COMMONS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 22 July 1991)

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 91 to 95 en bloc.
Amendment No. 91 is a technical amendment, the effect of which is to allow that a statutory instrument 576 which includes regulations made under clauses listed within Clause 43(2) may also include regulations subject to the negative procedure. In other words, regulations which would otherwise be subject to the negative resolution will be affirmative if included in a package containing affirmative regulations.
On looking at the various regulation-making powers, in order to understand fully and grasp the effect of proposals for affirmative resolution procedure regulations, we thought it wise to have alongside them others from the negative resolution provisions. Therefore, we have made this proposal so that the higher procedure would apply when it applies to any part of the package.
Amendments Nos. 93 and 95 correct one of the references to a regulation-making power within this clause. Amendment No. 95 makes orders made under Clause 40(1) and Clause 40(6) subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Amendment No. 92 restores the regulation-making power in Clause 6(10) to being subject to the affirmative procedure, which it was throughout the passage through this House. In addition, we intend to retain subsection (9) which was included in error in its place. This makes the regulations of a further regulation-making power subject to the affirmative procedure. Similarly, Amendment No. 94 extends the list by including new Clause 8. It also replaces Clause 39 by Clause 39(1).
I hope that I have answered the point which my noble and learned friend raised on Amendment No. 92.

§ Lord Simon of Glaisdale
My Lords, I entirely agree with what has been said on Amendment No. 91.
As regards Amendment No. 92, am I right in thinking that it implements an undertaking which my noble and learned friend gave on Third Reading when I moved an amendment relating to the affirmative resolution procedure? I rather think that it is because I have corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, about it. I agreed with the way that it was done. Am I right in thinking that that is what has happened? I did not understand Amendment No. 93. My noble and learned friend explained that a mistake crept in and has now been removed.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, with regard to Amendment No. 92, the noble and learned Lord is correct. Amendment No. 93 corrects references to the regulation-making powers dealing with the formula and makes orders under Clauses 40(1) or 40(6), subject to affirmative resolution. Amendment No. 95 is strictly speaking an implementation of the matter referred to by my noble and learned friend Lord Simon.

§ Lord Simon of Glaisdale
My Lords, perhaps in any case your Lordships will allow me to raise two matters that I should have mentioned earlier. At Third 577 Reading I tabled an amendment to make Clause 24(7) subject to affirmative resolution. That was a misprint. There is no subsection (7).
Subsequently, in a letter to my noble and learned friend dated 17th May, I corrected that to subsection (2). I believe that it should be Clause 27(2). I wrote also to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in that regard but it slipped out of the correspondence. I should like to be advised of what happened. It is clearly a provision that should be subject to affirmative resolution.
The other matter to which I wish to refer was mentioned earlier. I would be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, could answer the specific questions I asked arising out of the speech of the Under-Secretary in Standing Committee A. In other words, I should like to know how many regulation-making powers now exist. It must be around 110 with the amendments we have made. Of those, only 13 are subject to affirmative resolution, which seems rather odd. That means that all those 110 minus 13 are considered to be trivial or consequential. That is plainly not the case. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Henley, would answer the questions I raised in my latest letter, which I wrote on Friday evening or Saturday morning, having discovered that the Bill was in today's business.

§ Lord Henley
My Lords, it is difficult to keep up with the letters of the noble and learned Lord. As I explained earlier when I assured him that I had responded to letters about which he had doubt, I received a further letter from the noble and learned Lord only this morning. I shall respond to that in due time. In regard to the number of regulation-making powers and whether or not some are procedural, I can go no further than I did in my letter of 11th July from which I quoted at length earlier this afternoon.

§ Lord Simon of Glaisdale
My Lords, I could not possibly object to the noble Lord replying by letter. Even if we received the information now there would be nothing we could do about it.
The noble Lord did not refer to my other question regarding the point I raised with my noble and learned friend. It relates to what would now be Clause 27(2).
I can check that.

§ The Lord Chancellor
My Lords, it is Clause 27(2). These are regulations about the manner of payment which appears to be appropriate for the ordinary negative resolution procedure regulations. I do not see that it would be right to require them to be specially handled.