Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I sense a division in philosophy in the speeches made so far. Most noble Lords have concentrated on the desirability of getting more effective deregulation, but some have said that that must not be at the expense of proper parliamentary scrutiny. I align myself firmly with the second group, as my brief remarks will show. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, pointed out that we want to do two separate things that are in conflict with each other: to deregulate and to ensure proper scrutiny. That is what this debate is about.

I shall make two points. First, when the Bill was originally introduced, it was not the first time that a Labour Government attempted to circumvent the
13 Jun 2006 : Column 151
parliamentary process by the use of a general enabling Bill. As originally introduced, it was such a Bill. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, that it is astonishing that it was ever allowed to see the light of day. Secondly, we are all familiar with the aphorism that "the price of liberty is eternal vigilance", and the Bill will provide textbooks with a copper-bottomed example of how that can work. A start was made in another place, but more needs to be done.

A less familiar aphorism, but one that I have long believed, was contained in a remark made by a former colleague of mine in another place, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, who became, for a brief while, Lord Broxbourne, a Member of this House. In debate, he used to say that liberty is often to be found secreted in the interstices of procedure. I cut my teeth on the 1965 to 1970 Labour Finance Bills and a great deal of the debates on those Bills was about procedure. Sir Derek's intention was to rebut the Government Front Bench's defence that something was only a matter of procedure and therefore not important. This Bill is a classic example of that.

Like my noble friend Lady Wilcox, I approach this Bill with the "deepest suspicion"—I quote her words—because Labour has tried to bring in such provisions before. With the help of the Library's excellent researchers, I have been able to clarify my recollections and run them to earth. The notion of general enabling Bills as a means of bypassing parliamentary processes originated—as so many mischievous thoughts did—with the late Richard Crossman, when he was Leader of the House in another place. He recorded this in his diaries. I will read it because it is worth recollecting. He said:

He went on to say that his Permanent Secretary, Sir Otto Clarke, had already vetoed that. But it was Crossman who originally put forward the idea of a,

In a diary entry a few months later, Richard Crossman, again in relation to Mr Benn's enabling Bill, said:

noble Lords will remember that that was George Brown—

He went on to say that that was why the whole idea was dropped.
13 Jun 2006 : Column 152

Labour lost in 1970. It was re-elected in 1974, and the idea of general enabling Bills was resurrected this time at the instance of the new Leader of the House of Commons, Mr Ted Short. The Times stated that:

Indeed, that is what happened. Mr Short trailed the idea in a number of speeches and broadcasts.

When the matter came before the Select Committee on Procedure—interestingly, a number of very distinguished Members of this House served on that Select Committee, including my noble friends Lord Baker, Lord Lamont and Lord Renton and the noble Lord, Lord Radice, from the Labour Party—Mr Short gave extensive evidence, in which he made the case for enabling Bills. I do not have time to read it. By the time the committee reported, Mr Short had become Lord Glenamara and was in this House. What the committee said about the proposal was brief and to the point. In paragraph 2.30 of its report the Select Committee said:

That was the last we heard of it.

As was pointed out in the excellent report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee published last week, it is now clear that there are of course appropriate cases where the misnamed Henry VIII clause has become part of our usual process. In paragraph of its report the committee quotes the statement of my noble friend Lord Waddington when he was Lord Privy Seal:

I stress the words "limited range of circumstances" used by my noble friend. As originally drafted, this Bill could by no stretch of the imagination fall within that description.

So what do we do about it? If we accept that there is a case for legislating in these circumstances by order, one comes back to my aphorism: liberty is often to be found secreted in the interstices of procedure. This House will now have to examine that. As my noble friend pointed out, the government amendments in another place were produced at a very late stage and had totally inadequate consideration. We will now have to do that.

Anyone who has studied the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which I referred a moment ago, and the admirable report of the Constitution Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Holme of Cheltenham, referred, will have been impressed, as I have been, by the complexity of the detail of the procedures now embodied in the Bill as it was introduced into this House. Who is entitled to do what and at what stage? Within what parameters and
13 Jun 2006 : Column 153
subject to what constraints and timetables? All this will require the closest scrutiny if we are to get it right. It is in the detail of those procedures—the "interstices", to quote again Sir Derek Walker-Smith—that the safeguarding of Parliament's role and the liberty of the subject must lie.

I want to mention only one example, because it has been mentioned by many speakers. It is entirely unclear how the power of veto, resting with appropriate committees in each House, will work. Let us suppose that an order comes here first and is vetoed. It will not go any further. There can be a vote in the House, but if the vote supports the committee, that will be the end. If an order is introduced in another place and the committee imposes its veto, it can be overturned in the Commons on a general Motion. The Government can then proceed with their order. But what happens if this House again imposes the veto and the House upholds it. The order will have passed through the House of Commons and will have been frustrated in the House of Lords. There is nothing in this Bill to say what should then happen. That is one example, but there are many others where the details of procedure have to be looked at.

My noble friend Lord Sainsbury of Preston Candover rightly said that everyone wants simpler, clearer regulation. Everyone knows that much past regulation needs to be pruned and simplified. Most people now accept that in this—again, I quote my noble friend Lord Waddington—"limited range of circumstances" a specific enabling Bill is probably unavoidable. But this has to be carefully circumscribed if the Bill is not to become the Abolition of Parliament Bill, as some have described it. Given earlier attempts by past Labour Governments to introduce general enabling legislation, it behoves us to look at this Bill very carefully.

The other day I received a letter from a lady I do not know, Alison Arbuthnot, writing from SW6 in London. She ended her letter thus:

The price of liberty, my Lords, is eternal vigilance.

5.25 pm

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page