text_body: --- DIVISION TITLE ---
  
  Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill - Clause 14 - Negative Resolution Procedure
  
  --- MOTION EFFECT ---
  
  <p>Those voting No rejected an <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/rs1411605.573-579.html">an amendment</a> to the just amended <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.8-14.html#j022"> Clause 14</a> of the <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.i-ii.html"> Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill</a> (seen as <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldbills/109/06109.5-11.html#j022"> Clause 17</a> of the new Bill) that would have loosened the limitations on the possibility of a Parliamentary veto on an order passed under this Bill.  The clause says:</p>
  
  <blockquote>
  The Minister may make an order [following a]... <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.1-7.html#j012">draft order</a>... [if] Parliament [vetoes it] within the 40-day period, or a committee of either House charged with reporting on the draft order may, at any time after... 30 days [but]... before 40 days... recommends... that... [it be vetoed]... <i>only if it considers that... the draft order does not serve the purpose specified, [or]... [it does not satisfy the preconditions in] <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmbills/141/06141.1-7.html#j003"> Section 3 (proportionality, balance, and consistency with policy objectives)</a>.</i>
  </blockquote>
  
  <p>The amendment, which was voted down in this division, would deleted the <i>italicised</i> words and have given it the freedom to veto an order for any reason it chose.</p>
  
  --- COMMENTS AND NOTES ---
  
  (put thoughts and notes for other researchers here)
  