![]() House of Commons |
Session 2006 - 07 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Crown Employment |
Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Alan
Sandall, Committee
Clerk
attended the Committee
Public Bill CommitteeWednesday 18 July 2007[Mrs. Joan Humble in the Chair]Crown Employment (Nationality) Bill9.30
am
The
Chairmans
attention having been called to the
fact that five Members were not present, she suspended the
proceedings.
9.31
am
Other
Members having come into the Room and five Members being present, the
proceedings were
resumed.
Clause 2Power
to impose new nationality
requirements
Question
proposed [11 July], That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Question
again
proposed.
Mr.
Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con): I hope that in the
week that has elapsed since we last discussed the clause the Minister
and the Bills promoter will have had the opportunity to reflect
on the very pertinent points that were made during that previous
debate. As you might recall, Mrs. Humble, I was going
through the detail of the clause, explaining why I had substantial
reservations about quite a lot of
it.
The final point
that I want to make relates to clause 2(4)(b), which says that
the rules may include
provision
allowing any
Minister or other person or body to grant
exemptions.
It
seems to me that that is an extremely wide provision. I would have no
objection if the rules allowed any Minister to grant exemptions, but
even in this new world of legislating by delegated authority, to allow
any person or body to grant them is a bridge too far. I hope that the
promoter will be able to give me an undertaking that the provision will
have been modified when we get to Report, so that it is less
wide-ranging.
That
brings us to subsection (5), which is purely informative, and on which
I do not think that I need trouble the Committee. Before I finish, I
should like to note the power of the membership of the Council of
Europe. You may have noticed, Mrs. Humble, that one of the
members of the parliamentary delegation to the Council of Europe has
been promoted to acting Parliamentary Private Secretary, and I
congratulate the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead on
that.
The
Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Gillian Merron):
The Government support the clause, and I thank Committee members for
the full debate in our last sitting. A number of specific points were
mentioned on which I should like to comment. I hope that my responses
will assist the Committee in lending its support to the
clause.
We have
discussed the provision in clause 2 that will allow parliamentary
scrutiny of ministerial decisions. To pick up on a point made by the
hon. Member for Wellingborough, who is not in his place today, the Bill
as drafted would not require that rules be subject to some form of
parliamentary scrutiny. Furthermore, the European Communities
(Employment in the Civil Service) Order 2007 sets out the categories of
post that will be reserved for UK nationals, and as an Order in Council
it was subject to parliamentary
approval.
There is
therefore merit in the argument that any new rules should likewise be
subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I shall, of course, consult the
relevant Departments and security agencies, but I assure the Committee
that as the Bill progresses to Report, I shall reflect seriously on a
point that was very well
made.
I
am also happy to consider the suggestion to clarify clause 2, which
allows a Minister of the Crown to delegate the power to make rules to
any person or body. Let me explain why that provision was included in
the first place and then give the Committee some assurances. The Bill
will apply to the Crown in all its capacities, and it will extend to
employees of the royal household, which means that if the Crown wished
to reserve certain posts in the royal household for UK nationals, under
the terms of the Bill a delegation to do so would need to be provided
by a Minister of the Crown.
As we all know, the security of
the royal household is paramount, and with that in mind the current
designation of any person or body was included in the
Bill in the case of the royal household to allow a Minister of the
Crown to delegate the powers to make rules to, for example, the Lord
Chamberlain, who is one of the chief officers of the royal household in
the UK. Having said that, I assure the Committee that I agree that it
would helpful to clarify that reference, and I will be happy to do so
as the Bill
progresses.
Mr.
Chope:
I am grateful to the Minister for that important
statement. Does she agree that it might be more straightforward to
exempt the royal household completely from these provisions rather than
adopting the device in the Bill as drafted, which gives the power to
grant exemptions to the head of the royal
household?
Gillian
Merron:
What matters is that the Bill performs the purpose
that we have discussed. I am keen to ensure that we improve that
proposal on Report, so that it satisfies us in respect of matters such
as the royal household and so that it can do its job. I understand the
point, which was well made, and I assure the Committee of my
willingness to work to ensure that all hon. Members are aware of the
intention of the
Bill.
