The hon. Gentleman must not tempt me. The alternative to that is that practical politics might stop a proposal returning to the House within the lifetime of a Parliament.
These are probing amendments, designed to elicit an explanation from the Government of when it would be sensible, in the lifetime of a Parliament, for a Minister to bring back to the House an order that a Select Committee had decided was not suitable for regulatory reform. Under what circumstances would the Minister consider that appropriate?
I am trying to break these complex legal issues into simple and practical procedures that would allow hon. Members to do our job and examine the work of the Executive in an effective manner. The work of the Regulatory Reform Committee would be strengthened if Conservative Members bothered to turn up, as I noted previously to the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), but that is a matter for him to deal with.
An effective mechanism is in place, but we are trying to make it stronger so that it can deal with the enhanced powers set out in the Bill. I hope that my comments will inform that debate, and I look forward to the response from my hon. Friend the Minister. That, in turn, will help the House to determine the best way forward.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Andrew Miller
(Labour)
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 c903 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 13:39:24 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324112
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324112
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_324112