Ms Catherine O'Riordan, Mrs Suzanne Coe, Mr Bob Barron and Mr Chenab Mangat

23 MAY 2006

  Q60  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lord Chairman, I am positing a situation where, as with this late amendment, there is just an error of consolidation but without some provision in the Bill that allows errors subsequently discovered to be rectified, we have to go for primary legislation, which does seem unnecessary. It is no reflection on the people who have done the work on this, particularly Ms O'Riordan. It is no reflection on you or your team. This is hugely complicated. Something may come out of the woodwork and without anything being in the Bill we cannot put it right other than by primary legislation. Correct?

  Ms O'Riordan: Yes, my Lord.

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: That seems daft to me, Lord Chairman. I agree with the good Lord Colville. Is it too late to put anything in that allows—

  Chairman: We cannot put anything in which is not in the existing legislation.

  Viscount Colville of Culross: It is in the existing legislation. It is in 407.

  Chairman: That is not making pre-consolidation amendments. It is amendments to the existing legislation with the aim of facilitating consolidation. Once we have done the consolidation, we could not use a pre-consolidation power in order to make post-consolidation amendments.

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am not making myself clear. I am talking about post-consolidation amendments which are in respect of errors, or omissions let us call them, which come to light. So it would not be putting anything in that is not already there. It would be exclusively to deal with omissions discovered hereafter.

  Lord Campbell of Alloway: Or the question that was spoken to, the problem of an attempt to commission an offence. I shall not go into the details. Quite clearly there was a problem there. We cannot put it right and the Lord Chairman says we have no power to put it right.

  Chairman: I think that it would be a very popular power if you could always just amend Bills by subordinate legislation. Some Bills do contain the provision and make specific provision for doing that kind of thing, and the legislation which we are consolidating does not contain such a power.

  Mr Dorrell: As one, Lord Chairman, who has tried to argue for such a power going through primary legislation in our House on other occasions, it is not always universally well received!

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I have still not, my Lord Chairman, made my point because you are answering a different one.

  Chairman: I am not. I am making exactly the same point. The power to correct errors in legislation is not a common place of legislation. There is no such power in existing legislation.

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: No, I perfectly accept that, but in normal legislation you cannot put in that power because nobody knows what correction it means. Here where we have a very specific territory that we are dealing with, the principle is we cannot have in this Bill anything that is not in any of the Bills that are being consolidated. In suggesting that there were such a power for this Bill you are not in the Bermuda Triangle. You are in a highly defined situation dealing with errors and omissions. I do not want to labour the point. I think it is a pity that in these Bills there is not such a power because it just stores up little niggles for the future.

  Viscount Colville of Culross: Yes, agreed.

  Chairman: It may be that somehow or other the rules on consolidation bills could be amended in some way to allow a clause of that kind to be included but under the existing rules that is not permitted. It may be that such a clause would be useful.

  Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lord Chairman, I am going to make one final point on this. We consolidate the existing law. Section 407 of the Communications Act allows Pre-Consolidation Amendments. It is said that the power has been exercised. It does not say in 407 that it can only be exercised once. What we have not reproduced is the power to do it again.

  Chairman: I think I have got that point. Any other questions? The question is that Schedule 7 as amended be the seventh schedule to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say "content", the contrary "not content". The contents have it.

  Chairman: Schedules 8 and 9; any questions on that? The question is that Schedules 8 and 9 be the eighth and ninth schedules to the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say "content", the contrary "not content". The contents have it.

  Chairman: The question is that this be the Title of the Bill. Lord Phillips, I do not know whether you had a question on the title?

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: It was only a rather flippant point that I was delighted to see that the word "wireless" is still current!

  Chairman: I think I might raise this with counsel. Can you explain why we have to use the existing terminology?

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: We want it, my Lord Chairman!

  Q61  Chairman: I just thought it could have been modernised. It has to be kept in the same form?

