Beta This is a new service and it is still being tested. Tell us about a problem.

Parliament's record since 1997: debates, questions, statements, votes, bills, committees and members' interests

Where MPs Stand

Sourced briefings on the record of Parliament

Orders of the Day — Electronic Communications Bill

House of Commons, 25 May 2000.

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF APPROVALS

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 10 to 14.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

This group of amendments largely stems from a commitment that I made in Committee and on Report when I undertook to see whether the drafting of the clause could be simplified while preserving the necessary powers of the approvals authority. The amendments do that by expanding on the cross-references between subsections (2) and (3). It was also drawn to our attention that the description in clause 6(3) of cryptography support services being provided in the United Kingdom related only to clause 2. It therefore seemed sensible that the description should be moved from clause 6 to clause 2. The amendments accomplish that. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13 and 14 simply correct some grammatical errors in the original drafting. I assure the House that this group of amendments does not change the legal effect of the Bill in any way. I therefore commend the amendment to the House.

REGULATIONS UNDER PART I

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 5 and 6.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

The three amendments to clause 4 deal with the recommendation that was made by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in another place. It saw the need for the power conferred by subsection (2)(c), but considered that it was too widely drawn. The amendments mean that any additional gateways for the disclosure of regulatory information must relate to public functions.

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURES AND RELATED CERTIFICATES

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 8, 9 and 22.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

Amendments Nos. 7, 8 and 22 meet two further recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. They deal with the parliamentary control that would be exercised if the Government's preference for self-regulation could not be achieved, and, therefore, we decided to implement the statutory regime under part I. Amendment No. 22 would mean that part I could not be implemented unless each House had approved the commencement order. Therefore, it would include in the Bill the undertaking that I gave during earlier stages to return to Parliament before commencing with part I. Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are closely related. They would mean that the first time that the Secretary of State exercised his resolution-making powers under part I, they would be subject to the affirmative procedure. On subsequent occasions, they would be subject to the negative procedure. Taken together, the amendments strike a sensible balance between ensuring parliamentary control over a decision to implement part I and ensuring that, if we introduced a statutory approvals scheme, it could be operated flexibly and sensibly. Amendment No. 9 meets a commitment given in another place to include in the Bill our decision to consult on the approvals criteria.

Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)

I welcome what the Minister has said and especially her honouring of a commitment made to my noble Friend Baroness Buscombe in another place. On amendment No. 9 and the need—and the Government's willingness—to consult those affected, a pattern has developed in consultations on secondary legislation, especially those involving business. I urge the Minister to consider the lead times necessary for business to be consulted. Businesses increasingly find that little time is allowed for consultation, especially given the other pressures on their time. I hope that, in recognising the need for consultation under amendment No. 9, the Minister can assure the House that the Department will set realistic timetables for business consultation.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

I, too, welcome the Government's commitment, which was expressed by Lord Sainsbury of Turville in another place, to respond to issues that we raised in Committee. The Minister will know that the Opposition remain concerned about the prospect of part I being implemented. Therefore, an extra block on that, such as having to undertake another parliamentary procedure, is welcome. I should be interested to know whether the Minister could give us an update on the progress of the Government's negotiations with industry on the Tscheme proposals. I understand that they represent a way in which to avoid implementing part I and even the commitment that has been made to bring such matters before Parliament. On amendment No. 9, to which the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred, can the Minister tell us whether the Government have any idea of the time scale that they will set themselves to work with industry? Amendment No. 9 refers to consultation with industry, but such matters would not be dealt with unless and until comprehensive consultations and negotiations on the Tscheme had been undertaken with industry. I hope that the Minister will tell us about the Government's intended time scales for seeking parliamentary approval for the regulations under the amendments, and for laying them before the House and consulting on them. Such matters are important for Britain's future in electronic commerce.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) for supporting these and earlier amendments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are well aware of business concerns about the need to allow proper time for consultation on this and other matters. I confirm that we are considering that matter and seeking to ensure that there are both adequate consultation periods and adequate periods between the introduction of regulations and their coming into effect. Certainly, if we brought part I of the Bill into effect, we would ensure that there was proper time for consultation. On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), I am pleased to say that the industry has been making excellent progress in establishing the Tscheme—the voluntary, self-regulatory scheme that we debated in some detail in Committee. Indeed, the second board meeting of members of the scheme was held earlier this week. At this stage, I am confident that the progress which is being demonstrated, and which will, I am sure, be maintained, should make the introduction of part I unnecessary.

POWER TO MODIFY LEGISLATION

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment No. 16.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

These amendments are technical and amplify the power contained in clause 8. Amendment No. 15 is intended to ensure that the clause works in the same way when an order facilitates electronic communication as when it authorises such communication. The clause 8 power can operate on both primary and secondary legislation. Amendment No. 16 makes it clear that clause 8 could also operate by modifying a power to make secondary legislation. I commend the amendments to the House.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Again, I welcome the amendments. The Minister will be aware that in Committee hon. Members on both sides—including Labour Back Benchers, who made some important contributions—strongly expressed the view that the clause 8 powers should be put in place as swiftly and effectively as possible to facilitate the Government moving towards the use of electronic communications and storage of data. Clearly, the Government took that feeling on board and are trying to do so. We welcome the fact that the amendments would facilitate that process and would enable the Government not to find unnecessary blocks further down the road to moving from traditional paper-based methods to electronic methods. In that context, the Liberal Democrats certainly see the amendments as an important addition to the clause. However, I reiterate our desire for the Government to move ahead with clause 8 powers as quickly as they can once the Bill becomes law.

SECTION 8 ORDERS

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Betty Boothroyd (Speaker, West Bromwich West)

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 18 to 21.

Patricia Hewitt (Labour, Leicester West)

This group of amendments is designed to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales can exercise the order-making power in clause 8 to authorise or facilitate electronic communications for functions that are exercisable by the Assembly. Clause 9(7) already gives powers to Scottish Ministers. I trust that hon. Members on both sides of the House will want consistency in the application of devolution. The amendments would give effect to that principle. Therefore, I commend them to the House.

Richard Allan (Liberal Democrat, Sheffield, Hallam)

Again, we welcome the amendments. On a small note of concern, however, let me say that the Minister will know that we are fully in favour of the devolution process that has taken place and see an important role for the National Assembly for Wales, but the trend seems to be for Welsh provisions to be tacked on to legislation late on. A similar process happened with the Learning and Skills Bill when systems that would put in place a comparable system to those in the Bill for England were added on later. We are concerned that we did not see the comparable provisions for Wales in this Bill until this week, late in its passage through another place. I understand that that may be because of the time required to consult with Members of the Welsh Assembly and we certainly want consultation to take place in that way. Members of the Welsh Assembly should have a good look at the proposals before they are put on the amendment paper here. However, I should be interested to know if there are particular reasons why the Minister could not produce the amendments when the Bill was passing through its major stages in this House. Why did we have to wait until the Bill went to another place to see the Welsh provisions? It should have been fairly obvious at an early stage that they were necessary.