HL Deb 25 March 1982 vol 428 cc1081-3

4.33 p.m.

Report received.

Clause 7 [Orders.]:

Lord Lyell moved the amendment standing in the name of the Earl of Mansfield: Page 3, line 38, leave out ("by") and insert ("in pursuance of").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move the amendment which stands in his name. Before coming to the main point of the amendment, perhaps I might take the opportunity of adding our congratulations to those which the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, extended at an earlier stage to my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. The speedy and effective way in which he has replied to all the advice offered to him and has led this House through the Committee stage is a lesson to all of us and especially in respect to Scottish legislation.

In tabling this amendment, the Government have no wish to steal the thunder of my noble friend. The amendment, like a number of those accepted by your Lordships at an earlier stage, is a technical one. Your Lordships will not be surprised to hear that it owes a great deal to the eagle eye of the parliamentary draftsman and therefore it seems appropriate that the Government should take on the burden of speaking to this further drafting change which I fear has come up rather late in the life of the Bill.

As at present drafted, Clause 7 of the Bill is somewhat compressed. Clause 7 suggests that if there were to be a successful prayer in either House against any order made under the Bill, that prayer would, of itself, revoke the order. This would be something of an innovation. The established pattern for dealing with statutory instruments is contained in Section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946, and the proposed new wording is in conformity with the language of the 1946 Act. It does not change the procedure which the proposers intended of making any order made under the Bill subject to the negative resolution procedure. The effect of the drafting change is that it would be incumbent upon the Government to withdraw any order which had been the subject of a successful prayer. That is a technical explanation of a minor drafting amendment. I beg to move.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, will the noble Lord clarify the position a little further? An affirmative order has to be affirmed; a negative order has to be prayed against anyway in order to be debated and possibly varied. Would the noble Lord say a word or two about that aspect with regard to the prayer for annulment?

Lord Lyell

My Lords, I think that the question asked by the noble Lord about the affirmative resolution is not affected by, or in any way contravened by, the amendment that we are seeking to make. So far as the negative resolution procedure is concerned, the only reason for the amendment is to tidy up what the draftsman thought was a small defect in the normal negative resolution procedure in either House. As I hope I set out to explain, the Government thought is that Clause 7, as it stands, could be taken to show that any successful prayer would annul the order as of the time of making the order; whereas I understand the amendment would leave the actual withdrawal of the order to the Secretary of State. I have been handed a note to say that the noble Lord. Lord Bishopston, is quite correct. I hope that he will be able to accept that and if I have misled him or the House, then I would apologise.

Lord Bishopston

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation.

Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal

My Lords, who am I to argue with the erudition of the Government's parliamentary draftsman? I am satisfied that the proposed amendment does not alter the purpose of the Bill and I accept the amendment gratefully.

On Question, amendment agreed to.