Clause
2
Power to impose new nationality
requirements
Question proposed, That
the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Dismore:
We shall, I hope, be able to deal with the clause
relatively briefly, because the arguments will be a counterpart of
those that we had on clause 1. Clause 2 would introduce the power to
impose the restrictions that we debated extensively during the more
general debate on clause 1. It would enable Ministers to specify which
jobs would be reserved and the circumstances that relate to those
conditions. It could apply not only to the applicant, but to their
relatives as
well.
Mr.
Chope:
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why he did not wish
to include in clause 2 a provision for parliamentary scrutiny of
ministerial decisions in that respect?
Mr.
Dismore:
The short answer is that that would be wrong in
respect of decisions about individuals. As I mentioned earlier, such
jobs are set out in the European Communities (Employment in the Civil
Service) Order 2007. They include jobs in certain departments of the
security and intelligence services, including the Security Service, the
Secret Intelligence Service, Government Communications Headquarters,
the diplomatic service, the Foreign Office and the Defence Intelligence
Staff. The order specifically refers to
“access to intelligence
information received directly or indirectly...access to other
information which, if...misused, might
damage...security...border control or decisions about
immigration”
and so on.
The order gives a detailed list, and I understand that those sorts of
rules will be brought into effect for the
Bill.
Mr.
Knight:
I understand what the hon. Gentleman has said, but
does he agree that Parliament should always have the final say and that
one glaring omission from the Bill is that there is no provision for
any parliamentary confirmation of the rules in force? If he is lucky
enough to get his Bill through Committee, will he at least reflect on
Report on whether we need a system of parliamentary scrutiny of the
contents of the
rules?
Mr.
Dismore:
Obviously, I shall reflect on what the right hon.
Gentleman has said. He usually makes sensible points, although I would
not go as far as saying that about his earlier comments on the European
Union. I shall certainly reflect on what he has said.
Given how the Bill is
constructed, it would provide the flexibility that the existing
arrangements simply do not. The difficulty with the existing
arrangements is that they have layered Acts of Parliament on orders on
Acts of Parliament on other rules. That has created a complex tangle.
If we have a simple system that can be tweaked, amended and brought up
to date relatively easily, it will be an advantage. However, I take the
right hon. Gentleman’s point, on which we will be able to
reflect as the Bill proceeds—if it does—to
Report.
Mr.
Bone:
Will the hon. Gentleman explain what subsection
4(b)—
“allowing
any Minister or other...body to grant
exemptions”—
means?
Mr.
Dismore:
That effectively gives a counterpart to our
current arrangements in respect of the Aliens’ Employment Act
1955, which was mentioned earlier. As I said, the 1955 Act deals
primarily with MOD jobs. We shall have rules that will make all sorts
of exclusions. I shall give a hypothetical example. Let us suppose that
the intelligence services wanted to employ—subject to all the
appropriate checks and balances, obviously—somebody from the
United States Department of Homeland Security, or somebody equivalent
from Israel, which has enormous experience of counter-terrorism. We
might need to make an exemption, as we could now under the 1955 Act,
for the very small number of individuals whom it could be to our
advantage to employ in what would otherwise be
reserved jobs. We are talking about a belt-and-braces approach that
would provide an exemption in such
circumstances.
Mr.
Bone:
I understand “allowing any Minister”,
but I do not understand
“allowing any...other person
or body to grant
exemptions.”
How can any
other person or body be included? That could be anyone, could it
not?
Mr.
Dismore:
That effectively reflects the existing
arrangements. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Minister will correct me if
I am wrong about that when she replies to the debate. As I understand
it, it is the object of that part of the
clause.
Norman
Baker:
To help the hon. Gentleman, is not that pursuant to
clause
2(3)(b)?
Mr.
Dismore:
Of course. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman
for his intervention, which makes it clear, certainly in respect of
delegation, that the proposal reflects the existing arrangements pretty
accurately and gives effect to the restrictions, which we debated
extensively in clause
1.
The only serious
objection relates to terrorism. My answer to the question on terrorism
is that the 7/7 bombers were UK nationals. The real answer was given by
my hon. Friend earlier: we must ensure that the proper security checks
are in place irrespective of nationality, which we do. The most
important argument is that we are trying to create an inclusive civil
service, which does not have unnecessary restrictions but nevertheless
has restrictions that are relevant and needed to preserve those jobs in
which our security is essential, and the Bill provides for
that.
