division_name: Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Bill &#8212; [2nd Allotted Day] &#8212; Clause 101 &#8212; Authority to carry
motion: <p class="" pid=".928.1/1" pwmotiontext="yes">I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 53, line 20, leave out clause 101.</p>
  
  <p class="" pid=".928.1/2" pwmotiontext="yes">We have more enthusiasm for this amendment than the Government had for their last amendments. It would leave out clause 101, which is the only clause dealing with the authority-to-carry scheme. Two provisions in the Bill relate to carriers' liability and involvement in immigration control. Sadly, as a result of the earlier guillotine, new clause 13 and Government new schedule 2, which deal with carriers' liability, were not debated. Like me, <phrase class="honfriend" id="uk.org.publicwhip/member/1089" name="Humfrey Malins">the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins)</phrase> regrets that, because those provisions raised substantial issues of interest to hon. Members and to commercial operators and their employees, and have been the subject of significant decisions by the courts, one of which resulted in the Government introducing legislation. <i>[Interruption.]</i> <phrase class="honfriend" id="uk.org.publicwhip/member/1308" name="Angela Watkinson">The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)</phrase> shows her assent. It is a great pity that the only debate we can have about carriers is on clause 101.</p>
  
  <p pid=".937.3/1" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>Question put,</i> That the amendment be made:&#8212;</p>
  
  <p pid=".937.3/2" pwmotiontext="yes"><i>The House divided:</i> Ayes 61, Noes 301.</p>