Photo Card Bill
Debate resumed from 8 December 2004.
Mr DONALD PAGE (Ballina—Deputy Leader of The Nationals) [12.12 p.m.]: I lead for the Opposition on the Photo Card Bill 2004 and indicate at the outset that the Opposition will not oppose the bill. Indeed, the Opposition is pleased that many members of our community who have not had access to photo identification in the past will now, as a result of this legislation, be able to have that access. At the last election the Coalition had a policy to introduce a photo card for people who do not have a driver licence, provided that privacy issues were guaranteed.
There are almost 900,000 people in New South Wales who do not currently have a driver licence or access to a photographic form of identification. On the other side of the equation there are about 4.3 million licensed drivers in New South Wales for whom providing proof of identification is not an issue. Since September 11 and the increased risk of terrorism worldwide, the need for photo identification has rapidly increased. Photographic identification is now required for buying an airline ticket, getting onto an aeroplane if you have an e-ticket, opening a bank account, or posting an international parcel. It is now also common for video stores and the like to require photo identification for membership.
For those without a driver licence, or those unable to obtain one, this can present a significant challenge. Groups such as the aged and disabled have been most disadvantaged by their inability to obtain or retain a driver licence. I am sure that most local members in this place, like me, have been approached at various times by constituents who have encountered this problem of not being able to have a photo identity. The current Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages photo identification card, in my view, is not adequate as a substitute for the photo card as it is only available to residents who are born in New South Wales and it is only issued in metropolitan areas. For country people to access photo identification through the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages it requires a trip to Sydney.
An important point to remember is that the proposed photo card is voluntary, it is not compulsory. The photo card will be available to those who seek to access a photo identification card, and even though there are 900,000 people eligible to receive the card, it will be interesting to see how many in our community choose to exercise that option. The photo card will be available to New South Wales residents over the age of 16 and will replace the existing Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] proof of age card over the next three years. The proof of age card was available only to younger members of the community and therefore was not suitable as a means of identification for all members of the community.
The photo card will feature the same security devices as a driver licence, namely, the hologram, watermark and magnetic strip, and will enable the RTA to adapt the card to incorporate future developments in security technologies such as biometrics. It is vital that any future technologies, such as biometrics, are carefully assessed in regard to privacy issues before the photo card is introduced. It is my understanding that applicants will be subject to proof of identity checks and data will be stored in the database used for driver licences and be subject to the same privacy and data protection laws.
The Opposition has been approached by the Australian Privacy Foundation, which has raised many issues. The Leader of the Opposition and I were initially approached in February with a very detailed list of concerns, and I was subsequently approached in March in relation to the proposal for an alternative model to the model proposed in this legislation, together with a number of suggested amendments to the legislation. I have raised the issues contained in this submission with the Government and I recently received a response in relation to them. I do not intend to go into the specific issues raised in the second submission because I believe they are probably better dealt with in detail in the upper House, where I understand amendments will be moved. However, I will make some broad comments about privacy issues that have been raised with me, and about the Opposition's position in relation to those matters.
The Australian Privacy Foundation says that the bill lacks provisions to limit the amount of information held by the RTA for the purposes of issuing a photo card, and that there is a lack of limitations in relation to where that information can be shared. The foundation argues, amongst other things, that the Photo Card Bill allows for the creation of a total population centralised identity system run by one government agency for drivers and non-drivers over 16 and that there should be limitations on the uses of such an extensive database. It argues that effectively the bill allows for the development of a unique identifier for each New South Wales resident over the age of 16, facilitating the tracking and profiling of individuals by both government and business. The foundation argues that this creates increased security and corruption risks for the RTA and could also undermine efforts to tackle identity theft; and that if the system were compromised there is a large amount of information on New South Wales residents in one place that could be misappropriated and misused.
Concern is also expressed that over time there will be increased pressure to collect more information about New South Wales residents, such as citizenship status, as well as pressure to share information across government agencies, for example, the Australian Taxation Office or Centrelink. It is also argued that the RTA is being given increased powers, for instance denying a person access to a photo card, thus curtailing his or her ability to live with ease in the community. A person who has already been tried by the courts may be deemed to be not a fit and proper person to obtain a photo card and therefore may be the recipient of secondary punishment by the RTA. Indeed, the powers of the RTA under this legislation are wide ranging.