As I said
earlier, there are a large number of Israeli people in my constituency.
To suggest that Israelis are involved in such activities would be
barking mad, but they are excluded, as are Americans, Japanese people
and those from all sorts of countries around the world who are
absolutely committed to the fight against terrorism. Yet there have
been problems in the existing arrangements—I do not mean that in
a generic way—with Pakistani nationals, who are entitled to join
the civil service, as are UK nationals, who have been involved in
terrorist activity. The argument about nationality and terrorism is a
complete red herring in that
respect.
My hon.
Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead mentioned Nepalese people
who were employed as Gurkha soldiers. To suggest that they should be
excluded on security grounds is
nonsense.
The Bill
would give effect to the recommendations of the Public
Administration Committee, which considered the issue some time ago, and
it has the widespread support of organisations such as the civil
service unions and the Commission for Racial Equality. I will not
repeat the arguments advanced in clause 1, but I hope that the
Committee will support clause stand
part.
Norman
Baker:
I wonder whether the Minister, when she responds,
could deal with a point that relates to holding office in a civil
capacity under the Crown in clause 2(1). Sensitive jobs that used to be
done within
the civil service are increasingly being outsourced. However, we still
want the people who do those jobs to be subject to proper vetting and
security checks. As parts of Porton Down, for example, have been sent
into the private sector, the people who work there may not technically
be civil servants, but their work nevertheless requires security checks
to be carried out. Can the Minister reassure the Committee that that
will somehow be wrapped up in the clause and in the Government’s
response to the
matter?
Mr.
Knight:
This clause is the most important part of the
Bill. We cannot argue with its title “Power to impose new
nationality requirements”, because if the House accepts the
Bill, power will be needed to introduce new requirements. However, the
drafting of the clause seems to flow against the tide of what the
Government are trying to achieve.
The Secretary of State for
Justice and Lord Chancellor, who until recently was Leader of the
House, played a very prominent role as Chairman of the Modernisation
Committee and said that he wanted enhanced parliamentary scrutiny. That
theme has been repeated by the new Prime Minister in his statements
about giving greater power to Parliament and removing power from the
Executive, which is to be applauded. Conservative Members wait to see
whether he delivers what he promises—the jury is out in that
respect—but at least he is making the right noises. The theme
has been taken up by the new Leader of the House. I support the thrust
that more power should be given to Parliament and that power held by
others should be subject to scrutiny in this place, but the clause goes
off completely in the other
direction.
10.45
am
The hon. Member
for Hendon, who is normally a powerful advocate, said that the reason
behind the drafting of the clause is flexibility. He appeared to argue
that we need to sacrifice scrutiny for the benefit of flexibility. I
hope that I made it clear that logic is indeed on his side, but I am
afraid that the argument is not. I take the opposite view—I
would rather sacrifice complete flexibility for moderate, reasonable
scrutiny. Scrutiny is needed whenever we give powers to change our
law.
We are being
asked to approve a framework that someone else will be able to tamper
with and change beyond all recognition, and that someone includes not
only this Minister, but others. Clause 2(3)(b) states that the rules
may be made
“by any
person or body to whom that power has been delegated by a Minister of
the Crown.”
Even the
power of delegation will not be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. That
would give to a Minister the power to nominate anybody. It could be
someone whose views are radical even by the standards of the hon.
Member for Lewes and who takes an even more extreme view of the United
States of America than him. There would be no mechanism by which that
person’s decision could be subject to parliamentary
scrutiny.
It
gets worse. Subsection (4)(b) would allow the Minister or any other
person appointed under subsection (3)(b) to grant exemptions, which
will also not be subject to
parliamentary scrutiny. I have real concern that the Bill goes too far
in the direction of flexibility and sacrifices necessary parliamentary
scrutiny.
Mr.
Chope:
Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that the
clause would enable retrospective changes to be made in respect of
existing employees without parliamentary
scrutiny?
Mr.
