My Lords, I want to lend some support to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, for raising the issue of parliamentary scrutiny in relation to this clause and Schedule 1. Clause 1 and Schedule 1 are an extraordinary exercise in executive powers through regulations and the regulators. In a later debate some days down the line, we are coming on to that issue, but it is appropriate that we start this debate with a reminder to the Minister that the issue of parliamentary scrutiny is very important.
I just want to reflect on what the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, said about regulations. The Minister will no doubt pray in aid the fact that Parliament has processes for dealing with regulations. In your Lordships’ House, praying against a negative SI leads to an affirmative debate, unlike in the other place, and we debate it in full—but to what end? I have tabled a Motion today in the Chamber relating to an affirmative Motion on a completely different issue, data use in the NHS. I have no doubt that we will have a very good debate, but the Government will just plough on without having to take account of any debate that has taken place.
4.30 pm
We know we have a problem with SIs because the Parliament Act 1911 did not embrace secondary legislation—partly because secondary legislation was not used very much at all then—which means we have an absolute veto that, because it is absolute, we use very rarely indeed. A few years ago now, when the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, developed the concept of a Motion that said the SI on working family tax credits could not come in for some months, until the Government had taken some action—and which your Lordships passed—the Government took great umbrage, although that was not strictly a veto. Indeed, I remember that the then Chancellor threatened the House of Lords with abolition because of its temerity in voting through the Motion from the noble Baroness.
The ultimate point here is that in the Bill there is a plethora of regulations that we will be asked to agree to in order to give Ministers essentially executive power and, at the end of the day, all we as a Chamber can do is raise questions but accept that the Government will always get their way. In that sense, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has done us a great service in opening our debates on such an important issue.