Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

I feel that in some senses the ghost of St. Augustine has been with us in this debate. There have been many speeches from all quarters of the House about how much people want to see regulation cut, but not in the way that is proposed, and perhaps not yet. I think, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) said, that that is perhaps a danger for us as we come to debate the amendments. However, I welcome the comments that have been made about new clause 19, especially by the Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons. I do not pretend that they embraced the clause with open arms but they at least recognised that the Government had attempted to respond to some of the fears and concerns that have been expressed about the Bill. The Government did not accept that those fears and concerns would necessarily have been realised. I shall try to stay out of some of the private battles that we heard this afternoon between my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mark Fisher) and some Opposition Members. There were battles also between some Opposition Members about our membership of the European Union. I turn to amendment (b) to the new clause, which concerns burdens and whether they can be reduced overall. New clause 19 permits the ““removing or reducing”” of a ““burden””. ““Removing or reducing”” a burden from one person may possibly increase burdens on another, even if the overall effect is downward in terms of deregulation. The example has been used of perhaps increasing the burden on a million but reducing the burden on one. That is not likely. However we could increase the burden on one and reduce the burden on a million. That is what we mean by saying that the overall effect should be downward. It is the same as the 2001 legislation that would allow the introduction of more targeted or more proportionate burdens in the context of an overall downward trend. New clause 19 also permits the removal or reduction of overall burdens. It could permit the introduction of new burdens if it is done in the context of reducing the burdens overall. For that reason, we may not be able to say yes to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope).