Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold, Conservative)

I want to probe the regulations. Subsection (1) gives the Secretary of State almost unlimited power to make regulations as he wants, but that is fettered a little by a list in paragraphs (a) to (h) in subsection (2). However, subsection (3) shows that this is a catch-all clause:

''Nothing in subsection (2) is to be taken as limiting the power conferred by subsection (1).''

What is the point of subsection (2) if the Secretary of State can do what he likes anyway? It is fairly outrageous that the power of primary legislation is fettered in that way. If we prescribe the power that he can use and make a list, why override it as subsection (3) does? I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that. There is too much of that undemocratic drafting.

As I have said, I dislike regulations. Where possible, as much as possible should be put in primary legislation. Presumably that is why subsection (2) contains a list. What is the point in producing a list if

the Secretary of State can immediately override it with the powers that he has given himself?

Mr Christopher Leslie (Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office; Shipley, Labour)

I take it from that contribution that, in general, the hon. Gentleman accepts that the Secretary of State should be able to make regulations providing for the timing of a ballot, who should vote, the persons who are to conduct it and so on. Subsection (2) says, as is normal practice in legislation, that specific issues can be covered in the regulations. The list is not exhaustive, but it gives a clear indication in the Bill of the core factors that we expect to be part of the regulations, so as to avoid challenge on those aspects.

Subsection (2) refers to

''The provision which may be made by regulations under this section''.

As I have said, subsection (3) conforms to standard drafting practice. It is not a new phenomenon.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.