Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Article 1(2) states:Then there is a whole list. What is wrong with that? Why does the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs produce that sort of document if the Government say that it is an administrative burden? What is wrong with the system that they have introduced?

All that I suggested was that the Government might give an indication. Very well, if the Minister

19 July 2006 : Column 1401

and the Government do not like it, we can take it out but the fact remains that the people on whom these impositions fall will have to undertake a major research project, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, said, before they can find out what is the offence that they might have committed. I find that unacceptable. Of course, I shall not press the amendment tonight, but I am very glad to hear a fairly sympathetic response from the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, and I hope that we can return to the matter later. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 32 [Repeals and savings]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved AmendmentNo. 114A:

The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 114A to 114D make minor and technical changes, at the core of which is Amendment No. 114C, which ensures that subordinate provision orders can still be made under the 2001 Act to amend existing regulatory reform orders, despite the Bill’s repeal of the 2001 Act. The other amendments are minor, related amendments to clarify the drafting. In view of what we have just heard from the noble Viscount, I should have thought that they are commendably sensible and practical amendments. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 114B to 114D:

(a) any power to make an order under section 1 of the 2001 Act pursuant to section 4(4) of that Act (a “subordinate provisions order”) in relation to the subordinate provisions of any order under section 1 of that Act continuing in force by virtue of subsection (4); or (b) the operation of sections 1 to 4 of that Act in relation to the making by virtue of paragraph (a) of any subordinate provisions order.”

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 33 agreed to.

Clause 34 [General interpretation]:

[Amendment No. 115 not moved.]

10.30 pm

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved AmendmentNo. 116:

19 July 2006 : Column 1402

(a) a function under any enactment of imposing requirements, restrictions or conditions, or setting standards or giving guidance, in relation to any activity; or (b) a function which relates to the securing of compliance with, or the enforcement of, requirements, restrictions, conditions, standards or guidance which under or by virtue of any enactment relate to any activity. (a) include a function exercisable by or on behalf of the Crown; (b) do not include- (i) any function exercisable by any body of, or any person holding office in, the Church of England; or (ii) any function of conducting criminal or civil proceedings. (a) providing goods and services; and (b) employing or offering employment to any person.”

The noble Lord said: I can deal with the amendment fairly briefly. It exempts the Church of England from the provisions in Part 2 on the exercise of regulatory functions, and ensures that the order-making power in Clause 2 cannot be used in relation to the regulatory functions of the Church. This is consistent with the long-standing constitutional convention that the Government will not legislate on anything within the competence of the Church of England, which has de facto delegated powers, without first reaching agreement with it. My understanding, as one would expect, is that the amendment is very agreeable to the Church of England. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry raised the issue on Second Reading. Officials have been in discussion with the Church authorities on this point for some time, and my understanding is that the Church is entirely happy with the proposition. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 34, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 37 agreed to.

Schedule [Repeals]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved AmendmentNo. 117:

“Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006

In Schedule 8, paragraph 9.”

The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 117 is a minor change to what will become the Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006. The Wireless Telegraphy Bill is a consolidation Bill and is drafted on the basis of the law as it now stands. On that basis, it includes provision in relation to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 in that it disapplies the two-year rule in that Act, which endeavours to prevent a regulatory reform order amending or repealing a provision that is less than two years old or has been substantially amended in the past two years. The disapplication means that the two-year rule would not stop a regulatory reform order making provision for wireless telegraphy just because that provision has been consolidated in the

19 July 2006 : Column 1403

Wireless Telegraphy Bill. As our Bill will repeal the 2001 Act, the provision in the Wireless Telegraphy Bill serves no purpose, and I entreat Members of the Committee to accept the amendment without demur, because it will be very helpful indeed. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

In the Title:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved AmendmentNo. 118:

19 July 2006 : Column 1404

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Title, as amended, agreed to.

House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Government of Wales Bill

The Bill was returned from the Commons with certain amendments disagreed to with reasons for such disagreement, with other amendments disagreed to but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof and with the remaining amendments agreed to; the Commons amendments and reasons were ordered to be printed.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page