Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, in clause 13, page 11, line 14, leave out from 'State' to 'if'.

Mrs Janet Anderson (Rossendale & Darwen, Labour)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 13, page 12, line 6, after 'who', insert 'unreasonably'.

No. 102, in clause 13, page 12, line 7, leave out paragraph (a).

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

We are dealing with the subject of notifying the Secretary of State about cards that have gone absent. Let us suppose that each member of the Committee puts up their hands in response to a question about whether they have ever sent their clothing to the dry cleaners with either a card or a £5 note in the pocket and have never seen it again? If that has not happened to anyone here, I would be absolutely amazed. It happens in my family the whole time.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

I wish to tell my hon. Friend an interesting little story that happened to a constituent the other day. He had put £250 in cash into the pocket of his trousers. He gave the trousers to Oxfam. Perhaps it was another charity—I would not like to besmirch the name of Oxfam. Anyway, when he went back to the shop the next day to get the £250 back, they would not give it to him because they thought that it was a gift.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

There we are. That is a most interesting story. I imagine that the constituent probably had to buy back the trousers.

When I first read the clause, I thought that the words ''damaged'' or ''tampered with'' were slightly different concepts for people to understand. Clause 13(1) obliges us to report to the Secretary of State if our

''card has been—

(a) lost;

(b) stolen;

(c) damaged;

(d) tampered with; or

(e) destroyed.''

I might get slightly fraught with worry if I could not find my identity card on a Friday evening. I might ask myself whether I should notify the Home Secretary the following morning, or wait until Wednesday on the   off-chance that it turns up—in the dry cleaning, for instance.

Amendment No. 45 is intended to draw from the Minister an explanation of why I have

''to notify the Secretary of State, and such other persons as may be prescribed''.

I have searched the explanatory notes for guidance on who those other persons are. Perhaps it is stated somewhere in the Bill. I am concerned at the prospect of having to notify not only the Secretary of State of the problem of my card being mislaid or lost, but a lot of other people. I do not know who those people are, and I am hoping that the Minister will tell us. That is the purpose of this probing amendment.

Amendment No. 46 addresses this reference in subsection (6):

''A person who contravenes a requirement''.

I want to insert the word ''unreasonably''. I believe that the Home Affairs Committee thought that a reasonableness defence should be included in the Bill. If that is the case, there may be an argument for including it.

There is a further brief matter that I want to address, but I would prefer it to be discussed in the clause stand part debate.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I rise to support the points made by the hon. Gentleman on this issue, and I want to raise a further couple of points by way of amendment No. 102. They relate to the periods of time within which individuals would have to realise that they had lost an identity card.

The hon. Gentleman asked how many times people had lost a £5 note at a dry cleaners. Surely, the answer to that is that most of us do not know whether that has happened to us. There is a real issue about when people discover when they have lost something. There must have been quite a few things that I have lost but that I did not even know that I had lost. On such occasions, when it was pointed out to me that I had lost it, I could innocently have said that I had no idea. Somebody could then turn to me and say, ''Well, that is odd, because you probably lost it six months ago and you haven't used it since.'' That might make me feel slightly guilty because I had not reported losing something, even though I genuinely did not know that it was lost.

Somebody may claim that they lost their card ages ago—for example, if they suddenly realise that it must have been lost when their car was stolen eight months ago. Can the Minister assure us that any action taken would be reasonable, and that there would not be an automatic assumption that the loss had to be reported within 24 or 48 hours, or within similar parameters?

Does the Minister have any comments to make on whether an individual will be required to prove that they have lost the document, and what evidence they might be required to produce to prove that? Sometimes people have to go through quite a process to show that a document has been registered lost, or that they have told the police that it was lost, in order to prove that they are not making things up and they genuinely have lost the document. Does the Minister   wish to tell us anything about that issue? Will individuals have to prove that they have lost this document?

The clause contains a provision that people may have to bring their old card when they seek to renew. Why is that provision included? Is it to ensure that there are no old cards in the system because people have to hand back their cards? Will it be a requirement on all occasions that people have to hand back their old card when they seek to renew a card? We are concerned that we might be being a little heavy handed with individuals who have genuinely lost their card.

Finally, what is the definition of damage to a card? It would be helpful to understand that, because someone walking around with a card that is slightly bent or twisted might discover that when they put it through a reader to access health services—if that ends up being a use for the card—it does not work. Whose fault is it that the card was damaged? Should the person have notified someone to say that it was damaged? How on earth does one know whether it is damaged? Those are just a few issues on which we would like clarification.

