---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I thought that there would be some agreement, my Lords. I have now listened for some four hours to contributions and comments from all sides of your Lordships’ House. I have got to the stage where I cannot quite make up my mind exactly where the main focus of interest in the Bill will lie. The noble Lord, Lord Garden, set out a fair summary of the four generalities of issues raised in the debate. But noble Lords opposite, in particular, seem uncertain as to whether they wish to get rid of the whole Bill or parts of the Bill, welcome some of the Bill, welcome even more bits of the Bill or simply raise fundamental constitutional objections. I find that slightly confusing because, on 13 April, after some amendments had been placed in another place, the Conservative Party issued a press release welcoming the Government’s approach to amending the Bill and the further focus on delivering the better regulation agenda. Some of the contributions from the Benches opposite have certainly welcomed our approach; others have, as I said, been rather more fundamental in their approach. There were, at the outset, some warm words from the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, among some slightly less warm words. She said that we had listened to concerns and that the Bill was fresh and a step in the right direction. The noble Baroness said that you had to have political will in the deregulatory field and that, rather than just talking about it, you had to do it. I entirely endorse that approach; it is exactly what we are attempting to do with this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded us that this was initially a rather uncontroversial measure. He then said that it became rather more controversial when Members in another place—principally, I think, Mr Heath and Mr Howarth from the Liberal Democrat Benches—decided that it was controversial and deeply flawed because of what they saw as profound constitutional implications. So the debate has ranged far and wide. I particularly enjoyed the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, which was a necessary corrective view of the Government’s intentions. In the same vein, I enjoyed the supportive contributions of my noble friends Lord Lipsey, Lord Macdonald and Lord Whitty. Their support is based on a profound understanding of what the Government are trying to do so far as deregulation is concerned. My noble friend Lord Macdonald is very experienced in this field, particularly with his business expertise, and he reminded us that former government Ministers from the Conservative Party let the cat out of the bag when they told the public that they got gold stars by becoming heavily exercised regulators in their time. The problem, if there is a profound problem, has been with us not just during the life of this Government, but across Governments. But this Government are committed to having a long look at the way in which regulation works and trying to create procedures that unpick that, as were the Conservative Government in the early 1990s. I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover, for his contribution, which focused on practical considerations. I well remember the work of the task forces and, although at times I would have disagreed with some of their propositions and proposals, I think that they were going in the right direction. In some ways, the Bill builds on that work, because its genesis goes back to 1994 and the first deregulatory measure in legislation, the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act of that year. There is agreement that it is important to create an effective legislative vehicle for delivering better regulation, and I hope that we will have the constructive debates that some Members of your Lordships’ House have focused on in their contributions today. Much of the debate focused on Clause 3, which provides the power to implement Law Commission recommendations. I listened particularly carefully to the contribution made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, which was echoed by the noble Lords, Lord Kingsland, Lord Holme, Lord Norton, Lord Garden and Lord Goodhart, as well as by many other noble Lords. So I think that I should start by focusing more of my time on that part of the Bill. I think that we would all agree that it has taken Governments in general too long to implement worthwhile law reform proposals recommended by the Law Commission, of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, gave some useful examples. The Law Commission’s annual report for 2005 showed that there are 16 currently accepted but unimplemented Law Commission reports and that the average waiting time for enactment of Law Commission reports is now over seven years. An example of Law Commission recommendations that could be implemented by order are those on third party rights against insurers. That perhaps illustrates the value of Clause 3 as currently drafted. I would have been deaf indeed if I had not heard the breadth of concern expressed by Members of your Lordships’ House about the power in Clause 3. As the noble Lord, Lord Garden, and other noble Lords said, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee raised a fundamental question about the appropriateness of the power to implement Law Commission recommendations by order. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that I might acknowledge that this evening and offer to remove Clause 3. I am not going to do that, but I am going to ensure that we give careful consideration to the comments that have been made so that we can meet and match the concerns that lie behind them. I ought to say that my noble friend Lady Ashton will be dealing with this Part of the Bill, and I will be working with her to study closely the comments made on Clause 3. I have no doubt that in Committee much time will be spent carefully going through the various amendments that will be tabled. I want to put on record our thanks to noble Lords for having raised those concerns, because I recognise their constitutional importance. I think it only fair to say that we need to spend more time taking careful note of Law Commission proposals, not least because they can uncontroversially make valuable changes to the law. However, Law Commission proposals require careful consideration, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that we have to find a mechanism for ensuring that non-controversial Law Commission proposals can find their way more rapidly on to the statute book. I remain wedded to Clause 3 in its current form, but we will give careful consideration to the argument made on that point. During my original contribution, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, raised the issue of the sort of measures and proposals that the Government might wish to repeal using this legislation. He asked which Acts of Parliament will be repealed. It is right to focus on specifics, and there are some that I can put forward this evening. Specific examples of measures that we may seek to abolish as a consequence of carrying through the legislation were attached to the Government’s memoranda to the Delegated Powers Committee. Of course, it is possible to repeal Acts of Parliament under the 2001 Act. There are many examples of parts of legislation that we may wish to get rid of, review or amend in some way. For instance, the Charity Commission plans a review of the financial thresholds at which certain audit and registration requirements are required of charities. The DTI plans reviews to simplify—