Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

This is not a party-political issue. It is really a matter of judgment. I have reached the conclusion that new clause 21 is not the answer, and I hope that the Minister will reflect on what has been said this evening and will withdraw it. If she is not prepared to do so, the new clause will be rendered less offensive if the House accepts amendment (a), which incidentally has cross-party support. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will allow a Division on the amendment. As has been said, new clause 21 seeks to facilitate the implementation of Law Commission recommendations by using a fast-track procedure under the Bill ““with or without changes””. The Minister objects to the removal of those four words. According to the Minister for the Cabinet Office, the right hon. Member for North-West Durham (Hilary Armstrong), if time had elapsed and some of the measures had been implemented because they were deemed urgent, without the words ““with or without changes”” Ministers would not be able to implement the balance. I do not buy that argument, for reasons identified by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). Subsection (5) of the new clause states:"““An order under this section may contain such consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision (including provision made by amending or repealing any enactment or other provision)””." I think that the power is there. One of the duties of the Law Commission—some would argue that it is one of its main tasks—is to codify and bring together legislation on the same subject. Why would we want to split one of its proposals between different pieces of legislation? My reading of subsection (5) is that Ministers could implement proposals that were necessary and repeal any law changes made in the interim, and codify it all under the order-making power. That seems to me to be the right way to proceed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) said, it is incorrect to assume that a Law Commission recommendation will be uncontroversial. When my Committee took evidence, the Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr. Murphy), insisted on using the term ““highly controversial”” to describe measures to which the provision would not apply. Not just controversial, but highly controversial was the description given in each case. If the Minister is saying that she has reflected on that and is willing to lower the threshold, I would be reassured. I see no need for the provision to be in the Bill. We have two Standing Orders that could relate to the type of legislation that we have been discussing. Standing Order No. 58, which deals with consolidation measures, states that Second Readings and Third Readings of such measures will be taken forthwith; it therefore provides a much accelerated procedure. Standing Order No. 59, which the Conservatives introduced, with consent, when we were in government, specifically refers to Law Commission Bills and states that they should be referred to a Second Reading Committee. We made those changes with consent—that was how we did business then when we amended Standing Orders, and I regret that that is not what happens now. That Standing Order, which was introduced in 1995, has, I believe—I stand to be corrected by the Minister—not been used by the Government since 1999. One has to ask them why. Why have they not at least tried to use that provision to put Law Commission proposals on to the statute book? I am not saying that those two Standing Orders are perfect, but I noted what I regard as a point of good will made by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire. He said that he was prepared to engage in constructive dialogue with the Minister, perhaps on ways of changing the Standing Orders to deal with such matters. The Modernisation Committee is already examining our processes, and I know that the Procedure Committee would be prepared to consider that very point. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that with a view to not going down the proposed route and to ensuring that the House always has the opportunity, through primary legislation, to consider Law Commission proposals, albeit by an accelerated procedure.