  Ms O'Riordan: My Lord Chairman, the title was chosen on the basis that it better reflected the contents of the Bill. As the Committee may be aware, there are quite a number of places where "wireless telegraphy" is still being used. For example, in the Scotland Act, in Schedule 5, one of the subject matters which is reserved is telecommunications and wireless telegraphy. One of the headings in the Government of Wales Bill now going through also includes a reference to wireless telegraphy. There are other recent examples that I can draw on.

  Chairman: So it is not only commendable, it is also necessary. Well, the question is that this be the title of the Bill. As many as are of that opinion say "content"? the contrary "not content". The contents have it. The form is that we should report to the House. It is suggested that we should report in the following terms: "The Committee has considered the Wireless Telegraphy Bill which was referred to it. The Committee has heard evidence on the Bill and has made an amendment to it (set out in the Annex to this Report) to improve its form. The Committee is of the opinion that the Bill is pure consolidation and represents the existing law. There is no point to which the special attention of Parliament should be drawn."

  Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lord Chairman, I am sorry to be pedantic. It does not represent the existing law this afternoon because the pre-consolidation Order does not come into force until this Bill passes and therefore the contents of the pre-consolidation Order as incorporated in the Bill are not at the moment the law. I think we should therefore make a reference. It is very unusual to have a pre-consolidation procedure in primary legislation. I think that we ought to draw attention to the fact that it has happened in the case and it will be the law when the Bill gets Royal Assent.

  Q62  Chairman: Perhaps we could say "subject to the pre-consolidation amendments . . . "

  Ms O'Riordan: If it will assist the Committee I will be more than happy to write a note explaining in further detail why that part of section 407—

  Chairman: As Lord Colville says, what the Bill represents is not just the existing law but the existing law plus the Pre-Consolidation Amendments so it should say ". . . represents the existing law as amended by the Pre-Consolidation Amendments"

  Viscount Colville of Culross: ". . . as it will be amended" because the Order has not come into effect yet.

  Q63  Chairman: The Order was made today.

  Ms O'Riordan: And it will come into force in terms of section 407 in the instant before the consolidation.

  Chairman: In that case it should be ". . . as it will . . .".

  Viscount Colville of Culross: That is the point.

  Chairman: We will make an appropriate amendment. Thank you very much. Subject to that amendment, are you content with the report?

  Chairman: Can I invite Mr Dorrell to present the report to the House of Commons and also to report the minutes of proceedings.

  Mr Dorrell: I am sure they cannot wait, my Lord Chairman!

  Chairman: May I ask leave of your Lordships to make the report to the House of Lords?

  Viscount Colville of Culross: Hear, hear.

  Chairman: We will then adjourn but I think not before thanking especially Ms O'Riordan for her attendance. If I may say so she has responded very fully to the questions that were put. We are also very grateful to colleagues for attending and standing by in case there were any other questions. Subject to that—

  Q64  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lord Chairman, just before you wind up might I ask one question which might be of interest to all of us and that is for you to give some idea as to how much work this has involved on the part of you and your team in terms of time.

  Ms O'Riordan: This has involved a considerable amount of work. It has been spaced out over some time.

  Q65  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Like what?

  Ms O'Riordan: There was a draft prepared in the year 2000 but the work was set aside because of the Communications Bill. And after the Communications Bill was passed there was a period of implementation and of getting OFCOM up and going. There was also consultation in the last session of Parliament and the Bill is now produced.

  Q66  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Have you been with it all that time?

  Ms O'Riordan: No, my Lord.

  Q67  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: So what are we talking about? Are we talking about a year's work?

  Ms O'Riordan: I could not say, my Lord. I have been doing other things at the same time.

  Q68  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Out of the team of five, how many of you have been engaged full time on this for the last period?

  Mrs Coe: For what period?

  Q69  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: I am just trying to get some sense of how many person months we are talking about in this work. It is relevant to know. Well, anyhow, it is a question that I should have given you notice of and I will ring you up and find out.

  Ms O'Riordan: The Department's team is in the same position as me of doing other things as well as consolidation.

  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: Thank you.

  Chairman: I should just say that the next meeting of the Committee is scheduled for Tuesday 27 June at 4.30 pm and that will be to consider the National Health Service consolidation.