My Lords, that was an interesting short debate. I am grateful for the support for my proposal not only from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, from whom I got the idea in the first place and whose support was therefore to be expected, but also from the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. However, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, also argued, as did the Minister for Better Regulation, that it would be a mistake to alter the name now. I am mildly shocked by that suggestion. What is being said is that, because the Executive decided something a few months ago off their own bat, Parliament is going to be ignored and whatever we say should not be taken seriously. What is being said is, ““We have already decided that. It was all settled. We cleared that up in government””. If we accept that sort of argument in Parliament, we will, if we are not careful, waste our time discussing legislation at all. There is a considerable danger in that. I am not sure what the Government are doing in presuming to lay all these things down and then saying, ““Sorry, we have decided that already. Forget it. Do not bother even discussing it””.
The Minister herself accepted that this body is not a local body, which is what its title suggests. She also advanced the idea that the cost of changing the name was too great. Frankly, coming from this Government, that is rather amusing. This Government have changed the names of departments of state more frequently than any Government I have known. They have mucked about with the titles of Ministers, sometimes very frequently, reshuffled departments, rewritten everything and moved departments about, sometimes in large ways and at enormous expense. Yet they say that they cannot possibly afford a little money to change this name, which they decided—wrongly in my opinion—a few months ago.
I am not happy with the answers that have been given to me and I urge the Government to think again. This Bill started in your Lordships’ House. It has not yet been to another place, so there is plenty of time for the Government to think again when it is passed down the Corridor. As a matter of fact, they have taken a lot of time between Committee and Report. The Bill has not been overpressed through this House. I make no complaint about that, but the Government have time to rethink this matter, as I think they should, for the reasons that I have advanced. I have made the case and I have been supported around the House, at least on the basis of the case. I now beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Cope of Berkeley
(Conservative)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 19 March 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Bill [HL].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
700 c280-1 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:00:27 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_456578
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_456578
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_456578