Serious Crime Bill [HL]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for introducing these amendments and explaining them to a packed House at twenty to nine on 25 April. I emphasise the date because as the noble Lord made clear, the Government only put down these amendments to the Bill on Monday, 23 April, and it was only yesterday, on 24 April, that a letter from the Minister was sent to my noble friend explaining what the amendments are about. At the same time, the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has managed to have a look at these powers, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for referring to that. I should like to quote from the committee’s 8th report, and in doing so to extend my thanks to the members for their extraordinary assiduity in managing to look at these amendments within such a short timescale. I hope that in future the Government, and particularly the Home Office, can manage to give us slightly longer. Before I quote from the report, I ought to say that while we will not oppose these amendments now,in the light of what I am about to read from the8th report, we think it would be more appropriate if the Government did not move them now and possibly brought them back at Third Reading. If they are not prepared to do that, we certainly wish to reserve our right to come back to them at that stage. Quite frankly, amendments of this sort put down on a Monday, seen by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on a Tuesday and sent with a covering letter to us, which are then debated on a Wednesday evening is not quite satisfactory. However, if the Government wish to go ahead at this stage, we will not oppose them. But they might think seriously about not moving the amendments at this stage in the light of what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has had to say. Paragraph 4 of the 8th report states that: "““While acknowledging that the power””—" the power the Government grant themselves in Amendment No. 51— "““could be used to remove offences as well, the Home Office does not explain why the Secretary of State should have the power, after the enactment of the bill, to impose by order criminal liability for conduct which Parliament has decided should not be an offence. The Committee is particularly concerned that the subsequent removal of an offence listed in Schedule 3 could, by virtue of Clause 53, expose a person to criminal penalties far in excess of those which normally apply to offences created by subordinate legislation. For example, the power to create new offences by order under the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 is limited to offences carrying a maximum penalty of not more than two years’ imprisonment””." In paragraph 5, the committee goes on to draw the attention of the House to the implications of the power conferred by the proposed new subsection (5A) in so far as it enables the Secretary of State to remove an offence from Schedule 3. It ends by saying—and I think this should always be emphasised— "““the House may wish to invite the Government to reconsider the scope of the new power””." We will want to look at this in greater detail,and with a slightly longer timescale. I hope the Government might consider that as well. As I made quite clear, if they wish to press ahead with this, we reserve our right to come back to it at Third Reading.