---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

My Lords, much of what I wanted to say has already been said rather more elegantly and eloquently than I could have done, so I shall try to be brief. Any Bill which proposes to transfer power from Parliament to the Executive erodes the freedom of the individual and is bad news. However laudable the purposes of the Bill—I yield to no one in my dislike of bureaucracy and red tape—it does not justify diminishing the power of Parliament in favour of the Government or of any commission. No discussion of desirable objectives or technicalities of vetoes can get away from the fundamental point, which is that the role of Parliament is to be reduced. Any Act created to bypass Parliament for the purpose of abolishing bad laws will also enable good laws to be disposed of. Who is to say which laws are good and which are bad? It is the decision of a Minister who has an extremely wide brief. The Bill refers to ““administrative inconvenience”” as grounds for using power given under the Act. I am not clever but I can think of almost no law that is not administratively inconvenient. However good the intentions and undertakings given at the outset, all powers are sooner or later abused by Government. Usually that takes some time. In the case of the present Government, it seems to happen almost immediately. There are almost daily examples of recent Acts of Parliament being used for purposes for which they were not intended: an Act designed to counter terrorism that was used to threaten bankers with extradition; the arrest of an elderly gentleman for barracking at a political party conference; police threats over the wording on a t-shirt; the arrest next to the Cenotaph of readers of a list of British dead in Iraq. I could go on. There is a constant stream of examples. I ask your Lordships to consider the potential for abuse which exists under the proposed legislation. I am sure that does not apply to the present Government, but what about future Governments who will not feel bound by today’s conventions and will examine the small print to find ways to use the powers of the Bill—should it become an Act—in a manner which is not now intended? As my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth has said, the Bill is flawed. Legislation which diminishes the role of Parliament in favour of the Executive or any other body is a step on a slippery slope, which this House should resist. This Government have introduced an endless stream of new laws together with statutory instruments at a rate of about 4,000 a year. If the Government have a genuine interest in reducing regulation, they should control their passion for new laws and give parliamentary time to repealing laws they consider inappropriate.