Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Redwood:
I have some sympathy with both sides in this debate. It is absolutely right that items of constitutional significance should not go through the
accelerated procedure envisaged in the Bill, and I see that the Government have recognised that to some extent and tried to find a solution. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats have a perfectly good point in that it leaves a lot of discretion in the hands of Ministers, who could be casual about it, and it might not be easy for the House to assert itself given that most Ministers, for most of the time, speak for the majority in the House and would expect it to agree with an idea and see it through. Such items would come to light only if there were a great movement of popular opinion and the Opposition party or parties were able to articulate it well.
My worry about willingly and readily accepting amendment (a) is that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) seemed to take great delight in the notion of making judges make difficult decisions that should properly be taken in the House of Commons.
Mr. Greg Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that under amendment (a) the only involvement of the courts would be to the extent of saying to the Minister, Youve used the wrong procedure; this is of significance and should therefore be referred back to Parliament?
Mr. Redwood: That is right, and it may well bring me down on the side of supporting amendment (a). However, it remains the case that a very important decision that should properly be taken by Parliament would be taken by a court of law in certain extreme cases, which is a bit of a pity.
Andrew Miller: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that an appropriate check on ministerial abuse should be established within the Standing Orders of the Regulatory Reform Committee, to the effect that it should have a clear and unambiguous duty to determine whether something is an inappropriate use of delegated legislation? Is not that the solution?
Mr. Redwood: The hon. Gentleman has come up with a very good idea. My idea was that the House authorities might like to advise the Chair of the Committee. The Minister might be able to consider a proposition that falls between the two. If we are not to be offered anything like that from the Treasury Benchand it appears that we are notI may find myself agreeing with my Front-Bench colleagues, who are minded to support amendment (a) to put a bit of pressure on the Government. However, it would be much better if the Government and the House authoritiesperhaps the Leader of the House could bring them togethercame up with a solution that gave us more confidence than amendment No. 9 but fell short of the court-driven system proposed by the Liberal Democrats. Ultimately, I would probably prefer to have another check against the Executive, because it is imperative that the accelerated procedure should not be used on constitutional matters.
Mr. Andrew Turner:
I have listened with great care to the arguments that have been advanced. Amendment No. 9 is of course welcome, but we must examine whether it is adequate. On amendment (a), rhetoric has been used on both sides of the argument. The
Government and their supporters allege that this is a battle between Parliament and the judges, while the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), ably supported by the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), allege that it is a battle between Parliament and the Executive. Conservative Members must come down on one side or the other, or sit on our hands. I very much agree that where we can delay a decision that is wrongly taken by a Minister, it is appropriate to provide Parliament with that additional weapon. That is how, in a minimalist way, I would describe amendment (a). I would not go so far as the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome in putting all my trust in judges, which is certainly not the policy of Conservative Front Benchers. Unless I hear something better from the Treasury Bench than we have heard so far, I propose to support the amendment.
Mr. McFadden: I will endeavour to be brief in summing up the debate on a couple of key issues. First, as the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Cambridge (David Howarth) said, the courts can be involved even without the amendment. I acknowledged that in my opening remarks, but the difference between us is about the grounds. That remains a difference that we cannot accommodate, so we cannot agree to the amendment tonight. One reason was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), who pointed out that the amendments proponents tended to ignore the protections already in the Billtrial by jury, for example, which could not be abolished because of the necessary protections of rights and freedoms in the Bill.
Mr. McFadden: I really must continue. I believe that in respect of the presentation of the amendment, we have seen a downplaying, if not an ignorance, of the protections in the Bill.
Let me deal with the matter of the ScotlandAct 1998. It was not exempt from the 2001 Act and it has remained for a further five years without any of the constitutional consequences that were mentioned taking place. The UK Government did not say to the Scottish Executive that the Scotland Act 1998 would be exemptand let me also say that Government Members care deeply about the devolution settlement. We legislated to bring about the devolution settlement [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), who suggests that we are imperilling the devolution settlement, is wrong. As I said, we believe in and care about that settlement. It is the hon. Gentlemans party that puts the devolution settlement and the Scotland Act 1998 under far greater peril than any regulatory reform order ever could. He will stand in an election next year, committed to ripping up the ScotlandAct 1998 and ripping up the United Kingdom. That is one reason why I cannot accept the idea of him as a guardian of the devolution settlement. Government Members, as I said, legislated for it and believe in it, so we will not imperil it through this legislation.
Motion made, and Question put, That consequential amendment (a) be made [Mr. Heath].
Lords amendments Nos. 10 to 17 agreed to.
Mr. McFadden: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this we may discuss Lords amendment No. 19.
Mr. McFadden: We mentioned the matters covered by the amendments earlier, so I shall be brief. Clause 6 restricts the powers in clauses 1 and 2. It prevents an order from imposing or increasing taxation. Concerns were raised on Report in the Commons and in Committee in the other place that, unamended, the Bill would leave it open for a Minister, by order, to reduce or remove taxation. As with several other matters that we have discussed, it was not the intention that orders should be used to reduce or remove taxation. Other parliamentary mechanisms have always been in place for dealing with taxation, but amendment No. 18 makes it clear that an order under part 1 cannot be used to impose, abolish or vary any tax.
The second amendment concerns potential tax liabilities that could arise from the merger of regulators. When transferring regulatory functions from one regulator to another, it may be necessary also to make provision in an order to transfer assets and liabilities from the old to the new regulator. In certain circumstances, without further provision, a transfer could result in inappropriate tax consequences for the transferor or transferee body which would arise solely because of the transfer.
Mr. Redwood: If the amendment were carried, would it still be possible under this accelerated procedure to abolish a regulator or a regulatory requirement that might include a fee or licence charge?
Mr. McFadden: I will come back to the right hon. Gentleman on that matter.
The amendment addresses the unwanted consequences that might arise from the transfers that I have just described. It will allow the Treasury to make tax provision by regulations in relation to a transfer of property, rights and liabilities under an order under part 1. This power will enable the Treasury to make appropriate tax provision at the appropriate time to ensure that a transfer does not give rise to a tax charge, or confer a tax advantage, on either party. It is unlikely that the powers will be used often; they will be used only in the unusual instance that a merger is being pursued by order which involves the transfer of such property, right and liabilities. I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.
Mr. Heath: I welcome Lords amendment No. 18. It makes precisely the point that we made in Committee. I apologise to the House for the repetitive nature of these exchanges, but we have to keep saying to the Government, We told you so. We did make a point about this matter in Committee. It was also made very forcefully on Report by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), when he said that taxes could go down as well as upalthough that does not happen oftenand that this provision was therefore necessary.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |