Spy Blog - SpyBlog.org.uk

They are off - Conservative New Clause 2

Mark Harper (Cons)

NC2 asks for an annual report to Parliament about what has and what has not been de-regulated.

NC 24 is an alternative renewal clause, Part 1 approval every 2 years

NC 7 is a 5 year "sunset clause"

David Howarth Lib Democrat, makes the point that these sunset clauses only affect the Bill/Act, but not any Orders passed by the LRR Act.

David Heath, Liberal Democrat,
Somerset & Frome

reminds everyone that vast amounts of supposedly "urgent" laegislation and regualtions are actually never used or even commenced

Andrew Miller Labour, Ellsemere Port & Neston, chairman of the Regulatory Select Committee

Does not prefer an annual report to Prliament, but wants more powers for investigation and reporting for his own Committee.

The Committee could report on the facts i.e. that a Gov Dept had only de-regulated a few items under the old 2001 Act, but not the reasons why the delays or lack ofprogress happened.

Some sympathy for a periodic Review, but not a "sunset clause".

Mark Harper - Conservative - - NC 24 may be more acceptable

Mark Harper - wants a confirmation of the verbal promise made by Jim Murphy anout a 5 year review.

Pat McFadden, the Cabinet office Minister

"a Minister of the Crown will report to the House no less than 5 years after the Act passes"

Pat McFadden's first "not appropriate to write this on the face of the Bill" .

Presumably there will be more of these.

Pat McFadden is rejecting NC7 sunset clause

Kenneth Clarke (Cons. former Chancellor etc.) - clarification on the reporting period promise "not more" or "not less" than 5 years ?

Pat McFadden - "within 5 years"

Andrew Love (Labour, Edmonton) served on the Regulatory Committee.

Whitehall culture is to create more regulation and law, rather than de-regulation.

Division i.e. a vote on New Clause 2, the annual report to Parliament of the sucesses or failures of this Bill.

This will probably take about 10 minutes or so.

Mr Oliver Heald Mr Jonathan Djanogly Mr Mark Harper

NC2
To move the following Clause:—

'Before the end of the six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State must prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out his estimate of the extent to which orders, rules and schemes made pursuant to this Act have—

(a) removed or reduced any burden,

(b) re-enacted any provision having the effect of imposing any burden, in cases where the burden was proportionate to the benefit that was expected to result from such re-enactment,

(c) made any new provision having the effect of imposing a burden that has affected any person in the carrying on of the activity, but was proportionate to the benefit that was expected to result from its creation, or

(d) removed inconsistencies and anomalies in legislation.'.

NC2 vote:

Ayes: 210
Noes: 269

Point of Order - promise by Jim Murphy to produce a Code of Practice in good time for Report stage - unsurprisingly , given the Government's record on this sort of thing, thewre is no such Code of Practice available

Jonathan Djanogly (Conservative Shadow Solicitor General)
Lots of amendmends and cNew Clauses to do with various Procedures "negative" (vote against)and "affirmative" (vote for) and "super-affirmative" (votes in both the Houses of Commons and Lthe House of Lords)

There is also the "vetos" or similar for the Select Committees.

Remember that Committees are always packed with a Government majority.

rewsolutions (ie, votes

Jonathan Djanogly - if Committee issues a "veto", it is only a recommendation to the House of Commons, which can then be overturned by the inevitable Government majority in the Commons.

This is another promise made by Jim Murphy which has not appeared in the amendments.

Just looking through NC19 and am appalled at what a woolly piece of bullshit constitutional legislation it is.

Exactly which aspects of our constitution could not be considered a financial cost, an administrative inconvenience, an obstacle to efficiency, productivity or profitability; or a sanction, criminal or otherwise, for doing or not doing anything in the course of any activity?

That's a serious question.  Are elections safe?  Is Parliament safe?  Is the Monarchy safe?

The Govt-chosen committee vetoes are virtually meaningless.

Jonathan Djanogly - is there to be just one single point of failure, i.e. a special Committee which deals with Orders under this Bill, which would not have the subject expertise of Departmental Select Committees ?

@ Dave Gould - it is as bad as it looks, and the Government "concessions" so far seem to be smoke and mirrors.

Andrew Miller, currently speaking, needed a spare pair of spectacles.

Since only Members of Parliament are allowed on the Benches, he had to impose on one of the very few of his Labour MP colleagues to nip over to the doorway and get them from an aide.

His idea that a "Ministerial Undertaking" has any real force in law or practice , rather than something written into the Bill, does not seem to be strong enough safeguard.

David Heath (LibDem): )paraphraseds):

If the Government gives an undertaking not to ever use powers in the Bill, then what should they be in the Bill in the first place ?

Kenneth Clarke (Cons")said in effect:

"Ministerial Undertaking" only bind an "honourable) Minister, or perhaps the Government which he is a member of. They do not bind future Governments.

Yet again, the former Minister Jim Murphy's "promises and undertakings" are not belived by the Opposition.

This "live blogging" of the Parliament TV feed, is a frustrating experience.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat) - There is no Parliamentary Veto in this Group of Amendments, it is more of a Parliamentary Caveat.

Government does not appear to accept the recommendations of the Procedure Committee and the Regulatory Committee.

@wtwu - You are doing well, I am finding the debate it quite difficult to follow. Having a running commentary helps me understand

@wtwu - You are doing well, I am finding the debate it quite difficult to follow. Having a running commentary helps me understand

David Heath (Liberal Democrat) defends his idea of a "controversy" test involving 10% of MPs of at least 2 Parties, but the Conservatives are not really going for it, in case it sets a precedent for all other prrocedures, not just this"fasttrack" LRRB one.

He makes the valid point that Early Day Motions, even those signed by over half the mebers of the House of Commons are just that, and do not lead to a proper Debate on an issue.

At a guess this Liberal Democrat amendment will not pass.

David Heath (Liberal Democrat) will seek to divide the House i.e. call for a vote on his New CLause 14

I did wonder what was stopping them simply announcing an amendment to appease those concerned but never bringing it before the House.

LRRB always was a grab for totalitarian power and it looks like they're going to get away with it.

Our Parliament has always been woefully inadequate in its capacity to hold the executive to account.

I shall be interested to find out what the Queen has to say about it.

Tony Wright, (Labour - Cannock Chase) Chairman of the Public Affairs Committee, who was earlier today on the news regarding the Loans for Peerages Police investigation, is talking about the theory of Select Committees, and the practical reality, taking up Andrew Miller's comment that, despite all the talk about giving powers to Select Committees, not all the Conservative Members have been turning up for duty on his Committee.

Is he for or against the "veto of the veto of the veto" ?

There should be an effective , if qualified, veto.

All this Parliamentary Procedure is of theoretical interest, however, this is all burning up Parliamentary time.

Therei are only about two and a half hours left to consider all the remaining amendments.

Greg Knight (Conservative Yorkshire East) - chairman of the Procedure Committee, read out the evidence that Jim Murphy gave to his Commuttee, promising a Veto, a full Veto.

Hilary Armstrong, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, the former Government Chief Whip has just weasled in, and said that the Qualified Veto now proposed, rather than the Full Veto which Jim Murphy promised so often does is somehow ok, because of yesterday's vote which slightly reduced the scope of the Powers i,e, New Clause 19.

Jim Knight does not agree.

Alison Seaback (Labour Plymouth Devonport) makes the point that there should be a 2 year restriction on the re-submission of LRR Orders which are identical or slightly dressed up, once they have been Vetoed

I've been try to follow the debate on Parliament TV. However I've just lost sound. I think the microphones have been turned off.

Sound is back again

BBC Parliament sound is ok

Another half hour gone, and the question of Select Committee Vetoes is still not resolved.

David Howarth (Liberal Democrat for Cambridge, also a Cambridge University academic lawyer)
has just said that one of the changes which was made yesterday was the prevention of self-modification, and modification of the Human Rights Act, i.e. New Clause 26 !

Where exactly did this get passed ??

The proceedings of yesterday's debate might be of interest

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/rs1411505.553-557.html

It shows what has happened so far

I have no idea when NC26 got passed - maybe after the debate last night or some commitee?

Maybe the Gov't decided to add NC26 afterall.....

Also noticed that "Line 4, leave out ‘with or without changes’." was negatived on division but "Line 4, leave out ‘with or without changes’ and insert ‘either without changes or with such changes as are necessary to take into acount any development in the law since the time the recommendations were made.’."

I'm dissapointed in Mr Heath & Mr Howarth who seem to have proposed the second of these two but not the first. (I'm reading this right aren't I?!)

It seems that it was not debated but "nodded through" right at the very end !!

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060515/debtext/60515-0079.htm

New Clause 26

EXCEPTED ENACTMENTS

‘An order under this Part may not make provision amending or repealing any provision of—

(a) this Part; or

(b) the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42).'. —[Hilary Armstrong.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee, to be further considered tomorrow.

Mr. Heath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you could help us. The last group of amendments for consideration today, which we did not have an opportunity to debate at all, included some very important amendments on the constitutional arrangements, particularly the application to the Scotland Act 1998 and the way in which the Bill interacts with Scottish affairs in the Scottish Parliament. Is there any opportunity to discuss those matters tomorrow, given that we have a further day on Report and that under today’s timetable we have had no debate whatever of those subjects?

Mr. Speaker: There is not. Under the terms of the programme motion, to which the House agreed, that cannot be done.

Aaaaaargh !!!

Pat McFadden (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Cabinet Office) is not convincing Kenneth Clarke about this wretchedly complicated Select Committee Veto stuff.

Pat McFadden is rejecting the Liberal Democrat NC 14 and for the two year rule.

"I understand the reasoning behind these amendments ... however"

Repeat of yesterday - the Labour Party MPs vibrating pagers have gone off again, whilst Pat McFadden has been speaking, and both he and someone else in view have reached into their pockets to turn them off.

Presumably, the lobby fodder is being summoned electronically - a vote is probably due in say, the next, 15 minutes.

N.B. if these are normal, Alphanumeric Message Pagers from BT, these unencrypted messages are almost trivially intercepted and read by anyone with a radio scanner, anywhere in the UK, and some FLEX or POCSAG protocol decoding software from off the internet.

Division (i.e. a vote) on the Conservative's New Clause 5

Mr Oliver Heald Mr Jonathan Djanogly Mr Mark Harper

NC5
To move the following Clause:—

'(1) Where within the period set out in section 13 either House of Parliament resolves that the content of an order is inappropriate for provision to be made under section [Power to remove or reduce burdens] , there shall be no further proceedings in respect thereof.

(2) An order which has the same or similar effect to one that has previously been prevented from passing under the provisions of subsection (1) may not be laid under Part 1 within the subsequent two-year period.

(3) In this section, "two year period" means the period of two years beginning with the day on which the draft order was laid before Parliament under section 12.'.

New Clause 5 vote

Ayes: 205

Noes: 256

Division (vote) on the Liberal Democrat New Clause 14

Veto by specified number of Members of House of Commons

Mr David Heath
David Howarth

NC14
To move the following Clause:—

'No order may be made under Part 1 where both of the following conditions have been fulfilled—

(a) within the period defined in section 13(7), more than 10 per cent. of the members of the House of Commons have signified to the Speaker in writing that they object to the use of the Act for purpose of introducing the order in question, and

(b) the members referred to in subsection (1) above are not all members of the same party.'.

New Clause 14

Ayes: 85

Noes: 259

David Heath (Liberal Democrat) raises New Clause 15

"Sub-delegated legislative functions"

which tries to restrict the power of Ministers under the Bill, to delegate the Order powers to any other person

This tries to close the loophole whereby an Order made by an Minister has to go through the (inadequate) safeguards in the Bill i.e. the Committee Vetoes etc., but if a Minister delegates the Order making power to someone else e.g. to a Quango or a petty official etc. they are not subject to even those inadequate safeguards.

Oliver Heald (Conservative) - says he will support NC 15

The Minister Pat McFadden looks like he is going to reject this NC15, and the amendments. to it.

Pat McFadden is trying to reassure Mark Fisher(Labour) about the Delegation of Order making powers, which may enable arbitrary sub-delegation to other people.

This is impossible to do properly in the last 5 minutes before the Guillotine deadline at 9pm

Point of Order by Jim Knight (Conservative) the chairman of the Procedures Committee - sought confirmation from the Speaker that Parts 2 and 3 of this very important Bill will not receive any Parliamentary scrutiny at all during this Report stage, because of the Government's guillotine.

The Deputy Speaker confirned that this looked very likely

It is utterly disgraceful that the potentially massive impact of these other parts of the BIll have not been debated:

>
• Part 2 Regulators

which includes the worldwide exyent which was refered to yesterday

34 Extent (1) An order under section 1 which amends, repeals or replaces legislation extending outside England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland may have the same extent as that legislation.

Division on the Liberal Democrat New Clause 15

Sub-delegated legislative functions

Mr David Heath
David Howarth

NC15
To move the following Clause:—

'(1) Where, by an order under this part, the function of legislating has been conferred on a person, any legislation that person makes must be made by statutory instrument.

(2) The procedures specified in section 10 and section [Veto by specified number of Members of House of Commons] shall apply to any legislation made by any person on whom the power to legislate has been conferred under this part.

(3) Any person on whom the power to legislate has been conferred under this part shall be subject to the same duties to consult before exercising that power as those to which a minister of the Crown is subject under section 11.

(4) Legislation made by a person on whom the function of legislating has been conferred under this part—

(a) may not delegate further any power to legislate,

(b) may only be made for purposes for which orders under this part may themselves be made, and

(c) is subject to the same restrictions as orders under this part.'.

NC 15

Ayes : 200

Noes: 259

Conservative "Eurosceptic" New Clause 17, which has not been debated is now being voted on:

Disapplication of European Communities Act 1972 (No. 2)

Mr William Cash
Mr David Heathcoat-Amory
Mr Edward Leigh
Mr Richard Shepherd
Sir Peter Tapsell
Mr Nigel Dodds

Mark Pritchard
Mr Michael Fallon
Mr Philip Dunne
Mr David Burrowes
Mr Charles Walker
Mr Lee Scott
Mr Stewart Jackson
Peter Viggers
Mr James Gray
Mr Nick Hurd
Mr Philip Hollobone
Mr Mark Lancaster
Mr David Gauke
Anne Main
Mr Graham Stuart
Miss Ann Widdecombe

NC17
To move the following Clause:—

'(1) An order made under Part 1 containing provision relating to Community treaties, Community instruments or Community obligations shall, notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972, be binding in any legal proceedings in the United Kingdom.