Mr Patrick Mercer (Shadow Minister (Homeland Security), Home Affairs; Newark, Conservative)

I want briefly to speak on amendment No. 45. The Bill reads:

''Regulations may require an individual to whom an ID card has been issued to notify the Secretary of State, and such other persons as may be prescribed''.

My hon. Friend the Member for Woking has already made this point, but in the case of a lost passport, the onus is on the owner to notify merely one authority. Why has the provision that I read out been included? If the Minister insists on keeping it in the Bill, would he be kind enough to tell us precisely which other authorities must be informed? As the hon. Member for Winchester points out, a list is given. The provision mentions cards that are

''(a) lost;

(b) stolen;

(c) damaged;

(d) tampered with; or

(e) destroyed''.

Some of those terms may require further definition.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Members who seek further definition have put their fingers on a reasonable point, and that is exactly why there are definitions of both phrases in subsection (8). It is reasonable to give people some point of reference on what ''damaged'' or ''tampered with'' means in relation to a card. We have put that guidance in the Bill itself, so that people will have that point of reference.

The whole idea of knowledge is written quite specifically into the provisions, although it was not in the draft Bill. That is one of the changes made as a result of the Home Affairs Committee's pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill and others. It made the sensible recommendation that subsection (1) should apply only if someone

''knows or has reason to suspect that the card has been''

lost, stolen, damaged, tampered with or destroyed. The change was made directly in response to the Select Committee's argument.

The Government have taken upon themselves the responsibility to provide evidence from which knowledge can be inferred. It certainly would not be helpful to set out in the Bill what

''knows or has reason to suspect''

means, because it is quite a common phrase in legislation; it has been well exercised in the courts and there are a number of definitions, but it is a function of evidence. The Government have taken it upon themselves to ensure that that is the standard that they have to meet.

It is, of course, standard practice when renewing a passport to surrender the expiring document so that it can be invalidated in some way. I do not think that it is unreasonable to require people with valuable documents to take on a responsibility to notify the issuing authority if they are lost, stolen, damaged, tampered with or destroyed, and I do not think that anyone is suggesting that it is unreasonable.

Amendment No. 45 would remove the power to require an individual to report that a card has been lost, stolen, damaged, tampered with or destroyed to anyone other than the Secretary of State. Not unreasonably, hon. Members ask why anyone beyond the Secretary of State should be informed, as the Secretary of State is the issuing authority for the identity card. The answer lies in the fact that if, under clause 4, a document is designated that would, in the normal run of events, not be issued by the Secretary of State—and that is possible; say we choose at some point to designate a driving licence—a document notification that the card has been lost, stolen et cetera would be of relevance to the issuing authority. If that were restricted only to the Secretary of State, he would, in order to ensure the integrity of the designated document scheme to which the ID card was related, have to notify the designated documents authority of the report of laws, thereby adding an extra step to the Secretary of State's processes and putting no obligation on the individual. That is not to say that there will not, in the fullness of time, be a process within government that will allow such an exchange of information to take place. It is sensible that if we are allying these documents, and the loss of one could potentially effect the integrity of another, there ought to be some obligation on the individuals to recognise that relationship. The person who the individual may notify would be subject to parliamentary approval through the regulations made under clause 13(1), so Parliament will have an opportunity to consider that.

Amendment No. 46 would add the word ''unreasonably'' to clause 13(6), so:

''A person who contravenes a requirement''

to notify loss or fails to surrender a card

''is guilty of an offence.''

Following the recommendations of the Home Affairs Committee, we have already added to clause 13(1)   wording relating to a failure to notify losses, subject to the test that the individual

''knows or has reason to suspect'',

so the issue of reason has already been written in and we do not need to deal twice with the card being lost. That is sufficient and we do not need to go further.

Similarly, the offence of failing to surrender the card applies only if the person is in possession of an ID card to which he is not entitled and fails to surrender it as soon as is practicable, or where the Secretary of State specifically requires that individual to surrender it. That is appropriate and each individual set of circumstances needs to be considered, because to try to cover every eventuality in legislation would be nonsense. We can, against that phraseology, ensure that no injustice will be done to individuals, and they will have plenty of room to explain and say that they were operating in a practical, common-sense fashion.

Amendment No. 102 would mean that we could enforce any requirement to notify loss. The hon. Member for Winchester is not seeking to ensure that the Bill proceeds on that basis—in fact, he does not want the Bill to proceed at all—but to explore why we need a means of enforcement. The requirement to notify becomes meaningless if there is no means of enforcement. It is vital that card holders are under an enforceable obligation to notify the scheme of the loss of a card, or a suspected loss, which might be just as important, so that cards can quickly be cancelled.

