Clause 4 - Subordinate legislation
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
10:30 am
Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Devonport, Labour)
As a novice in Standing Committee, I am delighted to move my first amendment under your chairmanship, Mr. Caton. I have already stepped out of line during our proceedings, albeit unwittingly, and I hope not to do so again. However, if I say something that is not entirely in order or pop up at the wrong moment, I hope again to receive the benefit of your guidance.
I shall endeavour to be brief. Having been on the other side of the fence during the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, to which thousands of amendments were tabled—it was the longest Bill since the Government of India Act 1935—I have learned the value of brevity. Indeed, brevity is particularly important in relation to one of the Bill’s aims, which is the speeding up of over-lengthy processes.
I seek through the amendments to probe the Minister’s thoughts on whether part 1, and particularly clause 4, should apply greater constraints when conferring a power on an official body, individual officials, a private company or private individuals. It is legislating in a way that bypasses the normal affirmative and negative resolution procedures for statutory instruments.
The Regulatory Reform Act 2001 did not provide for the sub-delegation proposed in the Bill. In the past, Parliament has delegated powers to outside bodies. For example, the Building Societies Commission was given substantial powers in the 1980s; but it was answerable to the Treasury, and Treasury Ministers were answerable to Parliament.
Sub-delegation is one of the streamlining procedures designed to speed up the deregulatory process. That is all very well, but it seems that there is scope not only for legislative sub-delegation but for the dropping of constraints from the regulatory reform order procedure in respect of burden and activities. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but it appears that a legislative reform order could be sub-delegated to anyone, without that person or group of people being answerable to Parliament. I am sure that the Minister does not mean that power to remain in the Bill.
The Regulatory Reform Committee was concerned about the need to tighten the power of legislative delegation yet allow orders to cover genuine trade and professional regulations and byelaws. I am sure that the Minister will say that there is no intention to give additional powers to inappropriate bodies, but I am concerned about who will decide what constitutes an inappropriate body.
I accept that Ministers never feel comfortable with lists in Bills, as they can be restrictive—in general, I share that concern—but amendment No. 23 contains a list. It is a probing amendment to concentrate the Minister’s mind on some of the groups that could be affected by the clause. I would therefore welcome his consideration of the Select Committee’s special report before ruling out any change.