Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill |
|
Mr. Murphy: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 18—Combination with powers under European Communities Act 1972. Mr. Murphy: As we come towards the end of our proceedings, I wish to talk to new clauses 17 and 18. They are technical, and I hope that members of the Committee found the note that I circulated last week to be helpful. I shall reiterate some of its points. Currently, it is not possible for a statutory instrument made under an enabling power in one Act to be combined with a statutory instrument made under an enabling power in another Act if parliamentary procedures require that the two Acts differ. However, it is possible for statutory instruments of same type, for example when both are orders or regulations, that are
New clause 17 would enable provisions under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and those under another Act to be contained in a single instrument when the provision under the Act is subject to a different procedure. Broadly put, the instrument as a whole will have to follow whichever procedure under either Act is the more onerous. Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act enables the use of either affirmative or negative resolution procedure when the appropriate procedure for an instrument made under the section was affirmative. The instrument could also include provision made under another power. New clause 18 will similarly make it possible to combine statutory instruments made under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act with an order made under clause 1, provided that the order as a whole is subject to the procedure required under part 1 of the Bill. That will enable a single order to implement Community law—section 2(2) of the ECA—while also using clause 1 to remove pre-existing domestic statutory regulatory requirements that are no longer thought appropriate, as a result. I reassure hon. Members that the purpose of new clause 17 is not to enable Ministers to make provisions and subordinate instruments that they could not already have made, but to reduce the number of instruments needed to make provisions that could already be made. I hope that I have been helpful in a technical sense. The amendment is minor. As I have illustrated, it is about simplification. Mr. Heald: I have a question, but I shall have to set the scene to get to it because it concerns such a complicated provision. I understand that, under section 2(2) of the European Communities Act, Ministers can implement European Community instruments by regulations. Section 2(2) refers to powers exercisable by statutory instrument, either affirmative or negative. New clause 17 inserts new paragraphs 2A, 2B and 2C. Paragraph 2A applies when the statutory instrument being used to implement an EC instrument is affirmative resolution procedure and when the statutory instrument also includes provisions made under powers granted under another Act. Irrespective of whether the powers under the second Act were exercisable by statutory instrument subject to affirmative or negative procedure, or by a statutory instrument that did not have to be laid before Parliament, the statutory instrument made under the powers of both Acts would be affirmative. Mr. Murphy: Was that it? Mr. Heald: No. Under the hon. Gentleman’s proposed clause 2B, if the statutory instrument is subject to the negative resolution procedure, but also includes provisions from a different Act that are not subject to either affirmative or negative procedures, overall the procedure is negative. Section 2C deals with Scotland. The question, however, is why there are no
Mr. Murphy: I wonder if the hon. Gentleman could offer to write to me with his question. David Howarth: I have only one comment on the new clause. I asked an academic colleague what it meant, and his conclusion was that it is a rigmarole, but it does make some sense. I think I shall stop there. Question put and agreed to. Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 18 Combination with powers under European Communities Act 1972
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 2 RESERVED AREAS OF COMPETENCE
Brought up, and read the First time. Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time. The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. [Division No. 15] AYES Carswell, Mr. DouglasChope, Mr. Christopher Harper, Mr. Mark Heald, Mr. Oliver Heath, Mr. David Howarth, David
NOES Column Number: 297 Austin, Mr. Ian Banks, Gordon Cooper, Rosie Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit Hillier, Meg Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon Keeley, Barbara Murphy, Mr. Jim Seabeck, Alison Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 6 Expiry
Brought up, and read the First time. Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. [Division No. 16] AYES Carswell, Mr. DouglasChope, Mr. Christopher Harper, Mr. Mark Heald, Mr. Oliver Heath, Mr. David Howarth, David
NOES Austin, Mr. IanBanks, Gordon Cooper, Rosie Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit Hillier, Meg Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon Keeley, Barbara Murphy, Mr. Jim Seabeck, Alison Question accordingly negatived. New Clause 7 Excepted Acts
Brought up, and read the First time. Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. [Division No. 17] AYES Carswell, Mr. DouglasChope, Mr. Christopher Harper, Mr. Mark Heald, Mr. Oliver Heath, Mr. David Howarth, David
NOES Austin, Mr. IanBanks, Gordon Cooper, Rosie Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit Hillier, Meg Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon Keeley, Barbara Murphy, Mr. Jim Seabeck, Alison Question accordingly negatived. Column Number: 298 New Clause 8 Judicial tenure
Brought up, and read the First time. Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 9. [Division No. 18] AYES Carswell, Mr. DouglasChope, Mr. Christopher Harper, Mr. Mark Heald, Mr. Oliver Heath, Mr. David Howarth, David
