| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
With three separate amendments in the names of three separate noble friends, I do not want to act as Paris in choosing between the three amendments but no doubt the Minister will adjudicate between those three and that part of the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to which he spoke. The Government have already accepted a limitation to the order-making power when dealing with the creation of new offences in Clause 7, which we will get to in due course. Subsection (1) of that clause says that an order cannot create a new offence with a penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment or increase a penalty for an existing offence up to the same limit of two years. It therefore seems to accept that when creating or increasing offences those carrying a sentence of more than two years should be the preserve of primary legislation. If that is the case, then when it comes to reducing a burden—and if the same principle were to apply—offences that Parliament has already deemed to merit a two-year sentence or more should likewise be the preserve solely of primary legislation.
What would be useful to set this debate in context would be if the Minister could set out how many new offences if any have been created or removed under the existing regulatory reform order procedure and what increases to sentences have been made. I hope that the Minister can give us an answer on that this evening.
The Earl of Onslow: Could we also please have some examples of what the Minister would like to do to remove or to add to minor criminal offences? It seems perfectly reasonable to alter parking regulations which may be over-burdensome in that way, especially as they probably arise as regulatory offences anyway. I do not think that one can complain about that. What things do the Government have in mind which they would like to change, and under which Act? All that we have had so far is blowing the trumpet of the fire
3 July 2006 : Column 66
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall address all the amendments that have been grouped together for the purposes of this debate, with the exception of Amendment No. 74, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated that he wanted to withdraw so that he could bring back at a later stage something that is better.
Lord Goodhart: I have not of course moved Amendment No. 74, so I cannot withdraw it. The first two subsections in Amendment No. 74 have been spoken to and debated and I shall not move the amendment when we get to it. But between now and next Monday, because there is time to table new amendments, I shall table an amendment that specifically deals with the question of removing the right to a jury trial, which will be to a later clause.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that elucidation.
I have made the case in the past that to make and deliver better regulation we need to be able to repeal offences or reduce or remove sanctions for offences when they are considered no longer to be targeted or appropriate. An example of the reduction or removal of regulatory sanctions might be changing the sanctions connected to breaching a licensing regime for a particular activity. I have explained that in earlier debates. It is not new. Regulatory reform orders under the 2001 Act could reform legislation which imposed burdens, including sanctions, criminal or otherwise, affecting persons in the carrying-on of an activity, because of the definition of burden in Section 2 (1) of the 2001 Act.
The definition in this Bill is narrower than that in the 2001 Act. In the Bill, the definition of sanctions, criminal or otherwise, means that an order can remove or reduce only criminal sanctions which relate to the carrying-on of an activity. This means that sanctions relating to offences under the general criminal law cannot be repealed or reduced, as opposed to what the noble Lord, Lord Norton, said. It would not be possible, for example, to remove or reduce by order sanctions for murder, rape or burglary. This is an important and essential safeguard against any inappropriate use of the order-making power in Clause 1. I know that noble Lords have been very exercised by that issue.
Amendment No. 14, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, would remove this restriction. I imagine that this is not the effect which the noble Lord intended, and as the Government also prefer to make it explicit that the order-making powers are limited to removing or reducing sanctions which relate to the carrying-on of an activity, I hope that the noble Lord will not move his amendment.
3 July 2006 : Column 67
7 pm
I return to why this definition of burdens is necessary to deliver better regulation. Professor Richard Macrory, professor of environmental law at UCL, has been appointed by the Government to carry out an independent review of the sanctions regimes used by regulators and local authorities. He notes:
“Sanctions are an important part of any regulatory system. They provide a deterrent and can act as a catalyst to ensure that regulations are complied with”.
That may be stating the obvious, but it is important as it spells out exactly why regulations are necessary. I think we all agree that effective regulations and sanctions regimes play a critical part in regulating and encouraging proper behaviour. Professor Macrory’s recommendations are likely to involve significant changes to the entire penalties regime to make it more responsive and more proportionate, and this Bill is not a substitute for that work. It is clear, however, that having a flexible, proportionate and responsive sanctions regime is a key part of any regulatory tool kit, and of the better regulation agenda.
