Regulatory Reform

HC Deb 02 May 2001 vol 367 cc869-903

[Relevant documents: The First Special Report of the Deregulation Committee, Session 2000–2001, on the Handling of Regulatory Reform Orders, HC328.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Mr. Michael Lord)

Before we proceed, I should tell the House that Mr. Speaker has selected amendments (a) and (b) in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

4.32 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Graham Stringer)

I beg to move, That the following changes be made to the Standing Orders of the House— A. That Standing Order No. 141 (Deregulation Committee) be repealed and the following new Standing Order be made—

Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, to examine—

1. (i) every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (the 1994 Act) or under section 6 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (the 2001 Act);
2. (ii) every draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the 1994 Act or section 1 of the 2001 Act; and
3. (iii) every subordinate provisions order or draft of such an order made or proposed to be made under sections 1 and 4 of the 2001 Act.

(2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every proposals document referred to in paragraph 1(i) of this order, either

1. (a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or
2. (b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or
3. (c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.

(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order referred to in paragraph 1(ii) of this order, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved.

(4) The committee may draw the special attention of the House to any subordinate provisions order or draft order referred to in paragraph 1(iii) of this order, and may report its opinion whether or not the order or draft order should be approved or, as the case may be, annulled.

(5) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals, draft orders or subordinate provisions orders.

(6)(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals

1. (a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;
2. (b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;
3. (c) continue any necessary protection;
4. (d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;
5. (e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;
6. (f) purport to have retrospective effect;
7. (g) give rise to doubts whether they are intra vires;
870
8. (h) require elucidation, are not written in plain English or appear to be defectively drafted;
9. (i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union.
10. (B) In the case of proposals presented under the 2001 Act, the committee shall also consider whether the proposals:
11. (j) prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;
12. (k) satisfy the conditions of proportionality between burdens and benefits set out in sections 1 and 3 of the Act;
13. (l) satisfy the test of desirability set out in section 3(2)(b) of the Act;
14. (m) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, estimates of increases or reductions in costs or other benefits which may result from their implementation; or
15. (n) include provisions to be designated in the draft order as subordinate provisions; and in the case of the latter consideration the committee shall report its opinion whether such a designation should be made, and to what parliamentary proceedings any subordinate provisions orders should be subject.

(7) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (6) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.

(8) In its consideration of any subordinate provisions order the committee shall in each case consider whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds on which (in accordance with paragraph 1(B) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments may draw the attention of the House to a statutory instrument; and if the committee is of the opinion that any such order or draft order should be annulled, or, as the case may be, should not be approved, they shall report that opinion to the House.

(9) The committee shall consist of eighteen members.

(10) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(11) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(12) The committee shall have power—

1. (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
2. (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
3. (c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
4. (d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation and regulatory reform proposals and draft orders.

(13) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation and regulatory reform proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof.

(14) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.

(15) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum.

(16) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either

(a) that any proposal should be amended before the draft order is laid before the House, or

(b) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or

(c) that any draft order should not he approved, it shall afford to any government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit.

(17) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order (not being a subordinate provisions order) not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division.

B. That the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)—

(1) Title, after 'deregulation', insert 'etc.'.

(2) Line 1, after 'Deregulation', insert 'and Regulatory Reform'.

(3) Line 3, after 'Deregulation', insert 'and Regulatory Reform'.

(4) Line 5, after '1994', insert 'or under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001'.

C. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 98 (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)—

Line 15, after 'order', insert 'or regulatory reform order'.

D. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation))—

Line 15, after 'order', insert 'or regulatory reform order'.

E. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 118 (Standing committees on delegated legislation))

Line 14, after 'order', insert 'or regulatory reform order'.

F. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))

Line 25, after '1994', insert 'or under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or draft proposed to be made under that Act'.

G. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)—

Line 33, after 'Deregulation', insert 'and Regulatory Reform'.

It is now a little over three weeks since the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 reached the statute book. The debates on the Bill as it went through Parliament, both here and in another place, were for the most part characterised by thoughtful and well-informed contributions. The result, I believe, is an excellent tool for regulatory reform. The Government have already published six consultation documents and I fully expect to see more issued soon.

As was made clear in debate on the Bill, the superaffirmative process that applies to deregulation orders and now to regulatory reform orders is a model of thorough parliamentary scrutiny. In order to ensure that the superaffirmative order-making process remains effective, we need to amend the two Standing Orders now before the House so that they cover all the innovations introduced by what is now the Regulatory Reform Act 2001.

It is therefore with considerable satisfaction that I am proposing today changes to the Standing Orders which will rename the current Deregulation Committee and permit it to consider regulatory reform proposals as well as to complete its scrutiny of those remaining proposals for deregulation orders that are currently before Parliament.

Throughout the debates on the Bill, I stressed that it was a matter for Parliament, and not the Government, to decide the manner in which the Committee would consider proposals for regulatory reform. I am therefore happy to say that the Standing Orders that we are considering today reflect very closely those suggested by the Committee in its first special report of this Session, published on 16 March.

I am sure that it will be of interest to the House if I outline briefly the procedure for the scrutiny of regulatory reform orders. The 2001 Act requires that the relevant Minister undertake extensive public consultation on the proposal in question. Under section 5, this consultation m£ ust involve all interested parties, including those that might be adversely affected by the proposals.

The process is, therefore, front loaded, by which I mean that the onus is very much on the Minister to work the policy through fully. The Minister proposing a piece of regulatory reform would need to think through the possible consequences thoroughly and then convince the Scrutiny Committee of the merits of the case. That can only be done on the basis of evidence gathered during the consultation process.

Let me make it clear that the purpose of this extensive public consultation is not only to seek views on the policy but to elicit evidence against a prescribed list of matters without which the proposal cannot legally go ahead. During Third Reading, I placed in the Libraries of the House a draft of an advisory note for Departments on consultation. We will shortly be issuing the final version. I believe that it would be helpful if I reiterated some of the key points.

The consultation document must include all aspects of the proposal. Each consultation on a prospective regulatory reform order must elicit all the information needed to complete the explanatory document that the Minister must lay alongside the proposed order. The consultation responses will need to provide evidence to support any assertions. The Government therefore accept the need for Departments to structure their consultation documents so as to follow the list of matters at section 6(2) of the Act—in particular, the extent to which burdens are to be removed or whether any burdens are to be restated or created; whether any proposal could prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom that he or she might reasonably expect to continue to exercise, and if so, how he or she is to be enabled to continue to exercise that right or freedom; whether the proposals would create a burden affecting any person in carrying on an activity, and if so, how the conditions concerning proportionality, fair balance and desirability are satisfied; whether any provisions of the proposed order are designated as subordinate provisions, and if so, why they are being so designated; whether any savings or increases in cost are estimated to result from the proposals, and if so, the reasons why savings or increases in costs should be expected; and if it is practicable, the documents should make an estimate of that amount and how it is calculated, and any benefits—other than savings in cost—that are expected to flow from the implementation of the proposals.

The reason for this degree of detail in consultation documents has as much to do with the specific requirements of the Act as with the Standing Orders of the Scrutiny Committee. Consultation documents on proposals for regulatory reform have two purposes. First, they must set out the proposal against the tests and safeguards in the order-making process in such a way that the intended audience can readily supply the information that the Minister needs to satisfy himself and the Scrutiny Committees that the proposal meets those tests and safeguards. Secondly, they must explain clearly and comprehensibly the policy on which views are being sought, including the implications for the devolved Administrations. These aims may result in a longer consultation document than would otherwise emerge with a straightforward consultation exercise aimed at developing policy.

The Standing Orders require the Scrutiny Committees to pay special attention to the inclusiveness of the consultation process, such as the extent to which it captured the views of those who might be adversely affected, whether directly or indirectly, by the proposal. That is obviously entirely right. It means that the emphasis must be on a wide distribution, covering representative bodies, consumer bodies, trade unions, employers' representatives—including representatives of small business and the Small Business Service—and other likely interest groups. The document should be expressed in a way that all these different interests can understand. It must include sufficient background material for a newcomer to understand the proposal. It should not assume any prior knowledge.

During debate, undertakings were given that highly charged or politically controversial measures are—and will remain—better suited to the Floor of the House. The consultation process will be key to establishing whether a proposal is suitable to enactment as an RRO or whether it would be best dealt with as a Bill. Of course, some proposals, such as the trade union check-off deregulation order, may initially appear controversial but prove amenable to the consensual nature of the order-making process, based, as it is, on the careful gathering of evidence which is weighed up by a scrupulous and independent Committee. The Standing Orders before the House are key to ensuring that the Committee can continue in that vein. Committees have in the past rejected proposals on grounds of inadequate consultation, and the Government fully expect them to maintain their vigilance.

After the consultation process, the proposals are put before the Committee under section 8 of the Act. The Committee considers them for 60 days. The Standing Orders outline the areas that the Committee will study, which reflect the tests and safeguards contained in the Act. We discussed those at considerable length at various stages and I have already run through them today.

At the end of the 60-day period, the Committee will issue a report on the proposals and it is for the Minister to decide how to respond. However, there is a firm Government commitment—which I am happy to repeat—that they will not proceed with an order in the face of the Committee's opposition. The Standing Orders then lay down a further 15 days for the consideration of the Government's proposal, as amended if appropriate. At the end of those 15 days, the Committee will report again and the matter passes for the approval of the House.

