---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

moved Amendment No. 9: Page 1, line 11, leave out paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I understand that Amendment No. 9 has been grouped with Amendment No. 10 in the name of my noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil. Paragraph (b) cites as a potential burden an administrative inconvenience arising out of legislation. As I commented at Second Reading, I cannot think of any legislation that is not administratively inconvenient. On that basis, there is no legislation about which the Minister could not make an order unless it is specifically excluded in the Bill. In effect, the Minister will be given virtual carte blanche to bypass Parliament for whatever takes his fancy. That is too wide a power. We are likely to return to this argument in debates on the Bill. Later amendments on the constitutional safeguards that need to be built into the Bill may allay concerns over the breadth of the clause, although frankly I doubt whether it is possible to draft a Bill that is both effective and has adequate safeguards. You cannot escape from the fact that what enables a Minister to bypass Parliament to deal with bad legislation also permits him to bypass Parliament for good legislation. As safeguards are quite rightly introduced, so the ability to take decisive action is reduced or whittled away entirely. While we discuss Clause 1, perhaps the Minister can give some examples of an administrative inconvenience. Perhaps, in deference to my noble friend, he could exclude fire regulations when he does so. I could think of any number of administrative inconveniences that it would be thoroughly inappropriate to remove. Would not an administrative inconvenience fall under paragraph (c) as ““an obstacle to efficiency””? An administrative inconvenience can amount to anything whatever, in effect giving the Minister a blank cheque when he decides whether to use his order-making powers. I beg to move.