HC Deb 29 May 1956 vol 553 cc67-9
Mr. Nugent

I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out from "instrument" to the end of line 19.

Mr. Kenneth Pickthorn (Carlton)

Would it be possible and convenient, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Amendment in my name, in page 10, line 17, leave out from second "shall" to end of line 19 and insert: not be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament and the next Amendment, in the name of my right hon. Friend the Minister, in page 10, line 19, at end insert: (4) No regulations shall be made under section one of this Act unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any provision of this Act (other than section one) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I was proposing to call the hon. Member's Amendment.

Mr. Pickthorn

Can they be discussed together?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

I imagine that that would be for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Nugent

If hon. Members are agreeable, I certainly welcome that course, which enables us to discuss the whole question of the affirmative Resolutions.

The effect of my right hon. Friend's Amendments would be to amend the Bill so that an affirmative Resolution would be required for all regulations made under Clause 1. This would mean that affirmative Resolutions would be required for all regulations affecting safety under Clause I and regulations under Clause 17, under which my right hon. Friend will have power to extend the operation of the Bill to persons outside agriculture.

There is sound logic in providing for affirmative Resolutions for those regulations and for the negative procedure in respect of regulations made under other Clauses concerning sanitary arrangements, the lifting of weights, first-aid and in connection with children riding on vehicles, all of which are important matters, but are more circumscribed and defined in the Bill than are the regulations to be made under Clause 1, in particular, and, to a lesser extent, although they are very important in themselves, those to be made under Clause 17. Clearly, the regulations to be made under Clause 1 will be in the nature of substantive legislation, and can go very far indeed. They can affect everything which is done on the farm. Indeed, they could stop any operation if my right hon. Friend were to judge that that was the right thing to do.

It is always difficult to decide what regulations should be made by affirmative Resolution and what should be subject to the negative procedure. Excellent arguments can be produced on either side, and all of us from time to time have produced them and argued them. However, I commend to the House this balance which we have tried here to strike, and which we regard as being right in principle. We recommend to the House the affirmative Resolution for regulations which amount to substantive legislation, and we reserve for the negative procedure the rather more circumscribed matters. I hope that the House will agree that this is a fair and sensible provision for these sets of regulations. In any event, the very important matters contained in them will come before the House and hon. Members will have an opportunity to see them and discuss them; but by this means we ensure that this new development into which we are moving with the safety regulations shall be subject to the extra safeguard of the affirmative procedure.

Mr. Pickthorn

On Second Reading I ventured to draw the House's attention to Clauses 16 and 17 and to suggest that the positive procedure would be more appropriate than the negative. I still think that was right, and I do not think I could wholly accept the suggestion of my hon. Friend that the arguments on this matter are always roughly fifty-fifty. If that were so, of course, one might toss for it. I do not really think that will quite do. The truth is that the arguments are all in favour of the positive procedure, but the negative procedure is much more convenient to the Government—and that is true whichever party is in office.

However, my hon. Friends and I, and some hon. Members on the other side of the House, too, have, I think, got a good deal more than half what we earlier asked for in the positive procedure for what we may call the surgical as against the medical side of the Bill and what we may call the substantive as against the procedural side of the Bill. We have that, and I think that that is a good deal to have got.

I should have liked to have made an elaborate speech demonstrating especially the weaknesses of the arguments of the Minister upstairs, but I do not think it is necessary to do that at this stage. I dare say that by now he may have become aware of the weakness, for instance, of the precedent argument. We have most of what we asked for, and, unless there is somebody who feels very strongly about it, I am inclined to be thankful for that and to save the House's time.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 19, at end, insert: (4) No regulations shall be made under section one of this Act unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. (5) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any provision of this Act (other than section one) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Nugent.]