The RTA has the authority to refuse an application for a photo card where the applicant has been found guilty or had a guilty plea accepted for an offence under this Act, an offence involving fraud or dishonesty or an offence prescribed by the regulations. The RTA will also have the power to cancel a card if it is misused or used fraudulently. In these circumstances the photo card must be returned within 14 days. Failure to do so will incur a maximum penalty of 20 penalty points or $2,200. If damaged, stolen, lost or destroyed cards are not reported to the RTA the maximum penalty will be 10 penalty points or $1,100.
The legislation prescribes several other offences such as obtaining or attempting to obtain a photo card by a false statement, unlawful possession of a photo card, manufacturing false photo cards, giving or lending a photo card to another person, improper use of a photo card, altering or tampering with a photo card, and unauthorised reproduction of a photo card photograph. Interestingly, an authorised officer may direct a person to produce a photo card on suspicion of various irregularities.
I turn now to privacy. It is not compulsory for a person to have a photo card. Therefore, people concerned about any breach of their privacy will have the option to not have a photo card. However, the Privacy Foundation argues that despite people not being compelled to have a photo card, the fact that many will opt to have such a card will result in pressure being placed on others to carry one. I shall highlight a couple of matters in defence of the Opposition's position on the general issue of privacy and security. First, the bill provides for a number of safeguards with respect to privacy. Without stating the detail, clause 15 provides safeguards in relation to security of information on the register. Clause 18 provides a further safeguard that deals with the purposes for which photographs may be kept and used. Clause 19 covers the circumstances under which the release of photographs can occur, while clause 24 covers the improper use of a photo card.
There are similar safeguards in other legislation, such as sections 39, 40 and 41 of the Road Transport (Driver Licensing) Act 1998, the Privacy and Personal Information Protection Act 1998 and the Commonwealth Privacy Act 1988. I have spoken to the Minister's office about the matters raised by the Privacy Foundation and I thank the Minister's staff for responding to these issues in some detail. The bottom line is that the Acting Privacy Commissioner, John Dickie, sent an email today to Phillip Youngman from the RTA stating that he has no problem with the bill from a privacy perspective. He stated:
Privacy NSW was consulted during the preparation of the legislation and I have no concerns with the privacy aspects of the Bill as presented to the Parliament.
That is an important assurance. It is my understanding that the increased powers of the RTA will protect the integrity of the system and will ensure that people do not use the photo card fraudulently or in a manner that undermines the integrity of the photo card system. I am sure that the Minister in reply will deal with those reasons, but, generally speaking, the powers are justified. People should not be able to fraudulently use photo cards for purposes other than those for which they were required.
Many members of the Opposition have been approached by a number of older people, particularly pensioners, about the RTA's failure to offer concession rates. The photo card will cost $40, which is a significant amount for many people. The RTA has argued that because the photo card is voluntary it is not necessary to provide a concession rate. I understand that people who are required to surrender their licence on medical or age grounds will not be required to pay the fee. I hope that waiver will apply in most instances.
I have dealt with privacy issues in some detail and I was pleased to receive the assurances from the Acting Privacy Commissioner and his office, which was involved with the drafting of the bill, that privacy is not a matter of concern. A photo card is essential to thousands of people who do not have a driver licence, many of whom come from disadvantaged sections of the community. Those who do not have a driver licence are usually those who are young, old or have a disability that prohibits them from holding a licence. This legislation will provide them with a photographic identity, which will enable them to undertake with relative ease tasks that those who hold a driver licence take for granted.
Mr ALLAN SHEARAN (Londonderry) [12.29 p.m.]: I support the bill. The voluntary New South Wales photo card will make it easier for people who require photo identification but who have not had the opportunity to obtain a valid photo identification document. The high use in the community of a driver licence as de facto proof of identity has meant that people who do not hold a driver licence often experience difficulties when attempting to gain access to services or obtain other community privileges. We often think of people who need identity cards as perhaps being young people of an age to go to clubs who do not have a driver licence. It also affects a variety of people in the community, including those of mature age.
Recently an elderly constituent, whose husband was deceased, was unable to prove her identity without any formal documentation as everything was in her deceased husband's name. So one becomes conscious of the difficulties in trying to prove identity without formal documentation. In this instance the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] is well placed to deliver the New South Wales photo card scheme. It has a large and diverse range of customers, a sophisticated and distributed technology infrastructure and secure enrolment processes, and it delivers a range of photo cards for different purposes, including driver licences, mobile parking scheme cards, firearms and security licences, and the current proof-of-age card.
The proposed photo card will be available to New South Wales residents aged 16 and above who do not currently hold a driver licence. However, anyone holding a valid driver licence will not be able to obtain the new card. This business rule enforces the RTA's one RTA customer, one RTA photo card concept, which aims to prevent the proliferation of high-level proof of identity cards in the community. Once again I am prompted by something that happened to a very close friend of mine, who is in his mid 50s and has never driven a vehicle. When I accompanied him to a particular club in a country region he was unable to provide any proof of identity and was denied access to the club. He did not have any identification that showed where he lived; he did not have a rates notice that showed that he resided at a certain place and identified him as an owner of a property. As a consequence, he was denied entry because he could not prove that he resided outside the distance requirements for admission to a club. That shows that a photo identity card is essential for those who do not hold a driver licence.
Future proofing of the security and integrity of all RTA enrolment and proof-of-identity processes, and introducing anti-tampering and anti-forgery devices on all photo cards, is a critical strategy to prevent identity crime. The RTA is at the forefront of national strategies to prevent criminal exploitation of weak entry points in the circular path of identity crime. The RTA will work closely with NSW Police and the New South Wales Crime Commission to ensure that any future technological solutions to identify crime will deliver benefits to law enforcement agencies. In line with New South Wales privacy legislation and public expectations, the RTA has in place a strict legislative and privacy regime that restricts unauthorised access to personal information and photo images held on the RTA DRIVES database. This bill reinforces that regime and takes further steps to protect unauthorised access to information and photo images contained in all DRIVES database tables. I commend the bill.
Mr DARYL MAGUIRE (Wagga Wagga) [12.33 p.m.]: I support the contribution of the shadow Minister, the honourable member for Ballina, to the debate on the Photo Card Bill. I am interested in this bill because of my connection with organisations within the Wagga Wagga region, particularly Kurrajong Waratah. Kurrajong Waratah is an organisation that services the Riverina. As part of its work, it provides employment opportunities for people with disabilities, and it manages a range of industries. As part of its responsibilities, it runs a recycling service that operates throughout the city. Indeed, the young men and women from Kurrajong Waratah recycle paper from my office. They regularly knock on our door, collect paper and put it through their service, which is an enormous business. A number of Kurrajong Waratah employees need to access places such as my office and, in a defence city such as Wagga Wagga, the defence bases. Geoff Pym, who runs the recycling service, wrote to me on 29 April 2003 raising a problem with his staff accessing Kapooka and Forrest Hill. Kapooka is the Home of the Soldier and Forrest Hill is the air force base where technicians are trained for Australian services. Mr Pym said:
Our employees with a disability in the majority do not hold drivers licenses and are too old for a proof of age card. Some do have other means of identification but these are not acceptable to the base security officers. The security issues at the bases are creating an embarrassing situation for our employees …
That is disappointing, considering the attitude being developed and nurtured by members of the community for people with disabilities. It is also embarrassing for people with disabilities who are trying to make their way in life—and we are encouraging them to do that—and to make a contribution, to work. They enjoy their jobs. That must have been demeaning to them. I am pleased that this legislation will help to address that issue. However, I wanted to raise, as did Geoff Pym, some of my other concerns. First, this bill provides for the card. The bill states that the photo card can be used as evidence of age and identity of a person. The issue of security has been raised. Clause 7, which deals with the grounds for refusal to issue a photo card, states:
(2) The Authority may refuse to issue a Photo Card to a person if the Authority is of the opinion that the person is not a fit and proper person to be in possession of a Photo Card because the person has been convicted of (or found guilty of or a guilty plea has been accepted for) any of the following offences:
(a) an offence under this Act,
(b) an offence involving fraud or dishonesty,
(c) an offence prescribed by the regulations.
(3) The Authority may refuse to issue a Photo Card on such other grounds as may be prescribed by the regulations.
