Clause 12 - Draft order and explanatory document laid before Parliament
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
4:45 pm
Christopher Chope (Christchurch, Conservative)
I sometimes hear noises in my head. [Laughter.] I think, Sir Nicholas, that it is something to do with anno domini.
Subsection (2)(d) says that the explanatory document must,
“to the extent that it is appropriate to do so having regard to the likely effect of the order, include an assessment”.
And so on. How is the judgment to be made of whether it is appropriate to do so having regard to the likely effects of the order? If the likely effect of the order is to impose substantial costs, the Minister might regard it as rather inappropriate to give an estimate of those costs because it might be embarrassing. Perhaps the Minister could explain how he envisages that the word “appropriate” will operate in subsection (2)(d).
Does the Minister accept that the further wording in subsection (2)(d) demonstrates that far from the procedure being designed to reduce the burdens, as they were under the 2001 Act, there is quite a strong possibility, now admitted on the face of the Bill, that there will be increases in costs resulting from the operation of legislation under those procedures—not only costs, but what are described as “disbenefits”?
Will the Minister explain exactly how those costs and disbenefits will be expressed? Will they be in the form of a cost-benefit analysis? In relation to subsection (2)(f), will he indicate why there is no requirement, should representations made during the consultation process be rejected, for the Minister to set out specifically why those representations were rejected? That is in significant contrast to the provisions in subsection (3) in which the Minister is under an obligation to explain why.
In my submission it is all the more important that, under subsection (2), the Minister should explain why. The powers contained in the Bill are so great; the whole structure is based upon the Minister having a veto over everything, and only being accountable, in a sense, to himself. We are relying on ministerial good behaviour, and I hope that the Minister will be able to expand on how we will be able to judge that good behaviour.