Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No.4, in

clause 3, page 2, leave out lines 15 and 16.

This will be a brief discussion about the negative and affirmative resolution procedures. I am moving the amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire and others. Under the clause, the Secretary of State may by order amend schedule 1 to vary a class of exempt hunting. We shall consider shortly the detail of schedule 1. It is a lengthy schedule, which deals with exempt hunting. The powers given to the Secretary of State to make subsidiary legislation and, in this case, to amend primary legislation should be dealt with under the affirmative resolution procedure and not, as clause 48 provides, under the negative resolution procedure.

Clause 48(1) states:

''An order, regulations or rules made by the Secretary of State or the Lord Chancellor under this Act shall be made by statutory instrument.''

Clause 48(2) states:

''An order of the Secretary of State under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''

Clause 48(3) states:

''Regulations and rules under this Act shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.''

If I am wrong and amendments to the schedule are to be dealt with under the affirmative procedure, I shall be happy. However, the drafting of clause 48, when married to clause 3, is not clear. If the amendments are to be dealt with under the negative procedure, I am unhappy. There is far too much of that, and we ought to stop it.

Mr George Stevenson (Stoke-on-Trent South, Labour)

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman finished his speech?

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

Yes, I have. Would you like me to say it again?

Mr Mark Tami (Alyn & Deeside, Labour)

As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Committee, I thank you for your chairmanship, Mr. Stevenson. I agree, at least in part, with the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). It is important to cover this issue, which was discussed on Thursday, when I was not here. A future Secretary of State should not have a wide-ranging power to exempt certain forms of hunting in schedule 1. If there is to be a change—clearly that could be a fundamental change—it should be dealt with on the Floor of the House and not by some back-door method.

Mr Alun Michael (Minister of State (Rural Affairs), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Cardiff South & Penarth, Labour/Co-operative)

Happily, I am able to agree with the line of argument. I hope that I can satisfy hon. Members immediately. If they look at the wording of subsection 2, they will see that it states explicitly:

''The Secretary of State may by order amend Schedule 1 so as to vary a class of exempt hunting.''

If hon. Members turn to clause 48(2), they will see that it is very clear and states:

''An order of the Secretary of State under this Act may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.''

The provisions make it explicit that the affirmative resolution procedure has to be used in relation to this clause.

The purpose of the power is to deal with the unforeseen situation in which the detail of an existing exemption is wrong. For example, an exemption may have been drafted in such a way that does not reflect what happens in practice, or experience may show that a way has been found to circumvent the intention of the exemption and the restriction a particular activity. If there is a need for change in the light of experience, Ministers can use the power by speedily laying an order before the House. The alternative would be primary legislation, which can be extremely time-consuming, even if it is obvious, simple and supported on both sides of the House.

Safeguards are built into the procedure, and they are precisely those that were requested by my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and the hon. and learned Member for Harborough. The removal of exemptions and the introduction new exemptions are not permitted. The power is limited to variations on existing exemptions. An order to make a variation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, which requires the order to be approved by resolution of both Houses of Parliament.

In the light of that, I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Harborough will be happy to withdraw his amendment.

Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough, Conservative)

I am. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.