If the Committee's report is favourable, the question to approve the draft order is put forthwith without debate. If the Committee's report is favourable but it had divided on the issue, the question to approve the draft order is put after a maximum of one and a half hours of debate. If the Committee's report is not favourable, the question to approve the draft order is put after a maximum of three hours of debate. Again, I stress that that is what is laid down in the Standing Orders. In practice, the Government have made a commitment not to proceed with an order following an unfavourable report.

Experience with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 has shown that this is an excellent system for scrutinising orders. The Committee's input has frequently been invaluable and the Government have changed many of their proposals in the light of their comments. It has also, on occasion, taken us to task on what it has seen as inadequate consultation on deregulation proposals, and the Government have always taken whatever corrective steps the Committee has recommended.

Although the useful life of the 1994 Act has come to an end, the procedures that governed its use have stood the test of time. The requirements in the Act and the effect of the Standing Orders ensure that the emphasis is on getting it right first time. As a result, it would, for instance, simply not be possible for a Minister to introduce a skeleton order, nor would the Minister be able to make large-scale and piecemeal amendments while the proposal was before the House for scrutiny.

Departments will, of course, also need to address at an early stage the implications of the three devolution settlements for their policy proposals. They must be reflected in the consultation document. Although not expressly provided for, the Standing Orders, as drafted, will ensure that the Scrutiny Committee can address any devolution-related issues when it considers the vires of each proposal. The devolution settlements are reflected in the vires of the Act, and the Committee is charged specifically with considering vires questions.

I am sure that it will be of interest to the House if I outline briefly the changes proposed by the Committee concerning existing Standing Orders Nos. 18 and 141 and the other minor modifications that I am suggesting he included in the Committee's draft. The new Standing Orders take account of two issues. The first is the advent of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. The Standing Orders before us reflect the new and strengthened criteria against which proposals will be judged.

Secondly, the Standing Orders take account of the fact that proposals under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act that were placed before Parliament before the 2001 Act received Royal Assent are still being considered by the Committee. Four such orders are currently before Parliament. Once they have been dealt with, there will need to be further minor changes to the Standing Orders to reflect the final disappearance of the 1994 power. This will not need to take place until later in the autumn.

I have said, the orders before us differ slightly from those drafted by the Committee in its first special report. Most of the changes are merely consequential to ensure that references to other Standing Orders remain consistent. The only change of substance is the addition of paragraph (1) in article (6)(B). This concerns the desirability test, which was—as hon. Members will remember—added by the Liberal Democrats during the progress of the 2001 Act through another place. It makes sense to include it in the Standing Orders along with the other safeguards contained in the Act. I hope that members of the Committee will welcome this small change.

Under these Standing Orders, the Committee members will focus on the new safeguards in the Act. They must ensure that no proposal removes any necessary protection or deprives people of any rights or freedoms that they could reasonably expect to continue to enjoy. They must test to see whether any burdens imposed are proportionate to the benefits expected from them. Any orders imposing burdens must also strike a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of those affected by the burden, and the extent to which they remove burdens or bring other benefits must make the proposals as a whole desirable.

The Standing Orders also include some matters that are not on the face of the Act. For example, the Committee will consider whether proposals are in plain English. Hon. Members will remember that I resisted including such a provision in the Act itself. I was, and remain, concerned that legal clarity should not be sacrificed for superficial simplicity. I know that many Committee members are keen to highlight the issue, and I have no objection to its inclusion in the Standing Orders.

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

The Committee welcomes that. Although we included the provision in the draft Standing Orders, we did not expect it to be accepted.

Mr. Stringer

I am sure that the Committee's interest in plain English will give rise to interesting debates between its members and the lawyers who advise Departments. That should improve regulatory reform orders. The Committee is required only to "consider" the issue. As I agree that plain English is desirable wherever possible, I am happy for it to do that.

I am sure the House will agree that the Standing Orders are evidence of the Committee's positive input to the process. It is based on consensus, and the Government have been at pains to involve the Committee as much as possible. It has been an exemplary process, and I pay tribute to the Committee's work.

I note that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled amendments. Amendment (a) would increase the Committee's quorum from five to seven. Its size and quorum remain unchanged from those that applied under the previous Administration. Had the Committee suggested a change—which it did not—the Government would have taken its request seriously. The fact that the matter was not raised suggests that there is no need for the quorum to change for those people who are involved in the Committee.

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

rose—

Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham)

rose—

Mr. Stringer

I give way first to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst.

Mr. Forth

That is an interesting line of argument. According to the Minister, it is enough if those directly involved do not believe that the quorum should be changed. However, I believe that the House is entitled to take a view of the duties and responsibilities of Committee members, independent of people with a vested interest. I hope he will accept that it is absolutely proper that I should seek the opinion of the House rather than of Committee members, who might want to slide out of attendance in greater numbers than my quorum would allow them to.

Mr. Stringer

We are undertaking that process now by considering the views of the House. I am using the fact that the Committee did not think it necessary to change the quorum to support my argument. Other arguments could be used in favour of the current quorum. For example, it is an important consideration that all Select Committees in the past have accepted it.

Mr. Bercow

Further to the point made by my right hon. Friend, not only are the views of existing Committee members not the only consideration, they are—frankly—scarcely a consideration at all. I put it to the Minister, who has lived a bit, that it is hardly a surprise that a tiny coterie of individuals—who for most purposes are otherwise largely, if not totally, obscure—should wish to preserve and enhance what pettifogging influence they may have, and are thus likely to oppose an increase in the quorum. As the late Enoch Powell would have said, that is so blindingly obvious that only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see it.

Mr. Stringer

I repeat that we are not relying totally on the Committee's opinions in reaching our conclusions. I remind the hon. Gentleman that on Second Reading, Report and Third Reading, it was brought to the attention of hon. Members that Conservatives were the worst attenders of the Committee. Of course all hon. Members have a right to have their views heard. In particular, it is important to take into account the opinions of people who have had the responsibility of serving as Committee members.

Mr. Pike

Is it not important to remember that the quorum was fixed by the Conservative Government when the Committee was set up?

Mr. Bercow

I could not give a stuff about that.

Mr. Pike

Would it not be useful to note the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) as possible volunteers for the Committee after the election? They might well want to help to make up the quorum.

Mr. Stringer

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is incumbent on hon. Members who want to amend a Standing Order to make the case for a positive change. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said from a sedentary position that he did not give a stuff about what quorum the previous Government had set. We think it important that they set that standard, and we are satisfied with it. We have not heard a good case for change, and we have heard nothing from members of the Committee about a change.

Mr. Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Stringer

I wanted to move on, but I will take the intervention.

Mr. Bercow

There is plenty of time.

Mr. Cotter

I do not want to labour the point, but is it not bizarre that Conservative Members are talking about increasing the quorum when I, as a member of the Committee, know that we had frequently to make up the quorum without their attendance?

Mr. Stringer

That is a very good point. I said earlier that Conservative Members' attendance of the Committee has not been good. One conclusion that we can draw from the amendments and the comments that have been made is that Conservative Members do not want the Committee to function.

I must tell the hon. Member for Buckingham that I wanted to make progress because his colleague on the Front Bench, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), has courteously told me that he has a prior engagement, and I should like to finish my remarks to give him time to speak.

The second amendment seeks to raise from two to four the quorum of the sub-Committee that could be formed. Again, the proposals do not alter existing procedure. The sub-Committee could of course report only to the Committee proper, for which the usual quorum would be required. The Deregulation Committee did not recommend any change to the status quo.

I do not believe that the Standing Orders would benefit in any way from the amendments in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, so in the light of the small changes that I have outlined, I am happy to accept the Committee's draft for the Standing Orders, and I commend it to the House.

4.52 pm

Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)

I am grateful to the Minister for his understanding of my requirement to be elsewhere in the House. I intend no discourtesy if I have to leave the Chamber shortly after the introductory speeches, but of course I hope to return in time for the winding up of the debate.

As the Minister said, we have recently debated some of the important measures in the Regulatory Reform Act 2001. As I said in those proceedings, the powers are exceptional and go beyond what was intended in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The initial consultation documents issued in anticipation of Regulatory Reform Act orders show clearly that they will comprise not only deregulatory measures but those for re-regulation and restructuring of regulation, and will incur expenditure.

For example, it is intended that the vaccine damage payment scheme should be reformed and extended by way of those orders. The review of fire safety legislation that we have discussed will no doubt proceed. That is a large, comprehensive measure, and it is important that we get it right. We are dealing with the amendment of primary legislation through statutory instruments, and the Committee's important work on that should not be under-estimated.

I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that the Committee's record of attendance and much of its activity, valuable though it has undoubtedly been, is of little account. It has been of limited effect in the past few years because the Government have taken relatively few deregulatory initiatives since 1997. The fact that there will now be a volume of orders to be considered means that we are coming to the matter afresh, with these new powers, and it behoves us to look forward rather than back. The addition of regulatory reform to the Committee's title is itself resonant of its wider powers and purposes, so we have to make sure that it is effective.

In that context, once again we touch on the membership of Select Committees, not just issues concerning the quorum and so on; I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will deal with that. I do not propose to reiterate arguments made by the Opposition in debates about the selection of members of Select Committees. However, it is important to recognise that there is a special need for Members chosen to serve on the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee to have a critical approach to draft orders and a sense of independence. I hope that, when the Committee is reconstituted, it is borne in mind that a sense of independence and willingness to scrutinise is vital.

