HC Deb 15 July 1977 vol 935 cc1080-1

Lords amendment: No. 19, in page 5, line 20, leave out from "force" to end of line 21 and insert on such day as the Secretary of State may by Order made by statutory instrument appoint.

Mr. Younger

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

This is a technical adjustment in respect of the date on which the Bill shall come into force. It is necessary because the speed of progress of the Bill in this House has been so satisfactory that the new regulations or up-dating of them may take a little longer to put into effect. It is very much hoped that the Bill may be brought into effect this year.

With that assurance, I hope that the House will agree to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Mikardo

May I ask for your guidance, Mr. Speaker? If this amendment were to be put to a Division and were lost, would the clause remain in its present unamended form? I want the hon. Gentleman to have his Bill, but I am anxious to know what will happen in the event of a Division being lost. Would the Bill stand in its present form, or would there be some untoward consequence that I would not wish to see?

Mr. Speaker

If the House disagrees with the Lords amendment, we shall have to send it back to another place with an explanation, and I fear that that will be the end of this measure, because this is the last of the Private Members' days.

Mr. Mikardo

I am grateful for that explanation. In that case I shall not continue my opposition to the amendment. I merely wish to say that I do not like Bills the operation of which is left to the discretion of Ministers. Theoretically, the Bill may never come into operation if the Secretary of State of the day dislikes it, or is put under pressure not to implement its provisions. He would not have to oppose the Bill but would merely not make any orders under it.

If the circumstances were different from those you have outlined, Mr. Speaker, I would carry my opposition to a vote, but in present circumstances I shall not do so.

Mr. Laurie Pavitt (Brent, South)

I have a special interest in this matter. I am a Co-operative Member of Parliament and naturally matters concerning food sold from mobile shops are of interest to me.

I should like to differ, briefly, from my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Mr. Mikardo) about the point that he raised. I wish to support the amendment for the simple reason that there is a good deal to be said for flexibility when one is introducing such a measure as this, covering a wide range of provisions including health and sanitary provisions. I accept the point that my hon. Friend made about the amount of power that is left with Ministers as to when the measure should be made operative, but there is an advantage in having a certain amount of flexibility in making sure that when the provisions become operative, they do so correctly.

Mr. Moate

There is something in what the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has said and it is more normal to leave the matter open than to have a fixed date in the original Bill. I understand why it is better to have flexibility and that the Bill has made more rapid progress than was expected which is not normal in this House.

It is undesirable that with all such commencement orders we do not have a parliamentary procedure whereby an order must be laid. The Bill will come into effect when the Minister issues an order. There has to be no affirmative or negative order and there will be no opportunity for further consideration.

That would be all right if we were always assured that such an order dealt only with the commencement date, but other transitional provisions are often slipped in. I am sure that that will not happen in this case, but it is worth making the point, even at this late stage. I do not, broadly speaking, disagree with the Lords amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Back to