Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 109, in clause 33, page 28, line 40, after “defaulter”, insert “in writing”.

Roger Gale (North Thanet, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 110, in clause 33, page 29, line 6, at end insert

‘including methods by which payment may be made by instalments’.

No. 111, in clause 33, page 29, line 10, at end insert—

‘(g)set out the grounds of objection to such a penalty contained in section 34.’.

No. 112, in clause 33, page 29, line 11, leave out “14” and insert “28”.

No. 113, in clause 33, page 29, line 18, after “question”, insert

‘save a question of proper service of the notice’.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

On page 28 of the Bill, we wish to insert “in writing” in clause 33(2), so it would read:

“The Secretary of State may, by a notice given to the defaulter”—

“in writing”—

“in the prescribed manner”.

It may be thought that “notice” suggests an element of permanence, but it is perfectly possible to give people notice orally. I have no doubt that in practical terms the Secretary of State will not be wandering around telling people that he will be inviting his officials to send out pieces of paper, but it will be as well to have that assurance from the Minister.

Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 deal with what I hope are perfectly sensible suggestions. In relation to amendment No. 110, it should be possible to make penalty payments in instalments. Consider the earlier clauses that we dealt with: some civil penalties are, or could be, in the thousands of pounds, so an instalment method may be just and appropriate.

Similarly, the next amendment would require the setting out of the grounds for objection in clause 34 be specified. With amendment No. 112, we want to adjust the period for payment to 28 days as opposed to 14. That seems to be entirely just, and it would not destroy the Government.

With amendment No. 113, we say that the grounds for moving the procedure to deal with an objection are unfairly restricted to those in clause 33(6)(a) to (c). They should include also questions about the quality of the serving of the notice itself. I know that the Royal Mail is impeccable in every aspect of its functions, but   from time to time the post does not arrive, and it is no good turning up at court or at the tribunal complaining that the notice never arrived, if that argument is not available. I hope that it can be made such.

The amendments are fairly straightforward, and they can be dealt with in a common-sense way. I imagine that the Government wish to embrace them.

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

The hon. and learned Gentleman clearly has a very strong imagination. We think that amendment No. 109 is unnecessary—he alluded to this himself—because although the provision, taken literally, could mean the Secretary of State going around and orally presenting to everyone the cost and circumstances of the civil penalty, he does not really want to do that, so it is not going to happen.

We shall not need the requirement to give notice in writing. Subsection (3) sets out the information that a notice must contain. Regulations made under subsection (2)—I am sorry to offend the hon. and learned Gentleman by talking about regulations—will be aimed at ensuring that the manner in which a notice is given is clear and fair and that it leaves the recipient in no doubt that a penalty has been imposed.

We think that leaving the provision to regulation will give us a good deal of the necessary flexibility to achieve that aim. For example, notices might be given by e-mail—for the benefit of the hon. and learned Gentleman, that is a new-fangled contraption that works over the airwaves—as well as through the post. Subsequent innovations may mean that leaving the provision with that flexibility is preferable to being very specific and talking about writing.

Amendment No. 110 would spell it out that a penalty may be paid in instalments. We shall certainly consider that when we design the detailed arrangements; it is an entirely fair point that reflects how things are going. Crucially, though, subsection (3)(d) does not preclude us from so doing, and I do not consider it necessary to refer expressly in the clause to instalments.

Through amendment No. 112, the hon. and learned Gentleman would increase the period within which a person may be required to pay a penalty from 14 days to 28. Subsection (4) simply provides for a minimum period of not less than 14 days, but the period will not be settled until the details of the scheme are finalised. We think that 14 days is the right time to have as a statutory minimum, and I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that when the time comes to decide the period set for penalty notices, careful thought will be given to those who may be subject to civil penalties and whether a payment period of more than 14 days is desirable in practice.

I apologise for not dealing with every single amendment, but, although I appreciate the drift, I must ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, given the calm and reassuring words I have just imparted.

Edward Garnier (Shadow Minister, (Assisted By Shadow Law Officers); Harborough, Conservative)

May I assure you, Mr. Gale, and the Minister that none of my amendments “drift”? They are, in every sense, intellectually coherent.   Unfortunately, on this occasion, that has not got across to the Minister, who has asked me to withdraw the amendment. Because I am sitting opposite him, I shall agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.