| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: As always, my noble friend Lady Carnegy has just put me on the right rails. The monitor indicates the number of the amendment being debated. I apologise for getting that wrong.
Lord Dholakia: I am delighted that my earlier absence led to such fast progress. On future occasions I shall see that as a means of making progress on Bills such as this. I am in the hands of the Committee. We have no difficulty whatever if the Minister wants to proceed. The noble Baroness makes an important point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has tabled Amendment No. 134A. Perhaps there is a procedure whereby we could adjourn the
debate on that particular matter, or alternatively stop at that point, which does not give us much time for debate anyway.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That would mean that we could go as far as the end of the amendments to Clause 52.
Lord Filkin: We should certainly be pleased to deal with group 18 and speak to Amendments Nos. 122 to 126, 129 and 131.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised an important point on whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, has been notified of the point at which we intend to end the proceedings. I believe that the relevant powers are seeking to check on that now.
This may not be for me to suggest, but perhaps the question about the noble and learned Lord is a more fundamental issue than whether Clause 50 shall stand part. Therefore, if the Committee is content to do so, while we are waiting for that information, we could deal with the Government's peculiar request to oppose part of their own Bill and deal with group 18—by which time we may have a clear answer as to whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, has been notified that we intend to continue. If he has not, I share the view that it would be quite wrong to do so.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am not against what the Minister suggests, but it strikes me that other noble Lords may want to speak to some of these amendments. We must be careful in dealing with this procedure not to be too cavalier. It may suit Members of the Committee who are present, but any Member of the House might wish to speak to an amendment. That said, do other noble Lords think that we might go as far as Amendment No. 170?
Noble Lords: No—to Amendment No. 134.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was concerned—thinking back to the first day in Committee—when we agreed to an amendment on the Marshalled List that was gobbledegook. I read it out as gobbledegook and it was recorded as such. It was corrected in Hansard. We agreed that that amendment should be included in the Bill. The Minister could not really tell us what it was about. I felt that we went a little beyond where we should have done in this procedure. I hope that the Minister will forgive me for mentioning it, but it is relevant. We have to be careful when using this procedure not to overstep the arrangements. We must not include amendments when we do not know what they signify. I wonder whether we should be discussing amendments that others thought we would not reach today.
I may be wrong in saying that in this respect except in so far as it relates to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I suppose that other noble Lords do not know where we shall get to. It is difficult to keep the
whole House involved in this form of Committee procedure. It confirms my belief that we should not go too far with the freedom that we have to proceed.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I apologise to the Committee for asking one further question. I, too, had misunderstood the Minister's first point. I thought that it was his intention that we should stop before reaching the part of the Bill dealing with road traffic. Is he now saying that the intention is to continue after Part 2? I thought that all we were being asked to do was to finish at the end of Part 2.
Lord Filkin: No. I was saying that if we continued—and that would be only if, in all the circumstances, the Committee was comfortable in doing so—we should deal with Part 2 but not begin debating Part 3, dealing with driving disqualifications.
I am sensitive to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. This is a good process, but only in so far as people feel comfortable with it and do not feel that we are going further than is right and proper. It may be that I shall receive categorical information about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. That may or may not make those issues feel comfortable as regards groups 21, 22 and 23. If the Committee is content, however, I do not think that anyone would be unduly upset about the Government opposing the Question that Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill. My remark seems to elicit a smile but not too much outrage. We might be able to do that and deal also with group 18 while waiting for an answer as regards the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. Those are merely suggestions.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: After that interesting interruption, the Question is whether Clause 50 shall stand part of the Bill? As many as are of that opinion shall say "Content"; to the contrary "Not-Content". I think that the Not-Contents have it. I am told that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, said "Content", although I did not hear him. Is it a unanimous decision that Clause 50 shall not stand part of the Bill? The remaining Members of the Committee do not want it to stand part. I see that the noble Lord is in agreement.
Clause 51 [Subordinate legislation]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 122:
- Page 29, line 19, after "instrument" insert "(other than an instrument to which subsection (4A) applies)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 124:
- Page 29, line 22, after "instrument" insert "(other than an instrument to which subsection (4A) applies)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 126:
- Page 29, line 24, at end insert—
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am becoming very confused. I apologise again, but I have not heard the Government move Amendment No. 122—unless I slept through it, and I do not think that I did.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Minister moved it formally.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister did not speak to it with regard to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Minister used the word "formally". I fear that I cannot say what was passing through his mind in using the word. The amendment was spoken to previously.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: If necessary, we can return to the matter on Report.
Lord Filkin: I beg to move Amendment No. 126.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am trying to de-confuse myself. Am I right in saying that in this amendment, as in Amendment No. 122, the Government are implementing what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee wanted? As a member of that committee, I am particularly interested in this matter. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
Lord Filkin: With the leave of the Committee, I shall respond fully to that question. It may provide an opportunity to place on record one or two other issues that have not been addressed given the slight complications in this process.
All the amendments in this group deal with the appropriate scrutiny of order-making powers in Part 1 of the Bill. The amendments to Clause 52 deal with the power to designate further participating countries to which the provisions of Part 1 will apply.
To go into more detail, Amendments Nos. 123 and 125 to Clause 51, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, will require all orders made by means of the powers contained in Part 1 to be made by affirmative resolution.
