 House of Commons |
Session 2005 - 06 Publications on the internet Standing Committee Debates Identity Cards Bill |
Identity Cards Bill | |||||||||||||
|
Column Number: 147 Standing Committee DTuesday 12 July 2005The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chairmen: Mr. Roger Gale, †Mr. Jimmy Hood†Baird, Vera (Redcar) (Lab) †Blackman-Woods, Dr. Roberta (City of Durham) (Lab) †Borrow, Mr. David S. (South Ribble) (Lab) †Burnham, Andy (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department) †Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) †Drew, Mr. David (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op) †Ellwood, Mr. Tobias (Bournemouth, East) (Con) Farron, Tim (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) †Garnier, Mr. Edward (Harborough) (Con) †McNulty, Mr. Tony (Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality) †Mercer, Patrick (Newark) (Con) †Mountford, Kali (Colne Valley) (Lab) †Palmer, Dr. Nick (Broxtowe) (Lab) †Prisk, Mr. Mark (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) †Robertson, John (Glasgow, North-West) (Lab) †Ryan, Joan (Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury) †Wallace, Mr. Ben (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con)
John Benger, Emily Commander, Committee Clerks
†attended the Committee (Morning)[Mr. Jimmy Hood in the Chair]Identity Cards Bill10.30 amThe Chairman: Copies of the programme motion, which was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee last Thursday, are available in the Room. I remind the Committee that the debate on the motion may continue for up to half an hour. The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality (Mr. Tony McNulty): I beg to move,
This motion seeks to revise the original order, because we have somewhat reluctantly accepted that we are not making enough progress on the Bill, and there needs to be more discipline in the timetable for debates. At the start of our proceedings, we said clearly that we did not want to force the pace of debate and that all our deliberations would have to be seen in the context of the debate now being three years old. The consultation paper was issued in 2002. The Bill, or one similar to it, has been ''pre-leg'' scrutinised, if that is the appropriate phrase, and examined through all its Commons stages. We are not discussing new material. The previous Bill was dispatched in eight Committee sittings. If we were to carry on as we are now, having used 40 per cent. of the allotted time in Committee to debate two clauses, we would be here until Christmas if there were no such motion. The motion will do two things. First, it will introduce two further sittings and amend the out date to 21 July. Even in the context of discussing a similar Bill in only eight sittings, there will be potential for what is essentially the same Bill to be discussed in up to 14 sittings. We are relaxed about that additional time, but we cannot use it at the lamentable pace of our deliberations thus far.
We have dealt with barely two out of 45 clauses and two schedules. We have concluded debates on 35 amendments, and even including the group of amendments that we were debating when the Committee adjourned on Thursday, I reckon that we have covered 52 amendments out of a total of 211 amendments that have been tabled, leaving a further 159 amendments to be discussed. That is simply not good enough. We are happy to introduce more time formally in respect of the programme motion, but also, as I said earlier, with additional sittings at the least on Tuesdays and, if we need them, on subsequent Wednesdays. However, we can do that only if sense and discipline are brought into our deliberations. Secondly, the motion will introduce knives. They will allow us to conclude our sitting this morning, having discussed the remaining elements of clause 3, schedule 1 and clauses 4 and 5. The knives will then be put in when we consider it appropriate in common with the table in the programme motion. I tabled the motion merely in the interests of the Committee, and no more. The Bill is important, but it has been around the block since 2004. A similar Bill was subject to full Commons proceedings. I remind the Committee that it was dispatched in eight sittings. We are now offering up to 14 sittings for the Bill currently under discussion, but in that context, there must be knives. I commend the motion to the Committee in generous terms and in the hope that it will help to focus our deliberations and bring a bit of discipline into them; the fact that we have spent 40 per cent. of our time on two and a half clauses is not good enough, regardless of one's views of the Bill. Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): I am grateful to the Minister for the gentle way in which he introduced the motion, but I do not agree with a word that he said. He asked for discipline. Well, Mr. Hood, I think that you and your co-Chairman, Mr. Gale, would both agree that we have not been ill-disciplined during the proceedings. There has been no interruption from a Minister or the Government Whip to say that the Opposition have been wasting time and prolonging debate for the sake of it. Although the Parliamentary Under-Secretary attempted at one stage to suggest that a wrecking amendment had been tabled, I was able to correct him with the backing of Mr. Gale. No such amendment had been tabled—and if one had, it certainly would not have been selected. As far as procedure and what has appeared on the amendment paper are concerned, there can be no criticism from the Government. Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe) (Lab): With respect, I do not think that anyone who heard the first stage of our proceedings and the very extended discussions of different ways in which people could be dead could possibly have said that time was not being wasted. Mr. Garnier: I was certainly not dead during our first discussions and I do not remember, alive as I was, an extended discussion of how people could be dead. The hon. Gentleman's intervention is unworthy. I see that he has tabled some amendments that we will come to later in our proceedings, and I hope that we shall The Minister said that this debate was three years old, but that is hardly the point. Lots of things of interest to the public that affect public policy and how we deal with legislation in this House are not new ideas. Very little that this Government have thought of has been a new idea, and all items of legislation, particularly at the Home Office, take time to gestate. We have to realise that this is a new Bill in a new Parliament and a new Standing Committee. We are perfectly entitled to fulfil our duties as Members of Parliament and members of this Committee to scrutinise this legislation. Although it is not incorrect for the Minister to say that this Bill is a descendant of one that has previously been discussed, that is beside the point. Kali Mountford (Colne Valley) (Lab): Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way? Mr. Garnier: I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is here as a Parliamentary Private Secretary or an intervener. Either way, I shall listen to her. Kali Mountford: I am grateful as a Committee member to be given the opportunity to debate this matter with the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am grateful to him for giving way. The hon. and learned Gentleman was making a point about the history of this Bill. One would hope that members of a new Committee in a new Parliament could look at both the pre-legislative scrutiny and the previous Committee proceedings, of which I was a part, take something from them and, having built on that experience, expedite proceedings now. Mr. Garnier: We have done both those things. The hon. Lady reminds me of one of her parliamentary colleagues, who turned to me in the Tea Room after the 1997 election when the Labour Government were returned with a majority of 140 or 145 seats—I cannot remember the precise figure—and said, ''I cannot understand why we need to have debates at all. We have just been elected with a massive majority. Our entire manifesto should simply be turned into legislation without debate.'' I am afraid that I nearly choked in my tea, but there we are. Mr. Mark Prisk (Hertford and Stortford) (Con): It may sound immodest to say so, but there are two new Conservative Committee members, and colleagues from other parties have not had their chance to debate the issues. Why should those hon. Members simply read what others have said in debates, as the hon. Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford) suggested? Are they not here to debate these matters for themselves? Mr. Garnier: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is deeply boring to be a Member of the Government party in Committee, because such Members are not encouraged to intervene. The hon. Member for Colne Valley is an exception; she has been a hugely interesting contributor to our debates, as my hon. Friends will agree. No doubt she will wish to intervene on many other occasions, particularly to scrutinise the The Minister said that we had used 40 per cent. of our time dealing with not quite three clauses, and he is right. I am afraid that that is not our fault, however, but that of the Government. They decided the timetable, and we are merely creatures of that; we must operate within the timetable that they set. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 12 July 2005 |