Mr.
Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con): Conservative Members
approve of and appreciate what the Minister is saying. However, there
will come a point before Report when her thoughts will have
crystallised. Assuming that the Bill passes its Committee stage, rather
than leaving it until the day of the Report stage, will the Minister
write to members of the Committee beforehand to let us know what she
proposes to
do?
Gillian
Merron:
The Government support the Bill, and I am keen to
do whatever is necessary to ensure that it proceeds. Therefore, if that
would be helpful to
the Committee, I shall be happy to do so. I am sure that the promoter of
the Bill will be equally helpful.
There was reference in our
previous discussion to concern about defining more precisely the term
living with, which is used in clause 2(2), and perhaps
I can help the Committee in that respect. Clause 2(2) permits
additional restrictions to be made in the rules on access to highly
sensitive posts. For example, the current requirements for access to
posts in the security service are set out on the website as
follows:
You
must be a British citizen and one of your parents must also be British
or have substantial ties to the
UK.
Clause
2(2) is intended to permit restrictions of that kind to be continued in
the rules that will be made under the new legislation. The detailed
provisions will be set out in the rules, because it would not be
appropriate to include that level of detail in the Bill itself. The
restrictions imposed in relation to a few highly sensitive posts have
included requirements concerning the nationality of those living with
the post holder. Again, the detail of the requirements would be a
matter for the rules rather than for the primary legislation. However,
given the concerns that have been expressed, which I have taken on
board, I assure the Committee that we will reflect on whether any
change is needed to restrict the scope of the rule-making power, in so
far as it permits requirements to be made in relation to those living
with the holder of a reserved
post.
Norman
Baker (Lewes) (LD): I am grateful to the Minister for
mentioning a concern that I expressed at our last sitting. I wanted to
know whether there was a legal definition of the phrase living
with, which seems to me to be open to various interpretations.
I seek the Ministers assurance that she will tie that
down.
Gillian
Merron:
The point is well made and has been taken. That is
one of the matters that we wish to
clarify.
The hon.
Member for Christchurch asked about clause
2(1):
Rules
may be 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.
As I recall it,
the hon. Gentleman was concerned that future change of rules could
jeopardise the position of people who are employed by or who hold
office in a civil capacity under the Crown, requiring them to be
removed from the post.
To clarify matters, the
subsection allows rules to be made reserving specified posts for
certain specified nationalities. That allows certain posts to be
reserved for UK nationals, if it is thought necessary. The hon.
Gentleman alluded to the fact that the rules might changethat
would be the exceptionto reserved posts currently occupied by
non-UK members of staff for UK nationals. If they did, it would indeed
be necessary to move those staff members to posts in a non-reserved
area.
The hon.
Member for Lewes sought an assurance that staff in sensitive posts in
the civil service that were outsourced should be subject to proper
vetting and security checks. Although the subject is outside our remit,
Mrs. Humble, it might help if I try to reassure the hon.
Gentleman. It seems to me that the real issue is the
pre-appointment security screening of contract staff. The document
HMG Baseline Personnel Security Standard, which is
published by the security policy division and civil service capability
group in the Cabinet Office, is a comprehensive guide for civil service
departments and agencies to the pre-employment screening of Government
staff and contractors. Its purpose is to ensure that departments and
agencies have in place manageable arrangements for checking these
categories of staff. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the security
policy division in the Cabinet Office carries out an annual security
compliance exercise throughout the civil service to ensure adherence to
the guidance. However, if hon. Members have any particular concerns, I
will happily look into
them.
The hon. Member
for Shipley, who is not in his place, asked whether clause 2 would
allow an EU-wide body to make changes to employment rules in this
country. I confirm that the answer is no.
Our debate on clause 2 has been
wide-ranging. I will happily consider those matters referred to today
before Report stage. That said, I am glad to confirm Government support
for the clause, and I hope that the Committee will join me in
that.
Mr.
Andrew Dismore (Hendon) (Lab): I am grateful for my hon.
