---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

My Amendment No. 24, which is also in the name of my noble friend Lord Goodhart, may to some extent have been addressed by Amendment No. 65. However, I am bound to say that I am extremely concerned about the way in which we are legislating in these provisions. The Government published Explanatory Notes some time ago describing, for example, the effect of Clause 1(7). Before us, in government Amendment No. 20, we have provisions entirely different in formulation from those which their Explanatory Notes purport to describe. When matters of such complexity and opacity are brought forward, after the committees of this House and another place have considered them, it is not satisfactory that they are bounced on us as these have been today. It seemed to me clear that we ought to consider the limits of delegation systematically. That is not how this has been handled. We have a new provision which appears to recognise what I would have thought was a basic constitutional provision; namely, that only Ministers can introduce legislation to Parliament. That is confused in the original language of subsection (7), which did not confine legislation to activities which were the responsibility of Parliament. It is recognised in the definitions set out in subsection (6) that they might include, "““rules, regulations, scheme, warrant, byelaw or other subordinate instrument made at any time under an Act referred to””." If it is the Government’s intention to clarify these matters for the benefit of the general public in the process of accelerating deregulation, I believe that they could have done a much better job with this series of amendments. Indeed, I am led to ask whether there is not some pretty profound defect in the Government’s approach to the Bill. When there is such widespread agreement about the need for deregulation, I wonder—and I do so out loud—why we are being presented with these proposals in a semi-adversarial fashion when we could conceivably have instigated procedures under which the best minds could have been brought to bear. The task could even have been delegated to a body such as the Law Commission. It baffles me that we are sitting here at this hour of the night logic-chopping about the precise appropriateness of these complex subsections introduced by the Government at the last minute. Candidly, I do not feel sufficiently strongly that Amendment No. 24 is necessary in the light of what the Government have tabled at broadly the same time to commend it as a better enunciation of the principle of the limits to delegation—but that there should be limits to delegation seems clear, and they certainly were not clear as defined in the original Bill. The most appropriate response to what we are faced with tonight is that of caveat emptor: let us consider carefully and in the round what the Government have brought forward before we commit ourselves. I say that particularly noting that although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has attempted to explain on behalf of the Government what the effect is, and has done so perfectly reasonably if in a semi-abstract fashion, how are these provisions, "““abolishing, conferring or transferring, or providing for the delegation of, functions of any description””," intended to be used? It is an extraordinarily wide statement which obviously includes the function of legislation. I look forward to hearing of some practical examples and I hope that the Minister will think it worthwhile to communicate with those of us interested in the Bill and keen to see it work effectively.