HC Deb 13 July 1977 vol 935 cc722-4

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 42, line 29, after 'sum', insert 'or sums'.

No. 96, in page 42, line 30, leave out 'was' and insert 'were'.

No. 97, in page 42, line 32, after 'sum', insert 'or sums'.

No. 98, in page 42, line 33, leave out 'as appears' and insert 'or sums as appear'.

No. 99, in page 42, line 39, at end insert: (d) the Table in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Magistrate;' Courts Act 1952 (maximum periods of imprisonment in default of payment of fines etc.)'.—[Mr. John.]

Sir M. Havers

I. beg to move Amendment No. 100, in page 43, line 25, leave out 'subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either' and insert 'and approved by a resolution of each'. The amendment arises from a point I raised in Committee when we were expressing concern about the powers granted to the Secretary of State to index-link fines. The provision is only for the adoption of the negative resolution procedure. The Secretary of State will have a very great power affecting anybody who might be involved in offences on which such fines are levied. It seemed to us that since the provision was so important it should be approved by the affirmative resolution procedure so that the House could be sure of a debate on the subject.

Mr. Graham Page

The Minister would be surprised if I did not rise to make the speech on this subject that I have made for the last 20 years. The Secretary of State is given the power to alter a statute, and that alone justifies our request for the affirmative resolution procedure.

The provision could alter greatly the administration of the courts by switching charges from one court to another. The volume of work of the courts could be substantially changed. There is always the difficulty of finding time for a Prayer unless an hon. Member goes through the usual channels. In the past it was always possible to get time for a Prayer, but times have changed.

It will not inconvenience the Government to agree to the affirmative resolution procedure. It simply ensures that they will find time for a debate on the Floor of the House or in one of the many Committees upstairs.

Mr. Arthur Davidson

I would have been surprised if the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) had not supported the amendment of the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). I have heard him speak in a similar vein on many occasions. On one memorable occasion, I think that I accepted his suggestion. Unhappily, I cannot do so this time.

The circumstances in which the Secretary of State would use these powers would be very limited, and I am satisfied, after looking at this carefully, that the negative procedure is adequate in all the circumstances. It has the great benefit of being simple. The occasions on which the Secretary of State would raise the limits as he is empowered to do would occur only if he were satisfied that inflation had so eroded them as to make it necessary. Those occasions would be extremely rare.

I have to tell the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon that in any event his amendment is defective. I hate to say that, because I have great respect for his legal expertise.

For those reasons, reluctantly I am unable to accept the amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Forward to