The hon. Gentleman asks for the reasons why we may want to enforce that obligation, and I shall give them to him. First, we would risk people choosing not to notify a loss, and any lost cards in circulation could fall into the wrong hands, whether accidentally or on purpose. All hon. Members have some concerns about that in relation to passports. A significant number of passports go missing in the hands of individuals—although thankfully far fewer of them now in the hands of the UK Passport Service—or en route to and from there, than was once the case, because of the procedures that are now in place. However, far too many passports go missing in the hands of individuals, and those generate a significant concern. There is a process whereby notification of the loss of a passport puts it on a warnings index, so if it is used at our borders it can be checked. Hon. Members who have been travelling recently will know that there is significant security as passports are checked against the warnings index.

Once the cards are out there and in the wrong hands they can be used for unauthorised purposes, including non-biometric verification, to obtain goods fraudulently and in potential attempts to circumvent card security features by tampering with them or disassembling them.

Secondly, the scheme's security and fraud management function must be aware of any serial loss of identity cards, such that it can counter the threat that that poses to the scheme's security. I am surprised how often the same individuals lose the same valuable documents. Serial loss is now, in intelligence terms, valuable information for those authorities that   we charge with the responsibility of looking after secure documents.

Finally, if the card is damaged it may prevent an individual from using public services efficiently. We need to ensure that we can quickly reissue cards in such circumstances.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

On that point, imagining that somebody tries to access a public service, such as an accident and emergency department, and the card goes in, fails and is damaged, there is clearly a responsibility on the individual to report that the card is damaged, but is there any responsibility on the public services to make a note that the card is damaged or that the individual has reported that their card is lost?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The regulations that may apply to an individual public service provider will be a matter for discussion at a later stage, in the context of regulation making. I will bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind. I cannot imagine that it has not already occurred to officials that if damaged cards were to be presented that would be a good opportunity to feed information back into the scheme. It may only be at that point of presentation, when one looks at the definition, that it becomes apparent that the card is damaged. It would seem sensible that if there is a communication to the scheme at that point, there would be notification of that information. However, that matter would have to be dealt with by regulations. The proposal seems sensible and if it can be done, we should do it.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

The Minister told us at the beginning of this Committee that for first-time passport applications people would have to attend the office to prove that they were the person who was entitled to the passport. Will the same be true of ID cards? If not, a lot of ID cards could be sent all over the place and not go to the people who are entitled to them.

Secondly, an underworld industry will grow up to impersonate people with wrong cards. The technology will get to such a pitch that people will be able to tamper with cards. Will the Government constantly review the intelligence about what is happening to cards, and will it be possible to alter very easily the whole nation's ID cards to deal with a fraud as it emerges?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman raises two good points. On the first, I have already told the Committee that the collection of the biometrics will require that interaction, which we are now putting into first-time passports. He will be reassured that the collection of biometrics will involve a face-to-face relationship, and that that will be an opportunity to make all the necessary checks to ensure the level of integrity and security that he believes should be in the system.

The second question that the hon. Gentleman asked was whether we will ensure that the security of the system is maintained to the very highest standards and that there is an intelligence-based information gathering unit as part of that, to ensure that as people develop attempts to beat the system, we will be able to anticipate them. Of course there will be.  

This part of the scheme is designed to gather information very quickly about cards that might be damaged, lost or stolen, and to be part of that intelligence gathering system to ensure integrity. There would be no point otherwise. The purpose of the proposal is to give people the reassurance that their identity is being protected. The scheme needs to protect their identity, because that is the place where all information will be collected.

We have understandably moved slightly beyond the amendments into a bit of a clause stand part debate. I should reiterate that the requirements to notify loss will be in regulations that will be subject to a negative resolution procedure. We are planning for the scheme to provide simple mechanisms for reporting lost or stolen cards through a single point of contact accessible via telephone, e-mail, post or web portal.

I understand the concerns of hon. Members for people who might, through no fault of their own, fail to report a loss or be unable to surrender a card. I hope that I have reassured them that the offences under clause 13 are proportionate, necessary and will be applied in a proportionate manner that understands the vagaries of everyday life and people's lifestyle patterns. Accordingly, I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

That is a helpful response from the Minister, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I beg to move amendment No. 170, in page 11, line 31, at end insert—

'(2A) The Secretary of State may, in an urgent case, cancel the card forthwith or otherwise give notice to the individual of an intention to do so.

(2B) The Secretary of State shall send notification of his cancellation or his intention to cancel in writing to the individual who shall have the right to make representations accordingly.

(2C) The Secretary of State shall review his cancellation or his intention in the light of such representations.

