Child Benefit Bill

---

Standing Committee F

Tuesday 18 January 2005

[Miss Anne Begg in the Chair]

Child Benefit Bill

2.30 pm

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That—

(1) during proceedings on the Child Benefit Bill the Standing Committee (in addition to its first meeting on Tuesday 18th January at 2.30 p.m.) shall meet on Thursday 20th January at 9.25 a.m.;

(2) the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clause 1, Clause 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 7, new Clauses, new Schedules and any remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3) the proceedings on the Bill shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 11.25 a.m. on Thursday 20th January.—[Dawn Primarolo.]

Mr. Mark Francois (Rayleigh) (Con): May I begin our proceedings this afternoon by welcoming you to the Chair, Miss Begg? We look forward to serving under your chairmanship this afternoon.

There is a gentle irony in the fact that we are dealing with essentially a very small Bill in a very large Room. Nevertheless, what we are considering has the potential to become an Act of Parliament, and I want to raise two points in public that were raised privately in the Programming Sub-Committee last night. I told the Minister that I intended to do so.

The first point about the timetabling of the measure is that the Government gave an undertaking, when the Bill was published, that they would attempt to have the attendant draft regulations, which form the meat of the provisions, published in advance of Second Reading. To be fair, they complied with that by a margin of two days. However, because the Government have chosen to move the Bill into Committee so rapidly, there has not been much time to consult outside bodies on the draft regulations. Perhaps our proceedings would have benefited from extra time in which to do that.

I want to take this opportunity to request the Government, in any similar situation that may arise when regulations relevant to Second Reading are published close to that time and the Bill goes into Committee shortly afterwards, to make allowance for that. They should either publish the regulations earlier or leave a slightly longer time for consultation before beginning the Committee sittings. I do not think that that is an unreasonable request.

My second point relates to Third Reading. When the programme motion that governs our proceedings was passed on the Floor of the House, the Government allowed only half an hour for the Third Reading. I appreciate that it is not a long Bill. We do not try to pretend that it is. Nevertheless, there is a point of principle involved in allowing only half an hour for the Third Reading of what will become an Act of
 
Column Number: 4
 
Parliament. I deprecate that. It would be nice if an hour were available, even if it were not to be fully used. Perhaps that can be taken up through the usual channels, so that we do not end up in the same unfortunate situation again.

The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I welcome you to the Chair this afternoon, Miss Begg. As the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) said, the Bill is a short one. Nearly all of the business in Committee will be under clause 1, which the subsequent six clauses support.

The hon. Gentleman has previously made the point to me about the regulations. The Government have made a particular effort to make regulations available prior to their discussion, something that we did not have the benefit of in opposition, because the previous Government did not cede the point. I note the hon. Gentleman's point, although on Second Reading the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) charitably described the regulations as

''a model of clarity and of brevity''—[Official Report, 12 January 2005; Vol. 429, c. 335.]

and of directness. A considerable amount of advance consultation, with responses, was published a good deal in advance, when all the organisations who had the benefit of seeing the drafts had commented. However, I take the general point.

Timetabling on Third Reading is a matter for discussion through the usual channels, and I understand that that has happened. It is normal for Government Bills to have an hour on Third Reading. Given the size of the Bill before the Committee, it is not unreasonable, therefore, that less than an hour has been allowed. I know that the hon. Member for Rayleigh is inventive enough to ensure that he makes all the comments that he wants to make on the Bill and that he need not worry. His comments have been heard by the Government Whip and I am sure that any further necessary discussions will take place.

Mr. David Laws (Yeovil) (LD): Welcome to the Chair, Miss Begg. As has already been said, the Bill is fairly small and its overall substance is not particularly contentious. However, there are a couple of issues that we debated on the Floor of the House and that it will be useful to return to in Committee, particularly in relation to clause 1.

I agree with some of the comments of the hon. Member for Rayleigh on the time that will be allowed for the Third Reading debate. There are wider issues about the way in which the Government's strategy will develop in this area over the next few years, and it would be useful to be able to explore some of them in the context of a Third Reading debate.