NOES Austin, Mr. IanBanks, Gordon Cooper, Rosie Dhanda, Mr. Parmjit Hillier, Meg Hodgson, Mrs. Sharon Keeley, Barbara Murphy, Mr. Jim Seabeck, Alison Question accordingly negatived. Question put, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House. 3 pmMr. Heald: We have been as well guided by you, Sir Nicholas, and your brother Chairman, Mr. Caton, as we predicted that we would be. On behalf of those on the Opposition side of the Committee, thank you for all that you did to keep us in order and ensure that we behaved ourselves, although I do not think that we were too bad. I also thank the Clerks, who have been extremely helpful with drafting and with the inquiries that the Opposition Members often have, so I thank Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Farrar for what they have done for us. I thank the Minister for the courteous way in which has dealt with matters. Although we would hope for more to come in terms of concessions, he has been helpful and offered us a meeting. I thank all the other members of the Committee for the way in which the Committee has been conducted, and I thank the Doorkeepers and the police. Finally, I hope that the Bill will go forward and be improved. Mr. Heath: I associate myself with the thanks that have already been offered by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire to you, Sir Nicholas, and to Mr. Caton, for your chairmanship, and to the Officers of the House who have assisted us with the Committee. We have had a very positive Committee in many ways. The arguments that have been adduced by the Opposition have been extremely cogent and well argued. I single out for thanks my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who has done a very good job in presenting arguments that are very relevant to the Committee. I should also like in passing to note the contributions of the hon. Members for Plymouth,
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge had some fun suggesting a name for the Bill. To me it is quite clear. It is the Parliamentary Scrutiny (Abolition or Avoidance) Bill. Part 1 will not do. It will not pass unless we have substantial amendments on Report. I am quite sure that my noble Friends and others will fillet the Bill unless the Minister has some substantial amendments to make on Report. Mr. Murphy: It is noticeable that we have finished, perhaps a little unpredictably, almost an hour early, which is testimony to the usual channels and the fact that we have a had a good debate on the different clauses without any knives. You were in the Chair at our first Programming Sub-Committee meeting, Sir Nicholas, and you were keen to ensure that we had no knives. Your guidance has been helpful because we have had ample opportunity to debate matters and there has been some good humour on occasion. As the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said, the Government have agreed to reflect on a number of areas including the commitment to a veto and nine of the amendments about the procedures recommended by the Regulatory Reform Committee. We have given a commitment to come back on Report with specifics on that. We will consult the Opposition Front Benches and others about the nature of that veto. I thank you, Sir Nicholas. In addition to your duties here you had duties at “Question Time”. I know that it may have been difficult that morning to keep your mind on the discussions in Committee when you were preparing for that engagement. I thank the Bill team, who have been of great assistance, the Clerks, and the Officers of the House. I thank the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome for announcing his deputy leadership bid during our proceedings. While the hon. Member for Cambridge deserves the compliment, he should be wary about why
I see from my notes that the hon. Member for Cambridge married a Murphy. David Howarth: That is right. Mr. Murphy: Although there was not a meeting of minds with this Murphy, I see from the notes that the hon. Gentleman conceded the constituency of Peterborough at a previous election. Until I read my notes this morning, I was not aware that the father of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport was the Member of Parliament for Peterborough. I have no idea why I am saying that—perhaps for the sake of saying it. We have 50 minutes left, and I have no intention of filling them. I thank everyone associated with ensuring that the Committee made good progress. I particularly thank Members on both sides, who have fulfilled their duty during our eight sittings. The Chairman: May I have the last word? I thank the Committee for the quality of debate and for the good humour displayed throughout our eight sittings. I join those who have thanked the Officers of the House, the Clerks, the police, the Hansard writers and the Doorkeepers for ensuring that we had orderly debate at all times. I take up the Minister’s remark by saying that we have shown what a Committee can do without knives if there is proper consultation about how the Bill should be handled in Committee. If that was followed by all members of Committees once the Programming Sub-Committee has met, knives would be used far less; and I believe that the quality of debate and the way in which the House deals with such important matters in Committee would be much more constructive. I have enjoyed it. Finally, I thank my co-Chairman, Martin Caton, for the exemplary way in which he handled the duties with me of chairing a Committee considering such an important Bill. Before the Clerk intervenes to say that I have one further thing to do, I now put the question. Question put and agreed to. Bill, as amended, to be reported. Committee rose at twelve minutes past Three o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 10 March 2006 |