We do not feel inclined to accept these amendments. Making all orders under Part 1 subject to affirmative resolution would be excessively burdensome and would result in the inappropriate use of parliamentary time. We do not believe that such a change would be justified.
The negative resolution procedure is generally held to offer an appropriate level of scrutiny for this type of legislation. It does not rule out the possibility of a debate should Members feel strongly that this is called for. However, it saves unnecessary debate on matters that simply do not merit it.
The order-making powers in this Bill have been subject to the scrutiny of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. I thank the committee for their helpful report. With two exceptions—one in Clause 52 which I shall deal with next—the committee found that the powers in the Bill were appropriately delegated and subject to an appropriate degree of parliamentary control. Therefore, I am satisfied that Clause 51 should stand as drafted, and am unable to accept the amendments.
I turn to the amendments tabled to Clause 52—namely, Amendments Nos. 123, 130 and 131—and to the government amendments to Clause 51—Amendments Nos. 122, 124 and 126. Both groups have the same purpose and both relate to one of the concerns of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The general thrust of these amendments is to ensure that any order that designated new countries as participating countries for the purposes of Part 1 would be subject to affirmative resolution.
The Opposition amendments to Clause 52—namely, Amendments Nos. 127, 130 and 131—would require any order that designated new countries as participating countries to be made by affirmative resolution. I understand the concerns of the Opposition in relation to this power, which it fears might open up the United Kingdom to unsuitable judicial systems of other countries. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee had similar concerns. Therefore, their report suggested that as the power in Clause 52 to designate countries as "participating countries" could, in theory, be used to designate any country, it should be either restricted in its scope or made subject to affirmative procedure.
In response to the Committee's concerns, the government amendments to Clause 51 would also introduce the affirmative procedure for designated new countries, but with an exception for countries that are already members of the European Union. They provide parallel arrangements for regulations made at Westminster and by the Scottish Parliament. The Government have informed the committee of their intention to table such an amendment, and the committee has indicated that it welcomes that response.
The reason for this exception is that we shall, following their accession to the EU, be designating the 10 new member states due to join in May 2004 to participate in the measures in Part 1. All new member states have gone through an extensive process of assessment before being accepted for membership and must have implemented the EU instruments which this Bill implements.
As new member states, they have effective judicial systems and are signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights. It would not be appropriate or necessary to put up further barriers to the application of these provisions to these countries. I am confident that this exception should be made.
Amendment No. 129 to Clause 52, the final amendment in the group, is a technical amendment to ensure that the order-making power in Clause 52 is fully consistent with the post-devolution situation. It provides that where a participating country is designated by an order, that order-making power is to be exercised as regards Scotland by the Scottish Ministers responsible for matters within devolved competence, and designating participating countries with regard to judicial co-operation is within their devolved competence.
I hope that in the light of the Government's amendment to Clause 51 and the explanation that I have given in response to the explicit question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, as well as addressing a number of other amendments, this may be of assistance to the Committee in their reflections.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister, and particularly to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, for providing the opportunity to ask questions at this point. I would have had to hang my questions on Amendment No. 129, on which I have a separate question. I should like to make it clear that our Amendments Nos. 123, 125 and 131 were tabled to elicit from the Government the response that they have given. We welcome the fact that they have, as we believe, fully met the requirements of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. As the Minister said, our amendments were wider, but our aim was to achieve the result that he has given.
There are other issues which may more properly be debated in court; however, I consider that I should raise them now in order to give notice to the Government. I have some remaining concerns, and for this reason, if the Government decide to list new countries in an order, the House will then face great difficulty because the order cannot be amended.
Perhaps we can imagine a situation in which the Government have listed new countries which are to become "participating countries". There might be just five countries on the list—to pick a number out of the air. Four of those might be wholly unobjectionable. However, some noble Lords might find one of those countries objectionable. As the noble Lord is aware, the rules relating to Standing Orders do not permit us to amend the statutory instrument. The House would then be in the position of having to reject the whole order if it found enough people to do so, instead of being able to amend it. The Government would then be in the position of having to waste more time and money in an attempt to bring back the order.
My question is: is there any way in which the Government would either be able to bring forward an order for participating countries in respect of just one at a time? What procedure would the Government take to canvass opinion before an order was brought forward which contained more than one country? The reason I raise this issue—it is not something that I have plucked out of the blue—is with regard to a different department. Approximately two or three years ago, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport brought forward a statutory instrument by negative resolution which year by year raises the TV licence fee. Appended to that, the Government saw fit to add in an objectionable matter, but also a wholly admirable one, whereby people over a certain age were able to obtain a free TV licence. Therefore, the House found one part of the order objectionable—an increase in taxation, however indirectly—and the other part absolutely acceptable. I can envisage the same situation occurring here; it might happen.
My final question is very brief. I have already heard from the noble Lord's advisers that there is an absolute and complete answer, but it is one that should be put on the record. It is with regard to Scotland and Amendment No. 129, which would allow the Scottish Ministers to make an order. My question is: could this mean that different countries were participating countries in Scotland as opposed to the rest of the United Kingdom, or would the orders made by the Scottish Ministers simply mirror those made by the Secretary of State?
"(4A) A statutory instrument containing an order under section 52(2)(b) designating a country other than a member State is not to be made unless—
(a) in the case of an order to be made by the Secretary of State, a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament,
(b) in the case of an order to be made by the Scottish Ministers, a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament."
6.15 p.m.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page