Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 2, page 3, line 15, at end add—

‘(4) The Secretary of State must lay an annual report before both Houses of Parliament detailing the amendments that have been made by order under subsection (1).’.

I observe that we all spoke very briefly about how the programme motion was very relaxed, and we have just spent an hour dealing with clause 1 of a 61 clause Bill. I seek to reassure hon. Members on both sides of the Committee in saying that I suspect that from now on progress will be slightly faster, unless there are more rafts of Government amendments, as yet unseen, for later parts of the Bill. That is always possible.

Amendment 2 would protect and enhance the powers of this place. We suggest that the Secretary of State should have to lay an annual report before both Houses of Parliament detailing the amendments that have been made by order under subsection (1). This aspect of the Bill was not debated in another place, but as we have just debated, the Home Secretary has the power to amend the definitions and applications of general customs matters, which, as we established in that very good debate, are extremely powerful matters in the hands of officers. If they can be amended by the Home Secretary, we believe it right that he should report regularly to the House on the changes made.

On Second Reading, there was a degree of consensus on that matter among Opposition parties. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on home affairs, complained about a degree of reliance on statutory instruments, which give Ministers the power to make things up at a later date. A similar complaint was made not only by me, but by my hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary.

Such concerns take on added significance in light of amendment 20, which has just been agreed to. I think we would all agree that, at this difficult time for Parliament, the power of Parliament to scrutinise legislation in detail is one of the things that we do not get right and we have not got right for a very long time. Frankly, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to give Parliament the chance to do one of the jobs that people expect it to do. It should not simply scrutinise the big Bills on Second Reading or in Committee; it should make sure that the small things that often become big later are properly scrutinised as well.

The Minister made an extremely good point earlier when he said that he believed in pre-legislative scrutiny. He is right about that. However, he also said that he believed in post-legislative scrutiny and he is right about that, too. Inevitably, some legislation has unintended consequences. If the House of Commons passes legislation knowingly and openly and there are unintended consequences, we all have to face up to that problem. However, the amendment would stop a different problem whereby innocuous- looking orders, or decisions, can be made by Ministers—not quite in secret; I am not accusing  anyone of that—in relation to matters that would not normally attract any attention. One, two or three years down the line, one might suddenly discover that those issues have had a significant effect on the lives of many people, who cannot understand how the decision was made without anyone raising an objection at the time.

Tom Brake (Carshalton & Wallington, Liberal Democrat)

I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s proposal, but if it an annual report, will that not be published after the horse has bolted? Therefore, all his concerns will remain because it will simply be a case of logging what has already happened.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

To some extent, that is a perfectly fair point. This is not perfect. Perfection would be to give Parliament the ability to scrutinise publicly and in debate every order that is made. I think we all know that, in practical terms, that is not going to happen.

Where I disagree with the hon. Gentleman is that even if it is a case of looking at things after they have happened, the fact that Ministers will have to make this annual report—and they know that they will have to do so—will act as a brake on them and make them think, “Do I want to write this into the annual report that I know I will have to produce on these matters? Will this look acceptable?” The use of deterrents is an important weapon for Parliament to have.

Again, I am sure that all parties would agree that it is dangerous to allow Ministers almost unfettered power, but that is one of the possible effects of the system that we have. It is sensible for this House to seek to insert itself into that process and to be able to do its proper job. Clause 2 (2)(b) in particular gives Ministers extremely wide powers. Any sensible Minister would welcome the possibility of having some sort of oversight because, of course, one of the long-term effects of effective oversight is that Ministers can often be saved from themselves. The prospect of being scrutinised would give rise to further ministerial self-censorship, and prevent foolish things being done. This is a modest proposal, which I hope the Minister will welcome for his own sake as much as anyone else’s.

Phil Woolas (Minister of State (also in the Home Office), Home Office; Oldham East & Saddleworth, Labour)

I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s intent. It is important to clarify Parliament’s intent because otherwise it is left to courts and tribunals to do so, but let me reassure him.

The clause and the explanatory notes describe the powers being transferred, which can be used only by affirmative order of the House. Therefore, the purpose of the hon. Gentleman’s amendment—that Ministers would have to justify such use—is already met. My argument against the annual report is not that it is not desirable for accountability—he is absolutely right that the existence of such a report would get the Minister to consider that—but that that is already the case because of the affirmative resolution requirement. With that reassurance, I hope that he will not press his amendment.

Damian Green (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Ashford, Conservative)

I am grateful for the Minister’s words. In the spirit of good will, I shall accept his reassurance and beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.