(2D) The individual may appeal a cancellation of his ID card to the Commissioner.'.

Again, I do not intend to delay the Committee a great deal. The clause and the amendment deal with the powers of the Secretary of State to cancel a card. I have no problem with that and understand the need for him to have such power. However, I have a concern about the way in which individuals will know if the Secretary of State has cancelled their card. I would not want somebody who was trying to access benefit or health care to turn up, put their card through, and for a red light to flash, telling them that their card had been cancelled. That person would ask the doctor or what used to be the Benefits Agency, ''Why? What have I done wrong?'' and would be told, ''I have no idea at all, but I am sorry—your card is cancelled.'' The person would then phone through and discover that the Government had cancelled their card and, I hope, be given the reasons why. There is a danger that cards could be cancelled without warning,   and that that would put individuals into very embarrassing situations or make them unable to access public services.

My second point relates to my first. Obviously, there would be reasons for a cancellation. According to the clause, there could be a cancellation if there had been

''a modification of information recorded in the entry''.

Will the Minister explain how that modification of information could take place? Would the individual always know that the change had taken place? Could that change on the register be made without the individual's knowing about it? If so, I want some reassurance that the system would allow that individual to challenge that change and say, ''You cancelled my card because you made a modification to the information, but that modification is totally wrong.''

Some clarification on those points would be helpful. Taking the card away, particularly given how much the Government want the card to be used, could have a serious impact for individuals. I want to understand the circumstances in which the card would be taken away, who would be told about the reasons and—importantly—when.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has been very clear about why he tabled the amendment, the effect of which would be to make the process of cancelling cards much longer. That point is probably ancillary to his principal argument, which I shall deal with.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the clause has been drafted to allow the Secretary of State to cancel cards to protect individuals from the misuse of their cards and identities. We are already planning for the processes for replacing or cancelling cards, or for changing entitlement, to include notifying the cardholder after a card has been cancelled. We would not just cancel a card without informing the relevant individual. We are also clear that until there is a specific further parliamentary decision and a move to compulsion, an individual would always have options other than an ID card available for proving their identities.

Both pre- and post-compulsion, we want to ensure that when a card is used to access public services, procedures are in place to help those whose card has been lost or stolen, and therefore cancelled—especially in cases of emergency. We have always said that emergency and necessary treatment would never depend on the production of an ID card. When we develop the processes, we will be mindful that people who are legitimately entitled to have access to public services should have a mechanism to do that when they are acting in good faith.

On the change of information in relation to the card, I should say that if the amendment were agreed to, it could be misused by individuals in cases when the card should be cancelled, but it is advantageous for the individual to prolong their ownership of it. For example, if a person's immigration status changes and they want to continue to use their card as proof of their entitlement to work, they should not have such a prolonged period of ownership. Such an individual   would know about the change. They would know that they had an entitlement to work for a particular period and when that would come to an end, and they would have the relevant responsibilities. All changes triggering the cancellation of a card would involve circumstances in which the implication was that those changes were known to the individual. There is no intention that factors outwith an individual's control or responsibility should trigger that sort of action.

Mr Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Assistant Chief Whip, Whips; Cotswold, Conservative)

I hope that I am raising only important points. What will be the position of prisoners? Will their cards be withdrawn, and, if so, how will they access public services such as health services? If the Minister does not have the answer to that to hand, I will be happy for him to write to me about it.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I see no reason why prisoners should not continue to hold identity cards. They are sentenced to a term of imprisonment as their penalty; they are not sent there for further punishment. It may be the case that an order of the court and the sentence that they are currently serving means that their ability to do other things is inhibited and they have limited use of the identity card, but there is no reason why they should not hold one. Indeed, my understanding of the Bill suggests to me that they will be required to have one if they are resident in the UK during the trigger period—as many of them will be, of course.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

If the Committee will indulge me, it is interesting that the Minister makes the point that they are still citizens, because that is not the status of a prisoner; they lose their citizenship, which is why the Government have argued that they should not have the right to vote. Can I briefly draw the Minister into that debate?

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is drawing me into a debate that is only marginally in order. He makes an assertion in relation to citizenship and prisoners that I do not recognise. He may make it from a background of knowledge that once someone is sentenced they are no longer a citizen, but I do not recognise that as being a consequence of being a convicted prisoner serving a sentence. There is an impediment on prisoners in relation to the franchise, but I understand that that comes from a different historical basis than whether or not they are citizens. Whether that is still justifiable in the modern age is a matter for debate by Parliament, although not in this context.