Knight:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no
indication in the clause that any rule changes or exemptions must be
effective from a future date. They could indeed be backdated. I have
real concerns about allowing others to make rules without proper
scrutiny. I shall give an example from a totally different area, but
the principle is nevertheless relevant to explaining my
concerns.
Transport
for London and the Mayor of London have the power under existing
legislation to introduce a low-emission zone. Those who are concerned
about clean air want to see that introduced, but TfL and the Mayor can
choose whatever rules they like for bringing in the zone. They are
talking about having a high threshold for commercial vehicles. As I
understand it, until recently no one realised that that would prevent
the use of vintage commercial vehicles, which are used in charity
fundraising events throughout the Greater London area throughout the
year, where they raise many hundreds of thousands of pounds for
charity. Old fire engines, steam-powered commercial vehicles and others
may be hit by the rules, because those who seek to impose them are not
subject to the scrutiny of this place. I have no confidence that good
law will result when unfettered power is given and is not subject to
ongoing scrutiny.
I
understand the promoter of the Bill’s point. He does not want
the situation to be completely rigid and wants an element of
flexibility. However, that could be achieved by a periodic review of
the rules. The clause does not even contain a requirement that there
should be parliamentary scrutiny after a certain period—for
example, every 12 or 24 months. If he is going to insist on including
the clause, I hope that he will seriously consider introducing an
amendment at a later stage to address those serious concerns.
We are not a debating society,
although it often seems that we are. We approve, or withhold our
approval to, a change in the law, which affects all citizens in this
country. We therefore all have a duty to get it right. We all have a
duty not to say that the Minister knows best, although we have
currently have a particularly good Minister. My concern is not with the
Minister, but with what happens when she is moved on and we have
another Minister,
or—
Mr.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): God forbid! A Tory
Minister.
Mr.
Knight:
It may be a Tory, but I do not
assume, because I am a Conservative, that I can trust all of my right
hon. and hon. Friends. [ Hon. Members: “It
could be you.”] Indeed, it could be me—I am not sure that
I always trust myself. Trust is not needed, if there is proper
scrutiny. Scrutiny is all the more important when the decision may not
be made by a Minister, because even if the Minister is outwith scrutiny
on a narrow decision, under our system, unlike the American system,
Ministers have to answer to this House every single day.
Even if a Minister were able to
give an exemption or to approve a rule which did not find favour in a
part of the House, at least once a month that Minister has to come to
the Dispatch Box and answer questions. To that extent, the Minister
could be criticised. However, there is no such requirement on this
mysterious
“any person
or body to whom that power has been
delegated”.
The Minister
could quite easily give this power away and come to the Dispatch Box
and say, “It is nothing to do with me. I have delegated the
matter. I am not answerable now for this decision.” The gaping
hole in the Bill is the lack of scrutiny on this
point.
Mr.
Bone:
As a new Member, will my right hon. Friend advise me
whether, if the Bill passes into law, the rules would have to return to
Parliament in a statutory instrument to be approved again? And would
that be by the affirmative or the negative
resolution?
Mr.
Knight:
My reading of the Bill is that
there is no such requirement. The Minister is given the powers to make
the rules or, even worse, to allow someone else to make the rules and
the exemptions without any requirement for us to have any further say
in the matter. My hon. Friend, astute as ever, has put his finger right
on the weakness that there is no requirement for us to re-examine how
the rules have been drafted, implemented and applied and the range of
exemptions that may or may not be contained within
them.
Philip
Davies:
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly
powerful case and has certainly persuaded me that the clause is
unacceptable. Does he agree that the situation is worse now than it
would have been in the past, given the huge amount of quangos that have
been created by the Government and that will no doubt have the power to
interfere through the
clause?
Mr.
Knight:
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I remember
many years ago when I was a law student speaking to a colourful and
flamboyant Member of this House, the late Sir Gerald Nabarro. He
explained to me that in his day, which was the 1950s and 1960s, all
matters that reached the statute book were subject to scrutiny by this
place. It is a rather modern development that those who draft Bills
include a provision that regulations can be made later by the Minister.
That is something that we did not have for 700 years, as in the case of
the Act of Settlement. It is a modern development, which, I regret to
say, started at the tail of the last Conservative Government. I am not
making a party political
point.
