Saving Gateway Accounts Bill

If I had £5 for every time a Minister responded with the need for flexibility whenever I queried one of the regulation-making powers, I, too, would be a rich person—possibly even richer than the Minister. The Minister said that he wanted flexibility for the distant future. That is probably the reason why, if we buy the flexibility, to which I could probably sign up, any regulations to change that in the distant future should formally come to Parliament for approval. It would be changing one of the essential components of the scheme which, we are all agreed, should be set up on the basis that you get one shot at it. Let us suppose that evidence came over time that there was a group that was somehow excluded from the benefit for whatever social reasons and we needed the ability to return. There would need to be some evidence to go back to Parliament to extend the scheme beyond the one that Parliament thinks it is approving now. It is for that reason that I put my alternative, which was for the affirmative procedure. That is why I said that it could not be sneaked through. The Government should come and ask Parliament for approval. That is the difference between affirmative and negative.