Supplemental provisions

I beg to move Amendment No. 153, in Clause 46, page 28, line 19, leave out subsection (6).

I suspect that the Minister is very glad to have passed over clause 44 without a debate, as we all are. I do not think that any of us really understood it, and she would have had to make a reasoned response. She must be relieved, as indeed am I.

Amendment No. 153 is very narrow and represents a grievance that I have had in this place for years. [Interruption.] It is not my only grievance—I see the Whip chatting away. I have many grievances. This is just one of them. As is so often the case, the Bill gives to the Secretary of State the power to amend by order—in this case, the power to amend the listed offences in schedule 3. The Committee will have been diligent in this matter and will have checked the order-making powers at the end of the Bill and found that this particular one is subject to the negative procedure. I can assure the Minister of that; it is not subject to the affirmative procedure.

That raises two questions: first, should we modify a Bill at all? And secondly, if we should do so, should it be done in a way that is wholly unamendable and unlikely to be challenged? That raises general propositions and principles that I have rehearsed time and time again. I am against that procedure. If we are to amend Bills by way of order, I think that it should be done using the affirmative resolution procedure. In general, in fact, I am very much in favour of the super-affirmative resolution procedure, which enables the House to consider whether it wishes changes to be made to the draft before it comes before it for resolution.

Having said that, however, I strongly suspect that the Minister will make an unhelpful response, and I am conscious that on this matter the Committee is unlikely to be with me. I suspect, therefore, that we will not be voting on it.

I am almost disappointed that we went past Clause 44 without my getting the chance to practise my newly gained understanding of what it actually means—I did an awful lot of work on it. But there we are! No doubt, it will come in handy at some point.

I understand from the way in which the right hon. and learned Gentleman moved his Amendment that he is continuing his campaign for the powers of the House to be as he thinks that they ought to be. I fully understand that. He has assured me that these order-making powers come under the negative procedure, but as I understand it clause 79(3) states that amendments made under clause 46(6) will be subject to the affirmative procedure. If that is incorrect, I shall get my lawyers to have another look—

I think that the Minister is right actually. I am sorry.

I am correct. That is not bad for so late in the evening. If I had been incorrect, I would have undertaken to provide for our intention that it be subject to the affirmative procedure, but given that the right hon. and learned Gentleman accepts that I am correct, perhaps I should invite him to withdraw his Amendment.

The Minister is correct. I had overlooked Clause 79(3) or at least did not spot the reference to clause 46(6). None the less, I would have favoured the super-affirmative resolution, because, of course, the affirmative resolution procedure does not enable the  House to amend an order. She could come forward, therefore, with a raft of amendments under the provisions, and the House will have to take them either in totality or not at all, whereas in fact we might like some amendments but not others. That is another objection to the affirmative resolution procedure. However, she is right and deserves congratulations for having spotted my error. On that basis and, indeed, on others, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.