---

Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill

The Minister probably made a Freudian slip when he said that he ““insisted”” that the amendments should not be pressed. He said that he did not understand my amendment. That is all right, because I did not understand his answer. What my amendment was getting at was a means to an end and the Minister seems to think that I was challenging the end. I was not. No one is disputing the principles embodied in this part of the Bill. What I was addressing was whether those are best achieved through a statutory or voluntary code. A voluntary code can potentially ensure their achievement. That was what I was really getting at. I expected that the Minister would give a fairly full response and would have understood what I was getting at—and, therefore, that I would feel that there would be no need to pursue this matter. But, in light of what he said, I shall need to reflect on it. What I have done in terms of the amendments did not get at the point. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 112B not moved.] Clause 23 agreed to. [Amendment No. 113 not moved.] Clause 24 [Code of practice]: [Amendment No. 113A not moved.] Clause 24 agreed to. Clauses 25 to 28 agreed to. [Amendment No. 113B not moved.] Clauses 29 to 31 agreed to.