Serious Crime Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 84: 84: Clause 27 , page 17, line 22, at end insert— ““(12) No order can be made under paragraph (d) of the definition of ““relevant body”” in subsection (11) unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”” The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 84 is another probing amendment. I shall speak also to the other three amendments in the group. As the Minister explained, Clause 27(11) defines the term ““relevant body””, which is used in subsection (6), and relevant bodies can be subject to winding-up orders under Clause 27. As she also explained, although they are defined largely unremarkably in paragraphs (a) to (c), paragraph (d) gives the Secretary of State the power to add, "““such other description of person as may be specified by order””. " That is in itself a wide power. The Explanatory Notes, again, offer no help on how such a power could be used. Amendment No. 84 adds a requirement for such an order to be made using the affirmative procedure,and Amendment No. 131 removes the power fromthe list of negative procedure powers in Clause 76(6). Amendments Nos. 86 and 132 are the mirror amendments for the Northern Ireland provisions. We are not entirely sure why paragraph (d) is needed at all. Are the Government not able now to define the bodies that they wish to be included in this clause? I assume that the Government have satisfied themselves that all kinds of body currently in existence are within the clause. I assume that the Government are happy that the most recent innovations in the corporate sphere are included; for example, limited liability partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000 or community interest companies under the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Act 2004. I assume that those are included in Clause 27 and will not need to be brought within it using the paragraph (d) procedure. The Minister may also wish to comment on whether and to what extent overseas companies are within Clause 27 without the paragraph (d) power. The question is whether the Government are sure that their current formulation of Clause 27 includes all types of body that should be within the scope of Clause 27. Presumably it should be open to the Government when inventing new forms of body to ensure, if it was deemed appropriate, that the relevant legislation incorporates provisions corresponding to those in Clause 27. Perhaps I may approach this from a slightly different direction. Clause 27 is fundamentally about corporate or business structures that could be wound up. The Insolvency Act was designed around such bodies. But the power in paragraph (d) applies to, "““such other description of person””," and hence is not limited to corporate or business bodies. As the power to amend in relation to relevant bodies is in principle quite wide, that raises wide issues. I am asking the Minister where the boundaries are. Would it be possible that categories of individual, who are persons, could be brought in under paragraph (d) orders? Could the power be used to bring in charities that are not set up as companies or other kinds of unincorporated body? Are there any limits—rather as I was discussing on the previous amendment—to how this power could be used? As the Minister will see, we have concerns about this power being used to add relevant bodies under paragraph (d) with only the weakest of parliamentary procedures to oversee the use of that power. Our amendments in this group therefore focus on making the power subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative one. The Minister will be aware from my remarks that we are also concerned about the appropriateness of the power in paragraph (d). It is important that the Minister should comment on the extent of the power as well as on the parliamentary process. I beg to move.