Serious Crime Bill [HL]

I reassure the noble Baroness that we have tried to identify all the relevant bodies in the list, including the limited liability partnerships. However, as she has had the delight of engaging in a number of debates since she entered this Chamber, she will be aware that we have, together, formed new bodies, identities and forms which have come into being in other legislation. She identified a number of them which she hoped would be covered. I assure her that they are. It is clear that bodies may be created in the future that will need to be covered by paragraph (d). That provision would allow those bodies to be properly included without having to follow the affirmative resolution procedure. As the noble Baroness said, we discussed the purposes behind Clauses 27 and 28, and why they are necessary. Amendments Nos. 84 and 86 would change the procedure for the order-making power to add to the list of relevant bodies from negative resolution to affirmative resolution. We agree with the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which stated in its report on the Bill: "““Although this power affects the scope of clause 27, it is limited in its area of application and we do not consider the negative procedure to be inappropriate””." For the same reasons, we say to the noble Baroness that this is a limited area of application. Therefore, it would be onerous to use the affirmative procedure in order to bring it into being. Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 are consequential on these amendments. We looked at this matter but came to the view that the negative resolution procedure was the most appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. On that basis I resist the noble Baroness’s amendments.