---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

My Lords, I would be interested to see how the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, proposes to do that. No doubt, in Committee, he will demonstrate his talent for drafting amendments that simplify things. I am glad that the noble Lord wishes to engage in the process and that he wants to be constructive about it. Clause 1 provides a new definition of burdens that can be removed or reduced by order. That formed the core of the 2001 Act, but Clause 1 seeks to provide an outcome that focuses on the specific power. The 2001 Act described how legislation could be reformed by removing legislative restrictions. The order-making power in Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill focus on why legislation should be reformed. In a sense, part of the challenge for the Government is to ensure that we carry that legislation through and that we change the culture so that departments will not have to carry out the onerous legal analysis to the same extent when preparing orders. Instead, they will be able to analyse what administrative burdens or costs—an issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury—need to be removed or reduced and how we can remove or reduce obstacles to improve productivity, efficiency and profitability, something which most noble Lords who have spoken in the debate appreciated and were concerned about. We need to make better and faster progress on regulation. That is why my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his 2005 Budget made particular reference to and accepted the recommendations made in Philip Hampton’s report. It is part of the reason why we feel that we need to do more to change the culture across Whitehall. It is that mix of legislation—raising the standard, making the issues plain and changing approaches and attitudes—which will bring forward not just good legislation but also a renewed engagement with the entire issue. I have been speaking for 22 minutes, minus the time for those helpful interventions. Many questions were asked during the debate. I have a book-load of answers, which I am more than happy to provide in a consolidated format for purposes of simplification. But my time could be more profitably used in providing written answers to specific questions. I am conscious that I have not covered all the ground that noble Lords would wish, which is why I make that commitment. This has been a helpful discussion. I believe that we can have a constructive dialogue in Committee. We can meet many of the fundamental concerns raised by noble Lords on the constitutional issue, which I do not see as being so significant now that the Bill is before your Lordships’ House in its amended form. I look forward to that constructive debate. I hope that all noble Lords who participated in this long Second Reading debate will see the virtue and value of what we bring forward. I commend the Bill to your Lordships’ House. On Question, Bill read a second time.