I thank the noble Baroness for that very full response. These were of course probing amendments, but she might like to note for future reference that we struggled hard with the clerks to expand the range of things that we wanted to talk about. It was a fight of great intensity, which we lost on two areas that I thought we would be able to include. We could not put into Amendment 48EA a third point which would require the evaluation of the impact of all regulatory measures on well-being, because they said that that was not about enterprise, for some reason, and did not fall into the long title of the Bill. We also wanted to probe the question of whether or not the RPC would be able to follow up its idea that impact assessments should not just be generated sui generis within a department but should be exposed to external review as well, which would have given another cornerstone to the way in which impacts are measured and assessed and would help the law-making process. But these are much bigger and broader issues and cover more of a constitutional than a legislative area. They are matters to be discussed when we have that drink. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Enterprise Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 28 October 2015.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Enterprise Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
765 c241GC Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand CommitteeSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2021-10-12 15:22:54 +0100
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-28/15102850000172
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-28/15102850000172
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-10-28/15102850000172