I think that
the civil service saw a way of having flexibility without having to
bother to get a time slot for the Minister to introduce legislation.
Civil servants will have said, “Why don’t we put an
order-making power in the Bill, Minister, then we will not have to come
back to the House? Why don’t we give you a power to do this,
Minister, then we don’t have to find another slot further down
the line?” I can see why, for administrative reasons, it has
been done, and I make no criticism of those whose responsibility it is
to administer their Department. They are doing their best in the area
on which they are employed to advise.
Mr.
Dismore:
The right hon. Gentleman is making a powerful
case and, as I have mentioned, I will be more than happy to reflect on
that point should the Bill make progress. Personally, I would be happy
to work with him outside Committee to see if we can find an agreed
wording, should the Bill go on Report. He has reminded me of my own
views on parliamentary accountability and has made a strong argument,
and I hope that it will find favour with my hon. Friend the
Minister.
Mr.
Knight:
It is a very rare occasion that one makes a
speech—no matter how powerful—and someone stands up to
say that they buy the point and will bring forward an amendment
accordingly. It has happened to me only once before. On the Licensing
Act 1988, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and
North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) was the Home Office Minister. I
moved an amendment to increase drinking-up time in public houses, which
was then only 10 minutes. I argued that it caused big rows at closing
time, because there were pubs full of rugby players who came in wanting
a couple of pints, but staff were trying to throw them out after 10
minutes. I thought that I was on a hiding to nothing, but my right hon.
and learned Friend stood up and said, “My civil service brief
says ‘resist’.” He then threw the brief on the
floor and said, “I accept the amendment.” The one thing
that I have achieved in my political career—I hope that it is
celebrated up and down the country—is giving drinkers 20 minutes
drinking-up time.
I
may also be able to provide the House with some scrutiny over where
this legislation goes. I am grateful to the promoter of the Bill for
his generous response. He said he thought that he had rather lost his
Yorkshire accent. May I say that he is welcome to come to Bridlington
in my constituency any time, and I will buy him a
drink?
Mr.
Chope:
My right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on
another red letter day. He said earlier that sometimes he does not
trust himself. Will he ensure that other members of the Committee are
in on the discussions about the
matter?
Mr.
Knight:
It is only fair that those who have given their
time to look at this issue should be involved in any discussions that
take place. I thank my hon. Friend for congratulating me on a red
letter day, which is only my second in 20
years.
Mr.
Chope:
My right hon. Friend has got a possibly significant
concession out of the promoter of the Bill on subsection (3). I will
begin by saying that I am concerned that we might be at cross purposes.
We have a situation where, as my right hon. Friend has said, the rules
should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, but the Bill suggests that
they need not be and that they can be made by a Minister of the
Crown.
The Bill goes
further, stating in subsection (3) that those rules do not even need to
be made by a Minister
but,
“by any person or
body to whom that power has been delegated by a
Minister”.
That goes even further from the principle
of parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that in the discussions between my
right hon. Friend, the promoter of the Bill and others, we will ensure
that any reference to the Minister being able to delegate a rule-making
power to somebody else should be removed completely from the Bill. That
is potentially very
dangerous.
11
am
Mr.
Knight:
I am not sure whether my hon. Friend is taking me
with him. If the power to delegate the rule-making power is there,
surely it is all right, so long as the delegated decision is still
subject to scrutiny?
Mr.
Chope:
With respect to my right hon. Friend, how will the
decision be subject to scrutiny? If we were to approve the
Minister’s delegating the taking of decisions on rules to
somebody else, it would mean that when that somebody else took the
decisions, they would not be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We
would be giving that person complete discretion about how to implement
the rule
changes.
Mr.
Knight:
To answer my hon. Friend’s point, one way
to do it would be to say that the House had to approve the rules in an
annual report or that a report had to be laid before Parliament, which
Parliament could then approve or reject.
Mr.
Chope:
It will not surprise you to know, Mrs.
Humble, that I respect my right hon. Friend’s abilities in
drafting and the fact that he wants to be flexible. However, we are
talking about people who are in employment or who want to go into
employment, so it is important, if we are to change the rules, that
they are subject to parliamentary scrutiny in advance of the changes
being made, rather than being subject to a rubber-stamping exercise
after the event. Someone might be employed based on a change in the
rules, only for the annual report to be produced and Parliament to say,
“We don’t approve that change, as it happens”.
