Offensive Weapons Bill

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Judge

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 28th January 2019 Grand Committee

[Lord Deben (Con)]

I hope my noble friend will listen carefully to what has been said, because there is an increase in the anger constantly found around the country. I do not want to get down to some of the reasons for that, but there is certainly an increase in anger. The sort of people who will be prevented from buying those products are, of course, those who are most likely to give way to anger. I have recently come from a meeting today in which a senior representative of one of our largest supermarkets said how much more there is now a problem with people who will not take the advice of the shop worker that this is not possible.

I really think the Government have to come to terms with the fact that we are a much less willing society. We are not a society that is prepared to go along with these things, as once was true. So although USDAW has had this campaign for a long time, it is more necessary now than it might have been 10, five or even two years ago. The circumstances we are facing at the moment are likely to make more people more angry, and therefore it will become more acceptable. Anger, and showing anger, on the roads or in shops is more accepted by society than it ever has been before—certainly in modern times.

I say to my noble friend that it may well be sensible to make the point specifically that we are asking, indeed insisting, that shop workers—I will not argue whether they are acting as law enforcement people or not—take a stand against people who, by their nature, are likely to be angry, to demand that the shop worker give way to them and to use intimidation for that purpose. I cannot think of a reason why you should not repeat it. I know what the Government often says—all Governments do—because I was a Minister for a very long time and I know I used to say it. I would say: “There is no need for this. We’ve got this and we’ve got that and we’ve got the other”. If it is not actually harmful, perhaps it is a good thing to put it in. I am not sure it is enough that other things cover it. If this reminds people that there is a specific protection for shop workers in this situation, where we asking them to take a stand, that is a valuable thing. I hope my noble friend will take it seriously.

[Lord Judge]

We are devising a system which will impose considerable burdens on sellers. The arguments in favour of this amendment are absolutely obvious. May I make a completely separate point, though? The amendment is brilliant legislation too, unlike the rest of the Bill. Here we have a clear statement of what act you have committed—obstructing the seller—and simultaneously the state of mind you are in: you are acting intentionally. Intention to obstruct is a perfectly clear, simple piece of legislation that anybody could understand. There is an argument that there are various ways those who work in shops can be protected, against violence and so on, but this is very limited in what it is seeking to address: obstructing somebody. In these circumstances, when the burden is so heavy on the seller, they ought to be protected.

Space Industry Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Deben and Lord Judge

Committee: 3rd sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 23rd October 2017 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judge (CB)]

My Lords, I too support what the noble Lord, Lord McNally, has said. The whole of this part of the Bill—Clauses 66 and 67—raises the same basic point. I will address what I have to say in relation to these amendments and come back, if I may, on Clause 67.

I know that I am being very old fashioned—almost constitutional—but why are we giving a Henry VIII clause the heading of “Minor and consequential amendments”? It is perfectly true that Clause 66(1) provides for minor and consequential amendments. That is because it introduces and gives effect to Schedule 12, which contains a whole series of consequential amendments that follow from the Bill. However, thereafter we are dealing with a regulation-making power that will enable the Executive—in this case, the Secretary of State—in due course to come back to the House to get more power to overrule, set aside and get rid of primary legislation. I do not regard that as minor. It is a very serious issue for regulation, whether through the Secretary of State or anybody else, to set aside Parliament.

I shall have to reserve what I say about Clause 66(6), which concerns the devolved Administrations, to when we come to the next amendment. However, I strongly object to legislation such as this being expressly regarded as minor.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, most of us are very much in favour of this Bill. Most of us want to make Britain the sort of place where space exploration right across the board is a natural part of what we offer the rest of the world. That is where we start from. Most of us are perfectly prepared to understand that minor and consequential amendments need to be made to laws as the world changes. However, most of us are here because at some point in our lives we have cared about the British constitution and about Parliament restricting the powers of the Executive by saying that, if primary legislation is to be changed, it is to be changed here in Parliament and not outside it by people who are not subject to Parliament. I am deeply concerned that much legislation will be brought into disrepute because people will believe that they no longer have a say in the proper procedure of making laws.

If this legislation were the only case where such a proposal is being made, I suppose one might be able to argue that so complex, detailed and particular is this matter that some special arrangement needs to be made. However, it is not the only case; it is a regular activity that this House has had to refuse. I have to admit that there were three occasions when the current Secretary of State was the Minister for Legal Affairs and I was one of those who managed to reverse attempts to take into the hands of Ministers power which ought to be in the hands of Parliament.

I say to my noble friend that one danger is that this House will have to take a more active part in secondary legislation if that is where the decisions are to be made. It is a very cumbersome system, and there is a mechanism here that would make it almost impossible to use, so that is not what we want to do. I say to my noble friend that this is not a small matter. Maybe the people in the Chamber who think this Bill is all about space have left it to those of us with an interest in the subject, but the fact is that every Member of this House ought to be interested in ensuring that primary legislation is not changed other than in a primary way in which Parliament plays a proper part.

I would like my noble friend to realise that this is a growing concern on this side of the House—it is not something that is going to slip through. More and more people are saying that legislation is being passed to give Ministers powers they should not have. The point I am making is that I was a Minister for 16 years, and I do not think I should have been given these powers. I know very well that when you are a Minister, you take things very carefully if you are going to have to report to Parliament. It is different from having a power to act on your best intentions. It is a much harder and tougher thing—and so it should be; that is what we are here for. We should not allow the Government to change what has been the attitude and concern of all Governments, of all sides, which is to reserve to Parliament that which is parliamentary, and not to try to steal it for the Executive.