Clause 57 - Recognition in United Kingdom of
Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [Lords]
5:00 pm
Mr James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire, Conservative)
The amendments all address the issue of the Minister taking powers to change things when the Bill does not work out as expected. In all three cases, the Government specify the relevant period for providing information as 21 days, but then take the power, in this case in subsection (7), that
''The appropriate Minister may make regulations substituting a longer period for the period for the time being mentioned'',
that is, 21 days. I notice that by no means are the Government taking powers to shorten the period, only to lengthen it. That implies that they recognise that 21 days might not be enough.
There are two issues. First, how did the Government arrive at 21 days and secondly, why do they not think that it is sufficient? All that is required is for a notice to be compiled and dispatched within 21 days. Most hon. Members are probably familiar with the fact that in some cases it takes Government Departments more like 21 weeks to answer letters from MPs, so it is understandable that they might consider 21 days to be too short a time in which to do anything. However, most people would consider that to be a reasonable time in which to issue a piece of correspondence, which is all that we are talking about when it comes to passing over information about driving qualifications. The point is simple but important. Why have the Government chosen 21 days? Unless it resulted from a complete wet-finger, blowing in the wind exercise, they must have given some thought to the period, but in case it turns out to be wrong, they have taken another power to change—but only to lengthen—it. If it turns out that 10 days is long enough, never mind, they will leave the law as 21 days, but if it is not possible, it can be 28 or 50 or any other number of days.
It is all part of the worrying trend that I have identified previously. The Government are not prepared to commit themselves to meeting particular objectives. Their target-setting agenda is in chaos; we
learned only yesterday about their pledge on getting young people into court. First, they changed the target and now they have abolished the regulation altogether. Here, they are setting a target but saying, ''If we do not meet it, so be it—we will change it.'' In other words, it is meaningless. It is a sign that the Government are beginning to lose it. That is worrying enough, but to find evidence of the fact in legislation that we might hope will be in force for a considerable time is of particular import. I want to hear from the Minister why they chose 21 days and why, having chosen that period, we assume with some thought, they want to take the power to change it at any time.