Clause 1 - Purpose
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
4:00 pm
Oliver Heald (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Assisted By Shadow Solicitor General), Constitutional Affairs; North East Hertfordshire, Conservative)
I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. We are being very constructive. None of the amendments is framed so as to be impossible for the Minister to accept. He may not like some of the drafting details and he might want to change that, with the help of his thousands of officials. I accept that, working in opposition with limited numbers, one can get these things wrong. However, surely a reasonable person could hardly argue with the spirit of what we suggest, and the ideas behind it. Certainly, as to new clause 1, the Minister’s own words suggest that he could return to us with a gift.
Amendment No. 29, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch, is designed to stop Ministers expanding or changing Law Commission proposals. The Law Commission deals with some controversial matters. The Sunday Times recently ran this comment:
“Thousands of co-habiting couples are to be the subject of ‘palimony’ provisions being drawn up by the Law Commission”.
That was on 29 January. It was reported as being a very controversial matter. The report continued:
“Critics are likely to see the proposals as the latest threat to the status of marriage”.
The Law Commission website confirms that the property, family and trust law team is considering
“the potential financial hardship suffered by cohabitants or their children on the termination of a relationship”.
A consultation paper is expected in early 2006. Those sorts of proposals should, as I have already said, be subject to full debate before the House. They should not be dealt with by the order-making power in part 1, but by a proper Bill proceeding in the usual way.
The point that I am making is that if the Minister wanted to, he could take the Law Commission proposal and change it—a proposal about a controversial matter—quite substantially. For example, if the Law Commission wanted to give rights to cohabitants who had lived together for 20 years, he could, if he wanted to, say, “I think it should happen after five years”—or 10 or 15 years, or six months. There would be nothing in the Bill to prevent that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Jim Murphy) indicated dissent.