---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 7: Page 1, line 8, at end insert- ““( ) No order shall be made under this section which would impose upon any person a burden to which he was not previously subject.”” The noble Lord said: I introduce the amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lady Wilcox and, in the sporting spirit in which the previous debate took place, it is at this stage a probing amendment. The amendment seeks to add a phrase to Clause 1(2). That states: "““That purpose is removing or reducing any burden, or the overall burdens, resulting directly or indirectly for any person from any legislation””." Our amendment seeks to add the following expression: "““No order shall be made under this section which would impose upon any person a burden to which he was not previously subject””." I would add only that Clause 1(2) should be read in the context of Clause 4(2)(c), which is one of the four conditions the Minister is obliged to meet before he makes an order under Clause 1(1). Paragraph (c) reads that, "““the provision, taken as a whole, strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it””." The obligation on the Minister is twofold. He can either reduce a burden, pure and simple, or a net burden; that is, he can produce a kaleidoscope of additions or subtractions of burdens provided, in his opinion, the net result is a reduction in regulation. That is clear from Clause 4(2)(c). The consideration is whether, taken as a whole, the proposed order strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interest of any person adversely affected by it. So in effect, under the Bill, some people can have the burden on them increased. That is acceptable so long as the net burden falls. It is perfectly legitimate for Members of the Committee to ask, ““Who are these people who will have additional burdens imposed on them as a result of a decision under Clause 1(1)?””, and, ““In what circumstances will those additional burdens be imposed?””. My amendment suggests that, whatever the merits of adding to the burdens someone already bears, it should be impossible under the Bill to place a burden on someone who has never had a burden placed on them before. I should be most grateful if the Minister would clarify what seems to be a substantial phase of uncertainty in legislative drafting. I beg to move.