Identity Cards Bill
10:30 am

Tony McNulty (Minister of State (Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality), Home Office; Harrow East, Labour)

I beg to move,

That—

(1) the Committee recommends that the programme order of the House [28th June 2005] should be amended by substituting ''21st July'' for ''19th July'';

(2) the Order of the Committee of 5th July be amended by the addition of the following subparagraph to paragraph (1)—

''(f) at 9.15 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 21st July;''

(3) the Order of the Committe of 5th July be further amended by the substitution of the following paragraph for paragraph (3)—

''(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column of the following Table.

This motion seeks to revise the original order, because we have somewhat reluctantly accepted that we are not making enough progress on the Bill, and there needs to be more discipline in the timetable for debates. At the start of our proceedings, we said clearly that we did not want to force the pace of debate and that all our deliberations would have to be seen in the context of the debate now being three years old. The consultation paper was issued in 2002. The Bill, or one similar to it, has been ''pre-leg'' scrutinised, if that is the appropriate phrase, and examined through all its Commons stages. We are not discussing new material. The previous Bill was dispatched in eight Committee sittings. If we were to carry on as we are now, having used 40 per cent. of the allotted time in Committee to debate two clauses, we would be here until Christmas if there were no such motion.

The motion will do two things. First, it will introduce two further sittings and amend the out date to 21 July. Even in the context of discussing a similar Bill in only eight sittings, there will be potential for what is essentially the same Bill to be discussed in up to 14 sittings. We are relaxed about that additional time, but we cannot use it at the lamentable pace of our deliberations thus far.  

We have dealt with barely two out of 45 clauses and two schedules. We have concluded debates on 35 amendments, and even including the group of amendments that we were debating when the Committee adjourned on Thursday, I reckon that we have covered 52 amendments out of a total of 211 amendments that have been tabled, leaving a further 159 amendments to be discussed. That is simply not good enough. We are happy to introduce more time formally in respect of the programme motion, but also, as I said earlier, with additional sittings at the least on Tuesdays and, if we need them, on subsequent Wednesdays. However, we can do that only if sense and discipline are brought into our deliberations.

Secondly, the motion will introduce knives. They will allow us to conclude our sitting this morning, having discussed the remaining elements of clause 3, schedule 1 and clauses 4 and 5. The knives will then be put in when we consider it appropriate in common with the table in the programme motion.

I tabled the motion merely in the interests of the Committee, and no more. The Bill is important, but it has been around the block since 2004. A similar Bill was subject to full Commons proceedings. I remind the Committee that it was dispatched in eight sittings. We are now offering up to 14 sittings for the Bill currently under discussion, but in that context, there must be knives. I commend the motion to the Committee in generous terms and in the hope that it will help to focus our deliberations and bring a bit of discipline into them; the fact that we have spent 40 per cent. of our time on two and a half clauses is not good enough, regardless of one's views of the Bill.

See this speech in context