Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, for what is certainly a more than moderately encouraging reply. I am grateful that he has accepted the principle behind our amendments. I have enough knowledge of the problems of parliamentary drafting to recognise that opposition amendments are rarely perfect. I am sure that ours could be improved upon. I shall look forward with interest to seeing what is proposed at Report stage. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 174 to 176 not moved.]

Clause 117 agreed to.

6 Jun 2000 : Column 1089

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 176A:


    After Clause 117, insert the following new clause--

DEFENCES

(".--(1) Subsection (2) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) it is a defence for a person charged with an offence to prove a particular matter.
(2) If the person adduces sufficient evidence to raise an issue with respect to the matter the court or jury shall assume that the defence is satisfied unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that it is not.
(3) Subsection (4) applies where in accordance with a provision mentioned in subsection (5) a court--
(a) may make an assumption in relation to a person charged with an offence unless a particular matter is proved, or
(b) may accept a fact as sufficient evidence unless a particular matter is proved.
(4) If sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue with respect to the matter mentioned in subsection (3)(a) or (b) the court shall treat it as proved unless the prosecution disproves it beyond reasonable doubt.
(5) The provisions in respect of which subsections (2) and (4) apply are--
(a) sections 39(5)(a), 54, 57, 58, 77 and 103 of this Act, and
(b) sections 13, 32 and 33 of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996 (possession and information offences) as they have effect by virtue of Schedule 1 to this Act.").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 118 [Crown servants, regulators, &c]:

[Amendment No. 177 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 178:


    Page 55, line 7, at end insert ("any of").

The noble Lord said: Before addressing the amendments in this group in detail, it may be helpful for me briefly to explain Clause 122.

The clause lists the Bill's order-making powers and provides that they should be made by statutory instrument and may contain savings and transitional provisions. Importantly, it also says which orders are subject to affirmative or negative resolution. An urgency procedure is provided by subsections (4) and (5).

During the Report stage of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend Mr Adam Ingram advised that, although the Government felt that the delegated powers in the Bill were subject to the appropriate scrutiny, the powers would of course be looked at carefully by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation of this House.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but it seemed to me that he may be talking about the subsequent amendment. Is he talking about Amendment No. 178 and thus Clause 118?

Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I should have indicated that I am talking to Amendment No. 178 and working through the other amendments which are similarly grouped. I thought I made it clear that I was addressing the grouping.

6 Jun 2000 : Column 1090

If the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee felt that any of the procedures were inappropriate, we would have regard to its recommendations.

Amendment No. 178 is a minor and technical drafting amendment. It gives more flexibility in the making of regulations under Clause 118. Amendments Nos. 178, 190, 191 and 208 are also minor and are technical drafting corrections.

Amendment No. 180 corrects an error which was spotted by the DPSC at paragraph 42 of its report. Amendment No. 181, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, addresses the same point, but I trust that he will agree to withdraw his version.

The more substantive amendments in this group concern whether certain order-making powers in the Bill should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure. Paragraph 17(4) of Schedule 7 requires the kind of passenger information which carriers may be required to provide to be specified by order by the Secretary of State. Paragraph 21 of Schedule 8 requires provision to be made, by order, for Scotland, allowing a solicitor to be present at interviews, subject to any conditions set out in the order.

Those two powers are currently subject to the negative procedure. The DPSC recommended, at paragraphs 39 and 41 of its report, that they should be subject to the affirmative procedure on the first occasion that they are made. We considered the committee report carefully and decided to accept those recommendations. Amendments Nos. 179 and 185 put that decision into effect.

Amendments Nos. 183 to 188, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Cope, would make those two powers subject to the affirmative procedure on every occasion when they are used. We are not persuaded of the need to go that far; we do not believe that is necessary. So having started from a proposal that the powers should be subject to negative resolution, and having considered the concerns outlined in the DPSC report, we believe that the "first-time only" affirmative procedure strikes the right balance. I beg to move.

Viscount Bridgeman: We are pleased that the Government accepted the requirement that a first-time order should be subject to affirmative resolution. We regard that opinion by the committee to be important and constructive and are pleased that the Government are accepting it.

Lord Goodhart: As a member of the committee, I join with the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, in saying that we are happy that the Government accepted the recommendation.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 118, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 119 to 121 agreed to.

Clause 122 [Orders and regulations]:

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): The noble Lord, Lord Bassam, has already spoken to Amendment No. 179. But I should remind

6 Jun 2000 : Column 1091

the Committee that, if it is accepted, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 183, 184, 187 and 188 as they will have been pre-empted.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 179:


    Page 57, line 30, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (2A),").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 180:


    Page 57, line 40, leave out ("118(2)") and insert ("118(1) or (2)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 182:


    Page 57, line 41, after ("52(1)") insert ("(a) or (b)").

The noble Lord said: With the leave of the Committee, I shall move Amendment No. 182 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton. This is a drafting amendment, but I am happy to explain it more fully than usual as it has been requested, properly, that it be dealt with on its own.

Paragraphs 45 to 52 deal with insolvency in relation to forfeiture and restraint orders--this relates to Schedule 4 of the Bill--and cover the whole of the United Kingdom. Paragraph 51 provides protection for insolvency practitioners who seize or dispose of property subject to a restraint or forfeiture order. The key provision is paragraph 51(2), which says that, provided the conditions in 51(1) are fulfilled,


    "The insolvency practitioner shall not be liable to any person in respect of any loss or damage resulting from the seizure or disposal except in so far as the loss or damage is caused by his negligence".

However, paragraph 51 only works for insolvency practitioners in the United Kingdom. But it is also possible that property may be seized or disposed of by an insolvency practitioner based outside the United Kingdom.

Paragraph 52, which replicates paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, therefore provides that:


    "An order may be made ... to secure that an Islands or external insolvency practitioner has the same rights [in relation to property in the UK] ... as he would have if he were an insolvency practitioner in that part of the United Kingdom".

The procedure for making the order under paragraph 52 depends on which part of the UK the property is situated in--and this is where we come to the amendment.

Under paragraph 52(2), if the property is in Great Britain, the order is made by the Secretary of State. Such orders are to be subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 122. But if the property is in Northern Ireland, the order is made by the Department of Economic Development in Northern Ireland. The procedure for an order of this kind is set out in paragraph 52(3). It is to be subject to negative resolution within the meaning of Section 41(6) of the Interpretation (Northern Ireland) Act 1954. That replicates the provision in subparagraph (7) of

6 Jun 2000 : Column 1092

paragraph 34 of Schedule 4 to the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989, which was added to the 1989 Act by the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

Because the procedure for orders under paragraph 52(1)(c) is set out in paragraph 52(3), it follows that the procedure in Clause 122 should not apply here; that is, in Clause 122. But the present wording of Clause 122(2)(letter "i") suggests that all of paragraph 52(1) is included. That overlap could cause uncertainty. That is why we have tabled the amendment. It clarifies that for orders under paragraph 52(1)(c), the procedure to be followed is that in paragraph 52(3) of Schedule 4, not Clause 122. I hope that that is sufficiently clear to explain to the Committee why the Government are moving this particular amendment.

6 p.m.

Lord Cope of Berkeley: I thought that was a very clear explanation of this highly complex matter. My only quibble is that I think it is actually (i) rather than (1).

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page