§ Lords amendment: No. 17, in page 4, line 31, leave out Clause 6 and insert new Clause—
§
Interpretation
6. Expressions used in this Act and in the regulations mentioned in section 1(1) of this Act shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the same meaning in this Act as in those regulations.
§ Mr. YoungerI beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment clarifies the intention of the clause to link the interpretation of terms used in the Bill with definitions assigned in the food hygiene regulations that have been used for many years.
§ Mr. MoateI shall be brief. I do not wish to delay the progress of this legislation. I think that we are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) for his courtesy and patience in answering questions on previous amendments. I shall put this point briefly in the hope that he will be able to satisfy me about it.
The amendment seeks to ensure that definitions in the regulations will be applicable to this legislation. In earlier debates I expressed the view that that was unsatisfactory. I think that there is a precedent. It seems to me from a quick glance that 1079 this situation applies in the English Act. I do not believe that it can be right for a new piece of primary legislation to be dependent for its definitions upon regulations that in turn are dependent upon another statue.
This could mean that the definition of such things as a food business could be changed simply by the annulment procedure. That is an unsatisfactory way of producing legislation, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to give some assurance on that point.
I am sure that he has examined the matter, because the point was raised in another place, but we should not allow this point to pass without comment. I doubt whether there is much we can do in this instance, but it is an undesirable procedure and I hope that we shall never see it happen again in legislation.
§ Mr. YoungerI appreciate what my hon. Friend said and in normal circumstances I would warmly agree with him. However, there is a difference in this case since the whole of this Bill depends on the 1956 Act. In this case it is not all that unusual that we should depend for definitions on that Act. I hope that I have given by hon. Friend the assurance for which he asked, although I appreciate that it does not go the whole way.
§ Question put and agreed to.