the 84, 62 consents have been deregulated so far: most of them have been removed. There is the one that we have been debating today and there are four that have completed their consultation and are expected to be introduced to Parliament this Session. Looking at them, it is interesting how wide is the range of issues. They include changes to the individual voluntary arrangement, insolvency services, merger of the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive and second insolvency and individual voluntary arrangements. We are working through that list. I do not think that any of us could hazard how long it will take to get through them all, but that gives us a good idea. The noble Baroness also asked about other consent regimes. I cannot answer that; it is not within the scope of my extensive briefing; but I am happy to write to her with an answer on that. I am very grateful to noble Lords, both for their welcome for the Government's response and for the rigorous, intense process, which is full of integrity. I am sure that it will help us to achieve better government. On Question, Motion agreed to.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
697 c182-3GC 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Related items
Deposited Paper DEP2008-0141
Thursday, 17 January 2008
Deposited papers
House of Lords
Subjects
Devolved matters Curriculum Advertising Cancer Delegated legislation Licensing Legislative competence Foreign relations Local government Medical treatments National Assembly for Wales Taxis Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee Statutory instruments
Legislation
Cancer Act 1939
Local Government Act 1972
Legislative Reform (Local Authority Consent Requirements) (England and Wales) Order 2008
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk