asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, significant steps have already been taken. In June 1999 the Government introduced court-ordered secure remands to local authority accommodation for 12 to 16 year-old girls, 12 to 14 year-old boys and 15 and 16 year-old boys who were vulnerable and for whom a place was available. There are now 165 remanded 15 and 16 year-old boys in Prison Service custody, compared with 247 in April 2000.

The scope for further progress depends very much on the numbers sent to custody by the courts, the needs of sentenced juveniles and the provision of new accommodation. We have plans for 400 more places but there are other demands on them. We are meanwhile improving standards in the Prison Service juvenile estate.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but does he not agree that, in locking up children, England and Wales fall short of standards outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?

My Lords, we are, of course, very aware of those standards but there are circumstances in which, sadly, young people have to be detained. The Government's policy attempts to provide effective education and training for young offenders so that when they return to a life outside the prison estate they are fit for employment and want to become fully fledged citizens in the full sense of the term.

My Lords, who is responsible for the rights and welfare of these young people while they are in custody? Are there any special arrangements made within the Prison Service?

My Lords, obviously the service itself is responsible for those young people. I am sure that the service will take full cognisance of their individual circumstances and seek to ensure that they are fully aware not only of their rights but also of their responsibilities. We believe that that is most important.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Youth Justice Board has funded 120 bail supervision and support schemes and that these are reducing the need for the courts to remand young people to custody and secure accommodation? Does he, like me, welcome the efforts that the youth offending teams and the officers in the secure estates have made to improve the regimes and the quality of treatment provided for young offenders in this country?

My Lords, as noble Lords will know, the noble Lord is the chair of the Youth Justice Board, and should be greatly congratulated on the work that the board has undertaken. I fully endorse the noble Lord's comments and observation. It is with considerable delight that I say that bail supervision and support schemes funded by the board are having a beneficial impact on the total remand population. I understand that it is down 22 per cent from April 2000 to January 2001. We believe that that is real progress. Later this year the Youth Justice Board will implement the intensive surveillance and supervision programme which will manage persistent young offenders, including those on bail, in the community as an alternative to custody. Again, that is progress and is something which all Members of your Lordships' House should congratulate the board on achieving.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the High Court ruling in the case of Flood that girls should not be held in adult prisons and of the Home Secretary's commitment on 8th March 1999 that from April 2000 no 15 and 16 year-old girls would be held in prison? Can he confirm that that commitment has been honoured, or is it accurate that last week 94 girls aged 15 and 16 were still being held in prisons?

My Lords, I am certainly happy to confirm that the Home Secretary did indeed give that commitment. It is a sad fact that some young girls of the age range that the noble Baroness referred to are held in prisons. It is not something that we are particularly happy about. They are a priority group for taking out of the prison estate. That is our policy and objective. We have made steady progress towards that and we shall continue to do so. That group, together with vulnerable young males, must remain one of our top priorities in the forthcoming period.

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the serious criticism of our penal institutions by Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons, and by the Director-General of the Prison Service, Martin Narey? Does he accept that there are serious oppressive conditions in some of our penal institutions? Will he consider, therefore, the possibility of making more use of bail for young people rather remanding them in prison conditions? I refer in particular to 15 to 16 year-olds.

My Lords, the answer must be yes, we are aware of the criticisms. We are aware of the point made. I am sure that the noble Lord followed what I said earlier. It is our intention to ensure that young people can be supervised on bail in the community. The number of such young people in custody is reducing. We are making encouraging progress. The noble Lord would no doubt like to congratulate us on doing that.

My Lords—

My Lords, perhaps I may—

I am bigger than you! My Lords, the Minister has repeatedly talked of progress. If what the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, said is true I do not see any progress. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us what progress has been made.

My Lords, fearsome spectre though the noble Baroness makes—I quiver in her presence—I have been pleased to note today some important progress. The Government inherited a fairly poor—

Oh!

My Lords, it happens to be the case. We inherited a mess. We have had to rationalise and improve the service and provide effective and proper accommodation for younger offenders. Noble Lords have already heard of the important work that the Youth Justice Board has undertaken. I believe that our policies are effective. They address the real needs of those in the community. In the end they will help young people to turn from a life of offending.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the progress the Government have made already on this matter. Will the Government consider recommending that sentencing authorities, whether they are dealing with young individuals or older people, consider a sentence which will involve community service and not prison custody? Prison custody in almost every case involving non-violent offenders has no greater prospect of success and costs over 10 times as much to the community.

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his background knowledge and experience through personal contact in this field. During a number of exchanges, I have stated that it is our intention to strengthen the purpose of sentences that are served in the community. That applies to both young and older offenders. That is the way we intend to proceed. Recent legislative moves have taken us in that direction. I am glad to see that those moves are supported.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, at last December's Transport Council, European Transport Ministers agreed that mobile workers would be subject to a separate directive on working time. The impact on the UK's road transport sector will depend on the final text which is still subject to negotiation with the European Parliament. As currently drafted, we would have three years to implement these proposals into UK legislation.

My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I remind the House that I have an interest. The Minister will have discussed these matters in detail with the Road Haulage Forum. However, bearing in mind that the average age of a lorry driver is 53 and there is already a shortage, what is the Minister doing to avoid an even more severe shortage in the future?

My Lords, the noble Earl is correct. We are discussing this and other measures with representatives of the industry, unions and the Road Haulage Forum to modernise the road haulage industry. We believe that there is substantial efficiency to be gained. We believe also that the prospect of, and the run-in time for, the implementation of this working time directive will lead to some changes in shift patterns which will be advantageous to efficiency and the well-being of the drivers. The whole point of the working time directive is that drivers—whether or not 53-plus—should not be subject to excessive time at work.

My Lords, with this excellent proposed directive to limit the hours of driving, why did the Government abstain on the vote of the Council of Ministers rather than support it?

My Lords, we supported the bulk of the proposition. As is normal in European negotiations, there were a number of moves that we could not support and we were unhappy with parts of the deal. We very much welcome the improved proposal in relation to night work. It gives greater flexibility than the original proposition.

However, the maximum hours—there is an average of 48 hours—are set in this proposition at 60 hours. We were looking for at least an interim derogation from that to 65 hours. That would have allowed for greater flexibility in shift patterns. Part of the road haulage industry indicates that that works. As I indicated, the bulk of the agreement is acceptable to the UK Government. We are now in a period where the final text will have to be produced. The European Parliament's assessment of it will also have to be taken into account. We are some way off the transposition of this proposal. It will be a three year run-in once the directive is in force. Therefore, there is substantial time for the industry to adapt.

My Lords, who is responsible for checking the tachometers? Is it the employer or a separate inspectorate? How does one assess whether drivers have worked the hours which match the directive?

My Lords, the directive is concerned with total hours, not simply driving hours. EU directives which are in force for most of the road transport sector relate to driving hours—that is, hours at the wheel—which are governed by the tachograph. The responsibility for the tachograph is primarily that of the driver, subject to the employer's responsibility. Enforcement is by the Vehicle Inspectorate checking at the roadside or elsewhere.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many of us strongly support the outcome of the December Council? It dealt with a sector that had been excluded from the working time directive. The provisions have been a long time coming and the compromise reached meets the essential needs of both sides of the industry. We should all support its early implementation.

My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's remarks. I recognise that the provisions are in line with much of what he and his colleagues in the trade union movement have campaigned for. However, on his call for rapid implementation, we need time to adapt the shift patterns worked in the industry, as occurred in manufacturing and other industries with the general working time directive.

My Lords, does the Minister believe that the introduction of the working time directive has made the British economy more competitive internationally or less?

My Lords, as the main competition is with countries in the European Union, the point of the working time directive and other related legislation is to create a level playing field.

asked Her Majesty's Government

My Lords, to date the department has registered nearly 134,000 claims for respiratory diseases, 28,000 of which are from Wales. Progress has been slow, but payments are now starting to flow. In total, £113 million has been paid in respiratory compensation, of which £27.1 million has been in Wales. Taken together with compensation for vibration-related diseases, in recent weeks we have paid out about £1 million a day across Britain, with £1 million paid out in Wales alone last week. However, that is not good enough. We are constantly seeking to streamline the process and speed up payments further. New assessment centres are being opened and more doctors recruited. We are looking into using mobile testing units in some areas.

My Lords, does the Minister recognise that one of the major stumbling blocks for early settlements is the shortage of consultants? If more were taken out of the National Health Service for that work, it would tend to cause resentment among the general public. Will the Government consider approaching the judge with a view to waiving some of the regulations? That might help to achieve earlier settlements. Does the Minister appreciate that the issue has become a national scandal in Wales? It needs to be tackled urgently.

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that the shortage of doctors has been a major stumbling block. We have about 200 respiratory disease consultants working on the scheme, mostly in mining areas. Healthcall, the contractors, are now looking outside mining areas for additional consultant expertise. The agreement could be varied effectively only with the consent of both sides. That would be difficult, although I have no doubt that the judge will take account of all the issues when he holds his next meeting on 16th March. I agree with my noble friend concerning the outrage in Wales and sympathise very much with what he says.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the debate on this subject on 19th December, introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, his noble friend Lord Sainsbury said that the Government had introduced a fast-track arrangement to expedite matters? What offers have been made under that arrangement and to what extent have they been taken up?

My Lords. £74 million has been offered under the fast-track arrangement, of which only £25 million has so far been claimed. That leaves nearly £50 million unclaimed. That is disappointing. Peter Hain has extended the deadline for claims to be made, but the situation is not satisfactory.

My Lords, we all appreciate the efforts that the department has made to speed up the claims, but many people feel that the situation has reached saturation point. The consultants that are needed are not there to be recruited. That means that many miners will have to wait up to five years, despite all the best efforts that are being made. Is my noble friend also aware that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury assured me on a previous occasion in the Chamber that he would look again at my suggestion that the miners who had already been assessed and awarded industrial injuries benefits for this disease should be paid with no further examination? He also informed me that he would have to get the permission of the judge and the acting solicitors.

Having received that information, I wrote to Mr Justice Turner, who told me that he found my suggestion interesting and would put it to the review body on 16th March. If the judge and the solicitors are sympathetic, can the Minister assure me that the department will support my suggestion?

My Lords, I have carefully studied the correspondence between my noble friend and the Ministers—Mrs Liddell and now Peter Hain—and that between my noble friend and the judge. If there were any mileage in using the DSS assessment, we would be keen to do so. Discouragingly, the correlation between DSS assessments and assessments under the scheme is poor. As my noble friend will know from the reply sent to him by Peter Hain, there are only 11,100 successful DSS recipients, of whom 7,000 have already received or been considered for offers. The scope for improvement in that direction is not great. I am sorry to have to give such a disappointing answer.

My Lords, as 134,000 people are applying or are eligible, would it not be in the interests of the Government and of the miners—many of whom have waited so long that one wonders whether they will survive to get any compensation—to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, who has lived with the problem for six to eight years to my certain knowledge, and maybe for more than 10 years? How many of the 134,000 are yet to be assessed?

My Lords, it is obvious from my previous answers that we have listened very closely to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse and to others who know a great deal about the issue. I in no way seek to defend the slowness of the process, but, given that the question has come from the Conservative Benches, I have to point out that this Government immediately accepted the findings of the court and immediately took action to implement them. The number of claims being received week by week is still higher than the number of claims being settled. That is the measure of the problem. If anybody had said two years ago that there would be 134,000 claims, they would have been laughed at. That is the scope of the problem left to this Government because of many years of neglect by the previous government.

My Lords, at the present rate of progress, how long will it take to settle all the claims? During the past three years, a number of applicants have died before their claims were fully assessed. Do the families of those who have been able to prove their entitlement but who then died benefit?

Yes, my Lords. It has been clear from the beginning that we have always given priority to older claimants and to the widows and beneficiaries of those claimants who have died. It is tragic that so many of the claims have been resolved by death rather than by payment in full. Widows have a high priority and interim payments are made to them even if the final claim has not been fully processed.

My Lords, given the speed with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is busily preparing a basket of goodies—or should I say bribes?—for the electorate in anticipation of the coming election, can the Minister say whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer is able to use all the power at his disposal, together with the generosity he is showing in other areas, to speed up this process? As the Minister said, the Government have decided to implement the compensation system in full, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Mason, said, many people are dying. Can the Chancellor not now get round the problem and deal with it once and for all, as it seems possible for him to do in many other areas?

My Lords, I wish it were only a question of money. As has been clear throughout these exchanges, the problem lies in the slowness of making claims, the lack of response to some of the offers that have been made, and, above all—this is the most difficult problem at the moment—the shortage of suitably qualified doctors. If it were simply a matter of money, the issue could have been dealt with a long time ago.

asked Her Majesty's Government:

My Lords, the Government are continuing their discussions with the European Commission in relation to a reduced VAT rate for repairs to listed places of worship. A preliminary reply has indicated that the matter will be considered by the Commission in its general review of reduced rates, which will take place in 2003. In the interim period, the Government are considering special arrangements to help congregations to pay for repairs to listed places of worship.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, is he aware of not only the extreme distress but the grave financial situation in which parochial church councils find themselves, having relied on the autumn Statement of his right honourable friend the Chancellor? Those councils have spent, or have planned to spend, accordingly, but now find that they have not been given the reduction in VAT which they were promised. Supplementary to his Answer, can the noble Lord advise the House what the special arrangements are, from whom they emanate, and whether the money is merely going from one pot to another or whether it is new money that is being proposed?

My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Geddes, looks back at the pre-Budget report, he will find that the Chancellor's Statement was very cautious. He indicated that the Government were sympathetic and would put the case to the European Commission. He said no more than that. Under those circumstances, I believe that it would be unwise for people to spend money in advance of agreement on this matter.

As to the other special arrangements to which I referred in my original Answer, I do not believe that the noble Lord will expect me to give details in advance of the Budget, when it is likely that such special arrangements will be announced. However, I cannot even promise that that will be the case.

My Lords, can the Minister comment on the accuracy of the report in last Saturday's Daily Telegraph, which said that the Chancellor of the Exchequer,

"will shortly give churches grants worth about £20 million",

in order to deal with the problem of the time lag until European legislation on VAT changes becomes clearer?

My Lords, I am sorry to have to tell the right reverend Prelate that that report is pure speculation. However, I am interested in the figures which the Daily Telegraph gave because I, too, read the article. I believe that it is worth considering the matter in the context of the fact that English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund are offering £25 million for the repair of historic churches in this financial year under the joint grant scheme; the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is offering £2.8 million—at least, it did last year—to the Churches Conservation Trust; and English Heritage has offered £3 million to cathedrals, totalling more than £30 million of grants. On the other hand, the Church's own best estimate of the cost of VAT paid for historic churches is approximately £20 million.

