Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 114, in

clause 92, page 61, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment No. 84, in

clause 92, page 61, line 28, leave out from 'section' to 'House' in line 29 and insert

'proposed to be made by the Secretary of State is not to be made unless a draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of each'.

Amendment No. 115, in

clause 92, page 61, line 31, leave out from 'order' to 'is' in line 32.

Amendment No. 85, in

clause 92, page 61, line 41, at end add—

'(9) This section shall cease to have effect at the end of one year beginning with the date on which it comes into force.'.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

All four amendments relate to the issue of parliamentary scrutiny and the future of the legislation.

Amendment No. 114 would leave out clause 92(3). We think that subsection (3) is far too wide a power—a Henry VIII power. It was said in another place—I think by one of the noble Friends of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland—that in Scotland such a power should be named after the title of a famous Scottish play. I do not know whether theatrical bad luck applies to parliamentarians, but I shall not make the mistake of one noble Lord by naming the play. I am sure that those of us who have had links with the theatre will know what I mean.

The provisions under clause 92(3) are far too wide, give far too much unfettered discretion and we want them deleted. Our argument will be familiar not only to the Minister but to all Committee members. The

Minister knows that we are never keen on Henry VIII-type powers.

Amendment No. 115 would cut out part of subsection (6) to make it less wide, and introduce a far narrower provision for the reasons that I have already stated. Amendment No. 84 would insert in subsection (5) new wording, which will provide for greater parliamentary scrutiny.

Amendment No. 85 introduces a sunset subsection to the clause. On 17 March, there was a long debate in another place at columns GC58 and 59 on the advantages of sunset clauses, but there would be no benefit to be had from my repeating that debate at length. Conservative Members are of the view that it does no harm to introduce sunset provisions in new legislation. It gives an opportunity to reflect on how well the legislation is working, and to identify any problems. I place much faith in the advantages of sunset clauses because I am a parliamentarian who believes that we have too many laws in this country, and, all too often, laws are left on the statute book; nobody ever goes back and asks, ''Did we get it right?'' It is only when there are catastrophes, such as the Government's recent tax credits scheme and other things that they have got wrong and had to own up to in the past six years, that we have a review. It would be good to have a sunset clause in most legislation, and if I am ever successful in getting a high place in the private Members' ballot in the House of Commons—

Mr Alan Hurst (Braintree, Labour)

Order. We cannot deal with the entire scope of legislation. Please restrict yourself to the amendment, Mr. Hawkins.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Mr. Hurst, I have said enough to show the depth of my support for sunset clauses.

Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney & Shetland, Liberal Democrat)

I shall likewise be brief. I generally agree with the hon. Gentleman on the broad scope of powers in the clause. It seems that we rehearse these arguments in every Committee. If anyone wants a full statement of my views, they will find them in the record of proceedings for the Proceeds of Crime, Enterprise, Extradition and Police (Northern Ireland) Bills. Otherwise, I am content to adopt the arguments of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath.

Ms Caroline Flint (Parliamentary Under-Secretary (reducing organised and international crime, anti drugs co-ordination and international and European issues), Home Office; Don Valley, Labour)

The purpose of clause 92 is to allow the Secretary of State or, if the subject matter falls within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, the Scottish Ministers to make consequential and incidental provisions that are necessary to give full effect to the provisions of the Bill. The clause is needed to ensure that the Bill functions properly when it comes into force and that the legislation is as effective as possible. I note that the tax credits that the Government introduced have taken 500,000 children out of poverty. I believe that that is a sign of effective legislation.

I am well aware that the Opposition are suspicious of so-called Henry VIII powers. However, the Government have already listened carefully to their concerns in another place and tabled amendments to ensure that any orders amending Acts of Parliament under the clause will be subject to affirmative

resolution, while orders to amend secondary legislation will be subject to negative resolution. That is in line with the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, whose judgment in such matters is greatly respected.

It may be useful if I start by reminding the Committee of the purpose of the powers in clause 92. ''Henry VIII powers'' is not an entirely appropriate name for such clauses, as it implies that they grant the Government sweeping powers to amend legislation at will, without Parliament having so much as a glance at what they are doing. We all know that that is not the case. The power in clause 92 concerns only supplementary and consequential provisions that fall within the scope of the Bill—it is no wider. It would be ultra vires to use the power in another way, and we have no intention of doing so.

However, it appears that the Opposition are not satisfied with that position. The effect of amendments Nos. 84 and 115 would be to ensure that any future statutory instruments making supplementary provisions to the Bill, regardless of whether they would amend primary or secondary legislation, would be subject to an affirmative rather than negative resolution procedure.

The Government resist the amendments on the ground that they would hamper the effective operation of the Bill. The effect of the amendments would be to clog up parliamentary time with debates on minor and technical statutory instruments, which would neither merit nor benefit from discussion. Any future amendments to the Bill should be subject to scrutiny that is proportionate to their scope. The amendments do not take that into account.

Amendment No. 114 would remove subsection (3), which clarifies that the powers in clause 92 can be used to amend primary or secondary legislation. I am not sure what the Opposition are seeking to achieve through the amendment, but it would hamper the clarity of the clause.

Finally, amendment No. 85 seeks a sunset clause on the power granted to the Secretary of State in clause 92 one year after the Bill comes into force. That would mean that any further amendments that were identified after that time would have to be made by primary legislation, whenever an opportunity arose.

I am sympathetic to the intention behind the amendment, but I am unable to accept it. Limiting the duration of the power to a year after the commencement date of the Bill would restrict the possibility of identifying and then scheduling adequate parliamentary time to debate any subsequent amendments. Hon. Members will agree that the Bill, which amends a substantial amount of previous legislation, is highly complex. While every effort has been made to ensure that all consequential provisions have been accounted for, it is possible that others could arise; for example, in respect of the highly technical road traffic provisions in part 3. The need for consequential amendments may not come to light during the year after the Bill comes into force. If the power were to expire, we would be unable to make

changes that are necessary to make the legislation fully effective.

I am unable to accept the amendment for those reasons. The clause strikes an effective balance between providing an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny, while at the same time ensuring that parliamentary time is used effectively. Therefore, I urge the Opposition to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath, Conservative)

Perhaps I should have said at the outset that my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns said in another place that she was grateful to the Government for moving in our direction and introducing amendments to that effect, and Conservative Members appreciate that. We were hoping to introduce proposals for further parliamentary scrutiny but I shall not take time by pursuing the matter further and dividing the Committee.

Before I ask leave to withdraw the amendment, I want to mention something that I noticed in the Minister's brief, although I do not blame her for it. Even in the Committee's final sitting, I am reminded that we in Parliament are protectors of the traditional use of the English language. Whoever wrote the brief decided that the word ''sunset'' can now be used as a verb. ''To sunset'' is a pretty appalling phrase. For X years I have heard Ministers turning the word ''scapegoat'' into a verb, and they did so when they were in Opposition. At the risk of being accused of being a grammatical pedant—when my party was in Government, I was referred to as the Finance Bill's grammatical conscience—I ask the Minister, somewhat tongue in cheek, to persuade her officials not to use the phrase ''to sunset'' in future briefings.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.