Work and Families Bill

Yes, Amendment No. 20. These are probing amendments, seeking a very positive assurance from the Government. All the amendments call for regulations made under this legislation to be subject to the positive resolution procedure. The Secretary of State in the other place gave us an assurance that that indeed would be the case. I hasten to add that I do not doubt for one moment the Secretary of State’s word on the subject. However, on reading the Bill as it reached your Lordships’ House, I found that that was far from clear, so I raised the issue on Second Reading. In his reply, the Minister said that all regulations were affirmative, apart from those on maternity pay and flexible working. That gives rise to two different points. First, as to the regulations other than those mentioned by the Minister, which provide for maternity pay and flexible working, the Minister told your Lordships that the provision for positive resolutions was to be found in the clauses or in Schedule 1. He then went on to say that it is,"““not easy to find as you have to delve into Schedule 1 to get some of it””.—[Official Report, 14/02/06; col. 1121.]" And then he added, ““I think””. Those two words underline my problem. The Minister and I share the same dilemma. It is by no means clear where the provision is in that schedule, and I have really tried very hard to find it. The Government claim to espouse clarity of laws and regulations, and transparency. There is no reason why I or the Minister should have to go ““delving around”” in Schedule 1, as he put it, to find out what the law is. I also do not understand why the provisions about some regulations made under Clauses 13 and 14 are specifically made subject to the positive procedure, whereas the others, which apparently are also subject to the positive procedure, are for some reason buried in Schedule 1. It seems such an extraordinary way to structure a Bill, and it makes it very difficult for people to see what the position is. I repeat and I emphasise that not for one moment do I doubt the words of the Minister in either House. All I need is an unequivocal statement, preferably in one simple sentence, that the regulations will be subject to the positive procedure, and not one that ends with the words, ““I think””. Also, as the Minister has a wonderful staff working on the Bill, maybe they would be kind enough to tell us on what page, at what line, and where it says it, so that we have it easier. If someone were looking at the Bill without the benefit of having Hansard next to them so they could see what the Minister has said about the positive procedure, they would say, ““Why isn’t it here?””. That is quite important. The two exceptions mentioned by the Minister on Second Reading were the regulations relating to maternity adoption pay and flexible working. The question there is, ““why?””. Neither of those matters relate to some trivial administrative point unworthy of taking up parliamentary time unless someone wishes to raise a particular issue. As so often happens these days, this Bill is largely an enabling Bill. Much of the substance is buried away in regulation which means that, even when Parliament gets the opportunity to debate it, there is just one single chance rather than three separate stages in each House, and, conventionally, without the opportunity to amend those regulations. So what is so trivial in those two particular regulations that they do not deserve full parliamentary scrutiny? To summarise: will the Minister please give the House the confirmation about the regulations and where they are, and give us an equally clear explanation of why others, which in our view are also important, are not to be positive? I beg to move.