John
Mann: Why does the hon. Gentleman want a regulator, in
addition to the certification officer, union democracy and common law
rights, spending his or her time on any issue, however frivolous or
unrelated to his or her work, raised by anyone from the
series—the 99.9 per cent.—of trade unions where
nobody has demonstrated any problems, or if they have, from a union
that the Minister can un-exempt, instead of spending his or her time
concentrating on the problem and scandal, which means focusing
precisely on organisations such as the UDM and Vendside which will not
be able to opt in to the code of conduct? Any Minister with a
blossoming career who allowed them to do so would pay a terrible price.
The possibility of its happening defies common sense. I am sure that
the hon. Gentleman accepts that.
Mr.
Heald: I should be careful talking about blossoming in the
Minister’s presence, and I do not intend to do so.
I looked into the point that
the hon. Gentleman made the other day about the certification officer
being the regulator, and I had the Library look into it, too. The
certification officer has distinct and restricted statutory powers that
do not cover somebody who acts as a claims handler, or ensure that that
person acts in accordance with the code of conduct. It might be useful
if the certification officer were the investigator, but the law does
not currently allow for it. I do not want to accept a convenient
solution or a fudge; I want something that works for all claims
handlers. There is a danger that, with so much money at stake and so
much poor behaviour behind us, people will take
advantage.
John
Mann: I do not want to reveal the hand that may be used in
court for consumer rights against the UDM and Vendside, but I assure
the hon. Gentleman that had a member complained, the routes to the
certification officer would have been used some two-and-a-half years
ago, with great success, I am certain. When there is a major problem
rather than an individual, one-off complaint, the certification officer
has the power of redress; however, that does not exist with the UDM,
precisely because the complainants are
not members. None of the members was charged, and on that basis, the
certification officer will not even consider the
case.
Mr.
Heald: It is true that an allegation of financial
irregularity can be made to the certification officer and that he can
investigate it. If a member has some money taken off them by deception,
which is one allegation, it can be investigated. However, the
investigation would not fully cover the misbehaviour in the cases that
we are discussing. As both hon. Members said, the unions acted as
claims handlers, not only for members but for non-members. I want to
ensure that they cannot do so.
Simon
Hughes: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming
from, but, to be immodest, would it not be better to use the solution
that I offer him now? Rather than the blanket ban on trade unions being
exempted imposed by his amendment, we could change clause 14, which
allows any order laid by the Minister to be subject to the negative
procedure, so that it required the affirmative procedure. Then, if the
Minister were to come to us with a proposal to exempt unions in
general, types of union, or one union in particular, we would have to
debate it and vote on it.
Mr.
Heald: I will support the hon. Gentleman on that. It is a
good idea, but I am still not satisfied. If the Minister said,
“Look, here’s my draft code of conduct; here are the
investigator and the powers. It will be the same as now, only with a
different slightly self-regulatory route, and as effective,”
that would be fair enough. However, she has not gone that far. Perhaps
she will at a later date. I look forward to seeing the code of conduct,
but I should like to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes
10.
Division
No.
1] Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 5 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
6Enforcement:
offence
Simon
Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in clause 6, page
4, line 28, leave out subsection (3).
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss
amendment No. 32, in clause 10, page 6, line 24, leave out subsection
(6).
Simon
Hughes: This is a probing amendment to discover the
Government’s latest thinking on sentencing policy, which is a
mystery to most people given how many interpretations we have had of
their views on the subject in recent days. At the moment, the offences
that will be created could land someone who is tried in the High Court
with a period of imprisonment of up to two years, a fine, or both, and
someone who is tried in the lower courts with a period of imprisonment
of 51 weeks or less, a fine, or both. Subsection (3) reminds us that as
yet we have not seen the implementation of the much heralded and now
much discussed Criminal Justice Act 2003, which is meant to change the
sentencing system and will reduce the sentence to half of what it would
otherwise be.
6.45
pm If my amendment
is passed, and subsection (3) and the parallel provision in clause 10
are removed, there will be a straightforward statement in the Bill that
people can be sentenced to prison for two years in the higher courts
and for up to 51 weeks in the lower courts, or be fined. I want the
Minister to say whether passing the provisions into law will create a
potential for imprisonment that will mean what it says. Out there, the
great British public appear to believe—I always have great
sympathy with their view—that when a judge says, “Mr.
Heald, you will go to prison for six months,” Mr. Heald goes to
prison for six months, not that he goes to prison for three months and
spends the other half somewhere
else. What will be the
implication of a sentence of imprisonment passed under the Bill? How
long will the person serve as a maximum sentence and how long will they
serve as a minimum
sentence?
