division_name: Regulatory Reform Bill [Lords]
motion: <p>[Relevant documents: Second Special Report from the Deregulation Committee, Session 1999-2000 (Pre-Legislative Scrutiny of the draft Regulatory Reform Bill), HC 488; Third Special Report from the Deregulation Committee, Session 1999-2000 (Further Report on the draft Regulatory Reform Bill), HC 705; and First Special Report from the Deregulation Committee, Session 2000-01 (The Handling of Regulatory Reform Orders), HC 328.] 
  <p>Order for Second Reading read. 
  <p>
   I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  <p> 
  
    All Governments regulate to protect consumers, the environment, employers, employees, and society as a whole. The Government were elected on principles of fairness, justice and equality of opportunity, and those are the principles that we have put into practice in introducing fair and effective regulation. That is not about red tape or petty bureaucracy. The Government have no need to apologise for legislating for decent holiday entitlement, safety in the workplace, or policies to make work pay, such as the working families tax credit and the minimum wage. Those are commitments that we made in our manifesto, and they are commitments that we have honoured.
  <p>
   I beg to move, To leave out from "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  <p> 
   
    "this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Regulatory Reform Bill  [Lords]  because it seeks to extend the use of powers intended solely for a deregulatory purpose to the creation of new burdens and to the rewriting of legislation without a specific deregulatory effect; and fails to apply sufficient consultative, scrutiny and review provisions to the exceptional powers proposed."
  <p>Question put,  That the amendment be made:--
  <p>The House divided:  Ayes 151, Noes 284.
  