We are pleased to see the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee in the Chamber and, when he contributes to the debate, I am sure that he will stress the need for a critical approach and independence, and for the Committee to be reconstituted quickly after the general election, whenever it takes place. There is a 60-day limit on the work of the Committee and, although the clock stops for an election, it restarts immediately after, so it is vital for the Committee to be in place and able to discharge that function.

The Committee's effectiveness, as I am sure that the Minister recognises, will largely depend on the quality of the preliminary consultation under section 5 of the 2001 Act and, indeed, the quality of the document laid before Parliament. I have made points in Committee and on Report about the requirements for preliminary consultation. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for the further changes that he has made in the advisory notes to Departments about consultation documents, and I look forward to any future draft that he may introduce.

The Minister referred to consultation documents that have already been issued. I have addressed the first five, but I note that the sixth, which relates to removing the 20-partner limit and was issued by the Department of Trade and Industry the day before Report and Third Reading, seems to have avoided the errors—perhaps that is too harsh, inconsistencies may be a better word—that characterised previous consultation documents. In particular, the preliminary consultation document does not attempt to prejudge Ministers' opinions on proportionality in the relationship between burdens imposed and benefits derived; the desirability test to which the Minister referred; and the fair balance test in the Act between the public interest and the private interests affected.

Mr. Bercow

My hon. Friend has rightly highlighted the importance of proportionality and fair balance. Does he not agree that it would be useful to gain from the Government an understanding of whether they intend that equal weight should be given to every word in the title of the Committee? Specifically, what are we to expect from a Committee that was previously called the Deregulation Committee and is now to be called the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee? Does my hon. Friend, fair-minded specimen though he invariably is, not suspect, like me, that we are likely to get rather more of the latter than of the former?

Mr. Lansley

The weight and meaning of words should be considered carefully. The Minister may, or may not, wish to speculate on that, but I imagine that the title proposed for the Committee recognises its responsibility to continue to consider orders introduced under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 as well as orders that will be introduced under the 2001 Act. When, in due course, the Committee comes to consider only orders introduced under the 2001 Act, no doubt the intention is that it will change its name to the regulatory reform Committee. If Ministers ever get the chance to introduce such a further revised Standing Order, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr Bercow) and I will, of course, observe and criticise it.

Mr. Pike

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He is right. The first special report suggested that in the first instance the Committee should be called the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, but recognised that the name would probably be changed in due course. Whether or not it will, I cannot predict, but there has been no attempt to amend its name today. Two or three amendments have been tabled, but none proposes a change in the Committee's name.

Mr. Lansley

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. If I am to infer front what he says that the Committee, as well as Ministers, may in due course wish to rename the Committee the Regulatory Reform Committee, I would be critical of that. In the light of the passage of the Act, it seems reasonable that the Committee has a job to do in respect of both deregulation and regulatory reform. If titles matter—sometimes they do—it would be better for the Committee to retain the reference to deregulation, because the prime purpose of the measure was always to be deregulation and ought to be so.

I revert to the point that I was making about preliminary consultation. I note with interest that the Department of Trade and Industry's most recent consultation document on removing the 20-partner limit does not seek to prejudge the regulatory impact assessment, and proposes that that should be put together in the light of consultations. Sometimes that is desirable, although it is interesting that no attempt has been made to quantify in advance the extent of the impact.

We should not cavil about that. However, when the Minister comes to consider the form of advice to Departments about the preparation of the document under section 6 of the 2001 Act, I hope that he will encourage Departments, in the light of the preliminary consultation, to be as specific as they can about the impacts that proposed orders will cause to occur.

In particular, those impacts should be disaggregated as far as possible between persons affected. The fair balance test, as the Minister will recall, must balance the public interest with private interests. As the Minister knows, the public interest is often expressed in terms of large numbers of people or public bodies, for whom there is a marginal benefit, as distinct from persons affected, for whom there might be substantial detriments and disbenefits. It is important that such information should be available to the Committee for its work. If the impacts are disaggregated, the Committee can consider the specific impacts on categories of persons and establish whether it is reasonable for them to suffer such detriment, in addition to all the other tests that must be applied.

It will not surprise the Chairman of the Deregulation Committee or the Minister that I hope that when the Committee comes to do its work under the Standing Orders, it will attach special importance to the deregulatory effects. The Committee has two opportunities to do that, under paragraphs 6(A)(b) and 6(B)(1), which give an opportunity for the Committee to consider the extent to which the measures proposed will have a deregulatory impact. I am glad that the Liberal Democrats in another place joined my noble Friends in stressing that point, and that Ministers took it on board.

Before I conclude, I shall deal with the undertakings that Ministers have given and seek the Minister's further response. I also have a number of questions. First, the Minister has been helpful in reiterating the intention that Ministers will not proceed against the advice of the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee. Does that undertaking extend to accepting that where the Committee proposes amendments to an order before it is made, which is one of the conclusions that the Committee can reach, those amendments will be incorporated?

My second question relates to the subordinate provisions orders. On that new responsibility for the Committee, will the Minister give an undertaking that where the Committee recommends that an order should be made by affirmative procedure, Ministers will respond positively to such a recommendation?

Thirdly, I was interested to hear that the Committee may divide on an order. I will be corrected if I am wrong but, to my recollection, that has not occurred in the past. However, such a Division on a matter of substance may show that it was more controversial than was anticipated. Ministers have said that orders will not be made in relation to large and controversial measures, and I suspect that any order which is substantially controversial should not be made using this procedure, so I hope that, in the event of such a Division, they will undertake to consider whether to proceed, without necessarily giving each Committee member a veto. The matter would have to be weighed and if there were a suggestion that it was highly controversial it should not necessarily be proceeded with.

Standing Order 6(A)(i) states that the Committee will consider whether the proposals appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union. That has been reflected unchanged in the new Standing Orders. However, I do not recall hearing how the Committee would consider, if it were thought relevant, compatibility or otherwise with the Human Rights Act 1998. Has the Minister considered whether that should also be reflected in the Standing Orders?

Mr. Stringer

The Government gave assurances that regulatory reform orders would have a statement attached to them, as Bills do now, expressing the Minister's view that they are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The House has set up a special Committee to test such assertions.

Mr. Lansley

I am grateful to the Minister but, presumably, it has not been Ministers' intention to bring forward legislation using the deregulation legislation that they believe is incompatible with our obligations resulting from membership of the EU. The question is whether, since the Committee has a role in questioning other opinions of Ministers, the Committee has any role in testing that assertion of compatibility made by the Minister. The hon. Gentleman or the Chairman of the Committee may wish to reflect on that further.

I accept that the Minister was responding to our debates when he suggested that the Committee should consider whether orders were written in plain English, but the points made in Committee concerned not simply the quality and clarity of the language, but whether all the measures had been taken which could be taken to achieve simplification in legislation. Will the Minister consider further whether the Committee will be able to consider simplification as well as clarity.

I was surprised to see that, although the proposed Standing Orders include a series of additional considerations following the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, they do not appear to require the Committee to consider inconsistencies and anomalies, which the House will recall is one of the purposes of section 1 of that Act for which orders may be made.

If an order is concerned principally with the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies, alongside the reduction or removal of burdens, it would seem reasonable on the face of it that the Committee should examine whether those inconsistencies and anomalies exist or have been satisfactorily removed and whether additional measures could have been introduced to achieve greater consistency and lack of anomaly.

The Committee faces an important task. The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned consensus. We should not be disparaged for seeking to proceed by consensus in relation to regulatory reform orders, as it does not necessarily mean compromise. Controversial measures should not be proceeded with without proper agreement, and the exceptional powers and procedure of the House for making legislation should be used only when there is agreement between parties that such measures are desirable. As we all know, it falls substantially to the Committee—as to all Committees of the House—to undertake detailed and effective scrutiny. We know from bitter experience that if we do not provide such scrutiny, too much legislation is introduced that we later regret. I therefore hope that the Standing Orders will be effective, that the Parliamentary Secretary can assure me that they will serve their purpose and that the Committee will be effective in discharging its functions.

5.11 pm

Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley)

I should like to say a few words about the motion. In my last intervention on the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), in which I spoke about the name of the Committee, I may have inadvertently given the wrong impression about what could happen in future. It is right to say that the Committee recommended the name that is included in the proposed Standing Orders, but we did not say what it could or would be changed to. We said merely that it could be changed during the lifetime of the Parliament, so I want to correct any wrong impression that I may have given. We want deregulation to continue to be a main function of the Committee. The Government have said all along that they want to remove unnecessary bureaucracy and regulation that serves no useful purpose. I hope that hon. Members from all parties share that view.

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

As the hon. Gentleman is Chairman of the Deregulation Committee, of which I am a member, I think that it is right for me to refresh his memory. Only one order has been deregulated this year, and only one order last year. Are the Government genuinely committed to deregulation?