I am always interested in regulations because they are not before the House. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary or the departmental staff to respond to these concerns because regulations are an unknown factor when dealing with legislation in this place. I shall pose a hypothetical question. People with a mental illness often end up in situations that are of their making, unfortunately, because of their illness. We must understand that these things happen and that people with mental illness—I know the honourable member for Hornsby will agree with this—end up in gaol because no institutions can accommodate them and care for them. This is my hypothetical question: How will the regulations apply to a person who has been in gaol and has a record, sometimes for offences of fraud or dishonesty?
If those people do their time, are released into the community and work for an organisation such as Kurrajong Waratah, how will they be treated? Will they have the opportunity to be issued one of these cards and then participate in work activities that Kurrajong Waratah provides? They include the collection of recyclable waste products from places such as my office, government office blocks and the bases at Kapooka and Forest Hills. As I said, this card is about proof of age and identity; it is not about security. It is up to the institutions and organisations that utilise the services of organisations such as Kurrajong Waratah to check out the security. Those two issues should not be confused. I want to know whether these people will be eligible for a card or whether the regulations will deny them, therefore denying them the opportunity to work in an industry? That is an important point.
I raise the cost of this card with the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister's staff, who are listening intently to this debate. It was suggested originally, in correspondence I received from the Minister and others, that the cost of providing one of these cards would be about $29. Alternatives were suggested, such as birth certificates and correspondence that one could access from Sydney. It would be difficult and costly for people to get from regional New South Wales to Sydney to complete this transaction. I recently had the same experience with the Department of Land and Water Conservation when I registered some papers. Country people should be able to lodge papers for a simple transaction; they should not have go to Sydney and pay for an airline ticket or a bus ticket to lodge some papers. Services should be accessible, whether it be in Newcastle, Tweed Heads or Hornsby.
I understand that this card will be accessible, but what is the cost of administering it? I have heard no suggestion of what it will cost. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] maintains a database where it files information in relation to driver licences. I went to the RTA this morning. It has a terrific staff and provides a wonderful service in York Street. I had my photograph taken, paid my money, received my card and was out of there in less than 10 minutes. What will it cost the RTA to administer this database? Does it require a separate program? How much will it cost? Will it use an area already within an RTA database?
I question the $40 fee. It is suggested that some 900,000 people in New South Wales do not have driver licences or access to some kind of photographic identification. If just 50,000 of those people applied for this photo card—be they working in places such as Kurrajong Waratah or somewhere else—$2 million would be raised. Less the materials used to produce the card and the time of the staff, will it cost $1 million to produce the card and $1 million to manage the database? If 100,000 people apply for the card $4 million will be raised. Is that the real cost? Is that the minimum cost the Government can apply to these people who have no other option. In particular, I refer to the young people we are encouraging to enter the work force. Young people call in to my office, have a chat with the staff and do an excellent job finding their way in our community, as they are encouraged to do.
I would like to know the exact cost and whether the Government is able to readdress that issue. I would like the Government to assess whether that is the minimum cost of providing this photo identification. People who are profoundly disabled need an advocate to carry out basic transactions. They have no means of earning an income. When a limited amount of money is put into one's bank every fortnight, every dollar counts. I want to know whether this is the minimum basic charge that can be applied to those people. I demand to know. If I do not get a response in this place, I will put questions on notice. I want to be assured that the Government is doing the right thing by people with disabilities. A number of other issues have crossed my mind while I have been making my contribution. However, given the time constraints, I will put those questions on notice. The bureaucrats will then have time to give due consideration to my thoughts. As the shadow Minister said, the Opposition will not oppose this bill. However, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary and the Minster's staff to consider the cost of the card and to respond to the points I have raised.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD (Hornsby) [12.46 p.m.]: The object of the Photo Card Bill is to provide for the issue by the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] of a photo card to residents of New South Wales who are over 16 and do not hold a driver licence. The photo card can be used as evidence of the age and identity of the person. The photo card will replace the proof-of-age card currently issued by the authority, and proof-of-age cards will cease to be valid after three years. I join my colleagues the honourable member for Ballina and the honourable member for Wagga Wagga in generally supporting the idea of a photo card. Residents in my community have expressed concern that they do not have a driver licence or any other form of photographic identification. In particular, older residents have expressed concern that they require a form of identification with a photograph but they do not qualify for any current form of identification of that sort. This photo card will give almost 900,000 people in New South Wales who do not currently have a driver licence access to a photographic form of identification.