My Lords, will the noble Lord indicate whether the Government are giving further thought to the reduction of VAT on house repairs in general? In that connection, is he aware that, with guidance from the Treasury, on the Isle of Man such VAT has been reduced to 5 per cent? When will the Treasury help us to do that on the mainland?

My Lords, I am entirely aware that there is a perverse incentive in the fact that repairs are standard-rated, whereas alterations are zero-rated. This problem arose because in 1984 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer withdrew relief for alterations without withdrawing it for repairs. As I believe the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, knows, since 1977 our powers to introduce new zero-rates are extremely limited.

My Lords, will the Minister acknowledge the extraordinary cost-effective contribution made by the Church of England to our national heritage? Does the Minister consider it equitable that the burden of maintenance of some of our country's wonderful jewels—our churches—should be borne heroically by the volunteers in our parishes and by our worshipping communities when elsewhere in the European Union we find that the state intervenes, as does the general public?

My Lords, I am happy to confirm that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, says, some of the glories—in some parts of the country, the only glories—of our architectural heritage are our historic churches. I pay tribute to the volunteers and fund-raisers who help to keep them in order. However, I must remind the noble Baroness of the figures that I have already given: we are giving in the region of more than £30 million in grants to historic churches., while acknowledging that the churches are losing £20 million in VAT.

My Lords, following on from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is my noble friend aware that the French Government have reduced the rate of VAT on home improvements from 21.5 to 5 per cent? As a result, the take-up of work by reputable builders, who pay their taxes and whose customers pay their taxes, has increased by between 25 and 30 per cent. Did my noble friend see the report in the Sunday Times which stated that over the past few months alone members of the Federation of Master Builders have reported one MP, two Peers and a premiership football manager, all of whom have demanded illegal VAT-free cash refurbishment deals?

My Lords, I am shocked to hear what my noble friend said in his closing remarks. If he cares to give me further details, I shall see that, if they have done anything illegal, Members of Parliament and Peers are pursued properly under the law. However, I am aware of the reductions under Annex K of the 6th directive in relation to labour-intensive services. We did not take the view at the time, and we do not take the view now, that that is a particularly cost-effective way to encourage employment, even if it were on a permanent basis. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Faulkner knows, those reductions have been introduced only as an experiment for three years.

My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Wild Mammals (Protection) Act 1996. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.

My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Perhaps I may detain your Lordships for a moment to explain briefly that this report proposes the speedy setting-up of the Select Committee on Human Cloning and Stem Cell Research, called for when the House approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000 on 22nd January. It also proposes the terms of reference for the committee and a timetable for the committee to report.

The report also proposes that the setting-up of the Select Committee to scrutinise treaties should be placed on hold until we see how the new arrangements in another place work with regard to the issue of scrutinising treaties.

1. On 22 January 2001 the House approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations 2000, and in doing so agreed "that this House calls on the Government to support the appointment of a Select Committee of the House to report on the issues connected with human cloning and stem cell research, and to undertake to review the regulations following the report of that Select Committee".

2. We have accordingly considered how best to make available the necessary resources for such an ad hoc committee. In order to avoid undue delay in setting it up, we recommend that the Science and Technology Committee should be reduced from two units of activity to one for the duration of the existence of the new committee.

3. The use of such a reduction in order to allow for other committee activity was first proposed in 1992 in the report of the Committee on the Committee Work of the House, under the chairmanship of Earl Jellicoe: "If the House is to take on some other committee activity, priorities and the availability of resources will from time to time dictate that the Committee must operate through a single sub-committee, or itself conduct an inquiry in the absence of sub-committees." Hitherto this proposal has never been put into effect, but there are several reasons why it is appropriate now:

(1) The new committee is on a scientific subject. So the balance of committee activity in the House will be broadly unaffected.

(2) This arrangement will make it easier for members of the Science and Technology Committee to be chosen to serve on the new committee, should the Committee of Selection so wish, and will make available the resources of the Science and Technology Committee, in particular the services of its specialist assistant.

(3) One of the two sub-committees of the Science and Technology Committee is currently undertaking a series of short inquiries and follow-ups, and therefore its work can be suspended quickly without curtailing any current inquiry.

My Lords, since the recommendation was made in 1999 to have a Select Committee to advise your Lordships on the impact on the United Kingdom of treaties which are subsequently ratified, I wonder whether I am the only Peer who still much regrets the decision to wait. I should have thought that the present juncture, with the Treaty of Nice awaiting ratification, made it rather important that we have such a committee.

My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, says, but a number of factors were considered by the committee. Recently, there has been a considerable increase in the number of committees, including the one I have just mentioned. We are about to start an animal research committee and, of course, the Constitution Committee was introduced last week. The new arrangements in the House of Commons are just coming into effect. I think that the committee felt that it would be wise to await judgment on how such procedures in the other place work before we take a final decision on the issue of a committee in your Lordships' House.

My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Committee appointed the following Sub-Committees and Panel—

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 1, line 6, leave out ("(3) and") and insert ("(2A) to").

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on his extremely clear exposition and I agree in particular with the following elements. The extracts which he quoted from speeches made by my noble friend Lord McIntosh and myself at Second Reading and in Committee reflected our view of the purpose of the Bill. The proposal he makes in Amendment No. 1 and in other amendments in the group give better effect to that purpose.

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct in saying that we will agree to the amendments he has tabled. Their effect would be that there could not be an RRO which did not comply with the provision in Clause 1(1)(a) and it must therefore be deregulatory. I also agree with his remark that that of itself would not provide the protection he was seeking and that therefore the addition to Clause 3 has been tabled. It provides that,

"the extent to which the order removes or reduces one or more burdens, or has other beneficial effects … makes it desirable for the order [which contains new burdens] to be made".

That means that there must be a consideration of the burdens going and the burdens coming and a consideration of whether in those circumstances it is desirable to proceed with the order.

Dealing with the matter as proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, covers many of the concerns which were expressed in Committee and to which the Government have listened. We will therefore support Amendment No. 1 and the subsequent amendments.

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask a simple question following on from what he said. He will remember that at Second Reading and in Committee I commented on "new new burdens"; in other words, burdens flowing from Acts of Parliament which have no trigger clauses for them or any orders flowing from them. Does the acceptance of Amendment No. 1 remove that anxiety?

My Lords, I do not follow what the noble Lord says. He referred to "new new burdens" and I am lost at sea as regards his question. I apologise.

My Lords, I understand that the new burdens referred to are alternative; in other words, they are substitution burdens of a greater or lesser extent. That is what the Bill and these amendments provide. However, perhaps we may take an unlikely scenario: that of the fox hunting Bill which is currently going through another place. It is not beyond conceivability that that Bill will fail before a general election. Were it so to do, I understand that up to the time of the noble and learned Lord accepting the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, under Clause 1(1)(c) it would be possible to produce what I call "new new burdens"; in other words, the regulation of fox hunting. However, am I correct in believing that with the linkage produced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that would no longer be possible?

My Lords, perhaps I may say for the record that it would be inconceivable that fox hunting would remotely be considered under a regulatory reform order. Anyone would regard it as so controversial as to be wholly inappropriate for such a provision. All the committees would immediately indicate that.

The amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, have two effects. First, one cannot have an order which does not have some deregulatory effect. Secondly, before the Minister can promote such an order he must be satisfied that the benefits which come from imposing new burdens are balanced by the old burdens which are removed.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his constructive response. I commend the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 2:

Page 1, line 9, after ("any") insert ("charitable, educational or business").

My Lords, at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Norton, indicated that he would come back to try to restrict the word "activity" in Clause 1. The effect of the amendment which he tabled would cripple the Bill and I shall explain why. It would restrict the activities which could benefit from legislative reform to those persons engaged in charitable, educational or business activities and to only a narrow interpretation of those categories of persons. That is because the noble Lord's list of qualifying activities omits any qualifying phrase, such as "or otherwise", which is in the existing Act.

That phrase was construed as including charities, the voluntary sector and the individual, but not public bodies. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, and moved by his amanuensis the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, would restrict Ministers to even less than that. It would mean that an order could not reform burdensome legislation that affected the individual in his or her private capacity, or voluntary organisations or any public body in the wider public sector, such as NHS trusts. For example, in the vaccine damage case burdens are placed on those who apply for compensation. They are not engaged in charitable, educational or business activities, and yet a regulatory reform order could not help them because it would not fall within that activity.

The Bill seeks to move away from the acknowledged deficiencies of the deregulation process. Under the 1994 Act only the subject or person, however described, be it a trade, business, profession or otherwise, could benefit. That approach represents a mistaken view which we should not carry forward in this Bill. Governments no longer just regulate and prohibit but provide services and facilitate. The regulatory reform power would not be used to take burdens off government and the wider public sector merely to make life easier for them. This is not a Bill about administrative convenience. The tailpiece of Clause 2(1) will prevent them from getting rid of burdens which apply only to them, such as the general duty to maintain the NHS. For example, we should be able to deal with burdens on hospitals, doctors or policemen. For all those reasons, I urge the noble Lord not to go as far as to press the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth.

My Lords, I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I have no such intent. I am not the amanuensis of the noble Lord; I merely sought to keep the amendment alive for the Minister's excellent explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 3:

Page 1, line 9, leave out ("with a view to") and insert ("for the primary purpose of achieving").

My Lords, I am in the same position of difficulty as my noble friend Lady Buscombe, with perhaps slightly less excuse because I have been in your Lordships' House in the past 10 days and she has not. As I understand the group of amendments that have just been accepted, the amendment removes most of our anxieties about Clause 1(1)(c); namely, the making of new provisions. Although I chose a somewhat inapt example in fox-hunting, I had envisaged a future government creating a burden where no legislation affecting that particular issue exists on the statute book. That is what I have been most determined to avoid. I understand now that the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, removes that anxiety. I see that the noble and learned Lord is nodding this time, although I clearly confused him utterly last time. It could be that I also confused myself.

My Lords, I regret that I was not able to take part in the Committee stage debate on this issue, but I have read Hansard. I share the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to ensure that the powers in the Bill are put to the correct use; namely, to improve the quality and reduce the burden of regulation. Goodness knows, there is plenty of work for us all to do on this front, since the powers of the old Deregulation and Contracting Out Act have virtually withered away. I look forward with pleasure, therefore, to the Government taking action on the 51 examples that they have so far put forward. That should keep everyone hard at work for some time to come.

So, I believe that there would have been little risk of "wicked Ministers" using the powers to bring forward inappropriate and burdensome regulations. The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which the Government have just accepted, make that even more unlikely. Therefore, the noble Baroness should rest easy because the task force will be watching events with great interest and will deal with recalcitrant Ministers in the appropriate manner. In the circumstances I suggest that the noble Baroness should not press her amendments.

I should like to revert to our discussions in Committee, when the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, mentioned my views on enforcement. I was sorry not to be present to respond at the time. Perhaps I may take an early opportunity to do so now, as it may help the House when it returns to these issues later today.

The issue of enforcement has been a consistent theme in my three and a half years as chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force. In many cases, businesses and citizens understand, and even support, the objectives behind a regulation. The real problem arises as to the unpredictability of enforcement: businesses need to know where they stand.

In the foreword to our last annual report, I commented that the Government's objective should be to simplify the enforcement process for those on the receiving end. Those being regulated constantly complain that they do not understand their obligations; that they are not given enough time and help to comply; and that enforcers have too much of an inclination towards retribution.

I am a great believer in having as much flexibility and discretion as possible in the process of getting people to comply with the law, consistent, of course, with being effective. This approach has worked well in the Inland Revenue, which no longer treats every taxpayer as a potential tax evader. Inspectors now concentrate on helping the majority of citizens who want to do things properly, and focus their punitive efforts purely on the villains.

The Government have consulted widely on enforcement. All parties were in favour of a voluntary approach based on co-operation between enforcers and business. This resulted in the introduction of the code of best practice known as the enforcement concordat. The principles of the code are not dissimilar to the five principles of good regulation promoted by the task force. They include consistency, proportionality and openness, together with a clear complaints procedure and tough service standards.

The concordat requires enforcers to discuss the circumstances of the particular case with business and, if possible, resolve differences informally, before formal action is taken. Enforcers are also required to distinguish clearly between what is simply good advice and what is a legal requirement with which businesses must comply.

In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, noted that 84 per cent of local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and 80 per cent of central government agencies had already signed up to the concordat. He hoped that all of them would have signed up by this July.

The task force is in favour of this voluntary approach to good regulation—it seems to me to be the best means of achieving fair, effective and flexible enforcement. Indeed, our "enforcement" report published in April 1999 described the concordat as the cornerstone of good enforcement policies and procedures.

However, we also recognise that voluntary agreements need legislative support where things go wrong. That is where the enforcement provisions in the Bill should help. They are intended to assure business that the Government can bring pressure to bear on enforcers who fail to apply best practice as agreed in the concordat.

The power for Ministers to set out a code of good enforcement practice should give business, the voluntary sector and consumers the confidence that the Government will be able to take action where enforcers fail to comply with best practice. It will give the concordat more credibility; businesses will know that enforcers will not be allowed to simply ignore it.

I know that the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, has tabled amendments which will be discussed later. As I understand it, the noble Lord played a part in the inclusion of a section in the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 giving businesses a statutory right to challenge the intended actions of enforcers in the courts. However, that section has, so far as I know, been used only once. The Government have been told by business, the voluntary sector and consumer groups that those groups are content with the concordat approach. I support the Government on the issue, as the provisions of the section mean that enforcers will be called to account if they fail to comply with best practice.

I hope, therefore, that when the House turns its mind to these issues again, as I know the noble Lord, Lord Vinson, intends that it should, it will do so with a clearer understanding of where I stand on these matters.

My Lords, I have every sympathy with the predicament of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has explained the position, but perhaps I may explain it as I understand it.

In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and others raised a concern that, as drafted, Clause 1(1)(c) allowed a Minister to promote an RRO which only imposed burdens and did nothing else. The effect of the first substantive amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is that one cannot get an order off the starting block under the procedure proposed by the Bill if it adds burdens, unless it also removes or reduces burdens. So, any order that has the object of increasing burdens must also remove burdens. The provision does not go as wide as was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. It would not be enough simply to re-enact burdens, and it would not be enough to remove inconsistencies. An order must, if it adds any burdens, also remove burdens.

However, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, went further, and we agree with him. The noble Lord argued that it is not enough to say, "Well, if you can find some teeny-weeny burden to remove, that opens the door". He is saying that that is not enough. The Minister must also be satisfied that the reduction in burdens made by the new order justifies or makes desirable the making of the order. The noble Lord has, in effect, removed the free-standing nature of Clause 1(1)(c), which deals with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, but he has gone further and said, "Looking at the reduction or removal of burdens, there has to be a desirability, in the opinion of the Minister, before the order is made".

We took the view that that was a legitimate point. We took the view that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, deals with that point. It deals with a similar issue to that dealt with by the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, in Amendments Nos. 6 and 9. It deals with it in a different way, but we think that the protections proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, are adequate. I invite the noble Baroness not to move her amendments when the time comes.

Perhaps I may deal briefly with Amendment No. 3. In Committee, the noble Baroness proposed the insertion of the words,

"for the sole purpose of".

At that time I explained that the words in the Bill as it stood were more than robust enough to deal with what she sought. The noble Baroness has now changed her approach. Instead of saying,

"for the sole purpose of",

she seeks to insert the words,

"for the primary purpose of achieving".

With respect to the noble Baroness, that is worse. It is not an improvement at all. It would no doubt be said by lawyers, if I may use the phrase, "Well, if it has a primary purpose, it can also have a secondary purpose". That would be precisely what both the noble Baroness and the Government seek to avoid. It would provide a broader power than the wording we currently have, when an order must be made with a view to the objects listed in Clause 3. As I said in Committee, any order under the Bill must be made to achieve one of the objects in Clause 1. There can be no doubt about that. I respectfully suggest that the noble Baroness's amendment makes the position worse. In those circumstances, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw Amendment No. 3 and not move the other amendments standing in her name in this group.

I shall not respond to the detail of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, because it relates to a much later amendment. However, I understand why the noble Lord made his remarks at this stage—because they are more about enforcement. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, to bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, said about the Better Regulation Task Force keeping an eye on matters. That is a good thing.

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his response to the amendments. I am sorry in some ways that Amendment No. 9 was not accepted in lieu of the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We have one small concern. Are we not trying to compare apples with pears in relation to comparing a new benefit with the removal of an old burden?

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, for what he has been able to say to us so far. However, I hope that, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Vinson, it is not his intention that I should attempt to relay his comments to my noble friend. That would be impossible. I hope that the noble Lord is able later today to repeat some of what he said. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 4:

Page 1, line 13, leave out ("the burden") and insert ("it is necessary to retain the burden and the burden to be retained").

My Lords, these amendments propose a twofold test in relation to retaining burdens and imposing new burdens. First, it is said that the retention or imposition of the new burden should be necessary and, secondly, that it should be proportionate. The Government hold to the position they adopted in Committee; namely, that if the word "proportionate" imports into it the concept of necessity, then if the burden is unnecessary, it cannot be proportionate either to impose it or to retain it. That remains the Government's position. With respect to the noble Baroness, I do not think that anything stands between us here.

In support of her argument for a twofold test, the noble Baroness relied on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. She referred to a provision which states, in effect, that where X thinks that it is necessary to impose an interception order on the grounds set out in Section 3, then such an order can be made where it is proportionate to do so. That is a totally different situation because in that example the RIP Act lays down that such an action will be necessary where—I do not recall exactly what is written in Section 3, but I imagine that it is termed along the lines of, "where it is necessary to fight crime or to discover information in the national interest"—it identifies precisely what is the context of necessity. It is a workable definition and a context is provided.

What context does the noble Baroness have in mind when she refers to necessity in her additional test in Clause 1(1)(b) and (c)? Is it necessary because of an overriding legal imperative? Is it necessary to maintain the integrity of the state or is it, as I think she may mean, that a burden is imposed only where the balance—having regard to the benefits that may accrue from it—is in favour of imposing it rather than getting rid of it? If that is the correct interpretation of her approach, then that is precisely the effect of the word "proportionate". The introduction of the word "necessity" would lead to confusion because there is no context. Furthermore, it would not give that which she seeks.

I covered these points in our discussions at the previous stage. Perhaps the noble Baroness could cite a practical example—not from a different statute in which plainly there is a statutory context, because the action is "necessary" under the terms of Section 3—of where a regulation or a burden is either being imposed or retained which is not necessary but is proportionate.

As I said earlier, I do not think that there is anything between us in what we seek to achieve here. We are discussing simply the method of achieving it. In the light of what I said, I earnestly suggest that the noble Baroness should reconsider her amendment.

My Lords, I have listened to what the Minister has had to say as regards my amendment. I have to respond by saying that I entirely disagree with him. On that basis, I should like to test the opinion of the House.

moved Amendment No. 5:

Page 1, line 14, leave out ("retention") and insert ("reenactment").

My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and also to prove that I am now in my place. Unfortunately, I was the victim of signalling problems earlier today. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, for moving, in my absence, an earlier amendment standing in my name. I now know how a Member of the other place feels sitting with a speech that cannot be delivered. My only consolation is that I can claim that it would have been excellent.

As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, mentioned, this amendment was tabled in Committee. At that time I understood the point made by the Minister in response to the noble Lord. I suggested that, to ensure that the paragraph was internally consistent, the problem might be resolved by the use of the word "re-enactment". I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has a valid point. I am therefore pleased to support his amendment.

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, need speak to prove that he is in his place.

With regard to whether we should replace the current word "re-enactment" with the word "retention", as I explained in Committee, I believe that, apart from being unnecessary, it would be positively damaging. As we have said on numerous occasions, any proposal aimed at reforming a substantive legislative regime would almost certainly not need to amend many parts of the Act of Parliament affected. Even if it did, it would do so only consequentially—for example, by way of renumbering—but those unamended parts would still form part of the new regulatory regime. We have many times heard the example of the 120 pieces of legislation that presently form the fire regime, many of which, if brought together in one place, would involve reenactments of the existing legislation but would not be changed in any way.

As the noble Lord's amendment is worded, the burdens are "retained". He suggests that the use of the word "retained" would make it clear to the public. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, underlines the point by suggesting that the word "retained" be used by reference to "burdens" in another part of the same provision. We want to go one stage further than retaining them, do we not? We want to allow an order to incorporate those unamended parts, which would result in one piece of legislation that would be much easier to understand and apply.

My Lords, I am suggesting that the word "retention" should be replaced by the word "re-enactment". It is the other way round.

My Lords, my draft says, "Remove 're-enactment' and insert 'retention'."

It is the other way round.

My Lords, if I may say so, the argument that the Minister advances is entirely logical!

My Lords, I apologise for that. The note that I have is based on the precisely opposite contention. It is obvious that I have considered the matter on a false basis. I shall consider it and return to it at Third Reading.

My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 6, I should inform the House that if the amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 7 and 8.

moved Amendment No. 6:

Page 1, line 15, leave out paragraph (c).

My Lords, as has occurred already in the course of the Report stage, there now cannot be an order which imposes a burden in accordance with Clause 1(1)(c) unless it also reduces or removes burdens under Clause 1(1)(a). In addition, before the Minister can propose any order which imposes burdens, he must be satisfied that the order is desirable as a result of the burdens it removes.

The purpose of including Clause (1)(c), as has been made clear at all stages, was to permit the streamlining and improvement of regulatory regimes, very often by reducing many burdens but, in addition, perhaps replacing five burdens with one. If the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was to be followed, that would not be possible. The decision for the House in relation to the noble Lord's amendment is whether one wants to remove that ability. Does one want a Bill which allows regulatory reform orders where indeed burdens can be imposed, but only in the context of an order that removed other burdens and allowed the streamlining of regulatory regimes? I would respectfully suggest—particularly having regard to the safeguards which have now been introduced as a result of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—that the far better course is that one should allow such regulatory reform orders.

I could not disagree more with the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, put his case. He said that there were no safeguards. There is a requirement that the Minister has to be satisfied that the order does not remove any necessary protection or prevent the exercise of rights that an individual may expect to retain; there is a requirement for consultation; there is a requirement that a committee of each House should satisfy itself that the order has been proved, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said; and there is a requirement for both Houses of Parliament to pass the order.

This is a parliamentary procedure and it is for Parliament to ensure that appropriate orders are allowed and inappropriate orders are not allowed. I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

My Lords, as always, I listened with respect to what the noble and learned Lord said. I heard his suggestion that what he proposes is a better course. I profoundly disagree for the reasons I have given. I am also very concerned that the provisions in Clause 1(1)(c) are not being treated as a matter of strict construction. That is our duty and advisory function when considering any Bill and the use to which the provisions could be put by any government. We have heard protestations from the Government Front Bench as to the use to which they intend to put paragraph (c) and not on matters of policy, whatever that may mean. Reference has been made to good governments, wicked governments and control freak governments. That is simply not to the point having regard to the plain provisions of the Bill which is about to become a statute.

This is not the time to carry on further argument. Obviously, the noble and learned Lord and I look at this matter from a totally different point of view. It is also obvious that the representation of our respective cases cannot marry exactly, but there is no reason why we should not regard each other's views objectively. I would certainly like further time to study the observations made by the noble and learned Lord. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 7:

Page 1, line 16, at end insert—

("() is necessary to compensate for the removal of an existing burden").

My Lords, I do not know when the noble Lord joined us but the effect of the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, were that one could not have Clause 1(1)(c) unless the order is covered in Clause 1(1)(a). In addition, it has to be the opinion of the Minister that the removal of the burdens justifies the making of the order. That does not mean that the Minister has to be satisfied that the burdens imposed, when weighed against those removed, are not a balance. The balance is identifying what burdens are being removed from the citizen and whether that makes the order desirable. If, in the opinion of the Minister, that is so, then and only then is he entitled to promote the order. There is not the direct link that the noble Lord proposes in his amendment, but there has to be a consideration and a conclusion by the Minister that the overall reduction in burdens justifies the making of the order.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for that response. In principle, I would like to believe that he would prefer to go further and that there is a link. I understand what is being said. I am very pleased with what the Government have accepted in principle. I would like there to be a link where a new burden is added, which compensates for a burden which is reduced. In principle that is desirable. In the light of what has already been accepted, I do not wish to push the matter further. There has been an advance, but I do not believe that it goes far enough. I welcome what has been achieved so far. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 10:

Page 1, line 20, at end insert

("(1A) An order may not be made under subsection (1) above—

(a) until a Select Committee of either House, or both Houses, upon scrutiny of the draft order as laid has reported that such order if made would be in conformity with the provision of such subsection and would not impose any offence, obligation, liability or administrative control not in force on the date on which this Act takes effect which involves the burden of any sanction, or increase the burden of any sanction, in force on the date on which this Act takes effect, and

(b) unless both Houses of Parliament shall have debated and approved the making of such order as laid in draft, or (if so advised) as amended.").

My Lords, before we leave Clause 1, especially paragraph (d) relating to,

"the removal of inconsistencies and anomalies",

I have one brief point to make which reflects my noble friend's desire to see enhanced safeguards within the Bill. During our detailed considerations in Committee, we did not spend very much time on this little "get-out" paragraph at the end of the clause.

When the Minister addresses the points raised by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway about additional parliamentary safeguards being inserted into the Bill, I wonder whether he could define a little further exactly what is meant by the removal of "inconsistencies" and, in particular, the removal of "anomalies". During the course of our deliberations on the disqualification Bill, I recall the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, referring to that legislation as an "anomaly" and saying that it was a simple tidying-up measure. I should like to know whether that sort of legislation could be put through Parliament by order under this Bill.

My Lords, I do not believe that I can assist the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen. If he wishes to have a discussion on inconsistencies and anomalies, he can table an amendment. I am sure that the House would not appreciate it if I strayed from the amendment on the Marshalled List. After all, that is what we are supposed to be considering.

I must say that I am surprised to see Amendment No. 10 here. I thought that we spent a good deal of time in Committee discussing the fact that the procedures of the House are matters for this House, not for government by way of legislation. I am still very firmly of that view. How the House organises its affairs is a matter for the House; it is not a matter for legislation. Therefore, many—though not all—of the matters referred to in either paragraph (a) or (b) of the amendment are matters for the House to consider by way of its own procedures; for example, whether or not to have debates, under what circumstances, and at what stage. It would be presumptuous of the Government to seek to impose such restrictions on the House.

I have a further problem with the amendment in that it would return the restrictions to the Bill that were contained in the comparable amendment tabled in Committee and which, presumably, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, withdrew on the basis that he had an improved version for this stage. It has become a mantra for this Bill, but it is worth repeating: the power contained in the Bill is a wide one, but one that is surrounded by robust safeguards. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred to that when addressing Amendment No. 3. Although I know that she does not agree that we have achieved those safeguards, she recognises that that is the structure of the Bill.

The Bill provides that a Minister will have to show that any new burden imposed by an order is proportionate and that, in his or her opinion, it also strikes a fair balance between the rights of the persons involved and the interests of society at large. That applies to Clause 1(1) and Clause 3. We should not forget that the consultation process would have to be thorough in exposing those issues and seeking views, including the views of those likely to be adversely affected. The Minister will have to document his reasoning and submit the proposal for rigorous scrutiny by the two committees. The House is then free to vote on the matter when it comes before it for affirmation. As I said in Committee, any Peer can table a companion Motion to amend the Motion to approve the committee's report. As a result, the draft order would be taken up and re-laid, with amendments. That is how I approach this part of Amendment No. 10.

The amendment seeks to limit the order-making power by ruling out the introduction of,

"any offence, obligation, liability or administrative control not in force",

on the day that the Bill is enacted, if it,

"involves the burden of any sanction".

Let us consider the implications. I am sure noble Lords will agree that it would be a very good move if an order were to simplify a highly complex, regulatory regime by replacing a whole gamut of licences with one simple, transparent licence for all. And that the reform should take into account appropriate changes in circumstances since the parent Act was enacted. It is possible that this hypothetical new licensing regime with the simple, transparent licence would only be workable in the sense of the protections that it offered to consumers if there were some sort of penalty for non-compliance. That is not just a possibility; it seems to me to be almost inevitable. However, it would be impossible under the terms of the amendment now before us.

The proposed restriction would make it impossible to carry out some of the most worthwhile reforms. The classic example is reform of fire safety regulations—one of the key examples of what would be possible under this Bill—which could be ruled out if the amendment were carried. Another example is the worthwhile and sensible reform of weights and measures legislation. There has to be some power and there have to be some penalties, but they do not have to be set out in the complex, often out-of-date and burdensome way that applies at present.

The amendment would also reintroduce a problem that we had with the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It proposes an arbitrary, date-driven cut-off date that would quickly render the Act useless as a tool for worthwhile reform. Therefore, for those three reasons—the interference with the privileges and processes of the House, the removal of the possibility of having penalties for the new orders that would he required to remove greater burdens, and the arbitrary cut-off date—I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down perhaps he can answer one simple question. Does the noble Lord consider that the present structure of the Select Committees in this House is adequate for the consideration of super reform orders, such as those under the fire safety and the weights and measures legislation? Alternatively, does he believe, as I do, that some changes will need to be made?

My Lords, it would be presumptuous for me to express a view on the matter from this Dispatch Box. However, as a Member of the House, I can, like the noble Lord, express a view. If the noble Lord is suggesting that there will be an increase in work for the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, then, objectively, the answer must be yes. That was anticipated when the 1994 Act was before the House. When it came to the point where an increase arose in the workload of the committee, it was dealt with accordingly. If there were to be a greater increase in the workload of that committee—I express this view as an ordinary Member of the House, not as a member of the Government—it would be up to the committee to say to the Government, "Well, you'll have to have a queuing system. You'll have to introduce these measures at a rate that will enable us properly to consider them". Similarly, the committee might say that it needs greater resources in order to consider such measures. All those scenarios are possible, but they are not for the Government to prescribe.

Yes, my Lords, this amendment would impose restrictions; indeed, that is the object behind it. The whole object of this proposal is to preserve the traditional constitutional position. If you want to amend all the fire regulations or those relating to weights and measures, you would do so in the manner in which it has always been done—namely, by primary legislation. That is the traditional way in which matters have been dealt with, and that is how matters should continue to be dealt with. My amendment would ensure that the traditional system is observed.

As to the other question about the House having sovereignty over its own procedures, I think the noble Lord would agree that on more than one occasion I have asserted that such should be the case. However, this does not in any sense derogate from that concept. In the circumstances, I should like to consider the matter further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 12:

Page 1, line 24, after ("made") insert ("and which contains provision that it shall be deemed as "legislation" within the meaning of this subsection").

My Lords, I confess to being in a difficulty which has occurred to me on a number of occasions in the last few years. I do not know whether to speak to the amendment or to the speech, because they are so different. I think that I shall have to do both—

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I was going to suggest that he did both, so that he would cover all eventualities.

My Lords, let me explain what the amendment would do and then I will turn to the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. The amendment would limit the scope of reform to legislation which specifies that it is eligible. That would rule out all legislation passed before this Bill receives Royal Assent because no legislation that has been passed says that this legislation is eligible under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001—

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way so swiftly once again; but I recall either the noble Lord or his noble and learned friend saying this afternoon that the task of the 1994 Act was now exhausted, so that it should not matter whether or not the Bill applied to that class of legislation.

My Lords, of course it matters. I will have to turn to the speech rather than to the amendment now, because the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, admitted that the 1994 Act was restricted in the sense that it only covered legislation up to and including the 1993–94 legislative Session and did not include legislation afterwards. Therefore we are all agreed that it has ground to a halt, albeit an honourable halt, because very little of the legislative burden is going to consist almost entirely of legislation not subsequent to the 1993–94 legislative Session. This amendment does quite the opposite. It states that nothing before the passage of this Bill, and, indeed, given the two-year rolling period, nothing for two years after the passage of the Bill, will be considered for inclusion in the powers of the Bill. The legislation would have to state that a matter is eligible for consideration under the Regulatory Reform Bill—no legislation states that—and that when the Bill is passed it cannot be considered for two more years. Therefore, no provision can be included for two years after the passage of this Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, said that he had considered putting the 51 examples on the face of the Bill. This amendment would rule out all of the 51 examples. We have a problem with the amendment. I have great difficulty in addressing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, because it is based on a misunderstanding of what his amendment means and does.

I appreciate his concern about the two-year period. We debated that matter in Committee. He expressed the view at that time that the provision would encourage sloppy drafting because the draftsmen and the Government would say, "It does not matter if we get it slightly wrong because we can put it right in two years' time using a regulatory reform order". Our response to that was—and I stick by that response—that we would be astonished if that were to be the case. It would be a poor way to proceed given the difficulties of getting a regulatory reform order through. The obstacles to be overcome and the safeguards in the Bill would result in primary legislation being preferred in any circumstances that were at all dubious.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is no longer present, considers that primary legislation ought to be used all the time. He really does not believe in regulatory reform at all and he made that entirely clear in his previous speech. However, we consider that the cut-off point which we propose here; namely, that one cannot alter a measure until two years after at has been passed, is entirely reasonable. When we consulted on the matter in 1999, there was general agreement that it was reasonable. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee supported the view. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, as a member of the committee, expressed that view in Committee. The rolling cut-off which the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, addressed in his speech is an important part of the provisions of the Bill ensuring continuity and consistency between it and the 1994 Act. Therefore, even if the amendment did not mean what it does mean, we would oppose the arguments that the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, advanced.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I must say I do not see the problem that he sees in this amendment. The 1994 Act will remain on the statute book until this Bill becomes law, if it does become law. The 1994 Act will apply to everything up until that Act is repealed. Thereafter, this Act will take over.

My Lords, the 1994 Act applies only to legislation up to and including the 1993–94 legislative Session. Nothing between 1994 and 2001 would therefore be covered. We are dealing with a whole series of statutes over a period of time. If we cut out permanently seven years of legislation, we would cut the heart out of this legislation.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I shall, in the light of that, look at the amendment again. But I think the clear thrust of the amendment to the operation of the Bill in future is manifest. If the Minister will address himself to that matter when I reintroduce the measure again at Third Reading, I shall respond more fully. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

moved Amendment No. 13:

Page 2, line 4, at end insert—

("(2A) An order under this section must include provision made by virtue of subsection (1)(a).").

moved Amendment No. 14:

Page 2, line 25, leave out ("the Minister thinks") and insert ("is").

My Lords, under the Bill as it stands, should a Minister do something which no reasonable Minister would do—if he acts perversely—judicial review is possible. The courts may intervene at someone's instance. That, to my mind, is appropriate. But, under the various amendments in the group we are discussing, anyone could go to court to say that a Minister's decision on a whole range of matters was simply wrong on its merits. That seems to me to undermine completely the whole approach of the Bill which is, of course, concerned to give, through the super-affirmative resolution process and through the scrutiny committees and so on, a superior form of parliamentary scrutiny, if I may put it that way.

If, for example, Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 were passed, instead of a Minister accountable to Parliament deciding what in his opinion is a fair balance between the public interest on the one hand and the interests of a person on whom a burden is being imposed on the other, someone could properly go to court to determine that on its merits.

More remarkably still, if Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 were passed, instead of a Minister accountable to Parliament deciding whom he should consider or who might be a representative body to be consulted among affected interests, a court would be entitled to do so. This group of amendments would undermine the superior form of parliamentary accountability which is embodied in the Bill and would raise a wholly extended form of judicial review far beyond anything we understand by that phrase.

My evening yesterday was enlightened by reading an article by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, in the journal Counsel of February 2001. As the article is not only written by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, but also describes him as the Shadow Lord Chancellor, I take it that it represents something near an official point of view.

My Lords, I may have been described as the Shadow Lord Chancellor but it was not an article written in any official context. My own views on the matters form the substance of the article.

My Lords, I am happy to be enlightened on that point. However, perhaps I may quote a passage from the article. The noble Lord will realise that my eyebrows rose a little when he talked a few moments ago about the Regulatory Reform Bill shilling powers from Parliament to the executive. In the article the noble Lord refers to the Human Rights Act and states:

"The Human Rights Act engineers a massive shift of power from parliament to the courts where the judges will be confronted, as the Lord Chancellor has accepted, with legal choices which offer immense scope for political moral and philosophical disagreement ".

