Clause 22 - Functions to which sections 19 and 22 apply
Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill
10:15 am
Jim Murphy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Cabinet Office; East Renfrewshire, Labour)
Rather than make a speech, I shall respond to the points made by Opposition Members. Those bodies were listed in clause 22(5) for two reasons. First, they were not covered by the Hampton review, because their work is so different in its nature and scope from the general business regulators that Hampton dealt with. They are not intended to be caught by the Hampton recommendations and the principles and code cannot automatically be applied to them. Secondly, those regulators are operating in areas of market security and sensitivity, so it is important to avoid creating uncertainty about the rules governing the exercise of their powers.
On the point about regulatory functions, we would all have difficulty in dealing with specific aspects of part 2, particularly the definition of a regulator. The obvious initial approach is to list the organisations and come up with a definition of a regulator, rather than make a list or a definition of a regulatory function. In attempting to draft an appropriate definition of a regulator, it became apparent that definition would inadvertently capture a wide range of bodies outside the scope of the Hampton review. It may help Committee members to know that the Government’s assessment was that the best attempt at defining a regulator ended up capturing organisations such as MI5, which I am not certain would need to be transparent in all its dealings, the General Medical Council, the British Medical Association and others. That is why we set out to define a regulatory function, rather than a regulator.