The
Chairman: I have been advised by the usual
channels—I am merely a servant of the Committee—that they
hope to make certain progress by the time of the Division on the Floor
of the House, which I understand will take place at about 20 minutes
past seven. I say that merely to concentrate the minds of Committee
members.
Mr.
Coaker: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. Before I address the
specifics of the clause, I will give the hon. Member for Bury St.
Edmunds some of the information on the e-Borders programme that he
requested and that he and other Committee members might find useful. So
far, the £1.2 billion e-Borders system has screened more than 78
million passengers travelling to and from the UK, leading to more than
2,700 arrests, including those of murderers, drug dealers and sex
offenders. Other interventions have resulted in the seizure of
improperly used British passports, the confiscation of drugs and the
refusal of leave to enter to a substantial number of foreign nationals.
E-Borders will screen against watch lists 60 per cent. of all passenger
and crew movements in and out of the UK by December 2009, rising to 95
per cent. by December 2010 and 100 per cent. by March 2014. That
answers the hon. Gentleman’s specific question about the
progress of the e-Borders programme, and I hope that that is of help to
him and the Committee.
I thank the
hon. Gentleman for his support for what I think is a reasonable change
to the powers that customs officers have. Clause 73 supplements the
existing customs powers available to Her Majesty’s Revenue and
Customs and the UK Border Agency in relation to people arriving in the
UK, which, broadly speaking, are currently limited to questioning
travellers about their goods and baggage. Customs checks are no longer
random, but risk-based and intelligence-led. Customs officers and UKBA
officers need first to establish whether the person in front of them is
the person they are looking for or, if they are at a busy airport,
whether they have arrived on a high-risk flight that they are
targeting. For that purpose, the clause gives customs officers powers
to require the people to produce identity and travel documents and ask
questions of passengers about their journey. That will enable officers
to decide whether to proceed with further checks, such as examination
of baggage.
I think that
that important alignment of powers between Her Majesty’s Revenue
and Customs officers and those of the UK Border Agency will make a
significant difference, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support.
This is one of those measures that, on reading it, I asked,
“Can’t they do this already?” It is a sensible
measure, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports it.
Question
put and agreed to.
Clause 73
accordingly ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
74 to 76 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
77Prohibition
on importation of offensive
weapons
Mr.
Coaker: I beg to move amendment 311, in
clause 77, page 96, line 27, after
‘prohibited’ insert ‘, subject to section
141ZC’. This
amendment makes the prohibition on importation of offensive weapons
subject to the exceptions in new section 141ZC of the Criminal Justice
Act 1988 (inserted by amendment
313).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendments 312 to 316, 328 to 333 and 337 to
342.
Mr.
Coaker: The hon. Member for Hornchurch and I deserve to
exchange wry smiles, I think. We have been trying to sort this problem
out between ourselves for quite a while. The provision arises from
samurai swords as much as from anything else, but we are getting
there. Clause
77, with the amendments made in part 10 of schedule 6, separates out
the importation consequences of specifying a weapon in an order under
section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 from the consequences that
flow under section 141(1) on sale, hire and so on. In doing so, the
clause provides clarity on the powers of the Scottish and UK
Governments to ban offensive weapons and facilitates the development of
a common border control north and south of the border to support our
drive to tackle knife crime.
Amendments
311 and 314 set out exceptions to the prohibition on importation of
offensive weapons, rather than defences to specific offences, as is
currently the case. That means that the exceptions can be relied on in
proceedings for any criminal offence, as well as in forfeiture
proceedings under the Customs and Excise Management Act
1979. Amendments
315 and 316 amend the transitional provision in clause 77. The
transitional provision applies where the date of importation cannot be
established beyond reasonable doubt and where that would prevent a
person from being convicted. The amendments widen the transitional
provision to apply to any offence under the Customs and Excise
Management Act rather than to specified importation offences.
Amendments
328 to 333 and 337 to 342 amend Scottish legislation on offensive
weapon bans and ensure that defences for the purposes of film, TV and
theatre can apply to the offences of sale, manufacture and so on of
offensive weapons in Scotland. Such defences are already available in
England and Wales. I hope—the hon. Member for Hornchurch will
understand this—that
this is the last time that I will have to move an amendment on the
matter before this Committee or indeed the
House. James
Brokenshire: I am grateful to the Minister for introducing
the proposals. I think that this is either the third or the fourth time
that we have had the opportunity to discuss the subject in detail. We
are obviously building on the 10-minute Bill in which I initially
kicked it off. It seems quite a long time ago.
I welcome the
fact that the measure will be UK-wide—I know from my previous
discussions with the Minister that it did not apply north of the border
before—and that a number of the detailed points raised in
statutory instrument Committees in relation to exemptions have been
modified slightly. We will certainly keep the matter under review, as I
am sure he will. Although he may believe that this is the last time
that he will have cause to review the provisions, I cannot guarantee
it.
