Lord Norton of Louth (Con)

My Lords, for reasons of time, I wish to advance two proposals that can also be read across to other Bills. The first is on commencement. As the Delegated Powers Committee notes, the commencement clause, Clause 90, is a standard provision. Some provisions take effect on the day the Bill is passed and others on a day appointed by regulation by the Secretary of State. Such a distinction is usual and, as the committee notes, justified, given that: “A franchise change will need considerable implementation and preparation in advance of the provisions taking effect”. The problem is one of uncertainty. The fact that clauses are approved—they become part of the statute—does not mean that they will be enacted. Until they are commenced, they are deemed by the courts to be law in abeyance, or what I have termed “law but not law”. Given the sheer number of provisions in the Bill, not least those that amend existing law, we could end up with a patchwork quilt of provisions commenced and others still in abeyance, creating problems for those who administer election law in knowing what law is in effect. At the very least, we need greater clarity. The Explanatory Notes include a useful table in Annex A adumbrating how the provisions have territorial application in the UK. Could we not have something similar for commencement provisions, or Keeling-like schedules, with colour coding for changes taking immediate effect and those awaiting commencement? More substantively, there is a case for having sunset provisions. That concentrates minds—it provides a useful discipline and lets those who are affected know that there will not be continuing uncertainty. We have in the statute book already a large body of uncommenced legislation. This is not a satisfactory situation. Will the Minister at least give some guidance as to when provisions not given immediate effect are expected to be commenced? I realise she will not commit to sunset provisions, but that is something we may need to consider. The second proposal is around consolidation. My noble friend Lord Hayward has raised the need for a consolidation measure. Consolidation is highly desirable, but the chances of a Government providing the necessary resources, not least time, to get such a measure on the statute book are slim. Given that, there is an alternative—a rather modest one, but at least an achievable one—and that is making provision in the Bill for post-legislative scrutiny. Such a provision qualifies under the criteria I have previously adumbrated for putting a provision for post-legislative scrutiny in a Bill—namely, that it is large, complex, makes substantial changes to the law, is contested, and has not been subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. This Bill fulfils those criteria. I think it would provide some reassurance to all those affected by the Bill to know that it will be subject to review. Once enacted, it will qualify for post-legislative review, in any event, three to five years after enactment. Unfortunately, not all departments are rigorous in carrying out such reviews; implementation is somewhat variable. Given that, putting it beyond doubt that its effects will be reviewed is both desirable and achievable. The Government have nothing to lose by making such a provision and a great deal to gain in determining that the law has achieved what it is intended to achieve. I appreciate I have focused on detail, but, as we know, the devil is usually in the detail. We need to know what will take effect and when, and whether it does what it is intended to do. The Government will argue that getting something on the statute book is necessary. My point is that it is not sufficient.