---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I shall speak to Amendment No. 55 in this group. Amendments Nos. 67, 71 and 73 are consequential on that amendment. Amendment No. 55 reflects a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee to remove subsections (3) to (5) of Clause 4. Those subsections exempt provisions that restate statute or which codify a rule of law from the protections contained in subsection (2). Subsection (5) of Clause 1 enables a power to be used to consolidate and rewrite primary legislation. So, subsections (3) to (5) of Clause 4 should be read with subsection (5) of Clause 1 in mind. I agree with everything said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in speaking to his Amendment No. 17. As the committee pointed out, the definition in subsection (5) of Clause 1 allows the power to be used for rewriting and consolidating primary legislation. In other words, it is a paving power. The question for the Committee is whether the order-making powers are appropriate for the consolidation of statutes. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee interprets ““restates””—the word used in the Bill—as meaning ““consolidation””. The committee set out, in paragraph 66 of its report, how Parliament has already set up by statute and standing order fast-track mechanisms to deliver primary legislation for certain purposes, including consolidation. The committee cites, as an example, the Education Act 1996, which was passed in four minutes on the Floor of your Lordships' House and in one minute on the Floor of another place. The committee goes on to note: "““That Parliament currently requires a bill for such restatement is significant in considering whether to delegate to Ministers the more substantial power to simplify the law””." The point made by the committee is constitutional. It is saying that primary legislation, not secondary legislation introduced by an order made by Ministers, should be used to simplify the law. Government Amendment No. 61 attempts to redefine the meaning of ““restates””. It is helpful, in as much as it clarifies that restating an enactment relates only to matters of form and arrangement. But it still does not address the principle at stake here, that primary legislation is the appropriate way for legislation to be consolidated or rewritten. The fact that there are already adequate procedures in place to achieve that aim, coupled with the constitutional principle of the inappropriateness of attempting to use the order-making powers in this way, should, I hope, make the Government reconsider what they are trying to do with subsection (5) of Clause 1.