Mr. Pike

The hon. Gentleman has not been very noticeable by his attendance at our sittings, although I know that he has asked one or two questions in the House. Ministers have been most anxious for an increase. Indeed, the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 was introduced to increase the flow of activity and the pace with which matters are considered by the Committee.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said that he could not recall whether the Committee had divided on any issues. The only matter on which there was a Division was the deduction of trade union subscriptions. It was debated and a vote was held on the Floor of the House, in accordance with Standing Orders. The Confederation of British Industry and all the employers who responded to the consultation strongly supported our recognition of the need to remove the bureaucracy that required everybody to sign the form every three years and to end the waste of time and money that was involved. If the Opposition had defeated the proposal, the main sources of concern would have included not only trade unions, but the employers throughout the country who wanted the change to be made.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a point about human rights.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike

I shall finish the human rights point, which I have started.

We accepted the Government's comments as debates progressed and the Regulatory Reform Bill was enacted, but I assure hon. Members that the Committee will consider the human rights point. I do not know the identity of the members or whether I shall be Chairman, but I shall ensure that the Clerks know about the debate and that the human rights point is considered soon after the general election.

Mr. Bercow

In the light of the point about proportionality and the reference in proposed new paragraph (6)(A)(i) to European Union obligations, will the hon. Gentleman explain the connection between the principle of proportionality in the context of our debate and the principle of proportionality and its application under the protocol on subsidiarity and proportionality in the treaty of Amsterdam?

Mr. Pike

I did not mention proportionality and I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman referred to it. I have not reached that part of the proposed new Standing Order. I was responding to a few points that the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made in his opening remarks. I have not started to develop the main points of my speech. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is obviously anxious to serve on the new Committee so that he can examine every issue in detail in the next Parliament. Every item that we have to consider is listed on our papers and hon. Members ask questions about them.

Mr. Bercow

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's keen and continuing interest in my welfare. I do not want to poison the well of political debate or personal relations, and I therefore stress that I have no objection in principle to serving on the Committee. However, I would be in a position to do that only after I had been sacked from the Opposition Front Bench—or the Government Front Bench, as it will be in the next Parliament. I am therefore in no hurry to serve on the Committee.

Mr. Pike

The hon. Gentleman will not be on the Government Front Bench, but he may be sacked from the Opposition Front Bench a little sooner than he expects. I do not know what crime he intends to commit.

Mr. Forth

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you confirm that membership of Select Committees is a matter for the House and that it should not be bandied about by hon. Members making countering offers?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Yes, that is true, but it would be a good idea to revert to the motion.

Mr. Pike

I was speaking about the motion; the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion that I was not doing so is a misinterpretation of my comments.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire referred to the independence of members of the Committee. Since the Deregulation Committee was established under the Deregulation and Contracting Act 1994, there has been no evidence of its members displaying a lack of independence. Few measures have been approved in the exact form that the Government proposed.

Today's Votes and Proceedings outlines yesterday's proceedings and reports three items from the Deregulation Committee. They show that Government proposals were agreed, but with amendment. They state that the proposals, should be amended before a draft order is laid before this House. Indeed, we recommended that the Government should not proceed with one of the proposals for the draft Deregulation (Bingo and Other Gaming) Order. We also recommended that the relevant Department should not implement the most important of the two proposals for the draft Deregulation (Restaurant and Licensing Hours) Order.

All along, therefore, the Committee has shown its independence and carried out its judgments according to the criteria laid down under the present Standing Order. I am sure that it will continue to do that under the new Standing Order, once we have agreed it. Indeed, the Committee agreed yesterday that as soon as the new Committee is established, in the new Parliament, the first sitting would need to consist of a briefing with the officials of the Committee to ensure that everyone understood its workings and the differences in procedures resulting from the new Act. There are bound to be some new members on the Committee. Indeed, everyone could be new, because I fully accept the point that the House appoints the Committee. The first thing that the new Committee will do will be to get to know how it will carry out its business under the new Standing Order and in accordance with the new Act.

We have also made it clear to the Government that there should be a sensible flow of business in the Committee. After the original Committee was established, we recognised why, but thought it wrong, in one instance three items of business were tabled in the same week. Normally, there should be a sensible flow of business if the Committee is to be able to do its work in a sensible way. It cannot have a large number of items thrown at it all at once. That will be clearly stated in the report that we intend to publish this week.

There was agreement under the previous Government that there should be a forward report,, but because there have not been many measures the forward report has tended to disappear. We are recommending that it should come back into being, to show what is on the agenda so that everybody knows what is in the pipeline.

Mr. Steen

I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not understand what he is talking about. Either these new arrangements are right or wrong. If they are right, we should let them go through; if they are wrong, will he tell us what he has against them? I do not understand what he is talking about. He must forgive me, but perhaps he could explain.

Mr. Pike

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman, who came in late to the debate, is just trying to waste time or is in one of those moods in which he fails to understand anyone speaking plain English—which is mentioned in the new Standing Order. I have spoken in simple terms. All that I am saying is that the new Committee wants to ensure that it has a sensible flow of proposals that ensures that it can deal with them; that there is adequate discussion so that all members of the Committee—including new ones—know exactly how it will work; and that a forward report will be published so that everyone knows what is on the horizon and what the Government have in the system.

Mr. Forth

The hon. Gentleman says, quite correctly—and very responsibly, given his current, highly elevated position as Chairman—that he hopes that there will be a regular flow of work for the Committee in the next Parliament. Will he tell us what control the Committee will have over the flow of work to achieve that aim?

Mr. Pike

That is an interesting point. We hope that the new Committee will have more power to be proactive, rather than just reactive, and that we shall be able to ask what is happening and get Ministers to come before us and answer questions if we do not think that the system is working. That option is available to us.

My final point on yesterday's proceedings concerns one of the issues that my hon. Friend the Minister referred to as being part of the Home Office consultation process, and relates to gambling proposals. We want to take evidence from the Home Office on the way in which it intends to deal with legislation and deregulation measures on bingo, one-arm bandits, the lottery and other related issues. There needs to be a sensible approach, rather than a piecemeal one in which provisions overlap. For example, there are cases in which people do not know the age at which one can gamble in a pub as opposed to on a pier at the coast. All those measures differ, and we believe that it is time that the Home Office got those matters organised.

Mr. Steen

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his indulgence and for his giving way.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, I always try to be helpful to the House. The regulation or, rather, deregulation that the Committee has dealt with tends to involve gambling, dancing or bingo, as if the whole country were governed by people who gamble, love dancing or play bingo. Does he agree that the new Committee's prime objective should not be merely to take evidence as to whether we should gamble, play bingo or go dancing?

Mr. Pike

The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonably valid point. Indeed, when his party was in government, I asked whether ours was the Committee on gambling and throwing dice. Yes, that is the main issue that the Committee has considered, but he has seen the list that was relevant to the debate that we held a few weeks ago, which contained a lot of other measures.

We have considered important suggestions such as the truncation of cheques, which involved the banks. That major proposal for improvement has saved the banks a lot of money, although I think that two phases are involved and it is not obvious from what one sees at the front of a bank whether that second phase has been implemented. The hon. Gentleman should not deride what the Committee has done.

Mr. Bercow

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Pike

I am trying to speak to the proposed Standing Orders, but I give way for the last time.

Mr. Bercow

I am exceptionally grateful to the hon. Gentleman, whose generosity invariably gets the better of him in the House.

Further to the inquiry of my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I put it to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very important, very distinguished, very senior, very respected, very influential and very eminent figure in the House, that it would be useful if the Committee, under not only his chairmanship, but his tutelage, sought to anticipate potentially unfavourable developments rather than merely react to them. In that context, does he intend to use the full majesty of his office to take a view and to encourage his Committee to take a view on the proposed national works council directive?

Mr. Pike

I do not think that the Committee under my chairmanship will do more work, because a certain event may take place relatively soon. Although I am the only person who has been a member since its establishment, I do not know whether I will be a member in future. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) rightly said, that will be a matter for the House, which may not choose to put me back on the Committee. Let us leave the new Committee and the new Chairman to decide such matters. All we are trying to do is point a few issues in the right direction and approve the Standing Orders.

I intended to be brief, but, because of interventions, I have gone on much longer than I intended. The Standing Orders, which were included in the Committee's first special report, are based on the existing Standing Orders for the Committee, taking account of the 2001 Act. Only minor changes have been made, and the Committee and I welcome them.

In respect of proposed new paragraph (6)(B), burdens and benefit are covered by proposed new sub-paragraph (k). My hon. Friend the Minister referred in particular to the addition of sub-paragraph (1), which refers to the test of desirability set out in section 3(2)(b) of the Act". We welcome that, because it proves that the Government were taking note, even at a late stage, of what the House was saying in order to meet concerns that were expressed, in particular by the Liberal party, but also by others. Therefore, the Government have included that additional measure. Proposed new sub-paragraph (m) refers to other benefits. Vital matters have been dealt with and the Standing Orders will enable the Committee, when it is appointed, to do its job.

Finally, I want to emphasise a point that I made on Report and Third Reading. We all recognise the difficulties that will exist, but if there is an early election—everybody seems to think that there will be—the Committee must he set up as soon as possible so that it can get on with its work.

I accept some of the points made by Conservative Members: I hope that, at times, the Committee will be more proactive and I believe that the 2001 Act and the Standing Orders will provide it with the opportunity to be so, if its members so wish.

5.30 pm

Mr. Brian Cotter (Weston-super-Mare)

I thank the Minister for his full explanation of the proposed amendments, and the details of the various Standing Orders. The wording of the Standing Orders is perhaps as important as the wording of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 itself, in that it establishes the parliamentary framework within which the Act will operate. I am sure all Members present want to ensure that the Act can be a truly effective vehicle for the cutting of excessive regulatory red tape which bears down on small firms in particular but also on many other businesses. It gives us parliamentarians a chance to prove to such businesses that we are serious about creating an environment that small firms can use to maximise their potential.

