John Hemming: I thank my hon. Friend for that.
John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman misses the point. The requirement for proportionality would have an effect at the time that the decision and regulatory action were taken. It would not make it necessary for an annual report to be published perhaps 18 months later, or for such a report to contain information that would probably be available under freedom of information rules anyway, or for people to talk at...
John Hemming: I will give way to my right hon. Friend first.
John Hemming: I thank my right hon. Friend for that helpful example. The examples I know of disproportionate action tend to be in the arena of child protection and family courts, because that is what people come to complain about to me. I therefore find out what is going on there. My hon. Friends have given very good examples of disproportionate actions.
John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman is asking rhetorically what is wrong with the Labour amendment. What is wrong with it is that it deletes the rest of the clause. The Opposition are therefore arguing for unnecessary and disproportionate regulation.
John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman has asked a rhetorical question about whether I am or ever have been a lawyer. I am not and never have been, and I do not earn any money from the law.
John Hemming: My motivation for opposing the ludicrously badly drafted amendment tabled by the Opposition is that I do not think we should have unnecessary and disproportionate regulation—or even unnecessary or disproportionate regulation.
John Hemming: The hon. Gentleman is very kind with his time. The amendment deletes the requirement for regulation to be proportionate and also the requirement that regulation be needed.
John Hemming: I should just point out that we are talking about amendment 27, which would delete the words “regulatory action is taken only when it is needed”. In other words, the argument for the amendment is that you can have regulatory action whether or not it is needed. That was the question that I asked you earlier, but you have not yet answered it.
John Hemming: My apologies.
John Hemming: The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that it means “not disproportionate”. Why would he want regulators to take disproportionate actions?
John Hemming: To bring the hon. Gentleman back to the details of the amendment, is he arguing that regulatory action should be taken when it is not needed?
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will suspend co-operation between his Department and the Russian state nuclear company Rosatom on planning for a new nuclear plant.
John Hemming: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice (1) how many tribunals have been stayed pending decisions in other courts relating to decisions on benefits for over six months; how many claimants this involves; and what the total value of benefits involved is; (2) how many tribunals considering appeals on benefits decisions are currently held pending decisions in other courts; how many claimants...
John Hemming: Does the Minister not accept that in the context of amendment 13, rather than of amendment 1, there is work to be done to make it clear to people outside this House that to argue for a republic is not in itself a criminal offence?
John Hemming: I do think this is unfinished business, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
John Hemming: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are elements of section 3 of the 1848 Act that mean a better drafting of the amendments would be advisable? That is why amendment 13 is stronger.
John Hemming: Let me explain to the hon. Gentleman that probing amendments are deliberately phrased to tease out the Government’s position. Amendments 1 and 13 are different in effect so that they may extract the Government’s views on different aspects of the 1848 Act.
John Hemming: I said earlier that this is indeed a probing amendment and I intend to withdraw it. Such amendments would need drafting work for the exact reasons that the Solicitor-General gave. I think, however, that there is a mischief on the statute book. From reading the 1848 Act on the legislation website, it is clear that if someone published on Twitter that we happened to have a President, that would...
John Hemming: I will respond—actually, I am intervening anyway. I will conclude, but the point is that the legislation on the statute book means that it is a criminal offence—[ Interruption. ]