Report stage in the Commons
- Speaker
Mr. Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)Conservative- Quote
- With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 1, page 1, clause 2, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert ‘in a reserved post. (1A) A post is a reserved post if— (a) it is a post in any of the security and intelligence services, or (b) it is within subsection (1B) or (1C), and a Minister of the Crown has determined that it is necessary for requirements as to nationality to be satisfied in relation to the post. (1B) The posts within this subsection are— (a) posts in Her Majesty’s Diplomatic Service and posts in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and (b) posts in the Defence Intelligence Staff. (1C) The posts within this subsection are posts whose functions are concerned with— (a) access to intelligence information received directly or indirectly from any of the security and intelligence services, (b) access to other information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might damage the interests of national security, (c) access to other information which, if disclosed without authority or otherwise misused, might be prejudicial to the interests of the United Kingdom or the safety of its citizens, or (d) border control or decisions about immigration. (1D) A determination under subsection (1A)(b) may relate to a particular post or posts, or to posts falling within a description specified in the determination. (1E) In this section “the security and intelligence services” means— (a) the Security Service, (b) the Secret Intelligence Service, and (c) the Government Communications Headquarters.’. Amendment (a) to amendment 1, line 3, after ‘services’, insert ‘, or the Home Office’. Amendment 2, page 2, line 9, at end insert— ‘(e) any brother or sister of a person within paragraphs (b) or (c).’. Amendment 3, page 2, line 37, leave out from ‘section’ to ‘House’ in line 38 and insert ‘may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each’. Amendment 4, page 3, line 3, clause 4, leave out subsection (2).
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. ChopeConservative
- Quote
- I feel as though we have discussed the subject of Crown employment and nationality before. When I looked at my records, I found that I was not wrong. Indeed, new clause 1 has been put forward in similar terms on previous occasions, using the iterative process. That concept is well known to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), as I cannot recall how many times this Bill has been before the House. Each time, the Bill has been an improvement on its previous incarnation, but it still lacks that extra ingredient of new clause 1, which would improve the Bill enormously.
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) (Con)Conservative- Quote
- My hon. Friend mentions the Dorset police, but is he aware that the Devon and Cornwall police are also considering the problems for Torbay, should the tall ships be racing there during the Olympics? Would that situation not be similar to that which he talks about in Dorset?
- Time
- 14:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗
- Speaker
- Mr. ChopeConservative
- Quote
- Similar but probably different in scale, because the ships are bigger in Torbay but there are more of them in Weymouth. My hon. Friend—it is wonderful that he is in the Chamber assiduously dealing with these matters on a Friday, as is so often the case—has drawn attention to the fact that my example of the Dorset constabulary is not unique and is replicated in a lot of other constabularies. However, it is an example of a Home Office activity that makes Home Office posts wholly relevant for consideration as additions to those already listed in Government amendment 1, which in general I support because it brings more detail into the Bill. I want to speak briefly to amendment 2, which would insert into clause 2 the phrase “any brother or sister of a person within paragraphs (b) or (c)”. Why should parents and spouses, deceased parents, civil partners or people living together as though they were spouses or civil partners be the only groups of people deemed connected, such that they might have a relationship that could involve undue influence? I should have thought that siblings come into that category as well, which is why we have tabled amendment 2. Amendment 3 would ensure that we have to use the affirmative procedure for any draft instrument instead of the negative procedure, so at least we could ensure its being debated in this House. We could not of course ensure that it could be amended if we did not like it, but at least we would have the chance to debate it. For all I know, the hon. Member for Hendon, the Bill’s promoter, may well have wanted to include an affirmative resolution but was dissuaded by the Government, who, as we know, want as little legislation as possible to be subject to scrutiny in this House, and therefore prefer the negative resolution procedure. However, that is as may be and we will no doubt hear from the Bill’s promoter in due course about why the affirmative resolution was not in the Bill to start with. That brings me conveniently to amendment 4, which would leave out subsection (2) of clause 4. I tabled it because I thought it would concentrate the minds of the Government on the whole Bill. I got the impression when it was last discussed in Committee that they were getting rather lukewarm about it because of the change in the employment situation, the rapid rise in unemployment and the conflict that could be caused by opening up posts in the Government service to aliens who are currently unable to qualify for those posts. The Government could see that there might be—
- Time
- 14:15
- Source
- View in Hansard ↗