Clause 1 - Purpose
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
9:15 am
David Heath (Shadow Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs & Shadow Leader of the House, Law Officers (Constitutional Affairs); Somerton and Frome, Liberal Democrat)
Good morning, Sir Nicholas. You are absolutely right that it is a splendid morning, and I hope that this afternoon continues in the same way.
I rise to speak on clause stand part and to the two amendments tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (David Howarth). I want to say at the outset that without amendment, clause 1 should not stand part of the Bill. Indeed, the Bill cannot proceed if clause 1 stands part in its present form. That is the crux of the argument between Opposition parties and the Government—an argument that will carry a great deal of weight in another place if the Bill should proceed that far. From our point of view and also that of the Minister, it is important that we get this right—ideally today, but certainly on Report.
A reason why the clause will not do is the laxity and latitude in the definitions of the terms used. As we have already said clearly and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge has explained at some length, the provisions give an astonishing degree of power to the Minister of the day. We must be absolutely clear that we cannot proceed on the basis of this particular Minister’s assurances and assertions, however engaging he is and however benign his intentions, because it is not he who will decide how those terms will be interpreted in future. Even if he were to remain in the post of Deputy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster for a great many years, it is by no means clear that the great officers of state would defer to the Deputy Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in their interpretations of the terms in the Bill. We need better definitions if we are to proceed.
The first term that comes to mind is the rather woolly term “reforming”. Everybody is in favour of reform. The Conservatives used not to be in favour of it, but I gather that they now are. We look forward to hearing you on the airwaves later today, Sir Nicholas, as the embodiment of new conservatism. Reform is generally considered a good thing; it connotes something that we should encourage.
Reform without definition, however, means little. My hon. Friend and I tabled amendment No. 55, so that we can be clear about what reform means. It does not mean inventing a new law because it happens to seem a good idea at the time. It does not mean avoiding the parliamentary process because parliamentary time or proper scrutiny might have inconvenient repercussions. Reform means doing what the Minister has said the Bill is intended to do, and making sure that it does only what the Minister has said it will do. That is the purpose of amendment No. 55.