---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

My Lords, I will come to that question, but I want to answer the question asked by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, about the sorts of legislation or the Acts that we might consider suitable targets for this approach. There are many others. For example, Defra wants to deliver proportionate, risk-based inspection. There is a proposal to merge the Drinking Water Inspectorate with one of the Hampton thematic bodies as well as merging the Pesticides Safety Directorate with one of the Hampton larger thematic bodies. I could go on with that list, and I am sure that the noble Earl would be fairly riveted by it. That is why we feel that we need this approach. I am sure that if noble Lords visited the website—the Cabinet Office’s portal on this—they could enter into it many other worthwhile examples of regulations that have outlived their value and their usefulness on matters that could now be much more simply dealt with by an amendment using this process. I want to go over the issue of the veto that was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Maclennan, Lord Kingsland and Lord Norton of Louth, as well as many others. The controversiality issue and the veto are fairly central to our debates and will be as we go through the legislation in Committee. Controversy is notoriously difficult to define. It is easy to spot topics such as murder on which recommendations would obviously be inappropriate for delivery by order and those that would be good candidates for delivery by order, such as the Law Commission report on perpetuities and excessive accumulations. But it is the grey area in between those extremes that causes concern. Controversy is of course a matter of degree. What is controversial changes over time. As I think the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, made clear, parts of the 2001 Act were considered to be controversial at the time, but it is not always possible to describe what controversial may mean over the longer period. Ministers will of course take a view on whether a proposal is highly controversial. The consultation process should also provide evidence on the level of controversy of proposals. One recommendation of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform provides a further option for a check on the level of controversy of individual proposals. As observers will have noticed, the Bill now provides a statutory power for the parliamentary committees to block orders on a case-by-case basis. This provides an important new safeguard on the use of the order-making powers. The statutory veto can be exercised only where a committee considers that an order fails to meet a set of criteria set out in the Bill—the purposes of the order-making powers in Clauses 1, 2 and 3 and the preconditions in Clause 4. Indeed, the preconditions in Clause 4, such as those on necessary protections and rights and freedoms, are elements of what would make an order highly controversial. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent committees from objecting to an order on any basis that they choose, as under the 2001 Act. That is one of the reasons why we feel it necessary to bring forward these sets of proposals. I am happy to reiterate the Government’s commitment not to force orders through in the face of opposition from committees. The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, made something of that point in his concluding contribution. Having listened and spoken to a number of committee chairmen in another place, I am pleased to announce to noble Lords that the Government accept the view of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee and are content to remove from the Bill the criteria for use of the veto. Why do we need the better legislation powers? That was very much at the core of comments and debate this afternoon. In simple terms, we need these powers to deliver valuable regulatory reforms—a principle which many have averred. It will help us to create a regulatory environment—the culture to which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland referred—that allows businesses to innovate and facilitates our aim of creating first-class public services. Orders under the Bill will cut red tape for the private sector, making our businesses more competitive in today’s global economy. They can also help us to free up nurses, teachers, doctors and police officers from unnecessary paperwork.