That would put that person in a pretty difficult situation. I hope that
when we have that discussion with the promoter of the Bill, we have a
little more scrutiny of subsection (3)(b).
It may be that the provision
has been introduced because the Government or the promoter of the Bill
want to give a discretion relating to the making of rules to the royal
household, because the Bill extends to the royal household and
effectively removes its ability to set its own rules for the employment
of staff. I am not sure that that is desirable, and the Minister
effectively said on Second Reading that she has some concerns. She did
not say so expressly, but reading between the lines, I got the
impression that she would rather that the royal household was not
included and that it could maintain its own employment practices. It
does not need much imagination to recognise we cannot get much more
serious security issues than those that involve people who have direct
access to the Head of State. I would prefer to leave the royal
household out, but if it is to be included, we should be able to have
some oversight of any rules that are brought forward.
Clause 2(1) talks about rules
being made
“imposing
requirements as to nationality which must be satisfied by a person
employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown
specified in the rules.”
It does not say,
“about to be appointed to hold such office or be
employed,” or “on the date of the appointment.” It
means that the rules can be changed after somebody has already gone
into employment. That means that if the present Minister—and
Parliament, if our argument is accepted—were to agree to a
change in the rules, the change would apply to all people working in
the civil service. On the basis of that change in the rules, people
might move into positions in the civil service. There might then be a
change in the Government, security system or political approach. We
might even leave the European Union—I hope that that comes
about—and need to rethink our relationships, as my hon. Friend
the Member for Shipley is promoting.
All of those
changes might come about, putting in jeopardy the position of someone
who was employed or holding office in a civil capacity under the Crown.
Effectively, they would be retrospectively removed from that job. Would
that be right, and is it what the promoter of the Bill intended when he
drafted clause 2(1)? Would it not be better if the rules applied when
the person was appointed and could not be changed after they were
appointed—in other words, through the duration of that
appointment?
I fell
out for a time with my own Front Bench over the retrospective element
of the air passenger duty increase imposed earlier this year. This
measure is potentially a power to make a retrospective change in the
rules, because the person in an employed position would find themselves
unable to carry on in that position. Would they be entitled to
compensation, and would they be subject to immediate dismissal? We need
that clarified.
We
also need more precision in subsection (2). Currently, it
specifies:
“The
rules may also impose requirements as to nationality which must be
satisfied by persons of a description specified in the rules who are
related to, or living with, such a person.”
When the subsection refers to persons
“related to”, I presume it means a blood relative,
although it is not spelled out. Such a relationship cannot
change—once a blood relative always a blood relative, for better
or worse. However, when it comes to a person living with someone else,
that is a relationship that can change from one moment to
another.
In a recent
case, somebody who was already married entered a civil partnership and
then, much to my delight, realised the error of their ways and reverted
to their marriage, thereby demonstrating that civil partnerships are
not necessarily all that they are cracked up to be. That is an example
of a rapidly changing scenario, relating to persons living with each
other or with somebody
else.
Philip
Davies:
Like my right hon. Friend the Member for
East Yorkshire, my hon. Friend is making a powerful case against the
flaws in the clause. Will he comment on a contradiction between clause
2 and clause 1? It seems that the purpose of the Bill, as set out by
the hon. Member for Hendon, is to ensure that all and sundry have the
opportunity to work in the civil service. In clause 2, however, he
seems happy to give the power not only to prevent that from happening,
but further to restrict entry into the civil
service.
Mr.
Chope:
My hon. Friend has made a
powerful point. Effectively—I suppose this conforms to the old
doctrine of spin—the hon. Member for Hendon is saying that he
does not like the existing rule-driven arrangements, because there are
certain anomalies that either do or could result in perverse outcomes,
which we all accept. However, he wishes to remove the rule-prescribed
arrangement and introduce arrangements that will not be subject to
scrutiny by this House. Those arrangements will include as yet
unspecified rules that may be more draconian than the existing rules
or, if we have heard him correctly, more liberal. Although they may not
be wholly satisfactory, we know what the existing provisions are, but
the Bill takes us to a point at which we would not know what is set out
in the rules.
My hon.
Friend is right in saying that clause 1 would be beneficial to the
people identified by the hon. Member for Hendon and others, but clause
2 could well take away from such people more than they have, depending
on how it is implemented. My hon. Friend has reinforced my concerns and
those of my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire about
clause 2.
Subsection
(2) should spell out “the rules” not only on blood
relationships, which obviously do not change, but on past
relationships. Who a person has lived with in the past is relevant, but
the Bill would deem cohabitation relevant only if it were current at
the time of employment. I feel that that is the wrong way forward; it
would be better if the words “are related to” were
followed by the words “or are or
were”
“living
with, such a
person”.
That would be a
tighter
formulation.
Norman
Baker:
I do not wish to go further up the garden path, to
use an earlier metaphor, but it strikes me that the phrase
“living with” is open to interpretation. The hon.
Gentleman takes “living with” to imply cohabitation of a
sexual nature. Of course, it could simply mean sharing a flat, as I did
with my best friend when I left university. I was not “living
with” him in any sense other than that we were living in the
same flat, but, legally, we might be classified as living together.
“Living with” is a loose phrase unless—the
Minister may tell us—it has a specific legal
meaning.
Mr.
Chope:
The hon. Gentleman has made a
good point. The only way to sort out the matter is to ensure that the
clause is amended to clarify the meaning of the loose expression
“living with” on Report. Obviously, when we discussed the
Civil Partnership Act 2004, there was concern that a particular type of
relationship was being given recognition by the law, but other
relationships were not—for example, the relationship between two
elderly spinsters who live together. The issue also relates to
inheritance tax legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right to draw
attention to another instance of loose and imprecise drafting. I hope
that the Minister will be able to help us, because the measure will
probably commend itself to a Government
amendment.
11.15
am
My right hon.
Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has addressed subsection (3) in
some detail. I do not feel the need to repeat his arguments, although
he made some important points. In responding to the debate,
however, I hope that the promoter of the Bill will indicate the criteria
that would be applied in relation to making those rules and perhaps
give us some examples of the application of those
criteria. We have
heard from the Minister, or perhaps it was the promoter of the Bill,
that the European Union is drawing up some rules, which are currently
contained in a statutory instrument. Does that represent the full
extent of the rules that could be made under the
clause?
Mr.
Dismore:
Just to correct the hon. Gentleman, the rules
have not been drawn up by the European Union; they have been drawn up
by the UK to give effect to the St. Andrews agreement. They specify in
a lot more detail than has been used before what the reserve posts will
be.
Mr.
Chope:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting me
right. As far as I understand it, however, the St. Andrews agreement
covers relationships between the UK and
Ireland.
Mr.
Dismore:
One of the terms of the St. Andrews agreement, as
the hon. Gentleman would know if he had been present on Second Reading,
was that the Government would legislate to correct the anomaly as it
particularly applied to Irish nationals, but in doing so the Government
corrected anomalies relating to the European Union generally. That is
why there is this other anomaly, which we cannot correct, about
spouses. However, if the hon. Gentleman looked at the measure, I think
it would all become relatively clear to
him.
Mr.
Chope:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
that clarification. I must admit to being at a disadvantage, because I
do not have the rules before me; that all goes back to the fact that I
was rather taken by surprise by finding myself as a member of this
Committee.
Nevertheless, I am still a
little confused because the St. Andrews agreement, as
I understand it, was a UK-Irish agreement. I do not understand how
legislation that purports to implement that agreement can also have the
much wider implication and ambit that the hon. Gentleman has
described.
Mr.
Dismore:
At the risk of perpetuating this discussion, in
annexe B to the St. Andrews agreement, there was a commitment that we
would
“bring forward
separate legislation before the end of 2006 to reform entry
requirements to ensure access for EU nationals to posts in the Civil
Service.”
That was one of
the terms of the
agreement.
Mr.
Chope:
I notice that the agreement
said:
“before the end of
2006”.
We are now in
2007. So, if the hon. Gentleman’s Bill does not make any further
progress in this Session, perhaps we will find out this afternoon if it
will be part of the Government’s legislative programme for next
year.
Mr.
