ANNEX C: GOVERNMENT COMMITMENTS During Debate in the House of Lords Commitments on Large and Controversial Measures
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (21 Dec 2000 : Column 852): We intend preserving the strengths of the existing deregulation process. First, thorough and effective consultation will remain the gateway to the order-making process; secondly, the two Houses would be true co-equals in the scrutiny process--highly controversial or party-political measures will naturally remain more suited to debate on the Floor of the House; and, thirdly, the rigours of the scrutiny process will also be preserved and enhanced.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (23 Jan 2001 : Column 209): We have made it clear at all stages that we are dealing with orders that are not politically controversial, although there may be controversy about the detail. If they were politically controversial to a serious extent, that would not be appropriate for a regulatory reform order. We are discussing matters that would otherwise have to be dealt with in primary legislation, although it would be difficult to find time in legislative programmes, which are often crowded. I am more than happy to agree; yes, the orders would need to be passed by both Houses. If an order was not passed by the House of Lords, it would not get through.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (13 Feb 2001 : Column 186): As has been repeatedly stated by everyone involved, the power in the Bill is not suited to large and controversial measures. The entire procedure contained in the Bill would weed out such proposals. A highly contentious issue would come up against serious problems during the consultation period and the Minister, obliged to set all this out in the document he placed before Parliament, would have to reflect that explicitly. The scrutiny procedures in Parliament, involving careful examination by committees and the co-equal status of the two Houses, are such that any Minister would obviously be ill-advised to choose this route.