Owing to extensive pre-legislation scrutiny and the careful examination given to the Bill both here and in the other place, the Act that it has become represents a real opportunity for the achievement of that goal. Unless we get the scope of the Standing Orders just right, however—given that they constitute the nuts and bolts of our legislative framework—we shall find ourselves trying to cut the red tape with a pair of blunt scissors. That is why I was so pleased to hear some of the more sensible and constructive arguments that have been advanced today.

As a member of the current Committee, I have been involved with the Act from the outset. That includes the pre-legislation scrutiny. I am glad that we have reached this stage, and hope that the Act will begin to bear fruit in the near future. I welcome most of the changes to the Standing Orders. I especially welcome the name of the new Committee, and the work that it will do in examining the deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994—alongside the new regulatory reform orders that will ensue.

Further amendments to Standing Order No. 141 should be gladly received. I welcome the inclusion in the Committee's remit of consideration of parliamentary procedure for subordinate provisions orders. An amendment tabled by Lord Borrie means that the Committee will be able to choose the procedure to which such orders should be subject, and will have power to report to the House accordingly. Owing to the wide scope of the Act, the powers vested in the Committee are vital to ensuring that it is not open to potential abuse, and will allow the Committee to exercise extra precautions when it deems that to be necessary.

Probably the most important change to Standing Order No. 141, in terms of the Committee's work, is an addition to the criteria on which proposals for orders must be considered: the necessity for them to be written in plain English. That was mentioned earlier, but I ask leave of the House to repeat it. We are, I hope, seeing the start of a move towards the use of more plain English in Parliament generally.

It is essential for us to make regulations that the business community can easily understand. One should not have to be a legal expert to interpret legislation. I trust that by giving the Committee power to consider regulations in this way, we shall ensure that the Government produce better regulation that is easily understood, and therefore easily adhered to with the minimum of fuss and difficulty. I am glad that the Government are allowing the Committee to judge their legislation on the basis of that objective. Originally, Ministers rejected the idea of including the proposal in the legislation, arguing that a requirement for clear and concise drafting would be automatic in view of its reforming nature. The inclusion of the criterion in the Committee's remit will hopefully mean that we can gradually make poorly drafted, complicated legislation a thing of the past.

I welcome the inclusion of additional criteria against which regulatory reform orders will be judged, which will go alongside those that are relevant to the deregulation orders. It is necessary that the criteria—reasonable expectations, proportionality, desirability and cost—that have been included in the Act are placed within the Committee's remit. That will help to ensure that the Minister making the original order will focus on those issues, being well aware that the Committee will test them upon consideration of the order, which, again, should deter any rogue Minister who might seek to exploit the Act for questionable ends. Of course, I would not dream of suggesting that the existing Minister was a rogue Minister, but who knows who may come along in future—in the far distant future possibly.

Mr. Bercow

I am doing my best to preserve a certain sense of normality, but the atmosphere of consensus is becoming positively suffocating. It causes me to refer again to proposed paragraph (6)(A)(i) of the new Standing Order, which refers to obligations as a consequence of our membership of the European Union. If the Committee, which has such an august membership and such an outstanding Chairman, is to have a proper sense of its ambition, it should be prepared properly to scrutinise European Union directives and regulations that might adversely impact on this country. To fail to do so would be meek, mousy and myopic.

Mr. Cotter

It must be said that it was under the last Conservative Government that the original measure was put forward and a criticism of that measure is that it was rather meek, mousy and whatever else the hon. Gentleman said, because it did not allow the Committee to be proactive. It is incumbent on the new Committee and the new Chairman—we do not know who that will be—to ensure that it is far more proactive. I believe that it will be.

A couple of points with regard to the remit and composition of the Committee must be addressed. I note the amendments that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled, which seek to increase the quorum of the new Committee from five to seven and the quorum of the sub-committee from two to four, with the stipulation that at least half that number should be from an Opposition party.

The amendments raise several important points with regard to the effective operation of the Committee. Whether one accepts that the quorum of the Committee should be increased or not, a valuable point is being made. The work of the Committee is likely to be plentiful and complex. In a written answer to the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 27 November last year, the Minister provided a list of the proposals that the Government planned to bring forward under the new Act. We have talked about those before. The list is extensive and wide-ranging and shows that the Government are striving to make great use of the Act across a number of legislative areas.

That means that the Act is likely to be used to a greater extent than its predecessor, but we must recognise that the Committee will need to have the appropriate resources to deal with an extended work load. The lack of work with which the existing Committee has been provided has meant that the resources available to it have been reduced over time. However, it is likely that orders under the new legislation will come in thick and fast. The Committee needs to be prepared for that to ensure that orders are adequately scrutinised.

The Committee currently has 18 members, yet it is rare for all its members to attend sittings. On Second Reading of the Regulatory Reform Bill, the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said that he had to write to the Conservative Chief Whip in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee on Deregulation stressing the need for Conservative Members to attend. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) talked about the lack of an effective Committee, but it was noticeable that, during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, Conservative attendance was very low, too—and that at a time when one would have thought that they would be there to ensure that future legislation was effective.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has tabled an amendment proposing that the sub-committee should include at least one Opposition Member. That highlights the importance of getting the balance on the Committee right and ensuring that Opposition Members make an effective contribution; although that does involve turning up, at least. Some of us hope that the Conservatives will be sufficiently enthused after the expected election to turn up. Of course there may not be many of them to turn up. We are looking for great participation by all parties, including my own.

The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst has rightly concentrated our minds on the issues, but I feel that, on balance, the existing quorum and membership are about right. We look forward to the points that the right hon. Gentleman will be making later in the debate.

We must consider the Committee's role in the scrutiny of regulatory reform orders. We must ensure that all elements of the Committee have a valid input into proceedings, especially as the Government will now have the power to introduce new burdens. We must ensure that the composition of the Committee reflects all political opinions and views. I welcome the fact that the stipulation remains that once a Member is selected for the Committee, he will continue to serve on it for the duration of the Parliament—

Mr. Forth

Whether he turns up or not.

Mr. Cotter

Indeed. It will probably be impossible to build up any real expertise in the Committee because so many subjects will be brought forward, but it is important that there is consistency of membership.

Mr. Forth

Does the hon. Gentleman think that a stipulation in Standing Orders that a Member, once elected to a Committee by the House, should remain on that Committee for the duration of the Parliament runs somewhat against his criticism—with which I totally agree—of Members who persistently fail to turn up to, show interest in or support the work of the Committee? Would it not be preferable if a mechanism were available that said that if Members did not attend a Committee over a certain period, they could be removed in favour of Members who were more committed to its work? Does he think that there is a danger in giving Members automatic and unchallenged membership of a Committee for the duration of a Parliament?

Mr. Cotter

I bow to the great experience of the right hon. Gentleman in this area. My point is a fair one. If people are not doing their job, they ought to be kicked out. Perhaps that applies generally, but it tends to take elections for that to happen. We shall see at the next election how many will be kicked out.

Mr. Bercow

I always enjoy listening to the hon. Gentleman, but I cannot allow him to get away with that attempted response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He should not seek to obscure the debate by chuntering on about the possible result of the general election. Will he focus on the contradiction that was appositely highlighted by my right hon. Friend between his advocacy, on the one hand, of the argument that members should sit on the Committee to which they are appointed throughout the Parliament and then, when challenged—in characteristically Liberal Democrat fashion—his apparent acceptance of the alternative point of view, that poor attenders should be kicked off? Is he in favour of security of tenure or not?

Mr. Cotter

The hon. Gentleman always talks about people chuntering on, but he is also quite capable of that. I stick by my original proposal, but I am tempted by the suggestion of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst because the attendance of Conservative members of the Committee has been deplorable. It would be very nice if one could say to them, "Get off the Committee if you don't turn up," but that is not the right way forward.

Mr. Pike

I actually wrote to the Conservative Chief Whip on two occasions, but I never received a reply. One of the Conservative members of the Committee later became a Whip, and I was told that the party could not find any replacement who could attend the Committee.

Mr. Cotter

That is a very interesting point.

I was also pleased to learn that the Committee will retain its ability to appoint specialist advisers, which is important because of the varied and complex nature of the business we are expected to consider. I know that the Chairman of the present Committee agrees that the new Committee should be appointed soon after the election, because business will be moving along. I would also like an assurance that the Committee will have adequate resources to fulfil its new functions, in terms of legal and administrative support from civil servants and clerks. It is vital that the members of the Committee have access to as much expertise and information as possible, and that is especially important when considering complex issues.

Resources become essential once again when we consider the Committee's intention to produce an annual report. At least, it was the recommendation of the previous Committee that it should produce an annual report and I hope that the new Committee will take that on board. The Government have indicated that they would find an annual report acceptable, although it has not been included in the motion.

Standing Order No. 141 remains the same in that the new Committee will have the power to invite Members of Parliament who are not part of the Committee to attend meetings. With the permission of the Chairman, the Committee will have the power to ask those Members questions. Ministers will be required to produce documents under section 6 of the Act, but as an additional safeguard it might be appropriate to give the Committee the power to summon Ministers and legally require them to answer its questions. That might prove a further deterrent to any supposed rogue Minister seeking to abuse power in the future.

