Identity Cards Bill |
|
Mr. Carmichael: Summary application is, in the normal course of things, made to the sheriff, but there are any number of functions that could be used and ways that such matters could be brought before him. However, I suggest to the Minister and his advisers that summary application is the most appropriate. Mr. McNulty: Given that I have already exhausted my extensive knowledge of the Scottish legal system, I cannot refuse the hon. Gentleman’s blandishments. I will take that issue back with me and look into what would be the most appropriate form for appeals to be dealt with by the sheriff in the Scottish legal system. I ask the hon. Member for Newark to withdraw his amendment. Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for increasing my small store of knowledge— Mr. McNulty: The Liberal Democrat. Patrick Mercer: Indeed; the Minister is quite right. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrat for increasing my small store of knowledge of Scottish law. Column Number: 432 I would not wish this amendment to put the Bill out of step with the carriers’ liability scheme, or indeed any other part of civil law, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 36 Code of practice on penalties Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: I have just one point to make, and it was anticipated in debate a little while ago. The clause deals with the code of practice on penalties. We must see that code of practice before the Bill goes too much further down the legislative road. It is no good the Bill referring to things that we have not seen, unless we are promised that we will see them very shortly. Mr. Carmichael: I broadly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman’s comments. Perhaps over the summer months, the Minister will consider widening the clause to include in the code of practice the circumstances in which civil penalties will be recovered by civil diligence, whether that is arrestment of wages or, ultimately, something such as poinding and warrant sales. 9.45 amMr. McNulty: I shall be brief. We referred to the carriers’ liability scheme, for which there will be a code of practice. The points made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough are entirely fair, and I shall make every endeavour to ensure that there is at least a high-level headline framework of what the code of practice might look like. Mr. Garnier: Will it be rolled out? Mr. McNulty: No, I am not rolling out anything. I might roll out from my sunbed into the swimming pool if there is water in it, but I am not rolling out beyond that. The point remains entirely fair, however. The code of practice will be a key element of the civil penalty regime. To the extent that I can provide anything of substance on Report, I shall endeavour to do so. I shall also try to take up the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the recovery process. I do not want to get into another little debate about Scottish law, but I suspect that in England and Wales we will be talking about an attachment-of-earnings route rather than any other. I am mindful of what he said about warrant sales and that fellow Tommy whatever his name is, if he is still about. Mr. Ben Wallace (Lancaster and Wyre) (Con): Sheridan. Mr. McNulty: I know his name; that is why I did not mention it. Column Number: 433 Fair points have been made. I shall take them away, and I undertake to ensure that the Committee is advised of the direction in which we seek to go and to provide the information if we can on Report. Question put and agreed to. Clause 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 37 Fees in respect of functions carried out under Act Mr. McNulty: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in clause 37, page 32, line 28, at end insert—
The amendment makes good the commitment given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on Second Reading on 28 June, at column 1161 of the Official Report, to come back in Committee with an amendment to clause 37 to make the initial setting of fees subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative rather than the negative resolution procedure. This is the first opportunity to change the Bill to reflect that and we seek to do so in a spirit of co-operation, consensus and equanimity. Amendment agreed to. Clause 37, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 39 Verifying information provided with passport applications etc. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: I have a brief question about the clause, which will give the Secretary of State power to require persons to provide him with particular information. May I be assured that that requirement will be in writing, as with the penalty notice, and will not simply be a demand made by an official, more or less good tempered, during an interview? There must be some formality to it. Mr. McNulty: I think that I can give the hon. and learned Gentleman that assurance, not least because from next year we will start to implement the first generation of biometric passports. There will be a gear change in terms of what people need to present at the interview process and elsewhere. Clearly, that will be far better dealt with in writing and with, I think—we shall have to reflect on this; I know that the UK Passport Service is doing so as we speak—an awareness and education programme on exactly what the new process entails. Of course, the demand will be
Question put and agreed to. Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41 Orders and regulations Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: This innocent-sounding clause comes under the heading “Supplemental”, but it deals with orders and regulations. Although it is supplemental, it is a key aspect of the Bill that I would not wish to skate over. I suggest that it must be subject to far greater discussion and that it needs greater clarity. Let us just dip into it. Under the clause, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is given order or regulation-making powers to be exercised by statutory instrument. We should bear it in mind that, for example, subsection (4) states that
I have made my complaints about secondary legislation and about the enabling nature of the Bill, but in this clause we see such things on the page in stark black and white, and it is incumbent on the Government to tell Parliament precisely what they intend. If they cannot do so this morning, they should do so at least by the time the Bill leaves the House of Commons. Mr. McNulty: I accept the points that the hon. and learned Gentleman makes; he has made them throughout our lengthy proceedings. I shall correct him only by saying that the provisions are stated clearly in green and black, rather than in white and black, but that is by the bye. I also congratulate the draftsperson on the phrase
because it has a nice flow to it if nothing else, and it vaguely resembles English. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right that the clause is intended to embrace all the regulation and order-making powers that are needed in respect of an enabling Bill such as this. The provisions that he alights on in subsection (4) are largely about including the necessary degree of flexibility in the order-making powers so that they are not entirely rigid. Indeed, that is what the note that has kindly just been put before me says. I am reminded of the debates that we had about fees, and about those with an itinerant lifestyle, the elderly and the young. Column Number: 435 I know that the clause is offensive to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I cannot do anything about that, but the flexibility that it contains is important in the context of the statutory instrument and order-making powers. Before the legislation receives Royal Assent, I shall seek as and when I can—there will clearly be a considerable commencement tail as everything will not unfold at the same time—to give as full a timetable as possible of when the regulations are likely to occur and, to the extent that it is in my power, to give either drafts of those orders or regulations or an outline of what they will entail as the commencement unrolls. I cannot be fairer than that. Question put and agreed to. Clause 41 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 43 General interpretation Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: I simply wish to ask the Minister this question: if we are to have a definition of the word “modification”, should we not also have a definition of the word “amendment”? Mr. McNulty: To answer simply, one amends legislation, but one modifies reports and regulations. Everyone understands that that is the case. In the hon. and learned Gentleman’s witty retorts throughout our deliberations, he has shown that he understands what both “amendment” and “modification” mean. However, in a stricter sense—this deals with the semi-word game that we sometimes indulge in by way of scrutiny—“amendment” is specific to primary legislation and “modification” is an appropriate term for other areas. If I may be flippant for a moment, let me say that, if we wanted a layman’s guide to legalese to explain the range of words that we understand to mean something other than what the lawyers mean by them, the clause would be bigger than the rest of the Bill. As that is not the case, however, clause 43 contains sufficient provision to explain the terms that mere mortals like us do not entirely understand. I commend the clause, in all its glory, to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 44 Scotland Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 436 Mr. Wallace: I simply seek an assurance from the Secretary of State that subsection (2) categorically rules out the use of a Sewel motion. I do not necessarily expect him to know what that is. He might, but if he does not, he could perhaps inform the Committee in writing. Mr. McNulty: As the hon. Gentleman may have noticed, the Secretary of State is not present, but I shall pass on to him the fact that the hon. Gentleman does not think that he knows what a Sewel motion is. In terms of relations with Scotland, if the Bill required a Sewel motion, it would have had one before the last amendable stage of our Commons proceedings. That is not forthcoming. The Scottish Parliament is not in any way discussing a Sewel motion, because that is unnecessary for the Bill. It would have been slightly remiss of the Government to have got even this far in our proceedings if we had been told that we required a Sewel motion without having ensured that such deliberations were already under way. The Bill does not need a Sewel motion. Mr. Wallace: Perhaps I have not explained myself well enough. Should the Scottish Parliament—under the leadership of a “Mr. Tommy whatever-his-name”—decide to refuse to implement any of these matters, including some relating to the public services, a Sewel motion could allow for Westminster to impose the obligation. Subsection (2) includes the words
but I am simply asking whether the Minister will rule out the introduction of a Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament to effect such an imposition. Mr. McNulty: I understand that in a previous incarnation the hon. Gentleman was a Member of the Scottish Parliament, but I hope that he had a stronger grasp on Scottish matters at that time than he showed in his intervention. No part of the Bill requires a Sewel motion. I do not need to give the hon. Gentleman any assurance that clause 44(2) prescribes the utilisation of a Sewel motion or otherwise. If the parent legislation does not require a Sewel motion, because of the matters that it covers, in terms of its dealings with the Scottish Parliament, none of the consequential elements in that parent Bill require such a motion—and that is the end of the matter. Question put and agreed to. Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 45 Short title, repeals, commencement, transitory provision and extent Patrick Mercer: I beg to move amendment No. 121, in clause 45, page 39, line 2, after “the”, insert “National Registration and”. This is a very simple amendment. Clause 45 relates to the Bill’s title and to repeals, commencements, transitory provisions and so on. The Minister will be
The most overused words in this debate have been modification and amendment. An anti-tank round that goes right to the heart of something is modified with little wings—thin stabilised things called canards. I suggest that this amendment is covered with canards, and that it goes right to the heart of this part of the Bill. As I am sure the Minister will agree, if we changed the title, it would improve things hugely and they would be much clearer for everyone. No doubt, such a change is deeply desirable. Mr. Garnier: I agree with my hon. Friend, not for the first time. The suggestion that he makes would bring the clause in line with the long title of the Bill. The Bill is described as one to
That is the first thing that it is designed to do. The second thing it is designed to do is to make provision for “the issue of cards”. It is funny that the Bill should be described by its second purpose and not by its first. If it were to be described accurately, it would, as he suggests, be called the “National Registration and Identity Cards Bill”. This is not a flippant point, as it is important for the Government to describe the Bill accurately. I am sure they will wish to do so. Mr. McNulty: I take that not as a flippant point, but as a fair one. Nevertheless, I entirely disagree with it, which I am fully entitled to do. We are happy with the short title as it is. Identity cards are the key focal point for substantive public debate and for our own deliberations. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Newark did not come back with the notion of the flash-and-go Bill, which would have been just as useful for our deliberations. 10 amAs I have said time and again, the interaction between the register and the card is important, and the register is certainly an important feature of the overall scheme. None the less, the short title reflects the substance of the Bill, and we think that “Identity Cards Bill” just about covers it, so I resist the amendment in the nicest possible way. Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. It comes as no surprise that this, our last substantive amendment, should be resisted, although I regret that. However, in light of the amendment and how the Minister has dealt with it, I shall not press the matter, although I hope that it can be dealt with later. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Mr. Garnier: This is my last cry on the subject of modifications. Clause 45(6) states:
Column Number: 438 That would be a modification of the Act, rather than one simply made through secondary legislation or to the scheme. I merely note that, and I trust that Her Majesty may see fit to pay particular attention to that aspect of the Bill. Mr. McNulty: The hon. and learned Gentleman has fallen at the last hurdle. The modification would be to the provisions provided for by the Act, not to the Act itself. Were they modifications to the Act, they would be amendments. With that in mind, I ask that clause 45 should stand part of the Bill. Question put and agreed to. Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Schedule 2 agreed to. Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House. Mr. McNulty: I shall not detain the Committee for long, but I wish to say a few words before we conclude. On the whole, our deliberations have been fair. They have also, in the main, been good-humoured and temperate, although I have provided the odd exception to that. We have been excellently served by your chairmanship, Mr. Gale, and that of Mr. Hood, and I convey the Committee’s thanks to you both for the good-humoured and temperate way in which you chaired our proceedings. Opposition Committee members were, I know, terribly underwhelmed by the programme motion, but after the order and the knives were introduced, our deliberations remained good-hearted, but picked up pace. We managed two clauses in our first four sittings and then, without any loss of our ability to scrutinise, we picked up the pace and deliberated on things in detail. I would argue that, without that motion and the knives, we would still be debating clause 3. I take the point that clauses 1 and 2 were matters of substance. We have now ensured that almost all the 45 clauses and two schedules have been debated to the level of detail that the Committee requires. I said at the outset that we had had scrutiny and debate on these matters before, and I described this as déjà vu. Now that we have come to the end of the proceedings, it seems that that was not entirely fair; some matters raised by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough and by the hon. Members for Newark and for Orkney and Shetland were different from those raised when last the Committee met. We have had time to explore some elements and amendments, nay, modifications, more in this Committee than in the last. I thank all the Opposition Front Benchers for the way in which they put the Bill to scrutiny. I also hope that the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Wallace) and for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Ellwood) enjoyed their first outing in Committee. For new Members, they contributed in exemplary fashion. I also congratulate the new Government Members who contributed. Reverting to academic mode, if I were giving an early report on the new Liberal Democrat Member, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale
The debate has been fair, robust and detailed. For that, everyone is to be thanked. I also thank, not in passing but in substance, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, who had his first outing as such; for a Minister on a first outing on such a controversial Bill, he performed in exemplary fashion. Happily, he allowed me to carry out nature’s normal ablutions at various stages. Flying solo on a Bill is not nice, and it can mean having to engineer debates so that one can leave when necessary. I demur from those who suggest scurrilously that I left the Room for nicotine intakes. You will know, Mr. Gale, that the Corridor outside this Room is non-smoking. I have not broken that ruling—and my nose is not growing in any way as I make these remarks. I have written two letters to you, Mr. Gale, on points that needed greater elaboration. There may be more on the way. If I missed anything, I apologise. If hon. Members want to come back to us about points that I undertook to respond to but have not done so, I will happily respond. We send the Bill back to the House suitably amended with one Government amendment, to clause 37. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I will have huge fun reflecting on all the things that Members have asked us to reflect on during the summer. We shall certainly reflect do so, and the Bill will be in better shape for it. We will return to our deliberations at some stage in October for Third Reading and Report. On a serious note, the matter before us is one of fundamental import to public policy. I thank everyone for taking it seriously. We have had moments of levity, but we have also had moments of seriousness. It was all done in good humour, politely and with the courtesy that this place should command, and because of that good nature and the temperate way in which we dispatched our deliberations, we and the Bill are all the better for the experience. We will look back lovingly at that experience. I am sure that it will feature substantially in everyone’s memoirs, except perhaps those of the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale. I commend the motion that you, Mr. Gale, should dispatch the Bill to the place downstairs that we love so much. Mr. Garnier: The Minister’s valedictory remarks were notable for two things. First, they were almost longer than the deliberations on the Bill itself. Secondly, they gave us more information about him and his personal habits than about Government policy. Column Number: 440 Nevertheless, I join the Minister in thanking you, Mr. Gale, and your co-Chairman, Mr. Hood. In particular, I thank the Clerk to the Committee, Dr. Benger, and his staff, for their help to the Opposition. It was given wholly apolitically on matters of procedure. I am grateful to the Clerk for that, as I know the Minister is. Mr. McNulty indicated assent. Mr. Garnier: I see the Minister nodding. I also thank the Hansard reporters. Their work is often forgotten, but for politicians such as myself, who do not suffer from any form of vanity, it is occasionally nice to look back and see how marvellous and seamless our prose in Committee was. I am therefore very grateful to the Hansard reporters for reporting our proceedings. I agree with the Minister that, although the matter before us is one of deep philosophical division between the main political parties, as well as the Liberal Democrats, we have managed to conduct our affairs with a degree of humour and without losing sight of the seriousness of the legislation. A lot more needs to be said about the Bill, and a lot more will be said, both in the Chamber of the House of Commons and in another place. None the less, we have done the best that we can within the limits set down for us. I congratulate the two Ministers on their conduct of the Bill, although they might have to answer for it in due course. I congratulate the Government Back Benchers who have adorned the Committee with their silence and occasional interventions, and I also thank the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland for assisting the Opposition in trying to resist the Government. Finally, may I introduce a happy note, although it comes to mind because of a serious issue? My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East, who is not present today, first came into personal contact with terrorism as a result of the death of his brother in Bali. In the context of the Bill, one of the statutory purposes of the identity card register is to deal with terrorism. Happily, having come into the Committee with that connection, my hon. Friend is unable to be here today because he is getting married on Saturday. That my piece of joyful news for the Committee. I am sure that we all wish him well in what I hope will be a long and very happy married life. It goes without saying—I shall say it none the less; what lawyer, whether or not a Member of Parliament, does not use 50 words when one might have done?—that I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who has been across this parade ground twice, but is still smiling and still has shiny boots. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Prisk) has kept us under control, and my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre and for Bournemouth, East have contributed valiantly and with great effect to our proceedings of past few weeks. With that, I look forward to resuming the debate on Report. Column Number: 441 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 22 July 2005 |