| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 3
8.15 pm
Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 46, in page 5, leave out lines 7 to 9.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 5, in page 5, line 7, after 'the', insert 'verifiable'.
No. 57, in page 5, leave out lines 10 to 14.
No. 6, in page 5, line 22, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
No. 7, in page 5, line 32, leave out 'temporary'.
No. 8, in page 5, line 32, after 'unemployment', insert
Mr. Maclean:
I have moved the amendment on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), who tabled it. He has apologised that he cannot be here to do so.
Through this amendment and the related amendment No. 57, which suggest that certain words should be deleted, we seek clarification from the Government as to why they are included and about the detail of what they mean. Clause 3, line 7 reads:
Mr. Maclean:
It may be, but it is probably grammatically correct. What does that sentence mean? I confess that I do not know. I have an inkling of what I think that it may mean. I know what, "Regard shall be had" means. What about, "in particular"? If regard is to be had, in particular, what are all the other circumstances that the Government have in mind? Will the Minister explain these particular ones? What about
I am certain that the Minister, who is kindly with us on secondment again from the Northern Ireland Office--I think that he called it unpaid day release last week, or something of the sort--
Mr. Gerald Howarth:
No fixed fee.
Mr. Maclean:
Yes--on transfer for no fixed fee.
I welcome the Minister's presence. He is always kind and courteous at the Dispatch Box and always seeks to elucidate where he can. I am certain that, if his brief has been prepared by the people whom I think prepared it in the Home Office--meaning no disrespect to the excellent Northern Ireland Office--it will contain some excellent detail. Admittedly, some of our legislation ended up in judicial review in the High Court--that is always a penalty of Home Office legislation. Nevertheless, the Minister's brief is likely to explain the circumstances.
What are the facts? I suspect that much of the brief will be available to be put into the public domain, or put on the record, if an hon. Member asks. I suspect that little will be in the "If pressed" category and there may be nothing in the category at the bottom of the brief headed, "Not to be revealed in any circumstances."
I simply ask the Minister, on behalf of the hon. Member for East Londonderry, what exactly those three lines mean and what other matters the Government have in mind that are not included by the words, "in particular"?
The amendments also suggest the deletion of lines 10 to 14. Those read:
Mr. Forth:
I am afraid that I have to disappoint my right hon. Friend. To try to help him, I took up the explanatory notes provided by the Government. However, the notes for this clause simply use the same words. They state:
Mr. Maclean:
I hear what my right hon. Friend says. I hope that the Home Office has not become so afraid of judicial review under the new Government that the explanatory memorandums are merely copying the exact words in the Bill lest some clever clogs should take the Department to court. However, I would not entirely agree with my right hon. Friend that the Bill is badly drafted. We may discover that in due course. I suspect that it is an obscurely drafted Bill. That is often not the fault of departmental officials, who send away a technical brief that anyone--certainly a Minister--can understand, but get back something from the parliamentary draftsman that no one can understand.
Mr. Bercow:
Is my right hon. Friend of the view that, if the meaning of the provision is that an individual is not resident there if he has a home elsewhere, it means also that, if he has a home elsewhere, he is judged to be permanently resident at that other home, notwithstanding the temporary interruption? If so, does it not appear that the wording of that provision conflicts directly with the proposal on page 2 to which we referred a moment ago?
Mr. Maclean:
My hon. Friend's explanation of what the proposal seems to mean appears to be correct, and may be the only explanation. I should like to hear from the Minister whether my hon. Friend has come to the correct interpretation. If he has, there would, prima facie, seem to be a conflict with clause 2.
Mr. Fabricant:
I must confess that I am confused. Is my right hon. Friend arguing that he supports the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross), under which the whole clause would be removed because it is gobbledegook? Or is he
Mr. Maclean:
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, but I will leave the other amendments to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. For simplicity's sake, I am dealing with the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for East Londonderry. The amendment must be phrased in such a way as to draw attention to what my hon. Friend calls gobbledegook. It is not possible to table an amendment to ask the Minister to explain that passage, so one must use the parliamentary device of proposing to delete lines 7 to 14.
I would not propose to push the amendment to the vote--unless the Minister's explanation horrifies me--as my intention is not to delete the lines, but to seek information and elucidation. I have every confidence that the Minister will be able to provide that.
Mr. Forth:
I will pick up the baton from my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) at this point.
I was upset when my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) indicated that my amendment was of less than complete value before I had even had a chance to explain it. He will be listening attentively, as always, as I try to explain it. A number of our amendments seek to make the Bill more secure and, therefore, to enhance it. This amendment is probably the least important of that group, but it has its own validity.
Clause 3 states:
Mr. Fabricant:
I hesitate to argue with my right hon. Friend--for whom normally I have the greatest respect--but is it not usually the case that when one attests to a fact, one must verify it? Therefore, the amendment to introduce the word "verifiable" is a gross tautology.
Mr. Forth:
I hope that that is not the case. I am barely scratching at the surface of my argument, so my hon. Friend should not rush too quickly to call me to account. If he is patient, he might be prepared to agree with me. If not, he will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and give the reasons why.
I may not have selected the right word--the House knows how I struggle to find my words--in calling for a "verifiable" fact. I have tried to establish that there should be incumbent on the registration officer an additional procedure, through which he will seek to verify what is claimed in the process of registration by the person seeking that registration.
'of less than 3 months'.
"Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date."
Mr. Forth:
That is garbage.
"to the purpose and other circumstances . . . of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date"?
I think that the Minister would agree that the sentence is opaque.
"For example, where at a particular time a person is staying at any place otherwise than on a permanent basis, he may in all the circumstances be taken to be at that time--
That seems an extraordinary catch-all. No doubt the lawyers who drafted the clause know exactly what it means. The Minister, with his excellent brief and sharp mind, will know what it means, but it seems like gobbledegook to me and I would be grateful for an explanation. I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who is no doubt learned in a non-House of Commons, technical, nomenclatural sense, will be able to advise me.
(a) resident there if he has no home elsewhere, or
(b) not resident there if he does have a home elsewhere."
"The subsection provides that a person who is staying somewhere other than on a permanent basis may be regarded as resident if he does not have a home elsewhere."
Those sound suspiciously like the words that my right hon. Friend read from the Bill. It looks as though we are again trapped by the circularity that is becoming the hallmark of this badly drafted legislation.
"Regard shall be had, in particular, to the purpose and other circumstances, as well as to the fact, of his presence at, or absence from, the address on that date."
However, as soon as one introduces the concept of "the fact", there is a duty to establish whether it is a fact or not.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |