CONSULTATIONS (Hansard, 2 November 1976)

§ Mr. Graham Page
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 9, in Clause 2, page 5, line 8, at end insert: 'and to inform such organisations of the probable contents of regulations which the Secretary of State may consider it expedient to make in connection with or supplementary to the said order.'

§ Mr. Page
The clause deals with the question of consultation on orders before they come into effect. By Section 54 of the 1963 Act it was recognised that before making any orders under 10 different provisions of that Act, the Secretary of State should consult … representatives of interests substantially affected". I am using the actual words of Section 54 of the 1963 Act, and, indeed, I seek to introduce those words into New Clause 2.
This Bill, having introduced two new order-making powers in Clause 1 and via Section 9A of the 1963 Act, has added those powers to the list in Section 54 of the 1963 Act. Therefore, it has been thought necessary to make statutory provision for prior consultation with the representatives of people who will be interested in what is taking place.
I wish now to examine whether it is right that Section 9A orders should require prior consultation but that Section 9B orders should not.

§ Mr. John Fraser
I am prepared in principle to accept the right hon. Gentleman's clause. I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I intervene at this point in order to shorten the proceedings.

§ Mr. Page
Is the Minister prepared to accept the clause and its wording as drafted?

§ Mr. John Fraser
I shall pose the dilemma in a moment, but I am prepared to accept the principle. There is a conflict between the way in which the right hon. Gentleman puts the matter and the recommendation set out in the Renton Report.

§ Mr. Page
I am sorry that the Minister did not table his own amendment. He now says that he accepts the principle in 1246 mine. It is not easy for Opposition Members to draft the right provisions. The Parliamentary draftsmen dislike whatever we table for consideration.
I would ask the House to accept the clause as it stands. If the Minister says that he accepts it in principle, surely there can be little wrong with the wording, which I have taken from the 1963 Act.
The point I was trying to make when the Minister intervened—and I am grateful to him for that intervention—was that consultation on orders made under Section 9B will be even more important than those made under Section 9A. Orders made under Section 9A will make the move from imperial to metric. By the time the Bill reaches the statute book people will be resigned to it as the major change that will take place under the Bill, but the important consideration in a person's mind will be, "How shall I understand the change'? How shall I prevent myself from doing something wrong when I make a mental conversion? How can I stop myself being swindled by the new measures?" Therefore, orders under Section 9B will be of vital importance to the public, and all interested representatives should be consulted.
Let us suppose that the Secretary of State and his officials become so steeped in the intricacies of conversion that they issue an order that every petrol pump should contain a notice saying that one gallon shall be described as 4.54609 litres or that one litre shall be described as 0.21997 gallons. These are not the sorts of conversion tables that will tell the public anything. It will be no help if one is told that a kilogramme of butter is equal to 2.2046 lb. The public and the House should be consulted before these vitally important matters are put into an order and before the order is laid before the House with no possibility of amendment.
Matters are even worse with Section 9B. These orders can affect specific and individual cases, specific circumstances and specific individuals. There certainly should be something written into the statute making it obligatory for the Secretary of State to consult. There is no obligation at present. If the right hon. Gentleman accepts the principle of 1247 the clause it should be written into the Bill.
I must refer to Amendment No. 9, which is being taken with this new clause. The amendment deals with the possibility of an order under 9B being made to supplement an order under 9A. I wish to ensure by this amendment that when the Minister consults representatives of those interested in the contents of an order under 9A he will inform those representatives of what he has in mind to implement that 9A order by the more detailed 9B order. That is a simple statement. I am sure no one can object to it being put into the Bill so that those interested may know what is coming in the later order or the order which will implement the orders under 9A.
However good and genuine the intention of the Minister may be to consult, there is not that obligation under the statute except in the case of certain orders. I want to extend it so that there is an obligation to consult on orders which, I submit, will be of vital importance to the public.

§ Mr. John Fraser
Let me deal with the practice, which must be well known to the right lion Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) from the time when he was a Minister. Most regulations involve a good deal of consultation. I gave some examples in Committee of the sort of consultation that goes on in connection with regulations which are analogous to those which will be made under 9B. The best example I can give concerns the dual-marking regulations. These were negative procedure regulations because the Conservative Government in 1963 decided that they should be so. There was no statutory requirement to consult under the 1963 legislation. I make no party point about this.
We consulted 253 trade organisations, 19 consumer organisations and 20 enforcement officer organisations, and we held a total of 292 consultations. We were not even required to consult any one of those organisations. When we considered the order dealing with unit pricing of cheese, which used the negative procedure and was enacted by a Labour Government, there was a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 32 trade organisations, 20 consumer organ- 1248 isations and five enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 57 consultations. The regulation dealing with price displays in pubs, which again was a negative resolution regulation, embodied a statutory requirement to consult. We consulted 19 people in the trade, 19 consumer organisations and four enforcement officer organisations, and held a total of 42 consultations.
I can give further examples. We always consult. In principle, I am happy to accept the new clause. There is a dilemma, however, and since the right hon. Gentleman takes a delight in these matters of drafting statutory instruments perhaps I can explain it to him. The Renton Report dealing with the drafting of legislation recommended that amendments like this ought to be textual and not made by way of a new clause. It suggested that there should be a textual interpolation rather than an addition by way of a new clause. The way in which the new clause is drafted runs contrary to the recommendations of the Renton Committee.
If the right hon. Gentleman and the rest of the House would like to take it upon themselves to defy the recommendations of the Renton Report I shall not quarrel with that. I simply say that the responsibility will belong elsewhere. The right hon. Gentleman can then have the statutory requirement to consult on 9B orders. I hope that that is satisfactory.
Turning to Amendment No. 9— —

§ Mrs. Sally Oppenheim (Gloucester)
Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the point about this not being a textual amendment, I am sure that he will realise that it was difficult to table such an amendment when the Bill was not published.

§ Mr. Fraser
I do understand that. However, it could have been drafted as a textual amendment to the 1963 Act. I do not want to prolong our proceedings by reading from the Renton Report. I simply draw it to the attention of the House.
Turning to Amendment No. 9, I have to point out that there is statutory provision for consultation under Section 9A orders. I would have thought that it was 1249 not necessary to write this wording into the Bill. Clearly it would be in the forefront of the minds of consumers and of the Government that the supplemental order would be an essential part of the negotiations. It is superfluous to add the requirement contained in Amendment No.9.