Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I do not see—perhaps in the reply an attempt will be made to persuade me to see—that clause 3 answers my arguments on taxation or the criminal law in the slightest. Of course they could be put forward, and they would have the effect of lifting the criminal penalty from a particular category of people, or lifting the financial burden from another category of people, but it would be difficult to say that that automatically restricted the freedoms of others. It might deeply offend the sensibilities or the interests of others, but not their freedoms, so clause 3 is not an answer. If the Minister wants to give a specific answer, let him deal with my example of taxation. I have not heard him yet explain why clause 5, which could deal with the point, could not be amended to include any reduction in taxation. If my point about changing taxation is so preposterous, why does the wording of the Bill leave it open to allow the change in the burden of taxation? Why does clause 5 not include reductions in taxation, so that lobbies cannot try and persuade a Government to use the power? That goes back to a point that I made not on the Floor of the House, but in a private debate with the Minister’s predecessor in the precincts of the Palace organised by the Hansard Society. There would never have been any difficulty with the Bill if all the things that Ministers have been prepared to say as assertions, promises and beliefs in principle had been incorporated into the text. If Governments are accepting various scenarios, why do they not bring them fully into the text? I move on to the safeguards to which the Minister keeps coming back: all these things require consultation, and all would fail if the two Select Committees, or the relevant Select Committee, were prepared to exercise a veto. That is not good enough. That could be used to take away the powers of Parliament on practically every subject. If we could all be reassured by that, why on earth are we spending our time debating anything on the Floor of the House? There are occasions when debate on the Floor of the House is needed, not always because the majority is opposed to some prospect, but to protect the rights of minorities as well. I have taken part in protracted debates on the Floor of the House where I have been in the large majority in the House. We have known that we would get our legislation and I have known that I would be voting on the winning side, but that does not mean that I thought it was an irritating waste of time to allow a powerful section of public opinion to voice its objections, to test the detail and to go through the arguments. That is the whole point of Parliament. It must never be regarded as just a nuisance that stands in the way of the parliamentary majority for the time being getting its way. What about the protections about which we are told? I regret to say that I do not think that the veto by a Select Committee is good enough. The two Select Committees that have studied the Bill have done a very good job. Select Committees do a very good job in the House, but I would not rely upon them as the last defenders of parliamentary privilege and parliamentary process in every case. It is a fact that the Government determine the majority of every Select Committee. A Government determined to get their way, who are irritated by what they see as time-wasting and filibustering opposition, will ensure that Select Committees do not veto their legislation and get it back on to the Floor of the House.