Indeed. This new clause is everything: its scope is comprehensive. It refers to the entirety of common law, and one cannot get more comprehensive than that. It would establish two things in respect of the powers set out in clause 21(3)(b) and (c). Those paragraphs leap off the page because they say that emergency regulations can

''enable the requisition of confiscation of property . . . enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation)''.

There may be circumstances in which compensation cannot be paid because of the nature of the incident that has occurred. That returns to the notion of rights and responsibilities: where the Government have the right to destroy confiscated property, animal or plant life, they should compensate wherever possible. The new clause would establish that. Subsection (1) would clarify what I hope the Minister is going to say, which is that existing rights under common law would be preserved. In other words, if an individual felt that they had a problem, they could take action under common law and nothing in the emergency regulations could strike that out.

Subsection (2) would establish a presumption in favour of compensation. The Government explicitly referred to that issue in their response to the Joint Committee. In paragraph 33, concerning interference of property rights without compensation, they cite the European convention on human rights as the primary safeguard. The ECHR would establish a presumption in favour of compensation. The Government would have to establish a case to destroy or confiscate property without compensation, or they would be in breach of the convention.

In terms of major sausages achieved in Committee—''sausage'' is shorthand for an amendment—the fact that the Government conceded the point that the regulations should have a certificate of compliance with the Human Rights Act is welcome. I hope that it means that regulations affecting property will similarly be in accordance with the ECHR. The new clause goes further in seeking to establish the presumption in favour. It looks bad, from the

Government's point of view, to have legislation that does not establish that presumption.

The draft legislation implies that it is arbitrary as to whether or not compensation is paid. It is not arbitrary, because Ministers must behave reasonably, in accordance with the convention rights, but the Bill does not imply a presumption in favour of compensation. The new clause therefore tries to establish that, and gives the Government a tool to do that. I do not expect it to be gleefully accepted by the Government immediately, but I hope that they will at least recognise that a question about compensation remains unanswered, and the point may continue to be queried if they do not accept that the Bill should be drafted more explicitly to establish a presumption in favour of paying compensation rather than paying it arbitrarily, at the toss of coin—''with or without'', as subsection (3) says.