Skip to main content

1-20 of 26 results for subject:"Government departments"

Member X
Jim Murphy
Subject X
Parliamentary scrutiny

Type

House

Session

Year

Department

Member

More
Murphy, Jim (26)

Primary member

Answering member

Legislative stage

Legislation

Subject

More
Parliamentary scrutiny (26)

Publisher


Show detailed: On Off
Results: 10 20 50 100
Sort by: Newest first Oldest first

My hon. Friend is right, as he often is. I know how closely he follows the procedures of parliamentary protocol. Not only will there be that statutory consultation; the House, or the relevant Select Committees empowered by the House, must be certain that every suggestion can appropriately be dealt with...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1056
House
House of Commons

The Government will be happy to be reasonable and listen to sensible suggestions during the Bill’s passage, but the conditions are not ““alleged””; they are in the Bill. The Bill contains more preconditions than the 2001 Act. I believe that only two out of five conditions apply fully in the...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1055-6
House
House of Commons

In total, I think that 27 RROs were delivered under the 2001 Act. At the time of the Second and Third Reading of the 2001 Act, it was anticipated across the House that there would be much more substantial reforms as a consequence of it. The right hon. Gentleman asks...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1054-5
House
House of Commons

The narrow definition did not allow us to implement specific regulatory reform orders, because of the narrow way in which a legal burden was defined and the way in which a proposal or regulatory reform order, if it only affected a Department, could not be progressed with. There have been...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1054
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In his four or five years in the House, he has made a significant impact on the way in which important and vulnerable workers are protected. He is right that we must not only weigh up the financial cost but the benefits, real or...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1052-3
House
House of Commons

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I know that he has tabled a written question on the matter. If I am not being too unkind to him, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matter with him, but the most appropriate means of doing so might...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1051-2
House
House of Commons

Let me make some progress first. The central issue is to find the most appropriate and effective means of implementing the proposals. The current arrangements are not fit for purpose. Without the Bill, many of the proposals on which Departments are working will remain just that—proposals. Time on the Floor...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1052
House
House of Commons

I thank my hon. Friend, who as usual makes an important point. I will address the specific matter that he has asked about later in my contribution. As I mentioned, the better regulation agenda is about not just preserving our economic prosperity, but minimising the burden on the public and...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1050-1
House
House of Commons

I will make some progress first. Of course, I will give way as a matter of courtesy to the hon. Gentlemen on the Conservative Benches—and they are all gentlemen—if they so wish. Applying better regulation principles to new regulatory proposals is crucial, but the Government must also address the stock...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1051
House
House of Commons

The right hon. Gentleman nods. I am not sure what was announced this morning or last evening by his new leader but, at the moment, we assume that the Conservative party still opposes the climate change levy. It opposes all sorts of family-friendly and supportive policies to enable parents to...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1050
House
House of Commons

As always, it is a delight to give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I am just disappointed that I no longer face him at Cabinet Office questions every month, as he is performing another important role as one of the 90 Opposition Front-Bench spokespeople. It is interesting that the...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1048-9
House
House of Commons

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. In opening this debate, I would like to set out the context for the Bill. That context is the importance of the Government’s better regulation agenda in maintaining our economic prosperity and continuing to improve our public...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1048
House
House of Commons

The British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors and all sorts of other important national organisations that represent business strongly support the Bill. I know that the hon. Gentleman has heard this point before but hopefully he will never get sick of hearing it: the Labour Government make no...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1050
House
House of Commons

I welcome the one Liberal—an actual Liberal, rather than a Liberal Conservative—Back Bencher who has come along today for what is supposedly a constitutional, ground-breaking debate. The proposals before us will not allow the introduction of contentious Law Commission proposals. I will make some remarks about that later in my...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1049-50
House
House of Commons

I should at this point remind the House that, within the past five years, the Government acknowledged and accepted the recommendation of the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee and the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concerning a veto on the registration of births and deaths RRO. Given that I...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1057-8
House
House of Commons

In effect, there is an operational right of veto under the terms of the 2001 Act, and ministerial assurances have been given in respect of not overriding the Commons Regulatory Reform Committee or the Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Government have not sought at any point in...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1057
House
House of Commons

I know that it is voguish to change policies and positions in a couple of hours, but I am not tempted to follow the fashion. I have nothing to add to what I thought was a good exchange of views at the Procedure Committee hearing, but we will stick to...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1056
House
House of Commons

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall respond to the debate and in doing so, it is quite proper to mention that we have had thoughtful contributions from a very large number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Alison Seabeck),...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1101-2
House
House of Commons

My hon. Friend is right to say that, on the face of it, the Bill does not contain the right of veto, but of course, nor did the 2001 Act, as he knows. Such a veto is one of the Regulatory Reform Committee’s 17 recommendations and we are looking at...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1056
House
House of Commons

On criminal penalties, the Bill gives a commitment not to go beyond a fine exceeding level 5. In addition, the Regulatory Reform Committee will assess such issues. Frankly, the Government have a genuinely more ambitious better regulation agenda than we have ever seen before—an agenda that includes simplification proposals, administrative...

Member
Jim Murphy (Labour)
Type
Proceeding contributions
Date
9 February 2006
Reference
442 c1058-9
House
House of Commons