Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

That was a short, but informative debate. I agree that the Minister has been doing a good job in rather disadvantageous conditions over the past two days. I hope that next time he comes before the House with a Bill, he has a better Bill to work with. His officials are rather over-reliant on interpretations from Halsbury and insufficiently prepared to look at the common sense of what is written in the statute. Quite clearly there is no exclusion in the statute in relation to sub-delegation—a quite proper matter for the House’s concern. The idea that the requirements on consultation, which are contained in clause 11, are an unsatisfactorily onerous duty for somebody who is legislating under a delegated function is quite wrong. If someone is making legislation that is binding on other people—even if it is only a few people—is it entirely improper that they should consult such organisations as appear to them"““to be representative of interests substantially affected by the proposals””?" I would suggest not. It is proper for delegated functions of legislation to fall within exactly the same constraints and to have exactly the same terms of consultation and procedures as any other matter handled under the accelerated procedure. We still have some very big question marks—notwithstanding the Minister’s preparedness to talk to the Committee and perhaps bring forward further proposals at the next stage of the consideration of the Bill in another place. Who knows, he may bring forward things that are of interest at that point, but that will not happen before this House today and, on that basis, we must seek the advice of the House, and I will press new clause 15 to a vote.