This section concerns the amendment of the regulations. I take the Minister's point that secondary legislation as such does not lend itself to amendment. I quite agree. Thinking back now to the 22 EEC regulations that we enacted a month or so ago in this House, there were a number of those that were secondary legislation in the true sense of the word, detailed, highly technical matters, not of fundamental importance but with very little policy content. I quite see that no amendment would lie there. Indeed, I cannot think that any Committee would either want to amend them or indeed to nullify them.
There were, on the other hand, a number of other regulations which, strictly speaking, were not secondary legislation but which were precisely the type of thing that over the years we have discussed over and over again in this House. For example, regulations interesting people who sell eggs and so on, with provision for criminal penalties, for giving people licences to sell eggs, withdrawing the licences and all this kind of thing. We have had complete statutes before this House dealing with these things. These are not in any normal sense of the word secondary legislation and thereby I think they do lend themselves far more to amendment.
The second point is a very minor matter of the other resolution. Again, I take the Minister's point that a resolution is clearly not a binding thing but then, on the other hand, let us consider the functions of the Committee. It is to deal with regulations, directives and decisions. Clearly, all those are binding in one form or another. Why they cannot call them by all the same name I cannot imagine. Then there are recommendations and opinions. I hesitate to translate the gobbledegook of the EEC. It may be that in EEC terms a recommendation and opinion is also binding, but somehow I doubt it.