Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

"shall be exercisable by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
It may be an error in draftmanship but I am not sure what the intent is behind the use of the word "either". Amendment No. 203 may also be defective, because it proposes the inclusion of the words:
"and no instrument containing such rules or regulations shall be made unless a draft of the instrument has been before or approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
That is meant to imply Houses of Parliament. As Clause 94(2) stands, it means that the regulation could go before another place or this place and would not need to be considered in both. That is the rationale, if I can flatter it with that description, behind this particular amendment. With that explanation, I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay: This amendment seeks to ensure that no statutory instrument of rules or regulations shall be made unless the draft has been approved by both Houses. We stand by our draftmanship on this side of the table but we will read in Hansard what the noble Lord said.

The amendment would apply to a higher degree of parliamentary supervision of all the matters which the Bill proposes should be dealt with in rules or regulations. It is normal for secondary legislation which deals with detailed and operational matters to be subject to the negative resolution procedure. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee, in its report to the House, did not object to the negative resolution procedure provided in Clause 94(2) to deal with matters for regulation included in the Bill.

If the underlying concern is a lack of notice or consultation on the matters contained in regulation, then I believe that I can reassure the Committee.

We have consulted widely both before and during the passage of the Bill, and we will certainly continue to do so on regulations and guidance following on from it. This has been our practice in the past and it will continue to be so in the future.

I shall ensure that our draftsmanship is right, as we believe it to be. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I thank the noble Earl for his explanation. Your Lordships may have noticed, as I have, over the past year that in newspapers and indeed in that august body, the BBC, in particular, the word "either" is becoming confused with "each". We get it in various aspects of broadcasting. I wonder whether that is why the word "either" has crept into Clause 94(2) and whether what the draftsman really

13 Jun 1995 : Column CWH146

meant was "each" House of Parliament. However, if the noble Earl the Minister can give me an undertaking that the intention in the use of the word "either" is that it means both Houses of Parliament, then I am quite satisfied with that explanation. But I am not happy that the word "either" should be left here and I am sure that he would add clarity if the word "either" were eliminated and the correct word inserted in its place. With these observations, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar moved Amendment No. 204:

After Clause 94, insert the following new clause:

Consultation by the Secretary of State

(".—(1) Before the Secretary of State makes an order in terms of any provision of this Act he shall—
(a) consult such organisations as appear to him to be representative of interests substantially affected by his proposals; and
(b) consult such other persons as he considers appropriate.
(2) If it appears to the Secretary of State, as a result of the consultation required by subsection (1) above, that it is appropriate to vary the whole or any part of his proposals, he shall undertake such further consultation with respect to the variations as appears to him to be appropriate.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to expand the area within which the Secretary of State should consult before making any regulations. I beg to move.

The Earl of Lindsay: I must say at the outset that I cannot see the need for this provision to be inserted into the Bill. We have clearly demonstrated over a number of years and on numerous occasions that we are very ready to consult and listen to the views of all relevant parties. The Bill before us today is well informed by such views and well supported for that reason.

The hearing of evidence in the Special Standing Committee was a further demonstration of our willingness to listen. I can assure the Committee that we will continue to consult as frequently on such matters as we have in the past.

The fact that differences of opinion exist in a relatively small number of areas is not as a result of a lack of consultation. It is quite simply that it is not always possible to meet, or indeed reconcile, the expectations of all organisations, which will have their own individual and possibly competing interests to pursue. On that basis, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: I am well aware that a great deal of consultation takes place. However, as Clause 94 stands at the moment, there is no obligation to have any consultation, so that it is left to the discretion of the Secretary of State at the time whether to consult anyone. I do not know whether the noble Earl the Minister accepts that view. Before I withdraw the amendment, perhaps he would give an indication of the Government's view on that.

13 Jun 1995 : Column CWH147

The Earl of Lindsay: I repeat that we demonstrated in matters concerning this specific Bill and its formulation and in other related areas a willingness to consult in a substantial way both during the formulation and during the passage through both Houses. Therefore, the proof is in the practice.

Lord Macaulay of Bragar: Discussion is taking place in the Moses Room and the noble Earl's words will be enshrined in tablets of stone and noted in due course. With that observation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 95 agreed to.

Clause 96 [Extent, short title, minor and consequential amendments, repeals and commencement]:

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 205:

Page 74, line 32, leave out ("and (8)") and insert ("to (9)").

The noble Earl said: These are technical amendments. Amendment No. 205A ensures that the minor consequential amendment set out in Schedule 3 to the Bill and the repeal set out in Schedule 4 do not automatically have effect on the coming into force of the Bill.

Amendments Nos. 205B and 205C ensure that the references to the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992 proposed in Amendment No. 221 will extend to England and Wales. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

5 p.m.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 205A, 205B and 205C:

Page 74, line 35, after ("for") insert "subsections (1), (2) and (5) to (9).
Page 75, line 17, leave out ("and 47") and insert (",47 and 47A").
Page 75, line 19, after ("47") insert (",47 and 47A").
Page 75, line 19, after (",47A)".

On Question , amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No 206:

Page 75, line 33, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
("(8) This section, so far as it relates to the repeal of Part V of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 also extends to the Channel Islands.
(9) Her Majesty may by Order in Council direct that any of the relevant provisions specified in the Order shall extend with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications (if any) as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands; and in this subsection "the relevant provisions" means sections 68,76,77 and 84 of this Act and any regulations made under Section 68 of this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 1 agreed to.

Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978].

[Amendment No. 206A not moved]

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendment No. 206B:

Page 78, line 21 leave out ("16(b)(i)") and insert ("16(1)(b)(i)").

The noble Earl said: The amendments to Schedule 2

13 Jun 1995 : Column CWH148

are simply minor corrections. They stem from detailed scrutiny of proofreading of the Bill and are not concerned in any way with changes to policy. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lindsay moved Amendments Nos. 206C and 206D:

Page 78, line 49, leave out second ("and").
Page 78, line 50, leave out ("subsection (3)(a)") and insert ("subsection(3)—
(i) in paragraph (a),").

The noble Earl said: These are detailed but, I suggest, useful amendments to Sections 12 and 18 of the Adoption (Scotland) Act 1978. Amendments Nos. 206C, 206K, 206L, 206M and 206P are minor consequential amendments.

Under existing legislation, if a child who is under a supervision requirement is placed for adoption or a court decides that he should be freed for adoption, it is necessary for the children's hearing to review the case before the supervision can be terminated.

Where the supervision requirement arose from a need to protect the child and not because of difficulties with his own behaviour, there would almost certainly be no need for it to continue, given the arrangements being made for the child's adoption. The review hearing in those particular circumstances is an unnecessary bureaucratic step which could be hurtful to the new parents. A similar situation arises in relation to freeing orders.

The amendments ensure that where a court is making an adoption or freeing order and it is clear that there is no continuing need for a supervision requirement, the court has the power to terminate that requirement.

As I said, the other amendments are consequential on this main provision. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page