Clause 27 - Orders and regulations
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
9:15 am
Mr Philip Hammond (Runnymede and Weybridge, Conservative)
Clause 27 deals with orders and regulations. There are several issues that I want to touch on.
Amendment No. 80 would include directions as matters that would have to be exercised by statutory instrument. The Secretary of State is granted a liberal use of directions throughout the Bill. As I understand it, they are not subject to any kind of parliamentary scrutiny. The system we have for scrutinising statutory instruments is feeble enough, but at least it is something. The amendment suggests that directions should be made through statutory instruments so that there would be a small opportunity for Parliament to scrutinise them. There is a worrying tendency for more and more ministerial action to be taken in ways not accountable to Parliament and I hope that the Minister would be prepared to accept the inclusion
of directions within the powers that must be exercised by statutory instrument.
Amendment No. 81 would remove the words
''including provision amending, repealing or revoking enactments''
in subsection (3). It is customary to have a schedule of repeals, amendments and revocations attached to a Bill of this sort, and indeed there is a schedule of amendments in relation to clause 15 only. However, I am deeply unhappy with the principle that primary legislation can be amended by order. We seem to build into every Bill a provision that allows the Secretary of State to do that. If there is a need to repeal primary legislation related to the Bill, I hope that the Minister's Department has already identified that need, and can spell it out. If it can, it should include it in a schedule. If it cannot tell us if there is a conflict with any existing enactments, we must conclude that the Department has not thought through the consequences of the legislation.
I hope that the Minister can tell us that his Department has reviewed carefully any potential conflict with other enactments, and found that there are no such conflicts. That would explain why there is no schedule, and why the words deleted by the amendment are superfluous, redundant and unnecessary—as were at least two of those three words. I hope that the Minister will accept amendment No. 81.
Amendment No. 82 is a probing amendment. Teasingly, it seeks to remove subsection (4), but it does so to probe the Minister on what all this guff—to use a word that found favour in yesterday's debate—exactly means. Does anyone, apart from officials who are not present, know what the Bill means by
''a draft of an instrument to which subsection (5) applies would apart from this section be treated for the purposes of the Standing Orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument it must proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.''
If a spade is a spade, the Bill requires it to be treated as not being a spade for the purpose of the enactment. I hope that the Minister will throw a little light into that rather murky corner. We were discussing yesterday the need for clarity in a referendum. Perhaps some clarity for Members of Parliament trying to decipher the meaning of the drafting would be helpful.
Amendment No. 83 is also probing and would remove subsection (5)(c). Paragraph (c) says that the subsection applies to an instrument made under section 129(1) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Bill refers to orders, regulations and directions and now mention is being made of an instrument. Section 129(1) of the 2000 Act makes no mention of an instrument. It refers to ''such provision''. The heading of the section is:
''Orders regulating conduct of referendums''.
So where has the term ''instrument'' come from? If the instrument is no different from an order, a direction, or a regulation, as set out earlier in the clause, why is it necessary to introduce yet more terminology?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Christopher Leslie):
Good morning, Mr. Butterfill. I am sure that as I comment on the amendments things will become clearer and it will set the day up wonderfully. Amendment No. 80 would mean that any direction-making powers introduced under the Bill, including those to amend or revoke directions, would have to be exercised by statutory instrument, hence the word ''instrument''. The basic direction-making powers of the Bill are the power to direct the boundary committee to carry out a local government review in a region and the power to direct the Electoral Commission to provide advice on electoral areas and the total number of elected assembly members for a region.
It is not normal practice for directions to be made by statutory instrument. The power under the Local Government Act 1992 for the Secretary of State to direct the Local Government Commission for England to carry out structural reviews was not required to be exercised by statutory instrument. Nor were the powers in the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, which are analogous to those found in part 3 of the Bill.
The Government fully intend to publish any directions made under the Bill and to deposit copies in the House Libraries. That commitment was made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. Of course, under clause 15, the Secretary of State can implement the recommendations of the boundary committee only by order. This order-making power would, under clause 27, be exercisable only by statutory instrument subject to affirmative procedure. The same applies to directions given to the Electoral Commission under part 3 of the Bill. We would not be able to act on its advice regarding electoral areas and numbers of elected assembly members until the Bill enabling elected regional assemblies to be established were enacted. That subsequent legislation would, of course, also be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I will now move on to amendment No. 81. Subsection (3) enables an order or regulations made under the Bill to include provision amending, repealing or revoking enactments. However, that is only where such provision is a consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provision or saving—in other words, for relatively minor matters. Any such provision would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny by virtue of subsection (2).