Powers of Entry etc. Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister, except for the last 20 seconds of his comments. I do not intend to withdraw the amendment. The Minister said that he has 63 powers of entry, but the noble Lord, Lord Bach, sitting beside him, apparently has 62. Neither of them actually knows at present. The agreement that I wanted was that there would be a period of consultation and the Bill would pass through its remaining stages and then fall in the next week or so, as did the previous Bill that passed through. As the Minister will be aware, we have a powers of entry consultation website going out at the time when the Bill is due to pass. Powers of entry will generally take place in premises or property, and those properties have one thing in common: they are normally in a local authority area. So we will be in touch with all local authorities to get their support. I am hoping that the Minister will accept what I have proposed. It would be wrong for the Government of the day to say at this time that they did not have time for 1,201 powers of entry that may be exercised between now and goodness knows when. That would send the wrong message. Perhaps he would agree to reconsider and just sit there quietly, as he can do, and not say anything, bearing in mind that if he says that he will not accept any of these amendments, I will move them. Heaven knows how you do that—I would have to find someone to stand in the Lobby and count—but our website would then say that there was no co-operation from the Government. The Minister promised co-operation, though, and so far we have had it. To take another matter, the intellectual property of what is in the Bill belongs to the House of Lords, not to anyone else. It is not mine; I have checked on this. If all this work has been done with the help of the Home Office, the information is there and we now wish to go through a consultation period, why can we not go through it together? At the moment the website has only 187 pages on it, and it will probably go up to 230. Part of it will give the history of Roman law and things like that, while other parts will say, "If you want to be bored out of your tiny mind, read the next 100 pages", and then schedule every single Question. I shall help the Minister even more. The previous time when I asked a Question, he was the one who replied that no Ministers have powers of entry. On Monday I will table another six Questions every day on this subject to ask the Secretary of State what powers of entry he has. The Whips Office provided me with the relevant Ministers’ names, but even the government Whips Office can make mistakes. Often in such lists there is a little typographical mistake, and in this one Douglas Alexander became Douglas Alexandra. I did not type it; I scanned it in. I will send a letter to each Minister, saying "Dear Minister, I have tabled this Question. Attached is the Answer. Could you now please place, in response to these Questions for Written Answer over the last few years, the schedule to the Bill, which has been prepared, principally, by the Home Office?". I think that would be correct. It would not be a good idea, in view of the record in Hansard, to produce a list of all the most unsatisfactory Questions asked in this House over the past three years, which all relate to powers of entry. I wonder if the Minister might remain seated so that we can pass these amendments. The Bill would then go to the next stage, and then it would fall. I promise not to bring it up again in the same form if the Government co-operate. I think I am the only Member of your Lordships’ House who has never had the opportunity to vote. Could the Minister comment on this rather nice, extravagant gesture that I am making?