Dismore:
The 2007 order did that, but it did not correct
the other
anomaly.
Mr.
Chope:
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his
sedentary intervention, and I am sure that we are all wiser as a
result.
Philip
Davies:
I can assure my hon. Friend that I am none the
wiser after that exchange between two lawyers, but I am sure that he
will be.
The issue
that I want to explore, which the hon. Member for Hendon may have
addressed but I simply did not understand, concerns the European
Union—my ears pricked up when the European Union was mentioned,
because it is always meddling in things in which it has no need to
meddle. Given that so many powers have been delegated—given
away—from this country to the European Union, if the European
Union chooses to pass those powers on and delegate them to an EU-wide
body, would clause 2 allow that body to make changes to employment
rules in this country, if the European Union were
involved?
Mr.
Chope:
Somebody is saying no from a sedentary position,
but the way that the salami slicing of our sovereignty has been
executed by our so-called European partners gives me and I suspect my
hon. Friend the Member for Shipley little confidence that this
particular measure will not be the subject of salami slicing in the
future.
We can see in
the explanatory notes that, regarding clause
two:
“Any rules
made under this power would have to comply with the requirements both
of the European Communities and of the European Convention on Human
Rights.”
That
makes me wonder whatever happened to subsidiarity. I cannot imagine
anything that is more appropriately a matter for national sovereign
Parliaments, and for individual nation states, than the eligibility of
people to be employed in the royal household of the Head of
State.
Mr.
Dismore:
I agree with
that.
Mr.
Chope:
Then why are we putting forward a proposal that
would allow the European Union to dictate the terms on which our royal
household can employ its staff? That is another example where the
consequences that flow from the provisions of clause 2—they may
be intended, as far as the hon. Gentleman is concerned—are
unintended and
undesirable.
I
think—my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire has
made this point—that subsections (4)(a) and (b) go far too far
in giving unfettered power to exempt a person of one description from
the rules. Returning to my earlier point, that reinforces the fact that
unless a rule change were to introduce an exemption for existing
employees, they would not be protected against the retrospective loss
of their jobs and their right to be employed in a particular position.
Rather than having the exemption clause in subsection (4)(a), it would
be better to alter subsection (1) in the way in which I suggested
earlier to make it clear that
such changes could apply only at the beginning of somebody’s
employment, and that it could not be used to remove them from
employment after the event. I would have thought that that would be
against the European convention on human rights, but it seems implicit
in the way in which this has been drafted that it would not be at odds
with the
convention.
John
Austin:
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the European
convention of human rights, which emanates from the Council of Europe.
He is a member of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe,
where he would have to make his points within four minutes. Does he not
think that there are some merits in some of the European
institutions?
Mr.
Chope:
The interesting thing about the procedures in the
Council of Europe is that is possible to move amendments, but it is not
possible to group them. The current Standing Orders of the Council of
Europe stipulate that each amendment can be moved, that the proposer of
an amendment can speak for one minute and that somebody can speak
against the amendment for one minute. That process can be more
elongated than the process in our House, where we try to have proper
scrutiny. I am confident that asking these questions and hoping for a
response from the
Minister and the promoter of the Bill will ensure that the debate on
Report will be better informed and more
focused.
Philip
Davies:
Does my hon. Friend agree that
the comments made by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead, which
seek to undermine parliamentary scrutiny, go to the heart of the
clause? We are trying to include more parliamentary scrutiny in the
Bill, so does he agree that, judging by the hon. Gentleman’s
comments, the Labour party is not as keen on parliamentary scrutiny as
was indicated by the hon. Member for Hendon to my right hon. Friend the
Member for East
Yorkshire?
Mr.
Chope:
I am not sure. All of us who serve on the
Council of Europe are parliamentarians. The importance of that body is
that only parliamentarians are eligible to serve on it. The hon. Member
for Erith and Thamesmead, who intervened on the issue, is an assiduous
attender.
The
Chairman:
Order. As the Committee has not agreed a
sittings motion, I am appointing Wednesday 18 July at 9.30 am for the
next sitting.
It
being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o’clock,
The Chairman
adjourned the Committee without
Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned
till
Wednesday 18 July at half-
past Nine
o’clock.
| 