I hope that the Minister will be able to provide me with some assurances on a few of the matters that I have raised regarding the Standing Order changes, which otherwise will—I hope—provide the basis for effective examination of regulation and deregulation in the future.

5.48 pm

Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chislehurst)

I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, amendment (a), in paragraph (10), leave out "five" and insert "seven".

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I remind the House that with this we are discussing amendment (b), in paragraph (12)(c), leave out "two" and insert "four".

Mr. Forth

If one tries to rise above the mind-numbing, mutually congratulatory, consensual nonsense that we have heard so far in the debate, the truth is that we are talking about the legislative process. What the Committee does, if its members bother to turn up and if it bothers to do more than one thing a year—which seems to have been the productivity rate hitherto—is legislate: it makes law and affects people's lives. We are therefore entitled to ask whether we are satisfied that the arrangements in place for the working of the Committee are appropriate to that end.

The Minister, who is conservative to his fingertips, said in a very conservative way, "Because it has always been done this way, it must be all right." The Government are happy to accept that what happened under the previous Government is equally all right, and the conservative Minister would not dream of challenging or changing any aspect of it. I welcome the Minister to the ranks of conservatism, but I am a radical and I see need for change if we can demonstrate that the existing arrangements are unsatisfactory.

I confess that I am not encouraged by what I have heard about the Committee's procedures. It seems to operate extraordinarily slowly, and to rely on the Government for its flow of work. That is hardly appropriate. Members of the Committee often do not bother to turn up, and the Chairman told us that he had to write to the Opposition Chief Whip to ask where members were. That gives me little confidence.

I am delighted and honoured that my amendments have been selected for debate. It is time for the House to consider how Select Committees work, and the attitude to their work of those Committees members. The revised Standing Order requires the Committee to examine provisions, to report to the House, to recommend whether draft orders should be laid before the House or amended, and so on. In effect, that is the legislative process. As such, it has a majesty that requires a guarantee that the people of this country be properly represented on those Committees.

The provisions outlining the structure and working of the Committee horrified me, and the debate so far has not lessened that horror. Nothing said by those eminent members of the Committee who are present or its august, senior and respected Chairman has given me confidence or optimism about how the revised Committee will discharge its duties. I am more than ever convinced that my modest amendments are appropriate.

We are told that the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee will consist of 18 members. That is an encouraging start. Eighteen is a good number, representative of the House and offering an appropriate spectrum of expertise and knowledge. It will allow the Committee to deal with the technical, specialist, difficult and complex matters with which it will be faced as it performs its scrutiny of one measure per year.

Will all 18 members always turn up, however? If not, how satisfactory are the quorum arrangements? This is where I get into difficulty. Amendment (a) deals with the provision in the Standing Order that states that the Committee's quorum shall be five.

In Committees such as this, we can guarantee that the Chairman will always be present, as—almost certainly—will dragooned members of the governing party. My worry, which the Committee's Chairman has more or less confirmed, is that the Committee could sit, deliberate and, in effect, legislate with as few as five Members present. Moreover, all five of those Members could belong to the party in government at the time.

I accept that the Opposition are under a responsibility to provide members of the Committee. I deprecate it when hon. Members serving on a Committee miss its meetings. I believe that my attendance record for the Committees on which I have the honour to serve bears considerable scrutiny. I have no hesitation in saying that all hon. Members serving on Committees should ideally be present at every meeting—but that is not the point. The point is that hon. Members should ask whether they are comfortable with a provision that allows as few as five hon. Members to make or change the law of the land.

I am not comfortable with that. I should have preferred the quorum to be set at an even higher level, but I accept that practicalities must be taken into account. My amendment proposing that the quorum be raised from five to seven is modest, but it would give at least a degree of assurance to hon. Members who are not on the Committee—and to voters and taxpayers—that at least seven people would be present when proposals to change the law of the land were being considered and enacted. That is not unreasonable. It would make it more likely—although it would not guarantee it—that those present embodied a spectrum of views and political representation.

Even more important are the proposals regarding the sub-Committee. Amendment (b) deals with paragraph 12(c) of the motion, which states that the sub-Committee shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom. This is where we get to the freebies and jollies part of the consideration. Hon. Members really like to decamp to different places to do their no doubt important work.

Mr. Pike

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Committee has never gone beyond the House of Commons on official business.

Mr. Forth

I am reassured to hear that, but I am looking to the future. The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) may want to dwell on the past, but I am a visionary who looks forward to what may lie in the future. We have established that the Minister is a conservative at heart, and that the Chairman of the Committee looks to the past. By contrast, I am a radical who looks to the future.

My aim is to establish the fact that the Standing Order contains an explicit provision that almost invites the sub-Committee to travel. I have never known hon. Members to be reticent or hesitant about accepting an invitation to travel. It would be a revelation to come across one that was, but we can examine the matter of travel later. [Interruption.] One of the greatest experts in the universe on parliamentary travel has just arrived in the Chamber. I welcome the right hon. Member for Swansea, but confess that I cannot recall just now whether his constituency is Swansea, East or Swansea, West.

Mr. Donald Anderson (Swansea, East)

I represent Swansea, East.

Mr. Forth

I am sure that the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) would not thank me for confusing the Swansea constituencies.

Mr. Anderson

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth

Of course.

Mr. Anderson

My grandfather always said that the east is where the wise men came from.

Mr. Forth

I shall leave that for the right hon. Gentleman to sort out with the right hon. Member for Swansea, West. I do not want to intervene in the matter, although I know Swansea and like it enormously.

Paragraph 12(c) sets out the sub-Committee's extensive powers to send for "persons, papers and records", and to sit while the House is adjourned. The provision also allows it to travel, and hon. Members are clearly reluctant that reference should be made to that possibility. However, I suspect that those who have not examined the Standing Order will hardly be able to believe one of the other provisions.

The sub-Committee's work inevitably will be complex, technical and difficult, yet its quorum is to be set at two. It is therefore likely—or at least possible—that two Members of the House could bind this very important sub-Committee, which does such important work. Moreover, earlier provisions in the Standing Order mean that those two hon. Members could have a great deal of influence on what the House itself subsequently determines.

The House must decide whether it feels comfortable—in the context of Parliament and the legislative process—with the possibility that just two hon. Members might be able to discharge such important and onerous responsibilities. I do not feel comfortable with that possibility.

Amendment (b) is modest, as it would merely increase the sub-Committee's quorum from two to four. I could have tried to go further, but I want to try to persuade the House that that modest increase would at least provide the assurance that it would not be possible for two members of the sub-Committee to influence events in the way I have described.

The Chairman has said that he has no control over the flow of work; he seems is to rely on the Government to feed his Committee with material. If the record is to be believed, one measure a year seems about the average. In a funny way that reassures me, because if we end up, as I fear we may, with a sub-Committee operating on a quorum of two and the Committee on a quorum of only five, I sincerely hope that they will do only one thing a year. I would be nervous if I thought they would do any more work of any great importance at any great rate.

Mr. Pike

A few moments ago the right hon. Gentleman said that he was a visionary, looking forward, but now he is looking back to what happened under the Tory legislation. Should we not be looking at what will happen under Labour's Regulatory Reform Act 2001?

Mr. Forth

I have been looking back because I was told—I hope reliably—that the Committee had dealt with one measure over the past year. [Interruption.] The Chairman of the Committee says with some pride that the Committee did three things yesterday. I will grant the Chairman that—the Committee has done four things in the past year, if my arithmetic holds up under this scrutiny. Even so, that does not strike me as anything to write home about, as my dear mother used to say.

Mr. Pike

That was under the Tory Act.

Mr. Forth

I accept the Chairman's interventions because I know that he offers them in a helpful way. He seems to be saying that under legislation passed by the wicked Conservative Government, progress was very slow, but that under the exciting and dynamic version of the legislation passed by this Government, there will be rapid progress. We will judge that in the future. We will wait until the next Parliament elects the members of the Committee—and I stress that this House elects the members of the Committee—and the Committee elects its Chairman. The hon. Member for Burnley will no doubt be a contender for that position if he seeks it, but there is no guarantee that he will be elected by the Committee. After that, we can see the pace at which work will be done.

Mr. Bercow

My right hon. Friend has just held out the prospect, which will be enticing for some but not for others, of a Committee which will never knowingly be undertravelled. May I put it to my right hon. Friend, consistent with the point that he has just made, that to have a titchy—one might almost say piddling—sub-Committee quorum of two trotting about, conducting their very important, distinguished and complex business, is not entirely consistent with the ambition for the Committee that the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) has described?

Because the declaration of a personal interest is always of the essence in our proceedings, and my right hon. Friend has several times dwelt, with a certain contagious enthusiasm, on the need for election of the Chairman and members of the Committee in the future, may I put it to him that he may wish to be considered for the chairmanship of the Committee under the revised Standing Order, and that if he were successful, he would thereby attain a peak of eminence to which he has never previously so much as aspired?

Mr. Forth

My hon. Friend is characteristically generous. I doubt whether my modest experience and humble aspirations would raise me to anything like the level that my hon. Friend suggests. However, that is something on which I should like to ponder if I am re-elected to this House—an assumption that none of us must make.

