It is challenging the text constructed by the Minister. Some other text might have been intra vires, but not this one (at this time), *even though Parliament approved it.* I don't see on your view how an SI could ever be struck down. They are all laid before Parliament!

Whenever an SI is unlawful for intrinsic reasons (ie, irrationality, etc, as opposed to some failure to consult, etc) then the court is indeed saying 'the draft laid before Parliament was defective in its content.' That is inescapable. But that's not questioning the procedures in Parliament.

There we disagree. It is a matter which assumes proceedings in Parliament (a resolution on the fate of the SI), but it does not question that vote. Like every judicial review of an SI, it questions the content laid before Parliament (which is where any improper mixing of 'good and evil' occurs).

After all, government could otherwise club together all manner of matter in one SI, invoking countless enabling powers on a Hobson's choice basis.

If there's a weak case for some discrete bit of an SI, the fact it has been pinned to the tails of some very compelling bits could say something about the executive's good faith in relation to Parliament and the affirmative procedure.

Because it is the *executive's* choice to present Parliament with a 'take it or leave it en bloc' choice. Noting Parliament's binary choice is not questioning Parliament's procedure. It is just recognizing a legal fact built into the enabling power.

The grouping is on the face of the legislation in art. 2 of the Order. (It is not a case of a resolution bundling approval of separate SIs, which would engage art. 9 of the Bill of Rights.)