Amendment
311 agreed
to. Amendments
made: 312, in clause 77, page 96, line 35, leave out subsection
(4). This amendment
omits the order making power to create exceptions and exemptions to the
prohibition on the importation of offensive weapons, and the power to
create defences to certain importation
offences. Amendment
313, in clause 77, page 97, leave out
lines 7 to 35 and
insert— ‘141ZC
Prohibition on importation of offensive weapons:
exceptions (1) The importation
of a weapon is not prohibited by section 141ZB if one of the
following exceptions
applies. (2) Exception 1 is
that the weapon is imported for the purposes only of functions carried
out on behalf of— (a)
the Crown, or (b) a visiting
force. (3) Exception 2 is that
the weapon is imported for the purposes only of making it available to
a museum or gallery which does not distribute
profits. (4) Exception 3 is
that the weapon is imported for the purposes only of making it
available for one or more of the
following— (a)
theatrical performances; (b)
rehearsals of theatrical
performances; (c) the
production of films; (d) the
production of television
programmes. (5) In subsection
(4)— “films”
has the meaning given by section 5B of the Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act
1988; “television
programmes” has the meaning given by section 405 of the
Communications Act 2003. (6)
The Secretary of State may by order provide for further exceptions from
the prohibition on importation of weapons under section
141ZB. (7) Orders under this
section are to be made by statutory
instrument. (8) A statutory
instrument containing an order under this section may not be made
unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a
resolution of each House of
Parliament.’. This
amendment sets out exceptions to the importation prohibition, rather
than defences to offences under section 50(2) and (3) of the Customs
and Excise Management Act 1979. this means the exceptions can be relied
on in any criminal proceedings and in forfeiture proceedings under the
1979 Act.
Amendment 314,
in
clause 77, page 97, line 37, at
end insert— ‘141ZD
Prohibition on importation of offensive weapons: burdens of
proof (1) This section applies
for the purposes of proceedings for an offence under the Customs and
Excise Management Act 1979 relating to a weapon the importation of
which is prohibited by section 141ZB
above. (2) An exception
conferred by or under section 141ZC is to be taken not to apply unless
sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the
exception. (3) Where sufficient
evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to an exception, it
is to be taken to apply unless the contrary is proved beyond a
reasonable
doubt.”’. This
amendment makes provision about the burden of proof which will apply
where a person wishes to rely on an exception to the prohibition on
importation of offensive weapons in criminal
proceedings. Amendment
315, in
clause 77, page 97, line 41, leave
out ‘section 50(2) or (3)’ and insert ‘any
provision’. This
amendment amends the transitional provision which applies where the
importation date cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt and this
would otherwise prevent a person being convicted. It widens the
provision to apply to any offence under the Customs and Excise
Management Act 1979 rather than just specified importation
offences. Amendment
316, in
clause 77, page 98, line 1, leave
out ‘section 50(2) or (3)’ and insert ‘that
provision’.—(Mr.
Coaker.) See
Member’s explanatory statement for amendment
315. Clause
77, as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill. Clauses
78 to 85 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
86Minor
and consequential amendments and repeals and
revocations
James
Brokenshire: I beg to move amendment 343, in
clause 86, page 102, line 13, leave
out subsections (7) and
(8).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
Government amendment
317.
James
Brokenshire: Given your indication, Sir Nicholas, in terms
of time and the impending division, I will be brief. However, in the
short time I have been in this House it has been interesting to note
how these minor inconsequential amendments provisions have grown,
seeming to cede more authority to the Government to deal in secondary
legislation with matters previously dealt with in primary legislation.
With your leave, Sir Nicholas, I will combine my stand part comments to
save time. Look at subsection (3) where
“the Secretary
of State may by order make such supplementary...provision...for
the general purposes, or any particular purpose, of this Act or in
consequence of any provision made by or under this
Act”. This
is extremely wide in its ambit and drafting and seems to give a broad
swathe of additional powers and authority to the Government to make
subsequent orders
that may be important and significant by way of order-making power,
rather than dealing with it by way of primary legislation, allowing a
full and proper debate on the merits or otherwise of those
provisions. The amendment
in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds
seeks to delete subsections (7) and (8). Those subsections provide that
the negative resolution mechanism will apply in circumstances where the
repeal, amendment or change does not apply to a public general Act.
There may well be other statutory instruments approved by affirmative
resolution that may then be captured and changed by virtue of these
provisions, such that they are being amended, and on the basis of this
language they would suddenly become subject to the negative resolution
process. It is this mission creep in respect of these clauses that
seems to extend the additional powers, moving not simply into statutory
instrument territory but also into the negative resolution approach.
That is what I object to in the way these matters have been
progressing, even over the past few years. I would urge the Minister to
consider this provision more carefully in the way it has been drafted
and the powers that seem to be ceded because on its current terms I do
not think it is
acceptable.
Mr.
Campbell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for seeking
to clarify this measure because it has prompted a Government amendment
to seek to do precisely that.
If I may
speak first to Government amendment 317 which is a minor technical
amendment intended to clarify clause 86 (7). Subsection (7) states that
the affirmative resolution procedure is not required for an order made
under this clause that does not amend or repeal a provision of a public
general Act. The amendment is intended to make clear that an order does
not amend or repeal a provision of a public general Act as described in
subsection (7) if the provisions being amended or repealed were
inserted by a local Act or any other Act that is not a public general
Act. Indeed, such an order would be subject to the negative resolution
procedure. The hon. Gentleman’s amendment 343, on the other
hand, seeks to make all orders made under clause 86 subject to the
affirmative resolution procedure. We believe that the affirmative
resolution procedure is necessary for those orders that amend or repeal
public general Acts, a point made by the hon. Gentleman, but it is not
necessary for all orders made under clause 86 to be subject to that
procedure. For example, the order-making power could in theory be used
to replace references in secondary legislation to the Independent
Barring Board with references to the Independent Safeguarding Authority
should clause 62 come into force. We consider that such amendments
would not warrant the use of the affirmative resolution procedure.
Indeed, the clause is in line with provisions in other Acts of
Parliament. For example, similar provisions were made in section 148 of
the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 and section 75
of the Charities Act
2006. I
hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw amendment 343. I invite the
Committee to support amendment
317. 7.15
pm
| 
