| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North (Mr. Elletson), makes an important point, which I hope will be reflected upon by the Opposition.
Points of Order
4.57 pm
Mr. Bryan Davies (Oldham, Central and Royton): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I want to raise a gross breach of the conventions of the House and of the way in which we seek to represent our constituents. I have told the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) that I would raise the matter. I am sorry that he is not in his place.
I have received several complaints from my constituents that personalised letters have been sent to many of them above the signature of the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth. In addition to containing tendentious Liberal Democrat propaganda, they include a leaflet entitled, "For Help and Advice". Underneath is a photograph and the words, "Chris Davies MP". There was also a questionnaire on local and national matters.A freepost envelope is enclosed with the address "Chris Davies MP", in which the questionnaire can be returned. If the questionnaire is returned, the hon. Gentleman writes to the individual, my constituent, who has corresponded with him. I consider that to be the grossest interference with the rights of my constituents and with my rights as their elected representative.
My constituents are clearly being misled, because the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth is not their representative and cannot carry out actions in the House on their behalf, as suggested by the material. I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker, on how I may make progress in ensuring that that activity ceases and that the conventions of the House are upheld.
Mr. Robert Sheldon (Ashton-under-Lyne):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Several hon. Members will be suffering from that problem because of the redistribution of constituency boundaries. I am in a similar position, because my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) represents an area that is due to become part of the constituency for which I expect to stand. I have been scrupulous in not contacting his constituents and have referred letters to him because he is the Member of Parliament. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) did not pursue the same course.
Mr. Barry Field (Isle of Wight):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker:
I did not think that the hon. Gentleman could have such a problem with his constituency.
Mr. Field:
That is why I rise to make a point of order. I am sure that you would be amazed to know, Madam Speaker, as keeper of good order and discipline in the
Madam Speaker:
The House will know that I have often given guidance on these matters. Of course,I deprecate the activities of any Member who interferes in such a way in another's constituency. The hon. Member for Littleborough and Saddleworth (Mr. Davies) is a relatively new Member. Hon. Members should be mature and sensible enough to resolve such matters among themselves. I see that the Liberal Democrat Whip is in his place and has heard the exchanges. I am sure that he will use his good offices to ensure that there is no recurrence.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to ask you a question, arising from what my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin(Mr. Grocott) said, about Monday's business and vote.
It is important that people outside understand what we mean and how we vote. As I understand it, Madam Speaker--you will correct me if I am wrong--if a vote is on a Government motion for the Adjournment, the usual practice, although it may not be followed on Monday,is that the Government vote against that motion, in order to protect their business, so presumably on Monday we shall vote for the motion.
To many people, that is an almost Alice-in-Wonderland position, which they do not understand, and one can hardly blame them. I wonder whether many Members of the House, who may not be present, understand the technicalities.
Of course you are not, and cannot be, responsible for which motions are tabled, Madam Speaker, but the fact that there will not be a proper Government motion regarding the Scott report, and that there will be a technical motion,will cause difficulties and confusion, not necessarily in the House--with the Whips about and so on--but to millions of people outside. Such people have a duty, which they carry out, to want to know about important public business. Surely they cannot be criticised, and it will certainly look like Alice in Wonderland when the Government move a motion and then vote against it.
Madam Speaker:
The hon. Gentleman is correct, in that on Monday, if the Opposition wish to oppose the Government, they will vote aye, and the Government will vote no, but I think that the hon. Gentleman, with respect, underestimates our electorate. I think that they know precisely what goes on here. According to my mailbag,I can tell him that that is absolutely correct.
Madam Speaker:
With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 131(2),
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope):
I beg to move amendment No. 44, in page 5, line 22, after 'that', insert '(a)'.
Madam Speaker:
With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: Government amendmentsNos. 45 and 46.
Amendment No. 57, in page 5, line 27, at end insert--
Mr. Kirkhope:
A key argument made by many respondents to our consultation document was that it was important for employers to know exactly what they needed to do to establish a defence. The three Government amendments to clause 8 are designed to ensure that employers can be clear in their minds about two key points.
