Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

An Amendment proposing the deletion of the Clause has not been taken, so I am in the slightly awkward position of advising the Committee to oppose the motion that clause 6 stand part of the Bill and persuading it that we should strike the clause from the Bill. After due consideration, the Government have concluded that the wide powers provided in clause 6, about which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in Another place had expressed concern, are not necessary.

Committee members may have seen from the dummy orders that no substantial new powers are introduced in relation to record keeping. The Government have concluded that record-keeping requirements may be met by using the powers under clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, which is reflected in the dummy orders. The introduction of an additional power under clause 6 is unnecessary. The Government wish to omit clause 6 and, for the avoidance of doubt, make a small addition to clause 7. We will discuss amendments to clause 7 shortly, and there will also be a minor consequential amendment to clause 12. For those reasons, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 6 should not stand part of the Bill.

I understand where the Minister is coming from. I had worked out that the powers introduced by Clause 6 will be added elsewhere. I believe, however—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that there will be an unfortunate consequence. The orders made by affirmative resolution under clause 6 would, if made instead under the amendments that the Minister proposes to clause 7, be made under the negative procedure. That means that we would have less influence on decisions taken. That is my one concern about striking out clause 6, and I would be grateful if the Minister would reassure me on it.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, that was the subject of deliberation and comment by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is correct in his observation that orders under Clause 6 would be subject to affirmative resolution procedure and that that will no longer apply if clause 6 is removed. However, the new powers provided for under clause 7 are much narrower than those provided for under clause 6. The amendments to clause 7 simply make clear the powers already contained in clauses 1, 2, 4 and 5, to which the negative procedure applies. The Majority of the alterations to record-keeping requirements are routine or derive from European regulations. The Government are therefore satisfied that the alterations to record-keeping requirements are not deserving of full affirmative parliamentary scrutiny. The hon. Gentleman is right, however, to point the matter out to the Committee and I am sure that we are all grateful to him for that.

I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I observe that there will be an opportunity, under amendments that have been tabled later in the Bill, to discuss the question of extending the affirmative resolution procedure. In order not to delay the Committee unnecessarily, I think that we can safely leave such discussion until then.

I notice the difference between Clause 6(1)(a) and (b) and the Amendment proposed to clause 7. Does the Minister think that the amendment is strong enough? Clause 6 refers to persons producing records to specified authorities and to providing

``an authority specified in the order with such information about their activities as may be so prescribed.''

That is watered down in amendment No. 63, proposed to clause 7, page 5, line 7. Will that be strong enough to give the information required from individuals?

I am just cross-checking. Did the hon. Gentleman mean the Amendment proposed after Clause 7(1)(b)?

Indeed, I did.

The answer is yes, it will be.

Question put and negatived.

Clause 6 disagreed to.