No, the overall burden would be reduced. We cannot accept amendment (b) because if we did, in the context of reducing the overall burden, a burden could be increased on one person.
I anticipate that there will be future examples where legislation covering an entire area could be rationalised to benefit those regulated. However, amendment (b) would narrow the order-making power so much that many of the reforms that were possible under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 would no longer be possible.
I turn to the reasonableness test in amendment (a). The Minister is already under a public duty to reach a reasonable view. We discussed who could object to a reasonableness test, and although the views expressed are on one level true, the amendment would add nothing to the duty that the Minister is already under to act reasonably. Case law has established that if a Minister’s decision is not reasonable, it can be struck down by the courts, so the existing subjective test is a real one.
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Pat McFadden
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 15 May 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
446 c782 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 23:29:10 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323669
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323669
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_323669