The notification of modifications to the register was a subject of amendments to clause 3 discussed last week, and I refer hon. Members to columns 95 and 96 of the record of the debate for Tuesday 18 January for further elucidation on that, as I do not propose to repeat what was said.

Under clause 24(2), the national identity scheme commissioner already has the function of being able to review the use of the Secretary of State's power under clause 13. That is a further consideration in terms of restrictions to that power.

I understand hon. Members' concerns, and I hope that I have reassured them. There is nothing in any of the points that have been raised that has not already   been thought of, or debated via the consultation process. The clause accommodates all those considerations, and nobody needs to be concerned about them.

Mr Mark Oaten (Shadow Secretary of State for Home Affairs, Home Affairs; Winchester, Liberal Democrat)

I take reassurance from the Minister's comments, particularly on the ability to access emergency services and help, and the fact that the card will not be required for that.

I take some reassurance on the other points, although the Minister did not deal with the issue of whether the Secretary of State has the power to make a modification to the register without the individual concerned knowing why that modification has been made. I was a little concerned that modifications could take place without individuals knowing about them, and that their cards would be taken under those circumstances. I hope that I can interpret the Minister's comments as saying that there will not be circumstances in which the point at which an individual discovers that their card has been cancelled is when they turn up to claim a benefit and a red light flashes to say that it has been cancelled. I hope that the Government really are thinking that if there is a need to cancel a card, every attempt will be made to contact the individual early on, so that they do not at a later date find themselves in the embarrassing situation of being told by someone else that their card has been cancelled.

As the Minister has given us some reassurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

I have a couple of points to make that have cropped up in the debate. Let us suppose that a person is in possession of an ID card that was issued to another person. Had I thought of it, I might have tabled an amendment to draw attention to the fact that there is a difference between innocent possession of card that belongs to another person and criminal intent. It is a small point, but, for example, an elderly person may forget to take his ID card to hospital to receive treatment so a relative takes the card to the hospital. It is a clear case of innocent, genuine possession. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that cannot give rise to a penalty.

Mr. Browne rose—

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

May I finish my other point? It is very small and, if the Minister destroys my first point, I will have virtually nothing left to say. I just want confirmation that innocent possession of a card is okay and that no one will ask for it back.

I do not think that such events will happen, but I cannot envisage a court demanding the surrender of an identity card as a condition of bail. The Minister will know that, under the Bail Act 1976, a court can demand the surrender of a passport or travel documents. An ID card is not a travel document. Or is it? I do not believe that a court will have the power to order its surrender. If a judge orders the surrender of a card, we will have a problem because, apparently,   the Home Secretary can give the judge a frightfully tough time for asking for its surrender.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to point out that, when a person has an ID card in their possession in circumstances such as he has framed, the person can be reassured that they will have a card in their possession with lawful authority. That is covered under clause 13(3)(a). The person need not be at all concerned about that, if he has the lawful authority of the individual to whom it was issued.

As for the hon. Gentleman's second point, he touched on another matter of information that will be of interest to the general public and members of the Committee. It will be helpful to put it on the record. It is our intention that the ID card will be a travel document within the European Union for British citizens. My understanding of the Bail Act powers is that they cover all travel documents. Identity cards issued to British citizens can be used as travel documents so the court could, if it were minded, restrict the person's ability to travel by ordering surrender of their identity card, as well as their passport and other travel documents. I say that with some advised certainty because I have not practised law in England and do not know the detailed provisions of the Bail Act in England and Wales. I suspect, however, that, because there are travel documents other than passports, the phraseology used in the Bail Act is ''travel documents''. I am advised that that is correct, so it will cover an ID card.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

When the court requires as a condition of bail the surrender of a passport, I am not entirely sure that the Secretary of State either can or does require the court to surrender the passport to him or her. It seems from the Bill, however, that if a travel document or an ID card were surrendered as a condition of bail—often an important condition—the Home Secretary could demand its surrender to him.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

If I am incorrect, I may have to return to the matter, but I venture to suggest that the court, because it has authority under the Bail Act to require the surrender of the document as a condition of a person's release on bail, would have the permission of the Secretary of State.

Mr Humfrey Malins (Shadow Minister, Home Affairs; Woking, Conservative)

Implied.

Mr Des Browne (Minister of State (Citizenship, Immigration and Counter-Terrorism), Home Office; Kilmarnock & Loudoun, Labour)

Clearly, it is the implied permission of the Secretary of State because the Secretary of State is responsible for the state of law. If such matters need further clarification, I shall provide it in some other way. However, that is the argument. If my response has allowed members of the Committee to consider whether they agree that the clause should stand part, I do not have anything to add.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.