Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I think this is the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you have had to listen to our long and complicated debates on the Bill, so welcome to the Chair. To make it even more complicated, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was speaking, my glasses fell apart, so I shall have to ask the Minister to hold my notes a little further away until my spare glasses arrive. Both in partnership with my fellow members of the Select Committee and subsequently in exploring practical ways forward, I have carefully considered the matter of the veto. I was certainly left with the impression, as reinforced by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, that we were not being offered a qualified veto and I have discussed with Ministers where that would leave us. I have expressed to my hon. Friends privately and put it on the record that I am uncomfortable with the Government’s amendment, so I am anxious to listen to the views of the Chairman of the Procedure Committee when he moves his amendments, particularly when I have amended his amendments further in respect of the two-year rule. What powers does the Minister envisage the Committee having? That is the most important issue. The Secretary of State said in a letter of 11 May—I referred to it yesterday and confused the hon. Member for Huntingdon—that the statutory veto was not ““a blanket veto””. There may be good technical reasons for that. I am not a lawyer, but am always prepared to listen to them. Often one has to listen to them at length; I do not want to disparage the profession of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe(Mr. Clarke), but he might be happier with a bigger Bill. I am more interested in the practical ways of how the House deals with its business. That issue was raised by the Liberal Democrat MP, Brian Cotter, in 2001. In the Second Reading debate on the Regulatory Reform Bill 2001, Brian Cotter, then the Liberal Democrat Member for Weston-super-Mare, asked the then Minister, the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Graham Stringer), to explain what he meant about a ministerial undertaking. The undertaking given has proved to be mighty effective; only 27 orders were dealt with through the process in the last Parliament. The reason is probably that a ministerial undertaking given to the House is an absolute one. If the Parliamentary Private Secretary would like to pick up my glasses from over there—I have just seen them through the corner of my eye—I would be extremely grateful, especially as the next part of my speech is written in micro-dot. What a wonderful service we get here. That’s better, I can read my notes now. The ministerial undertaking given is, I think, a very powerful vehicle. I would like to establish clearly and unambiguously with the Minister whether he is prepared today to restate that ministerial undertaking. I cite what the then Minister said when he gave it:"““First, I am happy to confirm that the order-making power will not be used for large and controversial measures””—" we have already debated that."““Secondly, the Government would not proceed with an order against the Committee’s wishes.””—[Official Report, 19 March 2001; Vol. 365, c. 117.]" No qualifications there; it was said clearly that the Government would not proceed against the wishes of the Committee. If the Minister can today, irrespective of the partial statutory veto, give a similar undertaking, that would make a forceful point. As I look around at hon. Members in their places who have been or are Ministers, I know that they realise that such an undertaking would be of very considerable significance.