Schedule 8
Serious Crime Bill [Lords]
3:30 pm
Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham, Conservative)
Before I speak to the amendments, may I thank the Public Bill Office for its assistance in drafting them? This is the last group of amendments on which I shall have a substantial voice. The staff of the office drafted a great many amendments, and the fact that they have appeared on the amendment paper in order and relatively comprehensible is to their credit, and I am grateful for that.
The amendments have three purposes. First, amendment No. 168 would delete the provision that enables the Secretary of State to
“repeal Part 6 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002”
and to make a consequential change to the statues. Secondly, amendments Nos. 164 and 166 would remove the general power to repeal and amend legislation outside the Bill. Thirdly and lastly, the amendments would incorporate the concept of the super-affirmative resolution wherever the affirmative procedure is being adopted.
Amendment No. 168 is narrow in compass. I am against Secretaries of State taking to themselves powers by affirmative resolution to amend the language of or to repeal parts of other statutes. That should be done by primary legislation, in the passage of which one would have the opportunity to examine in much greater detail the proposals than is possible under the affirmative procedure.
On the second purpose, the more general point is that in the Bill, and in clause 79 in particular, the Government are taking a much more general power to repeal legislation by affirmative resolution. I find that difficult to justify, because affirmative resolutions are not amendable. Affirmative resolutions are presented to the House, which must accept them either wholly or not at all following a short debate lasting—normally—an hour and a half. In principle, that does not seem to be a good way of handling legislation. Indeed, the House recognised that by passing the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 and the super-affirmative procedure measures.
Super-affirmative procedure broadly means that the House has the opportunity to debate an early draft of resolutions before they are laid before it. That way, Members can express a view on the draft before the resolution is made. That enables them to say whether they approve of the draft before it is laid, and it gives the Government the ability to modify the draft to reflect criticism. That is an improvement on the normal affirmative procedure.
My view has always been that we ought to have a mechanism for amending affirmative resolutions when they are brought before the House, so that we are not driven either to accepting or rejecting a law, but that is not the procedure at the moment. The amendments would incorporate the concept that we should always use the super-affirmative procedure for the affirmative resolutions that will be brought about by the Bill. That is probably the best of the available options.
I am sure that other hon. Members will say more on the matter, but to summarise, I very much dislike the ministerial habit of taking powers unto themselves. That also applies to Conservative Ministers in Administrations of which I was a member; no doubt I did it myself—[Interruption.] The Minister is smirking. Of course, I fear that he has a list of the affirmative resolutions that I brought to the House in a previous incarnation. In fact, I am against the habit. I become more libertarian and liberal as I get older, although I am not a member of the Liberal Democrats who, by the way, have no presence in the room at the moment.
We should be slow to give Ministers the ability to change other legislation with powers conferred in the Bill. If we are going to give such powers, it must be done by affirmative resolution, but that itself is pretty narrow, therefore given where we are the super-affirmative procedure is the best we can do. Those are my reasons for tabling the amendments.