Mr. Francois: The Paymaster General has made her case. Without wishing to prolong the debate unnecessarily, I simply suggest that sometimes issues requiring considerable discussion crop up on Report and that part of the point of Third Reading is that there should be enough time to follow up whatever has cropped up on Report.

 
Column Number: 5
 
I heard what the Paymaster General said. She has given us a commitment that the matter will be taken away and discussed with the usual channels. I take her entirely at her word and I welcome what she said, but there was a point of principle to be made, hence my remarks. I hope that the Government will take seriously the point that we have put to them. I think that it is best to leave the matter there.

Question put and agreed to.

The Chairman: I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of which are available in the Room. I also remind hon. Members that adequate notice should be given of amendments. We shall not call starred amendments. Well, it depends on how many sittings of the Committee there are. There might not be another afternoon sitting. New clause 1 will now be taken after clause 7, rather than as part of the clause 1 stand part debate. I have been assured that the debate on new clause 1 will be a different debate from that on clause 1.

Clause 1

Persons for whom child benefit may be claimed: Great Britain

Rob Marris (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 9, after '16', insert 'or'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, after '16', insert 'or'.

No. 3, in clause 6, page 2, line 37, leave out 'But, subject to that', and insert 'Nevertheless'.

Rob Marris: I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg, and the Paymaster General to the Committee. I think that this is the fifth Treasury Bill Committee on which I have served with her, and it is the first such Committee on which I have served under your chairmanship, Miss Begg. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell) to what I think is the first Bill Committee in which he has appeared as a Minister.

The first two amendments are essentially the same. One relates to the provision in clause 1 on Great Britain; the second relates to clause 2 on Northern Ireland. The idea of amendments Nos. 1 and 2 is to make it clear that three, not two, limbs are encompassed in clause 1(2) and clause 2(2).

Amendment No. 3 concerns an issue to which I referred on Second Reading. A clause or, indeed, a sentence should not begin with the word ''but''; that is not a suitable conjunction with which to start a sentence. I suggest in the amendment the word ''nevertheless''. I do not know whether that achieves the objective in drafting terms, but no doubt the Paymaster General will tell me whether it is suitable.

Mr. Francois: The hon. Gentleman raised some of those points on Second Reading and we commend him for his thorough examination of the Bill's grammar. He may recall that I jokingly suggested that in view of
 
Column Number: 6
 
his assiduity in these matters, he might find that he had, in effect, volunteered to serve on the Committee. Today's experience shows that that prediction was probably accurate. I do not think that any great issues of principle are at stake, but I would nevertheless be interested to hear the Paymaster General's response on those points of drafting and grammar, not least because this is the fifth such Committee on which she has served with the hon. Gentleman and I am interested to know whether such issues have cropped up before.

Dawn Primarolo: There are many ways in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) demonstrates his parliamentary abilities and talents. For example, in all Standing Committees on which he serves he reads the Bill very closely and, where he can, he suggests helpful amendments. I am grateful that he has been able to do that in this Committee. So I shall start with the good news. We accept amendments Nos. 1 and 2. He can now notch up yet another contribution to primary legislation.

On Second Reading, my hon. Friend gave two options for replacing the word ''but'': ''nevertheless'' and ''however''. I wish that he had used ''however'' in amendment No. 3. Let me explain why. My hon. Friend was concerned about the heinous crime of starting a sentence with the word ''but''. Advice has been sought from parliamentary draftsmen. I looked up ''nevertheless'' in the dictionary to see why it was different and there was much discussion on this.

In the draftsman's opinion substituting the word ''nevertheless'' for the phrase ''But, subject to that'' was wrong as it changed the meaning of the clause. In his view the amendment would detract from the ability to make regulations under subsection (1) before 10 April 2006. If my hon. Friend decides that he wants to pursue this, it has to read ''However, subject to that'' for it to be in order.

I made inquiries and manuscript amendments are not possible. By the time I had finally settled this, it was too late to table an amendment. I really cannot accept ''nevertheless''. If he feels that strongly he can table an amendment with ''however'' on Report. I will happily concede to that. My hon. Friend has made his point very ably to ensure that legislation, wherever possible, does not contain sentences starting with ''but''.

---

Prepared 18 January 2005