---

Alun Michael: If the hon. Gentleman considers the general purpose of legislation, redundant parts require the use of parliamentary time to remove them. Permissive requirements can be used when appropriate. Earlier, I said that there was currently a need for the provision and that the Government will therefore act on the "may". However, the hon. Gentleman should reflect that it is bad parliamentary practice to make requirements when "may" suffices. We are considering a minor example, but it is not bad practice to ensure that legislation is generally permissive rather than prescriptive.

Norman Baker: The Minister may have a case in specific legislation. I accept the point that legislation that provides for a requirement that becomes redundant takes up parliamentary time. However, the Bill places only a one-off requirement, to be fulfilled now, on the Government. It will therefore not become redundant. The amendment does not require the Minister to produce codes of practice continually but simply to introduce one when the Bill is enacted.

Sir Paul Beresford: The Minister says that he will fulfil the requirement by the time the Bill becomes an Act. The hon. Gentleman's comments are therefore redundant. We know that the code of practice will be introduced; the Minister said that that will happen. We therefore get a finite conclusion.

Norman Baker: That is true, and it reinforces my point. I do not want to take up hon. Members' time, but the hon. Member for Spelthorne asked about the Government's motivation in rejecting the amendment. It is not to be found in the Bill, which the Government are prepared to accept. However, they do not wish to concede the principle that the word "shall" should be accepted occasionally.

The Minister's comments on the other amendments made sense. There is no reason to include a date of March 2004, especially when the Minister has got so far ahead. He also gave a fair answer about consulting groups. I hope that we shall listen to other hon. Members and get on to Third Reading, and that the Bill is subsequently enacted.

Mr. Andrew Dismore (Hendon): I want briefly to contribute to the debate on "may" and "shall". Perhaps I can assist my right hon. Friend the Minister by reminding him of a specific case from the time when he was Opposition spokesman on Home Affairs and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Jim Fitzpatrick), the Whip, was a member of the national executive of the Fire Brigades Union. The case was the Crown v. the Home Office ex parte Fire Brigades Union and others. I was a solicitor in the case. The House of Lords, in ruling in favour of the union, also ruled on the definition of "may" in legislation. It said that if a Minister did not act on a "may" provision, an obligation remained to keep the power under regular review. I am sure that my right hon. Friend remembers the case because it led to the Conservative Government's introducing emergency legislation to correct their proposed changes to the criminal injuries compensation scheme.

Mr. Wilshire: I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman has legal expertise and I therefore seek some free advice

11 Jul 2003 : Column 1508

from a lawyer. I should like some clarification. I understand from his remarks that the House of Lords ruled that there was an obligation to keep the provision under review, but not to do anything about it.

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is correct. I have often argued for similar "shall" or "may" amendments on Friday based on my understanding of the law as set out by the House of Lords in the case that I described. However, my right hon. Friend's earlier comments illustrate the point. He said that he would act on the provision. However, if there are special circumstances and he does not do so, the fall-back obligation to keep the legislation under review remains.

Sir Paul Beresford: The next Bill that we will debate includes a provision that states:

"Not later than 31st October 2004, the Secretary of State shall lay before each House of Parliament a report".

Is it a case of horses for courses?

Mr. Dismore: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a case of horses for courses. Their performance on the course may be affected by whether they have eaten ragwort. However, my right hon. Friend has explained why "may" is appropriate in the case that we are considering. We shall have to wait and see what happens to the next Bill.

Mr. George Osborne: Since it is my first opportunity to do so, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) on steering the Bill through our proceedings with skill, characteristic good humour and flexibility. Consequently, we have a Bill that we all hope will become law. My hon. Friend is too modest to say that he is the hero of the horse world for introducing the Bill, and too coy to say that, like some Greek warrior, he wants to receive his laurels at York races at lunchtime today. He is therefore keen for us to proceed quickly. I note that he is wearing a special tie, with horses on it.

Mr. Greenway: I have been counting the horses on my tie while listening to the debate. There are more than 500 horses on it, and that is important because 500 horses died from ragwort poisoning last year and double that number will die this year.

Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend makes a good point and demonstrates another way in which we can pass the time in the Chamber when matters proceed slowly.

We should fail in our responsibilities if we did not give the amendments due consideration. Let us consider amendment No. 6, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) tabled. He lists the organisations that he would like the Minister to be required by statute to consult. As I said in an intervention, he is too hard on himself. He has secured an assurance from the Minister that the organisations will be consulted. I am sure that they will all be delighted about that. He made an error, to which he was happy to admit, in excluding the British Horse Society. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale and the Minister

11 Jul 2003 : Column 1509

said, that society provided much help in drafting the Bill. Horse owners and horses will benefit most from the measure.

Mr. Wilshire: My hon. Friend mentions errors. In the hope that it will save me a thousand e-mails, I apologise for not including the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on the list.

Mr. Osborne: For reasons not connected with the Bill, I am currently keener on the British Horse Society than the RSPCA. However, my hon. Friend has done us a service in at least getting the Minister to assure us that the organisations will be consulted and he should therefore be proud of his work today through the amendment.

Amendment No. 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne also tabled, is excellent. It does not set an arbitrary time for reviewing the code of practice but states

"not later than five years".

That gives the Government much flexibility. Several uncertainties remain about the spread of ragwort and the best means of dealing with it. When I was preparing to speak today, I read the debate on Second Reading and learned all about the cinnabar moth and what has happened to the moth population.

Of course, we do not know how the code of practice will work once it is implemented. It would therefore be right to review it within five years to see whether it is having a significant impact on the spread of ragwort and whether it is imposing excessive regulatory burdens on local authorities and the rural economy. I know that, when my hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale introduced the Bill, he was particularly keen to minimise its regulatory impact on the countryside. Indeed, he presented the Government with a menu of options that they could discuss with him before choosing the most appropriate vehicle.

Amendment No. 3 was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I am not such a veteran of the "may" and "shall" debate as other hon. Members, but I have been told that I soon will be. It seems to me, as a novice, that my hon. Friends the Members for Mole Valley and for Spelthorne have made some very good points on this issue. If we are to take the Minister at his word—I have no doubt that he means what he says—it is puzzling that he will not accept the amendment, because he is going to establish a code of practice. Clause 1 contains many "musts". For example:

"Before making the code, the Minister must consult such persons as he considers appropriate.


The Minister must lay a copy of the code before Parliament."

It therefore seems strange that the only conditional provision is that

"The Minister may make a code of practice",

because that is the whole point of the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could give us a watertight assurance that the code of practice will be introduced, and that if it does not prove effective, he will look at the provisions again and revise them within five years.

11 Jul 2003 : Column 1510

10.30 am

Alun Michael: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance now. It is our intention to publish the code within the next few weeks, so that it can be consulted on during the remainder of the summer. We shall leave the consultation period open-ended because the statutory period of consultation has to start when the Bill is enacted, but I can assure him that it will be completed at the earliest possible date consistent with the requirements of the Bill, so that it can have effect during next year's ragwort season.

---