(2) In section 1 and this section—

"Community instruments" and "Community obligations" have the same meaning as in Part 2 of Schedule 1 to the European Communities Act 1972 (c. 68);

"Community treaties" has the same meaning as in section 1(2) of the European Communities Act 1972.'.

Will this be the last vote on this Bill at Report stage in the Commons ?

"Lock the doors" - the lobby fodder are all in the Chamber / voting Lobbies.

New Clause 17 must surely be defeated ?

New Clause 17

Ayes: 136

Noes: 318

Government Amendments 10 to 45
just got nodded through with no vote

Division on Amendment a) to Government Amendment 46 is being voted on.

Hilary Armstrong

46
Page 8, line 17 [Clause 14], leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(2) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft order subject to the following provisions of this section.

(2A) The Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft order if either House of Parliament so resolves within the 40-day period.

(2B) A committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend under this subsection that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.

(2C) A recommendation may be made under subsection (2B) only if the committee considers that—

(a) the provision made by the draft order does not serve the purpose specified in section (Power to remove or reduce burdens)(2), (Power to promote regulatory principles)(2) or (Power to implement Law Commission recommendations)(2) (as the case may be);

(b) any relevant condition in section 3(2) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(1); or

(c) the condition in section 3(4) is not satisfied in relation to any provision of the draft order referred to in section 3(3).

(2D) Where a recommendation is made by a committee of either House under subsection (2B) in relation to a draft order, the Minister may not make an order in the terms of the draft order unless the recommendation is, in the same Session, rejected by resolution of that House.'.

As Amendments to Hilary Armstrong's proposed Amendment (No. 46):—

Mr Greg Knight
Rosemary McKenna
Sir Robert Smith
Mr Eric Illsley
Mr Christopher Chope
Ms Katy Clark

Mr Roger Gale
Lynne Jones
Mark Fisher
Kate Hoey
Jeremy Corbyn
Kelvin Hopkins

(a)
Line 5, leave out from 'with' to end of line 18 and insert 'responsibility for this matter may, at any time after the expiry of the 30-day period and before the expiry of the 40-day period, recommend that no further proceedings be taken in relation to the draft order.'.

This has not been properly debated either !

Amendment a) to Government Amendment 46

Ayes: 200

Noes: 258

The Amendment 46 nodded through without a vote.

Remaining Government Amendments nodded through, without a vote.

Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster Hilary Armstrong is now winding up the Third Reading, thanking various people.

Watching these debates in the Commons where our freedoms are legislated away by our Members of Parliament, without proper detailed scrutiny or debate is really depressing.

@wtwu Yes I entirely agree

Oliver Heald - this Bill is not good enough,

Hopefully the Conservatives will vote against the Third Reading

The most depressing thing for me is how no one is making the points I see as so simple. Not, of course, making a logical irrefutable debate would make a difference as most the people voting haven't even read the bill, never mind listened to all the debate and given it careful consideration.

So we now live in a democracy only at the whim of ministers? Is it really that bad? If so it's shocking that they couldn't even debate most of it.

Could these powers be used to abolish elections and make Tony PM for life for example? Or delegate abolishing health and safety laws to vested interests? Is there any credible democratic oversight left?

David Heath (liberal Democrats) also said it was marginnally improved from the dangerous initial version.

Hopefully the Liberal Democrats will also vote against it at Third Reading.

The Third Reading Division is now underway.

House of Commons Third Reading of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

Ayes: 259

Noes: 213

Now the Bill goes off to the House of Lords - will they "improve" it at all ?

This is precisely the sort of thing that makes me despair. In a court of law you get a verdict only if the decision is beyond reasonable doubt. Surely no one could be so credulous as to not have any doubts about this potentially incredibly dangerous piece of legislation?

More to the point, who are the Labour MPs voting for this thing rallying behind? They must know that Blair's a spent force - they surely can't be that stupid?

Good question! Who are they supporting? The Bill (under its guise of being a deregulatory Bill for business) was backed from the start by both Brown and Blair. The original Bill was to be part of a new philosophy of a 'risk-based approach to business: ie trust them more, and regulate them less. This was originally thought up by Brown, I think.

Makes you wonder what happened in between that Bill and this one. The civil servants got it accidentally wrong, is what I heard.

What if the House of Lords block provisions made under LRRB? Can they be overriden as usual?