| Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
|
|
Mr. Hammond: Is the Minister saying that it would not be possible for an order made under the clause to contain a provision that any mistake in it could be corrected by a subsequent order? In other words, could the process be self-contained in the originating order? Mr. Raynsford: There is a technical issue. If I develop my speech, the hon. Gentleman will probably understand why the provision is necessary. The power in subsection (2) can be used only to implement a recommendation of the boundary committee. Once implemented, with or without modifications, the power is exhausted. It could not be used again to correct mistakes because such an order, legally, would not be for the purpose of implementing the recommendations. If it were necessary to correct a mistake in an implementation order, we would need to use the separate power in subsection (6). I shall give a few examples of such errors. There were small map reference errors in the Buckinghamshire order and there was a typographical error in the Bedfordshire order. I shall not tell the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge the Government under which the errors were made—I will keep him guessing—but he will understand that such minor errors should be easily corrected and that the provision in the Bill to allow that is sensible. Mr. Hammond: I am grateful but I do not think that the Minister answered my question. Is there a general principle that would prevent the originating order from including a provision allowing mistakes to be rectified by a subsequent order? It would seem to be Column Number: 262 logical to deal with the matter in that internally contained way, rather than have a provision for that in primary legislation.Mr. Raynsford: I thought that I had already made the point that once the order has been made the power is exhausted, because that can be used only to implement recommendations. Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister say that an order cannot create a further order-making power? Mr. Raynsford: This takes us into arcane areas of legislative provision on which I would certainly need more detailed guidance before giving the hon. Gentleman a full response. I will write to him about that matter. The provision is clearly sensible and I have explained that it allows for minor adjustments. I hope that he will, on reflection, agree that it is sensible. I am told that a statutory instrument could not sub-delegate to make further provision, without that being sanctioned by Parliament. To make relatively minor adjustments, such as correcting a reference to maps or a typographical error in the Buckinghamshire order, would involve a complex parliamentary process. That would seem to be stretching Parliament's patience to the limit. Mr. Hammond: I do not want to pursue the matter too far, because I am sure that we can continue this fascinating discussion in correspondence. However, to say that there would need to be further parliamentary sanction to approve an order that would create the further order-making power seems to be a statement of the blindingly obvious. I do not suggest that an order should give the Secretary of State the power to alter or amend that without referring back to Parliament. I am not aware that the creation of a further order-making power in the order could be prevented. That would, of course, be subject to the usual scrutiny processes relating to the presentation of such a second statutory instrument. I look forward, in due course, to reading the full answer in correspondence. Mr. Raynsford: I have already undertaken to write to the hon. Gentleman. On reflection, he might think that to go through the whole parliamentary procedure to amend one typographical error in one order would cause too much strain. The powers are clearly sensible and I hope, therefore, that he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
11.30 amMr. Hammond: It is easy for Ministers to present such catch-all clauses as terribly benign, saying, ''There's no need to worry, it's technical stuff. Don't trouble yourself.'' The Minister has, in his last sentence, made things worse. I was under the impression that typographical errors, such as those that are made when Bills are printed, are routinely corrected in legislation without the need for any further formal proceedings. [Interruption.] The Minister says that an order is different, but I would be astonished if I could go through all the orders that his Department has produced during the past few years without finding a single typographical error. I am prepared to make a small bet with him about that. Column Number: 263 Let us return to the substance of the debate. The Minister has addressed my principal concern. He said that the White Paper makes it clear that if the Government were not going to implement the boundary committee report in full, they would ensure that, prior to the referendum, the electors were aware of that and of the details of proposed modifications. That is exactly what I am seeking. My problem is that I cannot see that anywhere in the Bill. I do, however, see a statement in the form of a preamble to the question on the ballot paper, which is to be presented to electors. That says, rather blandly:
I would like to see some commitment in the Bill that a precise statement would be made available in a form that is accessible to electors. That would give proper effect to what the Minister has said. My helpful amendment to clause 2 would ensure that a simple table were included, without the gobbledegook that is written here about single tiers and so on, which people do not understand, showing on the right the proposed new authorities and on the left the constituent parts of the existing districts that would be included within them. Every elector of reasonable competence would therefore be able to understand what was proposed for the place in which he lived. If the Minister were able to give that suggestion, or a similar one, a fair wind when we debate this issue tomorrow, he would neatly deal with all the issues that have been raised during this debate. I am afraid that, when the Minister asserts that the White Paper says that something will or will not happen, that just does not cut it. Ministers have become rather fond—especially during debates on this issue—of quoting White Papers as if they were enactments. That probably underlines the fact that a large parliamentary majority induces arrogance and an assumption that any legislation can be driven through Parliament. The assumption that Government Lobby fodder will always oblige may be valid at present, but it will not always be so. As the splits within the Labour party open up and the two separate factions become increasingly embattled, with the Chancellor's faction becoming increasingly emboldened, it will become— The Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying a little wide of the amendment. Mr. Hammond: I will ask the Committee for leave to withdraw this amendment now, but I will address the Minister again on this specific point when we debate amendments to clause 2 tomorrow. I hope that the Minister will come to that debate with the generosity of spirit that I want to believe is in him but of which I have seen precious little evidence so far in his responses to my amendments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule agreed to. Column Number: 264
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2002 | Prepared 17 December 2002 |