I hope that the House will give serious consideration to my amendments. I am honoured that my amendments have been selected, but I think that the argument goes wider. I am unhappy and uneasy about the low quorum numbers that apply to Committees of this House. I am also uneasy, not least because of the comments of the hon. Member for Burnley during this debate, that we are in danger of asking Committees and colleagues to do very important work in very small numbers. I wonder whether the extent to which very small and possibly unrepresentative numbers of Members can have a disproportionate influence on events is widely appreciated. I am assiduous in my attendance in the House on Fridays, and I am happy to say that, because so few other Members turn up, those who are here have a disproportionate influence on events which not all colleagues appreciate. That illustrates the importance of a realistic quorum figure. That this House, in its majesty, cannot even muster a quorum of 40 Members on a Friday indicates that the attitude of many Members to our work does not bear close scrutiny.

I hope that the House will consider my amendments carefully. I would like this to be the first exciting breakaway from the past—so beloved of the Minister—into a future in which we take our work more seriously and are prepared to commit ourselves to larger quorums. I hope that those fortunate enough to be elected in the forthcoming election will come here with an enthusiasm, vigour and commitment; and that they will not be afraid of a quorum of seven, as I suggest for a Committee of 18, or four, as I suggest for the sub-Committee "with passports".

I believe that my request is modest and that agreeing to it would be a step in the right direction. Accepting the amendments would be a strong signal for other Committees to follow the same course.

6.6 pm

Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire)

I appreciate the way in which the Minister presented the case. However, I thought that he started on a rather unfortunate note when he referred, as I recall, to "mainly thoughtful" amendments. I thought that a gratuitous swipe at Liberal Democrat Members and their amendments—an unwise move, given that the whole House knows that the Labour party has entered into a tactical alliance with the Liberal Democrat party for the next election. To criticise one's partners in such a way is not a career-enhancing move. I therefore advise the hon. Gentleman to be careful about this in the future.

We are in favour of any measures that can reduce burdens, particularly on small businesses. We have seen such burdens increase over the past few years at an extraordinary rate.

Mr. Bercow

Exponential.

Mr. Page

It is not quite exponential, but we will not debate the correct arithmetical term. Nevertheless, the growth of such burdens has been exceptional, into record figures. Anything that can make life simpler and easier is to be welcome, provided, of course, that the process is democratically accountable.

I regard this as the latest step in a process originally started by my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) when he considered regulation and deregulation. I hope that nobody will ask me why we put into the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 a limit so that only legislation before 1994 could be considered, because I do not know.

The measure before us is a departure from the traditional process. It is exceptionally important to ensure that it is not and cannot be abused; otherwise we could create many difficulties for ourselves in the future.

I thank the Minister for his explanation—particularly for expounding how the process will operate, the importance and fullness of the consultation document and the way in which it will be adequately filled in by all the interested parties. That is most important. However, I am slightly worried about one or two aspects. The Standing Orders will provide estimates of the costs and savings attached to the new regulations. There must be independence when those costs and savings are calculated. There has been a strong feeling in the past in my party, if not throughout the House, that civil service officials may not have calculated the cost of implementing regulations fully and accurately enough. We want accurate figures that are accepted by the industries involved. Some organisations representing smaller businesses are talking about an extra £10 billion in the cost of implementing regulations.

I welcome the Minister's repetition of the Government's commitment that, if the Committee decides to reject a particular order, the measure will not proceed to the House for a vote. That is an important democratic commitment, which should be welcomed.

The Committee will have much greater responsibility than it had in the past. I heard the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) defend what has happened and defend the criticisms of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I understand why Conservative Members are not that keen to turn up at a Committee that is dealing with, for example, dancing on Sundays. I do not think that such an issue catches the popular mood or the interest of every Member of the House.

The issues that will come before the Committee are vital to the reduction of regulatory burdens, and I would like to think that a high quality of Member will serve on it. Their input will be important, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) alluded to that point.

Resources are another aspect of the issue. When, subject to the leave of the House, the Minister winds up, I hope that he will touch on the issue of the provision of resources. I am glad that the Committee will retain the ability to have independent advisers, because it will deal with a variety of subjects. It is not like the Select Committees on Home Affairs, Health or Trade and Industry; it will deal with regulations that cover the whole gamut of government. It will therefore need to be able to draw on the help of independent advisers.

Although I would like to express unadulterated praise for the proposal, one or two issues give rise to criticism. The aficionados who have followed this issue are well aware of the substance and shape of the changes that are being made to the Standing Orders. However, the fact that such long and complex proposals appeared on the Order Paper only on Monday is unsatisfactory. I am sure that some Members would have contributed to this debate if they had had longer to consider the proposals. As soon as I knew that the matter was coming up, I went to the Vote Office; but I obtained a copy of the proposals only on Monday morning. The time scale for consideration has been inadequate.

The provision relating to plain English is to be welcomed. I noticed how the Minister tried to weasel himself out of his previous comments by referring to his distaste for superficial simplicity. We are looking not for superficial simplicity, but for plain English that can be understood. That was why we tabled amendments to the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 and are glad that such suggestions are now being adopted in the Standing Orders. Legislation does not have to be in archaic legal language to have the clarity that he mentioned. We can achieve that aim without using the legalese that no one except lawyers understands. Provisions often appear in seven or eight paragraphs when one or two would be sufficient.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire made several comments on the issue of proportionality, and I hope that the Minister will respond to them. When the Regulatory Reform Act was being considered by both Houses and in Committee, we drew attention to the unsatisfactory nature of the test of proportionality, as set out in sections 1 and 3. The Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 allowed burdens to be imposed only when they were less onerous, but that is not the case now. More onerous burdens can be imposed, which shows the importance of the Committee's members not being lobby fodder for any particular party. They must be independent and consider the issues so that regulations are not approved if they would, on balance, disadvantage the whole cause of deregulation.

I shall finish as I started. Conservative Members want the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 to work and we want the burdens on our people to be reduced. We will do everything that we can to make sure that it works in the most effective and beneficial fashion.

6.15 pm

Mr. Stringer

With the leave of the House, I wish to reply to some of the points that have been made.

The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) asked several direct questions. Some of them were hypothetical, but others were not. His first question was whether the Government would give a commitment to accept any amendment that the Committee agreed should be incorporated in the new regulatory reform order. I clearly cannot give such a commitment; it was a hypothetical question. The answer depends on the nature of the amendment proposed. However, the Government have given a commitment that when the majority of the Committee disagrees with the Government's regulatory reform order, it can, in effect, kill the order. Given the consensual way in which the Government and the Committee have operated, it is much more likely that they would discuss any disagreement with a view to resolving the issues that divide them.

The hon. Gentleman's second question was about what would happen if the Committee recommended the affirmative procedure for subordinate provisions. Again, I cannot give an absolute guarantee that the Government would accept such a suggestion. Although I cannot think of them at present, detailed issues might arise that would not allow us to do that. However, if the Committee said that it preferred the affirmative procedure rather than the negative procedure, there would have to be extraordinarily good reasons for the Government to reject its suggestion. I expect that, in most circumstances, the Minister would accept its recommendations.

Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would agree not to proceed with an order if there had been a Division in Committee. The Government would not agree not to proceed on that basis because it does not necessarily relate to the definition of controversy that we used when we said that we would not take large and controversial matters through this process. A Division would show that a majority in the Committee were in favour of the order, and the procedures allow for a debate of an hour and a half on the Floor of the House in such circumstances. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) explained, that procedure has been used on one occasion in the past.

Mr. Page

The Minister must realise that such a procedure could be used on a party political basis to drive forward changes to legislation that may not be in the general interest or to which a certain section may not agree. To my knowledge, the Public Accounts Committee has operated for the past 10 or 15 years without ever holding a Division. It proceeds with a recommendation only when there is consensus. That is the approach and thinking that we want in this Committee. Everything that it sends to the House should have a consensus. Once it is subject to a Division, the purpose and reasoning behind the Deregulation Committee will be finished.

Mr. Stringer

I accept the spirit of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but if one Member divides the Committee, it will not be sensible for the Government to decide not to test its decision for an hour and a half on the Floor of the House. I am happy to repeat that the Committee and the Government have used deregulation orders on a consensual basis, and that we intend to use regulatory reform orders in the same way. We will not introduce large and politically controversial measures as part of the regulatory reform order process.

Mr. Pike

I can assure my hon. Friend that the absence of Conservative Members from Committee proceedings concerns me for exactly that reason: I never wanted it to take a decision with only Labour and Liberal Members present.

Mr. Stringer

I thank my hon. Friend for that useful contribution.

While accepting that it is the Committee's role to consider the simple and plain use of English without detracting from the accuracy of legislation, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire asked whether it would be part of its remit to consider the simplification of regulation. In one sense, that does not need to be in its terms of reference. The core reason for the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 was to enable the Government to introduce regulatory reform orders to consolidate many aspects of legislation, such as fire regulations, which were discussed at length in Standing Committee. In that way, all regulations that apply to fire could exist in one regulatory reform order, which is bound to be a simplification when one considers the number of regulations and the amount of legislation that apply to fire.

Mr. Bercow

I cannot help but think that the choice of example is not well advised. In apparently celebrating the fire regulations, is the hon. Gentleman aware that they are the subject of growing controversy? I received only a few days ago a detailed and persuasive complaint about them. I suggest that he is a little more cautious in his praise.

Mr. Stringer

In publishing the list of possible regulatory reform orders, which we did when the Bill was introduced, we quoted fire regulations as an example of what an order could simplify. Many people involved in commerce and business are not satisfied that fire regulations are clear. In many cases, that is also true of the fire service. They exist in more than 120 pieces of primary legislation and 120 pieces of secondary legislation. What makes them ideally suitable for a regulatory reform order is the fact that people are dissatisfied with them, not that they are very politically controversial.

The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) outlined the details of the Committee's procedures and explained some of the difficulties that might be encountered. He asked two direct questions: first, whether the Committee would have the resources to enable it to carry out its business, and the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a similar point; and secondly, whether the Committee would have the right and power to force Ministers to attend. Both issues are a matter for the House. I understand that extra legal resources have been made available to the Committee. I also understand that, in the past, the House has exempted hon. Members from an obligation to attend when they are asked to do so. However, it would be an unwise Minister with responsibility for a regulatory reform order who refused to attend to say why he or she wanted it.

Mr. Bercow

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; he has been most generous.

I am well aware that it is part of the Minister's style—not dissimilar to that of his celebrated colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office—to act as an impartial umpire, if such a person exists. I wonder whether I can tempt him to express an opinion on the vexed question that was highlighted by speech of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) and in the interventions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) Should members of the newly formed Committee enjoy security of tenure from the start of a Parliament to its end, or should that be attendance dependent?

Mr. Stringer

That is a matter of resource and, like the ability and right of the Committee to force hon. Members to attend, is a matter for the House. When the House has appointed Members to this and other Select Committees, it has done so for a full parliamentary Session. I cannot remember the exact words used, but they are to the effect of "until the House otherwise decides". So the House reserves the right to remove Committee members—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman repeats from a sedentary position that he asked for my opinion. I believe that it is for the House to determine such issues. I am sure that it would be annoyed if I told it what to do. I see the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) nodding.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley for his work on the Committee. I also thank the Committee for its work on the Standing Orders. I am not at all embarrassed to agree with it on most things and to take its opinion into account when the Government reach their conclusions.

In proposing the amendments, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst demonstrated an almost perverse and paranoid attitude towards the consensus building that the Committee uses when it accepts deregulation orders. Members from all parties have worked on a consensual basis, which has made for some good deregulation orders. He criticised my comments by saying that it is conservative to rely on what has happened in the past. If that was all we were doing, I would agree with him, but it is not.

We have considered whether the superaffirmative process that creates deregulation orders, which was established by the previous Conservative Government, has produced good law. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that that is the case. If he really wants to make an argument based on the evidence, he has to show that the procedures on which we are building have failed because of the quorum of five that has been applied to the Committee since its inception. Clever though the right hon. Gentleman's speeches are, he failed to show that the previous process had failed. The fact that we are building on that process bodes well for the future of the Committee under the 2001 Act.

The right hon. Gentleman gave away what he really wants. He is paranoid not only about consensus but about legislation—

Mr. Forth

indicated assent.

Mr. Stringer

The right hon. Gentleman agrees. The third amendment in his name, which the Speaker did not select for discussion by the House, would have given a minority of members of the Committee, from the Conservative party or any Opposition party, a right of veto. He proposed that if Opposition Members did not turn up, the Committee could not work. That would not be a sensible or democratic way to proceed.

The right hon. Gentleman said that there was a problem with the sub-Committee having a quorum of only two because that is not a satisfactory number of people to make law. However, the sub-Committee has to report to the Committee, which has to lay the orders before the House.

I ask the House to support the proposals before it.

Amendment negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That the following changes be made to the Standing Orders of the House— A. That Standing Order No. 141 (Deregulation Committee) be repealed and the following new Standing Order be made— Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee

(1) There shall be a select committee, called the Deregulation and Regulatory Reform Committee, to examine—

(i) every document containing proposals laid before the House under section 3 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 (the 1994 Act) or under section 6 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001 (the 2001 Act);

(ii) every draft order proposed to be made under section 1 of the 1994 Act or section 1 of the 2001 Act; and

(iii) every subordinate provisions order or draft of such an order made or proposed to be made under sections 1 and 4 of the 2001 Act.

(2) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every proposals document referred to in paragraph 1(i) of this order, either

(a) that a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

(b) that the proposals should be amended before a draft order is laid before the House; or

(c) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of the proposals.

(3) The committee shall report to the House, in relation to every draft order referred to in paragraph 1(ii) of this order, its recommendation whether the draft order should be approved.

(4) The committee may draw the special attention of the House to any subordinate provisions order or draft order referred to in paragraph 1(iii) of this order, and may report its opinion whether or not the order or draft order should be approved or, as the case may be, annulled.

(5) The committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals, draft orders or subordinate provisions orders.

(6)(A) In its consideration of proposals the committee shall consider in each case whether the proposals

(a) appear to make an inappropriate use of delegated legislation;

(b) remove or reduce a burden or the authorisation or requirement of a burden;

(c) continue any necessary protection;

(d) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, adequate consultation;

(e) impose a charge on the public revenues or contain provisions requiring payments to be made to the Exchequer or any government department or to any local or public authority in consideration of any licence or consent or of any services to be rendered, or prescribe the amount of any such charge or payment;

(f) purport to have retrospective effect;

(g) give rise to doubts whether they are intra vires;

(h) require elucidation, are not written in plain English or appear to be defectively drafted;

(i) appear to be incompatible with any obligation resulting from membership of the European Union.

(B) In the case of proposals presented under the 2001 Act, the committee shall also consider whether the proposals:

(j) prevent any person from continuing to exercise any right or freedom which he might reasonably expect to continue to exercise;

(k) satisfy the conditions of proportionality between burdens and benefits set out in sections 1 and 3 of the Act;

(l) satisfy the test of desirability set out in section 3(2)(b) of the Act;

(m) have been the subject of, and take appropriate account of, estimates of increases or reductions in costs or other benefits which may result from their implementation; or

(n) include provisions to be designated in the draft order as subordinate provisions;

and in the case of the latter consideration the committee shall report its opinion whether such a designation should be made, and to what parliamentary proceedings any subordinate provisions orders should be subject.

(7) In its consideration of draft orders, the committee shall consider in each case all such matters set out in paragraph (6) of this order as are relevant and the extent to which the Minister concerned has had regard and to any resolution or report of the Committee or to any other representations made during the period for parliamentary consideration.

(8) In its consideration of any subordinate provisions order the committee shall in each case consider whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the grounds on which (in accordance with paragraph 1(B) of Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments may draw the attention of the House to a statutory instrument; and if the committee is of the opinion that any such order or draft order should be annulled, or, as the case may be, should not be approved, they shall report that opinion to the House.

(9) The committee shall consist of eighteen members.

(10) The quorum of the committee shall be five.

(11) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

(12) The committee shall have power—

1. (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, and to report from time to time;
2. (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference;
3. (c) to appoint a sub-committee, of which the quorum shall be two, which shall have power to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, and to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
4. (d) to communicate its evidence and any other documents relating to matters of common interest to any committee appointed by this House and to any committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation and regulatory reform proposals and draft orders.

(13) The committee and the sub-committee shall have leave to meet concurrently with any select committee appointed by the Lords to examine deregulation and regulatory reform proposals and draft orders and any sub-committee thereof.

(14) The committee and the sub-committee shall have the assistance of the Counsel to the Speaker and, if their Lordships think fit, the Counsel to the Lord Chairman of Committees.

(15) The committee and the sub-committee shall have power to invite Members of the House who are not members of the committee to attend meetings at which witnesses are being examined and such Members may, at the discretion of the chairman, ask questions of those witnesses; but no Member not being of the committee shall otherwise take part in the proceedings of the committee or sub-committee, or be counted in the quorum.

(16) It shall be an instruction to the committee that before reporting either

1. (a) that any proposal should be amended before the draft order is laid before the House, or
2. (b) that the order-making power should not be used in respect of any proposal, or
3. (c) that any draft order should not be approved,

it shall afford to any government department concerned an opportunity of furnishing orally or in writing to it or to the sub-committee appointed by it such explanations as the department think fit.

(17) It shall be an instruction to the committee that it report on every draft order (not being a subordinate provisions order) not more than fifteen sitting days after the draft order was laid before the House, indicating in the case of draft orders which it recommends should be approved whether its recommendation was agreed without a division.

B. That the following amendments be made to Standing Order No. 18 (Consideration of draft deregulation orders)—

1. (1) Title, after 'deregulation', insert 'etc.'.
903
2. (2) Line 1, after 'Deregulation', insert 'and Regulatory Reform'.
3. (3) Line 3, after 'Deregulation', insert 'and Regulatory Reform'.
4. (4) Line 5, after '1994', insert 'or under section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001'.

C. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 98 (Scottish Grand Committee (delegated legislation)

Line 15, after 'order', insert 'or regulatory reform order'.

D. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 115 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (delegated legislation))—

Line 15, after 'order', insert 'or regulatory reform order'.

E. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 118 (Standing committees on delegated legislation))—

Line 14, after 'order', insert 'or regulatory reform order'.

F. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee))—

Line 25, after '1994', insert 'or under section 1 of the Regulatory. Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or draft proposed to be made under that Act'.

G. That the following amendment be made to Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments)

Line 33, after 'Deregulation', insert 'and Regulatory Reform'.