I should give an example of why this definition of burden is necessary to deliver sensible reform to established regulatory systems that have a real impact on those on the ground bound by the rules. Members of the Committee may have heard me mention at Second Reading that stakeholders have submitted, via the Government’s internet site, a proposal to repeal arcane rules on selling game. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, asked me not to quote this example, but it is a good one and I shall do so.
The Earl of Onslow: I asked the noble Lord not to quote the fire regulations. I accept that it is silly, but I am not sure that we need to change the constitution.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have made it clear that we are not changing the constitution and that we need to address issues such as these because they present burdens. The Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860 impose burdens. The Government have committed to deal with those and so save businesses across the country tens of thousands of pounds. The reform is necessary because the 19th-century regime is now clearly out of date as a result of economic, social and legislative changes.
The Government also propose to deliver reform by order so that we can usefully tackle other issues such as game dealing licences that are required under the Act. To do so, it will be necessary to repeal the criminal offences associated with carrying out certain activities without the following licences: licences to take or kill game under the Game Act 1831 and the Game Licences Act 1860; licences to deal in game granted under Section 18 of the Game Act 1831, as extended by Section 13 of the Game Licences Act 1860; and excise licence under Section 14 of the Game Licences Act 1860.
Under the present Act it is possible to deliver this reform by order. It is the Government’s view that useful legislative reform such as the above, which
3 July 2006 : Column 68
The Bill also carries over the ability under the present Act by order to replace sanctions with new sanctions or to create new sanctions. The fire safety regulatory reform order has attracted criticism and is an oft quoted example, but I shall use it again, though I am committed to undertaking further research on the subject. The RRO delivered under the 2001 Act is a good illustration of why it is necessary to deliver regulatory reform of a whole regime. As I said, the fire safety RRO delivered under the 2001 Act replaced a raft of legislation with one simple, risk-based fire safety regime, but it was necessary to replace the divergent systems of sanctions for non-compliance across 50 pieces of legislation. This was possible only because the Government were able to remove the burden created by the old sanctions for non-compliance and replace these with one harmonised, transparent, targeted and appropriate new system of sanctions.
The Committee will, of course, be aware that Clause 7 restricts what orders can do in respect of criminal penalties: for example, orders cannot make provision to create a new offence that is punishable on indictment by more than two years’ imprisonment. This and further safeguards are in place governing the use of the order-making power, including its use to repeal or reduce sanctions, criminal or otherwise. The Minister making the order must be satisfied that the preconditions in Clause 4 are met; that the policy objective intended to be secured by the provision could not be satisfactorily secured by non-legislative means; that the effect of the provision is proportionate to the policy objective; that the provision taken as a whole strikes a fair balance between the public interest and the interests of any person adversely affected by it; that the provision does not remove any necessary protection; and that the provision does not prevent any person continuing to exercise any right or freedom which that person might reasonably expect to continue to exercise. As the Committee knows, relevant parliamentary committees will have the statutory power to veto any order.
I hope that, having heard that explanation, Members of the Committee will not press Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14.
Amendment No. 72, which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, would delete the safeguard in Clause 7(1)(a) which ensures that an order may not make provision to create a new offence that is punishable, or increase the penalty for an existing offence so that it is punishable on indictment, with imprisonment for a term exceeding two years. This is an appropriate safeguard that would ensure that only sensible regulatory reform would be delivered by order. For those reasons I invite the noble Lord not to move his amendment.
I believe that some time ago the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, asked what would be the effect of deleting the words “or otherwise”. I assume that the noble Lord intended to ask what would be the effect of deleting the words “criminal or otherwise”. If that were to happen, it would no longer be clear that non-criminal civil sanctions could be removed or reduced; in other
3 July 2006 : Column 69
I hope that I have answered the points that were raised. If I have not, I apologise to the Committee. This has been a very constructive debate and some valuable points have been made. Nevertheless, I urge that the relevant amendments are not pressed.
