I welcome the Parliamentary Secretary to his new responsibilities. He said that he looked forward to a vigorous debate. I suspect that he might have found exactly the right opportunity for one in this Bill.
I do not want to delay the House on the programme motion. We welcome the fact that we have two days, especially as the Government are in full retreat on this matter and have tabled a great number of new clauses and amendments.
In procedural terms, however, let me point out the disadvantage of paragraph 3 of the programme motion, which requires that all Government new clauses shall be considered and dealt with on the first day before the point of interruption. When so many Government new clauses and amendments have been tabled, that distorts debate on the Bill. In future, will business managers consider whether that might be an unnecessary requirement? If we have two days for debate, we should order business in the most appropriate way to ensure a full debate on all the matters before the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
Proceeding contribution from
David Heath
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c708 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberLibrarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 10:13:27 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323404
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323404
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323404