Friends assurances on the Governments position. As I
said in an intervention on the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire, I
will certainly be happy to work with him. He made an important point
about parliamentary scrutiny. When I visit Bridlington in early August,
I shall cash in his offer of a free drink and we can discuss some of
the details.
The hon.
Member for Christchurch mentioned the royal household in an
intervention, but I disagree. For instance, if the royal household
wanted to employ a United States citizen, it should not be prevented
from doing so. It is a permissive provision, not compulsive. If Her
Majesty wanted to employ someone from the United States, or from any
other part of the world, she could. That intervention was somewhat
misplaced. Indeed, I would be very pleased if Her Majesty gave her
consent to the
Bill.
Mr.
Chope:
Can the hon. Gentleman see that a problem could
arise as a result of the Lord Chamberlain having delegated authority
under the Bill? If he puts someone in post from the United States, but
then decides that that person is no longer suited to the royal
household, he can use his delegated powers under the Bill to make the
post exempt, thereby preventing that person from being employed by the
royal household. Does the hon. Gentleman see that as a potential
problem?
Mr.
Dismore:
The hon. Gentleman has already made that point in
more general terms, but we can look at the detail when considering the
specifics of clause 2. It is important that people should have job
security. We must try to deal with that issue when we reflect on our
debate on clause 2.
I
agree that we should have time to consider the matter. There is nothing
I dislike moreI am sure that other Back Benchers agree with
thisthan a Bill being strung with amendments at the last
minute. It would be
far better for us to take time over the recess to work out the details
and to see whether we can find common ground on the way
forward.
Mr.
Knight:
I do not speak for this side of the Committee, but
speaking for myself, in the light of the statement by the Bills
promoter that he is willing to reconsider the clause and make changes,
it would be churlish to divide the
Committee.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 2
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Clause 3Repeals
and
revocation
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
9.45
am
Mr.
Dismore:
This is a formal clause. It deals with the
repeals and revocation schedule. It speaks for itself and shows some of
the detailed regulations and pieces of legislation that will be
superseded by the Bill. It makes the point that we made when referring
to clause 1, when we discussed how complicated matters have
become and how simple they will be if the Bill passes through the
House.
Mr.
Knight:
I understand that the schedule exists for tidying
up purposes, but does it have a legal effect? It seems that, if we pass
the Bill, it will supersede existing law. If the schedule was therefore
omitted from the Bill, will it make a legal
difference?
Mr.
Dismore:
It would create complications. We would end up
with two Acts of Parliament and an order in conflict with the Bill. The
Bill is broader than the three issues that it proposes to repeal and,
in the end, it is far more sensible to have certainty in the law, which
is what the clause will
create.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Clause 3
ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4Short
title, commencement and
extent
Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Dismore:
Again, the clause is a formal part of the Bill
and deals with the short title and implementation arrangements. Bearing
in mind our early discussions on the St. Andrews agreement, it
is important to point out that the Bill will cover Northern
Ireland.
Mr.
Chope:
I am intrigued by subsection (2), which refers to
the Bill coming into force on different days and for different
purposes. I would be interested if the hon. Gentleman were to explain
why the Bill extends to Northern Ireland, as well as to England, Wales
and
Scotland.
Mr.
Dismore:
Given that subsection (2) is the usual sort of
provision that would be sought for implementation, there is nothing
sinister about it. If the hon. Member for Christchurch has a problem
with it, no doubt we can consider it bearing in mind that there are, in
effect, two active clauses. That is a fair
point.
As for
subsection (3), the hon. Gentleman will recall that, under clause 1, we
debated the St. Andrews agreement and its importance in
extending the Bill to include Northern Ireland bearing in mind that
about 25 per cent. of its population were previously excluded from
service with the Government. That was dealt with by the 2007 order to
which we referred earlier, and the particular provision in front of us
will supersede
that.
Question put
and agreed
to.
Clause 4
ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
ScheduleRepeals
and
revocation
Question
proposed, That the schedule be the schedule to the
Bill.
Question
put and agreed
to.
Schedule
agreed to.
Bill
to be reported, without
amendment.
Committee
rose at eleven minutes to Ten
oclock.
|
![]() | |
©Parliamentary copyright 2007 | Prepared 19 July 2007 |