HC Deb 02 May 1956 vol 552 cc452-4
Mr. Doughty

I beg to move, in page 13, line 7, to leave out from "be" to the end of Clause and to add: subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament". This Amendment deals with the regulations which may be made under Clause 14 by the Registrar in respect of the matters set out in subsection (1), paragraphs (a) to (d). As the Committee will see, the matters covered come within a very wide range indeed, and those regulations will affect a very large number of persons very closely.

Those regulations, as at present provided, are to be in the form of Statutory Instrument, to be laid before Parliament after being made. That is all; no action can be taken by this House except to pray against them if it be thought fit to do so. Once again, I would remind the Committee that these regulations are extremely important. It was therefore thought right by this Amendment to propose that such regulations should be subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament, so that we can properly and fully discuss and vote upon them if occasion should arise and the regulations in any way be thought undesirable.

Delegated legislation cannot be popular in any part of the Committee, or, indeed, in any part of the country. We here examine with great care the wording of all Bills which go through this House, and very often we then give power to somebody to make regulations, and that person can produce regulations in his own form of wording which have very sweeping application. That is a power which, not only in this but in all Bills, we must watch very carefully indeed.

When such sweeping powers are to be given to somebody upon matters which affect the whole business of this country, or, at any rate, the whole business of those who have agreements which may have to be registered under the terms of the Bill, then, in my submission, we should not allow such regulations to come before the House in this negative form whereby, if we obtain opportunity to do so, we can only pray against them.

There is good precedent for the Amendment which I have moved. In the Patents Act, 1949, Section 95 has exactly the same type of wording. While not in any way wishing to minimise the importance of patents, they are, in matters of this very wide range, of less importance than the provisions of this Bill. Recently, while glancing through the Agriculture (Safety, Health and Welfare Provisions) Bill which has now been amended by Standing Committee A, I saw that by Clause 16 regulations affecting the safety, health and welfare of people engaged in agriculture may be made, but the power to make those regulations is subject to exactly the same provision as appears in the Amendment I have moved: The power conferred by this Act to make regulations shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament. Again I am not for one moment seeking to minimise the importance of the agricultural industry, one of our most important industries; but we are dealing here probably with every single industry in the country, including, incidentally, agriculture itself.

For those reasons, I submit that it is very important that we should have this much more positive power to deal with these vital regulations. I suggest to the Committee that the Amendment is a proper one and that it should, on behalf of the House, take appropriate steps to ensure that these regulations can be brought before the House and, if necessary, debated and voted upon.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Mulley

I want briefly to support the Amendment. The only doubt I have in my mind is whether or not the words suggested are sufficient to do what I understand the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) wants to do; that is, to make these regulations subject to an affirmative Resolution of the House. As I understood him, the words in subsection (3) make it subject to the Statutory Instruments Act and would, therefore, make it subject to negative Resolution. However, no doubt the hon. and learned Gentleman has looked into the matter. I agree that this is an important regulation, and it would be wise that the House should have the matter brought to it, rather than that it should be brought to the House only by the dili- gence of any hon. Member who seeks to put down a Prayer.

Mr. Walker-Smith

Subsection (4) of the Clause as drafted requires that the regulations of the Registrar shall be laid before Parliament. As the Committee appreciates, that is a method of informing Parliament of a Statutory Instrument but it does not give Parliament any actual control of the instrument in question. There are two forms of control. There is the control known as the negative control, whereby a Statutory Instrument which is laid can be annulled within 40 days on what is normally called the Prayer procedure. Then there is the much more rare procedure, whereby a Statutory Instrument does not come into force at all unless it gets the affirmative Resolution of Parliament.

My hon. and learned Friend has chosen the middle course here which is, I agree, an improvement upon what we have in the Bill. It means that the regulations will become subject to parliamentary control, which they are not under subsection (4) at the moment, in a form which is obviously suitable for this kind of regulation. However, it would not be right to put upon Parliament the burden of an affirmative Resolution in every case where the Registrar made procedural regulations. I hope that the Committee will think that the Amendment strikes just the right balance. As far as we are concerned, we are happy to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.