The difficulty is that we cannot reflect fully in the time before the Bill leaves the House of Commons. I find myself in the slightly embarrassing position of supporting what the Liberal Democrats have said. At a meeting, the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and I urged that view on the then Minister, and I think that it has considerable merit.
Of course I accept that we cannot normally allow minority vetoes on the processes of the House or on ordinary parliamentary procedure, but yesterday I accepted new clause 19—reluctantly, as did my hon. Friend—as a step in the right direction. I was prepared to allow some flexibility in abandoning parliamentary procedure for non-controversial measures. Surely, though, if 65 Members say that a measure merits being subject to the full parliamentary process, it is not a non-controversial deregulatory measure. If we were in office, I would take the view that even if the 65 were shell-backed left-wing members of the Labour party with a stray Welsh Nationalist added, they would be entitled to the full parliamentary process, and to be allowed to veto a short-cutting of the whole parliamentary procedure, which we are all prepared to contemplate only in the case of genuinely non-controversial deregulatory measures.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Clarke of Nottingham
(Conservative)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 16 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c896 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:38:57 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324090
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324090
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324090