---

Legislative Reform (Verification of Weighing and Measuring Equipment) Order 2008

I thank the Minister for introducing the order and explaining it so clearly. Any removal of an unnecessary inconsistency in legislation is welcome. I was a little surprised that this LRO hailed from the Minister’s department rather than from BERR, which would seem to me to be the most obvious home for it. I assume that it is to do with the fact that the process of verification is undertaken by verifiers, verifiers have skills and skills are within the responsibility of the department. But that does stretch the logic a little far, especially given that the essence of the LRO is to do with the weighing and measuring of equipment and that the skills and their holders are somewhat ancillary to that. Perhaps the Minister will explain. Is this LRO part of the Government’s stated aim to reduce regulatory burdens by 25 per cent by 2012? If not, what process did lead to it? It sounds like we need more of it. Either way, if it is necessary to produce a 60-page explanatory document to justify adding a single word to an Act of Parliament—a word that is added only to remove an inconsistency—it is hardly surprising that progress towards that 25 per cent reduction is slow. I hasten to add that I do not criticise the document for any lack of perfection—rather the opposite; the word ““overengineered”” springs to mind. Are we on track to achieve a 25 per cent reduction by 2012? It seems that we have a fair way to go. How many more LROs can we expect in order to achieve the 25 per cent target? Turning back to the LRO in question, I understand from the substantial document—60 pages to justify a saving to business of £615,000—that there is a risk that consumers might suffer as a result of an abuse or a conflict of interest, but the Government have made a satisfactory argument for why that risk is minimal. In any event, as the Minister pointed out, it is no greater than is presently the case for repaired equipment. The last thing I want to suggest is that we would oppose the order. My point is simply that the procedure of legislative reform orders needs to be streamlined and swiftly brought into the 21st century or we will certainly fail to achieve anything useful by 2012.