Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

The matter of the implied repeal of the Bill of Rights is of some consequence, and I think that it may well be a matter for the Chair or, indeed,Mr. Speaker, to protect the rights of the House, but that is not what new clause 15 is about. The new clause deals with the capacity conferred by the Bill to delegate the function of legislation. It is, at first sight, a rather extraordinary concept—the idea that Ministers might, by Order in Council, confer to any other person the function of legislating. Of course, delegated functions already occur through primary legislation in a number of cases, but when we asked Ministers—in Committee and elsewhere—exactly what they meant by the provision in the Bill, I have to say that the answers were less than convincing and less than adequate. There is no clear idea of why there is a need for Ministers to defer through an Order in Council what is the most important aspect of Parliament’s work—the legislative function—to any other person. There is, I accept, an argument for allowing the function of levying fees or changing a fees regime to be delegated to another person, which is why we have framed our new clause in a different way from the amendment that we tabled in Committee, and why it does not deal with that issue. We would have liked a full debate on this subject yesterday in the context of new clause 19, but as you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, our procedure yesterday did not entirely allow for that. The new provision was originally in clause 2, but now lies in new clause 19 and the subsequent new clauses. We would have liked at that point to move amendments reducing the capacity to delegate the function of legislating, and to have divided the House on them. Two things alarm us. First, we have to ask whether it is right to give, through secondary legislation, the legislative function to another person—whomsoever that may be—who is not a legislator; not a Member of this Parliament. The second and most relevant question is that even if one accepts the need to delegate the legislative function—which I do not—why on earth is the legislation that such a person can then create via the delegated power not subject to the same caveats to which the Minister who conferred that delegated function is subject? Why, moreover, is such legislation not subject to the same parliamentary protections—albeit inadequate, as we have just been debating—to which it would have been subject, had it been put through the House via secondary legislation? The case is absolutely unanswerable. I am prepared to listen to arguments from the Minister on the need to delegate a legislative function, although I am still at a loss to know in exactly what circumstances such a power would be used. However, I will not accept, under any circumstances, that such a power should not be subject to the same restrictions, caveats and the so-called veto that we have applied to matters properly before legislators: in other words, Members of this House acting in a legislative capacity in a Select Committee or in a Statutory Instrument Committee. The suggestion is entirely preposterous. I know that we sometimes seem to defer our legislative functions to all sorts of people, but at least we try to maintain the fig leaf whereby we legislate in this House on the basis of information that we have. Ministers will be allowed to wash their hands completely of legislation that is the product of this provision. They will not be interested in whether it complies with the regulatory principles or falls within the narrow constraints on Ministers’ ability to delegate through such means, which we have just been discussing. We must remember that we are talking about amendment to primary legislation. Primary legislation will go through all its parliamentary stages and, a few years later, a Minister will be able to say, ““I’m going to amend this legislation, but I’m not going to tell you how. I’m going to delegate that function to another person whom the House does not know and whose capacity they do not know, in order that they can make amendments that the House does not know about, and which will never go back to the House for corroboration or scrutiny.”” I do not think that that is the way that the House should do its business. It is an error of judgment. I know that the Minister will say, ““It’s nothing to worry about. We’re only talking about a few learned bodies and things like that, and they must be allowed to make their own rules,”” but I do worry about it—that is my job. It is the job of all hon. Members to worry about whether we allow other people to make legislation on our behalf without the appropriate restrictions. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), the Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee, also has amendments in this group. From his body language, it is clear that he shares some of our concerns and that he is itching to speak. Given the abbreviated time available I shall not delay the House, save to say that amendments Nos. 5 and 9 fall, as they apply to something that yesterday was deleted from the Bill by a decision of the House. However, new clause 15 is still relevant as it sets out the principles that should apply in this matter and would restrict the capacity to delegate the legislative function. I hope that we will get satisfactory answers from the Minister, but I expect that he will not be able to satisfy my concerns as he has not put forward his own amendments to bring the delegated legislative function within the compass of his constraints. It is likely that I shall wish to divide the House, but I hope to get some support from other parties. Conservative Members who share my concerns may feel put off because the new clause refers to the veto. They were unable to support that proposal earlier, but it has now been disposed of. This is an important issue and we must send the clearest possible message to the other place that it requires appropriate amendment. For members of the principal Opposition party to sit on their hands in respect of such an important matter would be extremely unhelpful, and I entreat them to show their support in the Lobbies, whatever their reservations about one small aspect of the new clause.