Mr Daryl Maguire: Perhaps the Premier will apply.
Mrs JUDY HOPWOOD: Yes, he might. It is good that the card is voluntary. The card will have the same security features as driver licences—including the holograms, watermarks and magnetic strips—and applicants will be subject to stringent proof-of-identity checks. The data will be stored in the database used for driver licences and will be subject to the same privacy and data protection laws. I note the comments that were made by the honourable member for Wagga Wagga and I will be interested to hear the answers to the questions he raised. The photo card will cost $40 for five years, and it will apparently be indexed to the consumer price index. No concessions will be available as the card is voluntary. However, people required to surrender their driver licences on medical or age grounds will not be required to pay a fee. The RTA will be given authority to refuse an application for a photo card where it forms the opinion that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold such a card. The RTA will also have power to cancel a card if it is misused, for example, fraudulently.
This is a good idea. I have a daughter living in the United States of America and if I did not have a driver licence I would have a great deal of trouble sending post to her. In this age of increased terrorism and security threats Australian residents are increasingly asked to provide photographic proof of identity for a wide variety of purposes, including purchasing airline tickets and opening bank accounts. Residents unable to obtain a driver licence, such as the elderly and those with disabilities, at the moment are disadvantaged unfairly. The current births, deaths and marriages photo identification card is available only to residents born in New South Wales, which disadvantages people born outside the State, and is currently issued only in metropolitan areas. The honourable member for Wagga Wagga referred to the difficulties for people in rural and regional areas.
Because there is no provision for a concessional fee the $40 charge may be too much for some people. The bill lacks provision for limiting the amount of information held by the RTA, which is another concern. The honourable member for Ballina stated that the Privacy Commissioner has not expressed concerns. We need to know that the information will be stored securely, and whether there is a limit to the amount of information that can be held by the RTA. I would also like information on the cost of administering the new card. The Coalition does not oppose the bill. I look forward to hearing answers to the concerns raised.
Mr PETER DRAPER (Tamworth) [12.52 p.m.]: I do not object to the general idea or purpose of the Photo Card Bill, which is the issuing of a photo card so that New South Wales residents of driving age who do not have a driver licence are able to obtain photo identification. I do, however, have concerns in regard to privacy issues based on representations from people in my electorate who have approached me in regard to this bill. The issues raised to date in my community include that the bill in its current form allows any information to be given, in an unobstructed manner, to any other government agency. This information, therefore, may then be cross-referenced to other agencies such as a billing agency, which has many implications regarding privacy and individual freedom. In addition, there are concerns that because the legislation enables the Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] to issue these cards the RTA may be empowered beyond its current limitations to cancel a card without reason. The implications are that the procedural fairness of this could not be challenged.
Of particular concern for one constituent was that the bill in its current form has no privacy guidelines or benchmarks that the Privacy Commissioner can review. The fact that any information may be passed on to other agencies, with the possibility of abuse occurring without guidelines and benchmarks, has serious implications for individuals and the state of democracy in New South Wales. There are privacy guidelines and benchmarks in Federal legislation and they should be considered in the provisions of the bill. One constituent is also deeply concerned that the Government will not consider amendments and safeguards taking into consideration the obvious flaws and implications of the bill as it stands. On behalf of this person I ask why the Government has not publicly addressed the reasons for not doing so. I have familiarised myself with the concerns in relation to this bill raised by the Australian Privacy Foundation, which has worked closely with the Council of Social Service of New South Wales and which is lobbying the Government on a number of points for good reason.
I urge the Government to carefully consider the implications inherent in this bill as put forward by the foundation, which include concerns over the collection by the RTA of more information than necessary; the sharing of a database that is collected for one purpose but that could later used for another; the sharing of more information than necessary with other government agencies such as NSW Police; tracking and profiling of individuals through the creation of a centralised population database and a unique identification number; the risk of greater identity fraud and identity theft; the risk of unauthorised use or disclosure of the information through security breaches of the database; and personal security risks such as employees of clubs and venues being able to view a person's address when all they need is a proof of age. Even though the acquisition of the photo card identification is deemed voluntary, I am concerned that its very existence will create an expectation in the business community that customers and clients are obliged to possess one.