Lord Goodhart: I have listened closely but I do not think that the noble Lord gave any justification whatever for rejecting the proposal in Amendment No. 15, standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, or in Amendment No. 74, standing in my name, to restrict the power to use the regulatory reform orders under the Bill to remove the power of sentencing for more than two years.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I apologise to the noble Lord; I did not deal with those amendments in detail. They would have the effect that an order could not abolish an offence which is punishable, on conviction, by a prison term of more than two years. This is possible under the 2001 Act, and this is a power which we would like to be retained under the Bill. The relevant amendment is closely linked to Clause 7, which places a limitation on the order-making powers in Part 1. It sets the maximum criminal penalties both for any new offence that an order creates, or for any existing offence where an order increases the penalty. Clause 7 maintains the limits in the 2001 Act. The limits in Clause 7 are the same as those in the European Communities Act 1972 and have been taken over from the 2001 Act. In each of those cases, however, they relate to the creation of new offences, not the abolition or reduction of existing penalties. A number of regulatory regimes have systems in which sanctions for non-compliance exceed two years or a fine exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. Health and safety and environmental legislation are two good examples.
It would be arbitrary not to allow Ministers by order to propose a reduction of those sanctions if it is considered by the Minister and the parliamentary committees that it would be more appropriate and targeted to do so. The amendment is not necessary for the following reasons: the provisions in Clause 7 have been carried over and, it can be fairly argued, have worked well; the provisions in the 2001 Act have not been abused and any order must meet the preconditions in Clause 4 that I have described; and the parliamentary committees will have a statutory power to veto.
For those reasons, we invite the noble Lord not to press those amendments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord how grateful we all are to him for providing us with such a large meal in response to the amendments. I am relieved that he did not find another page in the extensive brief in front of him. I am ever so grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who was the first to recognise that my simple and humble aim was to remove three words, “criminal or
3 July 2006 : Column 70
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 13 to 15 not moved.]
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I beg to move that the House be resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
Afghanistan: UK Forces
7.13 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence and Minister for Veterans. The Statement is as follows:
“Before I answer the honourable gentleman’s question, I am sure that the whole House will join me in offering our condolences to the families of Corporal Thorpe and Lance Corporal Hashmi, the two soldiers killed on Saturday in Helmand province along with their interpreter. I have no doubt either that I speak for the House in wishing a speedy recovery to the five soldiers injured in the same attack. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all.“I should also explain first, Mr Speaker, that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has been unable to return to the House in time from his constituency, since the time that we decided to take this Urgent Question. “The losses of life that our forces have suffered over the past few weeks are a tragedy, but they do not mean that our mission in Afghanistan is somehow confused. The position of our Armed Forces in Afghanistan is clear. First and foremost, our troops are in Afghanistan to ensure that never again is it a safe haven for the likes of al-Qaeda and the Taliban. Quite simply, the risks are too great to us, our allies and the Afghan people for us to stand aside and allow the terrorists to return. That overriding aim was clear when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced our deployment to Helmand last January, and it is clear today.“Our forces are our contribution to the expansion of the UN-authorised and NATO-led international security assistance force—ISAF. This is not just a British mission. Danish and Estonian3 July 2006 : Column 71
3 July 2006 : Column 72
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.20 pm
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. We, too, send our condolences to the families of the two soldiers, and their interpreter, who were killed, and we wish a speedy recovery to the five soldiers who were injured in the attack.
I pay tribute to all those service men and women serving in Afghanistan. There is no question that they will receive full support from this side of the House. The question is whether they are all receiving the full support that they are entitled to expect from the Government. The Government have two tasks: to do everything to maximise the success of the mission and to minimise the threat to our troops but it would appear from weekend reports that both are at risk.
The Statement makes it clear that commanders have asked not for extra infantry or air cover but only for enablers and engineering equipment but highly reliable sources on the ground have made it very clear that commanders need more than they have got. I understand that the Minister cannot go into details, but will he specifically confirm in this House thatthe Government have received no requests from commanders on the ground or the chiefs of staff for any additional combat troops, fixed-wing aircraft or helicopters, particularly now that the army has some experience on the ground?
Is the Minister still satisfied that we have sufficient support helicopters, particularly where casualties are involved? My understanding is that there is real concern among those serving in Afghanistan about this issue. Is there sufficient medical support in theatre?
3 July 2006 : Column 73
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |