Regulatory Reform Bill [H.L.] (Hansard, 26 February 2001)

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I beg to move that the proceedings of Monday 19th February on the Motion that the Bill do now pass be vacated.
The Motion is required to vacate the proceedings on the Motion of 19th February that the Regulatory Reform Bill do now pass. Unfortunately, the proceedings on Third Reading were defective to the extent that I did not at that time invite the House to agree to the privilege amendment. Although the Bill itself has no financial effects, it is possible that orders made under it might have. This means that a privilege amendment is required in order not to offend the financial privilege of the House of Commons.
If your Lordships agree to the Motion, the House will be able to resume its proceedings after Third Reading. I shall invite noble Lords to agree to the privilege amendment. The Bill will then be sent to the Commons.

§ Baroness Buscombe
My Lords, I do not know whether this is an appropriate time, but I should like to seek the Minister's assurance that, notwithstanding the proceedings being technically vacated, the substance of the proceedings that took place on 19th February will remain on the record.

§ Lord Skelmersdale
My Lords, before the Minister responds, I have to say that this shows an element—to say the least—of parliamentary sloppiness on the part of the Government. When, on Second Reading, I described the Bill as an "albatross" round the noble and learned Lord's neck, I did not appreciate that that albatross would be in a slightly different form; namely, cap shaped with pylons.
As I understand it, this is only the second time in the past 10 years that it has been necessary to move such a rare Motion. In one sense, it is surprising for this Government. On the one hand, they have trumpeted on and on about the supremacy of another place: on the other hand, they have shown a certain amount of arrogance as far as concerns parliamentary proceedings. I do not blame the noble and learned Lord, who, I believe, had other things on his mind at the time. Indeed, for all I know, that is still the case. However, he has had the very able assistance of the Deputy Chief Whip, who jolly well should have known what was going on.

§ Lord Simon of Glaisdale
My Lords, the Minister got very close to apologising to your Lordships, but in fact we are in his debt. What has happened draws attention to the absurdity of the privilege amendment. It is unique in that it is only moved when what it says is 942 untrue. That is so in the present case. The Companion to the Standing Orders—and this is generally known only to the Front Benchers—says: Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner". One has only to look at the title to Part I of the Bill to see that it infringes that provision.
Why do we do it? Until 1972, the House of Commons would not accept a Bill originating in your Lordships' House unless any charge on public funds was merely incidental and subsidiary. Since 1972 they have accepted a Bill which has originated in your Lordships' House even though it imposes primarily a charge on public funds or on the citizen. But it seems to be agreed, although it is not in Standing Orders specifically, that they will only accept a Bill provided that the privilege amendment is passed.
In fact, the Standing Orders of the other place merely state that a Minister must be in charge of the Bill. On Third Reading the Minister in charge of the Bill says, "I beg to move the privilege amendment". It is not read out; it is not known to the majority of the Members who are assenting to it; and it is passed without debate. In case the taradiddle might be missed by the other place, a thick black line is drawn on the right-hand margin next to the privilege amendment. When it gets to the other place, they merely remove the privilege amendment, which disappears together with its black line, and everyone is perfectly happy. Honour, if that is the right word, is satisfied.
Why do we do this? There is no particular reason. There are much easier ways of deferring to the financial privilege of the other place. One way would be merely to annex to the message that accompanies the Bill to the other place a note that it is not intended to conflict with their financial privilege. What we have is something that is consistently put in when it does not apply. Even statistics are sometimes not misleading. However, the privilege amendment is invariably misleading. We should really change the old saying to, "There are lies, damned lies, statistics and privilege amendments". This is the very matilda of parliamentary practice. No doubt your Lordships will accede to the noble and learned Lord's half apology and will uphold the Motion. However, I suggest it is a matter that the Procedure Committee might look at again. I happen to know that that appealed at one time to the noble Lord the Chief Whip. Perhaps he will put his great authority behind it.

§ Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, of course I give the noble Baroness the assurance that she seeks. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that I am responsible for the Bill and therefore I am responsible for the privilege amendment not being moved. I apologise for that but I think he was being unfair to suggest that that showed any kind of contempt for parliamentary procedure. It showed that I had followed advice. I regret that I made the mistake that I did. I apologise for that.
943 I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, for his account of the unimportance of the privilege amendment. However, it still has to be moved.