Memorandum from House of Lords Select
Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform (DGB 160)
1. On 2 January, John Greenway MP, Chairman
of the Joint Committee considering the draft Gambling Bill, wrote
to Lord Dahrendorf, inviting this Committee to consider the delegated
powers in the draft Gambling Bill. We welcome the opportunity
to contribute to the pre-legislative scrutiny of this bill. We
recognise that the bill is in draft form and further refinement
will be necessary. This Memorandum therefore sets out some general
points we would like to make at this early stage of the Parliamentary
scrutiny procedure.
2. We are grateful for the assistance of
a "delegated powers memorandum" which was drafted for
the Joint Committee by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport
("the Department").
3. There are a number of delegated powers
in the draft bill. We would like to make some observations in
respect of those areas which the Committee would look at especially
carefully were a bill as eventually introduced to be in the form
of the draft.
4. First, the power in clause 142(10) seems
wider than is justified by the explanation given at paragraphs
141 to 143 of the memorandum from the Department, in particular
in enabling clause 142 to be amended in any way whatsoever.
5. Second, there are some delegated powers
which appear to have a significant effect on the operation of
the bill but for which only the negative procedure is provided.
These are the powers at clauses 3(3), 6(6) and 10(4); clause 10(5);
clause 195(1), and clause 208(6). If these powers, with this level
of Parliamentary scrutiny, were to remain in the bill, the Committee
would be -inclined to recommend that they should be subject to
affirmative procedure.
6. Third, the rationale for making some
of the Henry VIII powers subject to affirmative procedure whilst
other, apparently similar, powers are made subject to negative
procedure requires further explanation. For instance, powers in
clauses 67(8), 77(7), 93(8) and paragraph 55 of Schedule
8 are subject to affirmative procedure, but the powers at clauses
79(11), 208(6) and 233(9) are subject to negative procedure only.
7. Finally, as respects clause 98(1), the
Committee would require further reassurance that the amount of
the levy would not be a matter of controversy before agreeing
that the negative procedure was appropriate.
8. We reserve the right to comment again
on the bill when it is introduced into Parliament and at that
stage we will, in accordance with our terms of reference, report
to the House of Lords on the appropriateness of the delegated
powers contained in the bill and of the level of Parliamentary
scrutiny applied to them.
March 2004
| 