The noble Lord raises the question, very reasonably, about the difficulty of establishing the necessary legitimacy of judges to deal with the important matters in that Act. I readily agree that the Regulatory Reform Act is an entirely different matter. However, does the noble Lord think that some of those phrases are appropriate for the Regulatory Reform Bill? It deals with a balance between burdens and benefits, and such issues as who is a suitable body to be consulted on specific orders. Does he not think that it would be a massive and unjustified shift of power from Parliament to the judges if one rules out the phrase "in his opinion" wherever it appears in the Bill and, according to the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, it was possible to get a judicial decision on the merits of any of those matters which are more appropriate to Ministers and Parliament?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, should welcome the view of my noble friend. Members of the governing party complain frequently about our inconsistency. My noble friend has been totally consistent in his views today and in the article.

My Lords, I think that it will be appropriate for me to speak at this point because Amendments Nos. 20 and 23 are identical to amendments which I moved in Committee, and which I put forward for Report stage although I withdrew them subsequently.

The argument on which I relied to a considerable extent in Committee was a somewhat double-edged sword. I said that it would be wrong to make the test subjective when that did not represent what happened on the ground. The position is that the Minister states his opinion. In your Lordships' House that comes before the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. That committee does not consider whether the Minister's opinion is rational but whether the proposed order meets the test and conditions in what will be Clause 3(2). In practice, although not on the face of the Bill, the test is objective rather than subjective although the body that tests it in this House is the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee rather than the court.

That position is something of a two-edged sword. One could say that in those circumstances it does not matter enormously whether on the face of the Bill the test is objective or subjective. Whichever it is, the committee will consider it. If the committee comes to the conclusion that the Minister's view is incorrect even if not irrational, in practice it is unlikely that that order would be allowed to go forward to the House. If it went forward, it would be unlikely to succeed.

In those circumstances, therefore, I do not regard this group of amendments as being of major significance. In view of the fact that the Government have made what I believe to be substantial and important concessions over the amendments contained in the first group I would not be minded to press this group of amendments.

My Lords, because the Government have made some move towards strengthening the level of detail in the Bill does not mean that we should not improve it further.

When replying to a previous amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Kingsland, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, was in two minds as to whether he should speak to the amendment or the speech of my noble friend. When addressing this group, Members of your Lordships' House are in the same position: whether to address what is contained in the Bill or the assurances given by Ministers as to how the Bill will operate.

In their speeches, Ministers have gone to great lengths to reassure the House that there are only targeted and specific circumstances in which the measure could be used. However, the Bill states nothing of the kind. The instances where it can be used are extremely wide. That is why I strongly support my noble friend. We need to take out more of the subjective nature of the Bill.

The whole Bill is about what "the Minister thinks"—whether the Minister thinks some piece of legislation should be amended which is not at the top of the Government's priority list. We have heard time and again about fire safety legislation. If safety is a priority of the Government, perhaps they should consider bringing forward in primary legislation a new fire safety Bill which draws all the measures together. I wonder how many ministerial speeches would have to be rewritten to delete fire safety legislative arguments.

The words "the Minister thinks" appear throughout the Bill. There are instances where such a phrase is appropriate in legislation. However, in a Bill which is so open to abuse, to have such latitude for a Minister is not appropriate. I support my noble friend's amendment.

My Lords, fire safety is one of 51 examples. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, would like us to bring forward 51 Bills to deal with each of those issues. That is an interesting proposition.

My Lords, I cannot let the noble Lord get away with that. He has used the same example at every stage of the Bill and done so at great length. That is why I drew attention to it. My noble friend Lord Kingsland said earlier that perhaps we should write those 51 examples into the Bill. Let the Government get that through and then bring forward another Bill if they want. Then there might be something to consider.

My Lords, I do not mind being accused of using the fire safety example, but I very much mind being accused of doing it at great length. If the noble Viscount measures the column inches on fire safety, he will find that they do not amount to much.

We dealt with the issue thoroughly in Committee. We have not changed our opinion since then. The procedure in the Bill, which the amendments would alter, is the same as in the 1994 Act. It has been there all the time and has not caused any difficulty. The Conservative Party introduced that legislation, which included the provisions for the Minister's opinion.

My Lords, I know that my party did that. The noble Lord will recall that I was sitting in the position that he is sitting in now. That is still reasonably fresh in my memory. The Bill is much wider and goes much further than the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. It therefore needs much more powerful provisions to limit its effects.

My Lords, as is well known, I dispute that claim. Bearing in mind the amendments that we have accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, today, the relationship between the scope of the Bill and the safeguards included in it is highly defensible. We have nothing to apologise for and no need to make different provision from that in the 1994 Act. We still have the principle of thorough consultation and intense scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. As my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said in Committee:

"We do not think that the right course is to allow the courts, after Parliament has scrutinised the legislation with the relevant amount of information and in the necessary degree of detail, to try to unhinge the process".—[Official Report, 23/1/01; col. 208.]

Of course, that is subject to the legitimate point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, about judicial review. If the Minister acts unreasonably, judicial review is possible under well established principles. However, the amendments would give the courts much greater scope to intervene or to be approached to intervene.

I shall deal with the amendments in turn. Although they all have the same thrust, it is necessary to consider them individually. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, tabled comparable amendments in Committee to Amendments Nos. 20 and 23. He made the correct observation about them. They relate to the safeguards in Clause 3 of necessary protection, rights and freedoms and fair balance. That is carried over from the 1994 Act. The provision has worked well and the committees have been vigilant to police it. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out today that the Minister reaching an opinion is the starting point. That happens before any consultation takes place and before the matter comes before any committee. There are provisions to make sure that if the consultation is unfavourable, the adverse results of consultation are brought before the committees of both Houses. The committees then have the duty of considering whether the Minister's opinion is reasonable and deciding whether the proposal before them removes any necessary protection, as in Clause 3.

Removing the Minister's opinion from the Bill would leave the power to decide to the courts, not to Parliament. I do not want to get involved, as a mere market researcher, in a disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, although it sounded to me as if it was abusing plaintiff's attorney, for which I was grateful. Surely the protection for the public is that the Minister has to make a judgment before going to consultation and before the matter comes before Parliament, and that the Minister is accountable to Parliament.

Amendment No. 14 deals with such incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental provision as the Minister thinks appropriate. The question of what is incidental, consequential, transitional or supplemental is objective. There are examples in legislation that show what that means. If the Minister does not determine what provision to include, that leaves open the question of who is to decide on the appropriateness, which is, by definition, a matter of judgment.

Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 relate to whom a Minister consults about a proposal. It is not possible for a Minister to know whether a particular body is representative of a certain group of people. He can only form an opinion. The starting point has to be someone's opinion. On Amendment No. 32, the Minister thinking that it is appropriate to vary the proposals is a factual precondition. If the Minister thinks that it is appropriate to vary the conditions, he must undertake such further consultation as appears necessary. It would be nonsensical to remove the reference to what the Minister thinks. Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 are purely consequential.

We have not learned any more from this debate than we learned from the same debate in Committee. The Government's position is the same: the public interest is best protected by the Minister exercising his duty to form an opinion and that being tested by consultation and by the parliamentary process. The amendments would remove that.

My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, very much for giving my article in Counsel some publicity. I doubt that it would have received it otherwise. That article is about the relationship between the courts and Parliament in its primary legislative mode in the particular context of the Human Rights Act 1998. We are considering, here, a delegated legislative procedure in which most of the safeguards depend on particular conduct in your Lordships' House, not on procedures set out in detail in the statute. With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, the parallel is not fair, although I have no objection to his attempting to draw it.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the Government's position clearly on each amendment. The Opposition disagree with it and we would like to test the opinion of the House.