27 SEPTEMBER 2000
By the Select Committee appointed to report whether
the provisions of any bill inappropriately delegate legislative
power, or whether they subject the exercise of legislative power
to an inappropriate degree of parliamentary scrutiny; to report
on documents laid before Parliament under section 3(3) of the
Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994 and on draft orders
laid under section 1(4) of that Act; and to perform, in respect
of such documents and orders, the functions performed in respect
of other instruments by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE (MODE OF TRIAL) (NO.
1. The only power in this bill is a simple commencement
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND COURT SERVICES BILL
- GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS FOR COMMITTEE STAGE
2. The Committee reported on this bill in its 22nd
(28 June) and a number of the Government's amendments relate to
matters discussed in that Report. A marshalled list is not yet
available, and this Report refers to the amendments up to and
including sheet HL Bill 83(d). In addition, the Government made
available in time for the Committee's meeting on 27 September
a draft amendment inserting a new Schedule, together with a memorandum
by the Home Office on the powers in it. The memorandum is printed
in the Annex to this report.
3. The Committee sees no need refer to the amendments
listed in HL Bill 83(a) and HL Bill 83(b). In HL Bill 83(c) the
amendment to clause 59 corrects a mistake (as it stands the clause
does not say who is to make the regulations) and we discuss the
amendments to page 78 below. In HL Bill 83(d) the relevant amendments
are those to clauses 41, 42, 45 and 46 and the amendments to page
76 line 7, page 76 line 35 and page 82 line 17; all these are
HENRY VIII POWERS
4. In its 22nd Report the Committee drew attention
to the powers in clauses 41, 42, 45 and 46, commenting that each
allowed for the amendment of the bill to increase the severity
of a sentencing power. The Committee recommended that those powers
should be omitted but that if they were to remain, they should
be subject to affirmative procedure. The amendments to page 78
lines 20, 21, 22 and 24 have the effect that all those powers
would be subject to affirmative procedure.
5. The amendments to clause 41, 42, 45 and 46 extend
the powers discussed above. The amendments allow any order under
those powers to make consequential amendments to Schedule 3 to
the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 which provides
for the enforcement of orders made under the sentencing power
which the order amends.
6. The Committee wishes to remind the House of
its earlier comments on the powers in clauses 41, 42, 45 and 46.
We remain of the opinion that an increase in the severity of a
sentencing power should only be made by primary legislation but
if those powers are to remain in the bill, the amendments applying
affirmative procedure are necessary. We see no need to comment
on the extension of the powers to allow consequential amendments
to be made to Schedule 3 to the Act.
7. There are two further amendments which extend
sentencing powers to allow consequential amendments to be made
to Schedule 3 to the Act. The first is the amendment to page 76
line 7 (HL Bill 83(d)) which amends section 40 of the Act. Subsection(2)(a)
is the power to alter the statutory time restrictions which apply
to curfew orders. It was this power (and the negative procedure
applying to it) that the Home Office witnesses relied on in their
oral evidence to the Committee on 28 June
as the justification for the powers in clauses 41, 42, 45 and
46. The amendment to page 78, line 22 (HL Bill 83(c)) applies
affirmative procedure to this power, which the Committee welcomes.
The Committee sees no need to comment on the extension of the
power to allow consequential amendments to Schedule 3 to the Act.
8. The final amendment extending a power so as to
allow consequential amendments to be made to Schedule 3 is that
to page 76, line 35(HL Bill 83(d)). Clause 48(2) inserts paragraph
1(1A) in Schedule 3 which allows an order to extend the special
enforcement procedures in the Schedule to drug treatment and testing
orders. In its 22nd Report the Committee discussed this power,
which is subject to affirmative procedure and suggested that negative
procedure would be appropriate. No change is proposed by the Government
to the Parliamentary control but the Committee considers affirmative
procedure more appropriate now that the power is to be extended
to allow consequential amendments to be made.
New schedule 4A
9. As we have already mentioned, the Committee was
able to consider only a draft of this amendment, which was distributed
at the Committee's meeting. The powers in this Schedule are covered
fully in the Home Office memorandum. The Committee sees no need
to draw any of these powers to the attention of the House.
10. The Committee wishes to remind the House of
its earlier comments on the powers in clauses 41, 42, 45 and 46
which are affected by the amendments. There is nothing else in
the Government amendments which it wishes to draw to the attention
of the House.
1 HL Paper 83. Back
Printed with our 22nd report. Back
This report is also published on the Internet at the House of
Lords Select Committee Home Page (http://www.parliament.uk), where
further information about the work of the Committee is also available. Back