Bridget
Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes some interesting
points, but I fear that we are in danger of straying into the territory
of my colleagues in the Home Office, and I do not want to go
there.
Simon
Hughes: That might be
wise.
Bridget
Prentice: I want to bring the focus back to the offences
in the Bill and explain the transitional provisions that relate to the
2003 Act. The current
position is that magistrates courts have the power on summary
conviction to impose a maximum sentence of six months. Once sections
281(4) and 281(5) of the 2003 Act are commenced, that maximum
sentencing power on summary conviction will be increased to 51 weeks.
Under the new arrangement, which is called custody plus, the court will
decide the total length of the sentence, which must be no longer than
51 weeks. The
sentence can be split between a custodial period and a licence period.
The custodial period must be between two and 13 weeks, and the licence
period must be at least six months and is subject to conditions, which
the sentencing court sets. If the offender
breaches the licence conditions, they will be recalled to custody for
part or all of the remaining supervision
period. Removing the
transitional provisions would give magistrates courts a power that
would be inconsistent with their existing powers and for which the
magistracy will not have the advantage of preparatory measures for
custody plus when it is implemented. It would be much better initially
to make the sentencing powers consistent with existing powers and then
to have a smooth transition to the new arrangements. Otherwise, the
courts might find themselves using one system for some offences and
another system for others. That is why we prefer the arrangement set
out in the Bill. I hope that that the reassures the hon. Gentleman
enough to allow him to withdraw the
amendment.
Simon
Hughes: As the Minister has nearly beguiled me, I will do
her a deal. I will not pursue the matter if she shares with the
Committee, without compromising her friendship with her colleagues in
the Home Office, the date on which the 2003 Act will be implemented in
relation to the provisions in the
clause.
Bridget
Prentice: I would love to be able to share that
information, but unfortunately I cannot. However, I shall do my best to
find
out.
Simon
Hughes: Because I am so sympathetic to the
Minister’s predicament, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Amendment, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to
stand part of the Bill.
Schedule agreed
to. Clauses 9
to 13 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause
14Orders
and
regulations
Simon
Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in clause 14, page
9, line 9, leave out from ‘section 5' to end of line 10 and
insert ‘may not be made unless a
draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House
of
Parliament.'. The
amendment would change the provision so that orders made under clause 5
are subject to the affirmative procedure rather than the negative
procedure. I hinted at this a moment ago, so I will simply put it on
the record that it is entirely consistent for the Committee to agree
the affirmative resolution procedure for such orders made under clause
5, which is about exemptions, just as we are asked to agree the
affirmative resolution procedure for orders made under section 4, which
is about the regulator. They are equally important matters. If I were
in any doubt about that or if Committee colleagues, whatever their
views, were in any doubt, I hope that the earlier debate made it clear
how important the matter is. I also hope that the Minister will
understand that it is important to me and will be important to my
colleagues on Report.
I did not vote on the amendments
on trade unions moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire
because the right way to deal with the problem is not to close off in
Committee the Minister’s power to exempt trade unions, but to
give Parliament the right to decide when an order is
introduced—automatically and only after a debate and a vote in
both Houses—whether she should bring a particular exemption or
exemptions to the House. I hope that she will be sympathetic to the
amendment and that colleagues from all parties will see the merit in
guaranteeing the subject a debate and vote in both Houses. It is
important.
Mr.
Heald: I support the amendment. It is sensible, as I said.
It was a bit miserable of the hon. Gentleman not to support my
amendment, but I hope that when we return to the subject on Report, I
will find an even more felicitous way of putting
it.
Bridget
Prentice: Any decision to exempt people from a requirement
for authorisation cannot and will not be taken lightly. It must be
subject to proper parliamentary scrutiny. However, the Delegated Powers
and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place, which by all
accounts is a robust organisation, considered in detail all the
delegated powers in the Bill and approved of our approach to
exemptions. In its report, the Committee said of the Secretary of
State’s power to exempt by order:
“Negative procedure is
usual for exemption orders of this kind and we consider the provision
to be
appropriate.” I
know that the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey is keen to
ensure that parliamentary time is used efficiently. He said during the
Committee’s previous sitting that we should avoid secondary
legislation if it creates unnecessary work. I suggest that secondary
legislation is required in this case, but that an order subject to the
negative resolution procedure is more appropriate. I hope that he will
feel able to withdraw his amendment.
| 