The first point was raised in Committee, and we promised to consider it. We now propose that the wording in subsection (3) be amended as set out in amendment No. 45. Our consultation document referred clearly to employers seeing documents which appear, prima facie, to belong to the person offering himself or herself for employment. Subsection (3), however, simply refers to documents relating to the person concerned. It was suggested that that formulation would require employers to make more elaborate efforts to establish the true identity of potential employees.
Amendment No. 45 will ensure that no more is expected of employers than is outlined in the consultation document. They will be able to assume that a document belongs to and relates to the person proffering it unless there is a good reason that would suggest that that is not the case.
Amendment No. 46 will amend subsection (3) to allow us to give employers the clearest possible indication of what they will need to do, when they have seen a document, to provide themselves with a defence. The current draft simply allows us to specify documents that would establish a defence, but does not allow us to be specific about other important details. In some cases, as our consultation document said, we would expect employers to take a copy of a document to establish a defence. In the case of the P45 defence, an employer
would simply need to have retained--as he is required to at present in any event--part of the form. Obviously, it would be inappropriate to include in the Bill detailed points about the taking of photocopies or the scanning of documents using information technology equipment. Nevertheless, amendment No. 46 will enable us to leave employers and the courts in no doubt about what is required.
Amendment No. 44 is a minor drafting amendment to subsection (3) which is desirable because of the introduction of amendment No. 46.
Before I leave amendments Nos. 44 to 46, I should tell the House that we have been giving further consideration to an argument that was made in Committee about the possibility that racketeers would abuse the statutory defences. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) yesterday recognised the need to deal with such people.
We certainly do not want unscrupulous employers to have a defence when they know that the person employed is not entitled to work or when they have been actively involved in producing false documentation for that employee. We need to ensure that racketeers are guilty of an offence in those circumstances. We shall examine the matter carefully. If we consider that clause 8 needs strengthening, we shall table an amendment to that effect in the other place, but legitimate employers will have nothing to fear and no additional burdens will be placed on them. I commend those minor but important amendments to the House.
I should like to give my reaction to amendment No. 57, which has not yet been moved. It would prevent an order made under subsection (3) from including a birth certificate as a specified document until the Government have implemented certain proposals contained in the White Paper "Registration: Proposals for Change", relating to controls on the issuing of certified and uncertified birth certificates.
The amendment reflects anxieties, which the Government share, about the comparative ease with which certified copies of birth certificates can be obtained and the fact that such certificates can be used to establish false identities. Several hon. Members mentioned the issue in Committee.
The procedure for obtaining certified copies of birth certificates is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health because he is responsible for the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys, whose White Paper discussed the problem and possible ways of solving it. We are discussing the issue.
The Government understand and share the fundamental concern that lies behind the amendment, and we shall bear that concern in mind when we draft the final version of an order under the clause. We do not believe, however, that the significant but fairly small-scale abuse that can and does take place will necessarily justify excluding birth certificates from the list of specified documents. We do not consider it appropriate for such an exclusion to be contained in the Bill.
I hope, therefore, that Opposition Members will agree to withdraw that amendment.
That the draft Financial Assistance for Industry (Increase of Limit) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on25th January, be approved.
That the draft Contracting Out (Functions in relation to the provision of Guardians Ad Litem and Reporting Officers Panels) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th February,be approved.--[Mr. Knapman.]
That this House agrees with the Report [20th February] of the Liaison Committee.--[Mr. Knapman.]
'Provided that no order made pursuant to this subsection shall specify a birth certificate as a relevant document for the purposes of a defence under this section until statutory provision has been made requiring applicants seeking the issue of a birth certificate--
(a) to complete a comprehensive application form,
(b) to state their relationship to the subject of the required certificate, and
(c) to state the purpose for which the certificate is to be used.'.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |