A Power too far for Government

RRO Debates, Standing Committee A.

(Morning) Session 28.2.2006 and Standing Committee A (Afternoon).

Some Comments;

"the power enables a Minister to implement a set of recommendations, in full or in part, and for the provision made by the order to depart from the recommendations."

The hon. Gentleman makes the same point as we do. It is a power too far for the Government.



"If this is allowed does this mean we become a republic, via the back door? I do not think that this Government should be allowed to do this without public debate. This government has said in their speeches that they will not use these powers, if that is so why put them in? Does this sound a bit like Germany in the 1930's?"


"For nearly nine years New Labour has behaved with autocratic arrogance, treated Parliament with contempt, politicised the civil service and emasculated the Second Chamber.

It chills the blood that this legislation gives them power to change laws at the stroke of a pen.

The Commons must have an absolute right of veto over any ministerial diktat—and that should be explicit in the Bill."


My suspicions—and, I suspect, those of many members of the Committee—have been raised rather than allayed by the Minister's response. At the end of his comments, when he talked about the Law Commission justification for making such changes, he used the expression "uncontroversial Law Commission proposals", yet he has refused to allow the word "uncontroversial" or "non-controversial" to be put in the Bill. He uses expressions from the Law Commission that incorporate that phraseology, yet he wants to go much wider. Why does he want to go much wider? Why will he not put "non-controversial" or "uncontroversial" in the Bill?


Not that long ago I was chairing a Statutory Instrument Committee where I observed, from my neutral position in the Chair, a Minister trying to defend a situation where he or his predecessor had given an undertaking in relation to an agreement that was reached on a criminal justice Bill relating to the issue of whether jury trials could be abolished in fraud cases. My recollection is that as part of the agreement that was reached to deal with Lords amendments, the Government gave an undertaking not to bring forward a statutory instrument relating to that without full consultation. In the end the Minister had to agree that there had not been that full consultation.

That recent example illustrates the weakness of general undertakings to consult about a matter. To remove the safeguards in the present harbour revision orders legislation by Government fiat would be a regressive rather than a progressive move. Even where the Minister says that he has it in mind to change the Harbours Act 1964, that will be to the detriment of natural justice. The same is true, for all I know, with the Covent Garden Market Act 1961.

Interestingly, the individual private people who are affected by this will not be able to initiate the process; it will have to be done by the Government. At the moment private interests come forward, engage in consultation, employ parliamentary counsel and get their tackle in order before they bring forward their Bill. They can do that irrespective of the views of the Government. That is their right of access to Parliament. But under the provisions of this Bill, the Government are saying, "You can only use these accelerated procedures if we endorse it." What sort of justice and equity is that?

Many Thanks to Anne Palmer for her research.