I am concerned that those individuals who choose not to obtain a photo card identification will be dismissed or discriminated against for being unable to produce either a driver licence or a photo card identification. This sentiment and social pressure could be equated with the situation that it is significantly more difficult to participate and negotiate your way through society today without a credit card, despite the fact that people have the freedom to use them or not. Of course, it is possible to get by without credit but it is inconvenient and costly not to possess a card when making reservations or purchasing and ordering goods and even proving identification. There is now an overriding social expectation to be a credit card carrier. I am also concerned about the $40 fee with no concessions. That raises issues of discrimination against people who cannot afford that amount. At a base level I believe this issue comes down to privacy. We all have a right to keep the details of our lives to ourselves and if there are legitimate concerns that this photo card will intrude on this basic right, which there are, the validity and necessity of the photo card is to be seriously questioned.
Mr RICHARD TORBAY (Northern Tablelands) [12.56 p.m.]: I support the Photo Card Bill. Many of the arguments have been put by previous speakers. A number of my constituents—three very recently—were completely distressed about falling through the cracks. Because they did not have any sort of formal documentation agencies were unable to process them. The need for the bill is real. I congratulate the Government on bringing it forward. Concerns have been raised about administration and the fees and charges involved. I hope we hear a little more about how it is all going to pan out. On behalf of my constituents I register support for the bill. I saw the distress suffered by constituents who somehow felt that they were not citizens.
Mr NEVILLE NEWELL (Tweed—Parliamentary Secretary) [12.58 p.m.], in reply: The purpose of the Photo Card Bill is to provide for the issuing of a photo card so that New South Wales residents who do not hold a driver licence will be allowed to obtain a photo identification document that will assist them to establish their entitlement to rights and privileges in the community. The New South Wales photo card scheme was developed following broad representations to the New South Wales Government concerning the need for a government-endorsed photo identification card for those people who do not carry a New South Wales photo licence card.
It was recognised that public and private services rely increasingly on the driver licence for photo identification purposes and that individuals without a photo card had no way to provide verifiable information to assist them in the establishment of their entitlement to services. As such, the New South Wales photo card will be based on the driver licence. It will be available to residents in New South Wales aged 16 years and above who do not hold a driver licence. The card will replace the existing proof of age card and will contain security and design features that will assist service providers in establishing evidence that a photo card holder is at least 18 years of age.
The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] will be authorised under the bill to administer the photo card scheme and maintain a photo card register containing relevant information. In line with New South Wales privacy legislation and public expectations, the RTA has in place a strict legislative and privacy regime that restricts unauthorised access to personal information and photo images held on the RTA database. In response to the comments of honourable members who have contributed to the debate today, given that the card is voluntary and the fee for the card is based on the cost of production, there will be no pensioner concessions but exceptions will be made in the case of elderly drivers who have been required to surrender their drivers licence on medical or age grounds, and they will be issued with a New South Wales photo card at no cost.
The price of $40 for all users will ensure recovery of the full cost of the card and will also ensure that improvements to the security of the card can be introduced over time. There is no concession for pensioners in respect of the current proof-of-age card or the Births, Deaths and Marriages photo birth card. I would also point out that the $40 is to cover the cost of processing and manufacturing of the card. The Roads and Traffic Authority [RTA] does not recover the costs involved in delivering the proof-of-age card, the price of which is set at $23. In addition, significant costs will be involved in information technology development and alterations to registry equipment to cater for the new changes and increase in the number of customers.
I would also point out that the current Births, Deaths and Marriages photo birth card, the cost of which is $29, is currently available only at Sydney and Newcastle registries. It will become available throughout the State at appropriate RTA and registries where photo licences are able to be issued. The bill reinforces that regime and takes further steps to protect unauthorised access to information and photo images contained in all DRIVES database tables to ensure that privacy is protected. I thank honourable members representing the electorates of Ballina, Londonderry, Wagga Wagga, Hornsby, Tamworth and Northern Tablelands for their contributions to the debate. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read a second time and passed through remaining stages.
[Mr Deputy-Speaker left the chair at 1.02 p.m. The House resumed at 2.15 p.m.]