SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE

HC Deb 14 July 1998 vol 316 cc294-304

10.4 pm

Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 4, line 11, at end insert— '(1A) A party whose application under sections 3, 5, 6 or 18 is refused may appeal to the committee against the registrar's decision and the committee's determination of the appeal shall be final.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord)

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 4, line 11, at end insert— '(1A) The committee shall have the additional functions of—

1. (a) considering any representations which may be submitted to it about the operation of—
   1. (i) the system of registration established under this Act, and
   2. (ii) the amendments to the Parliamentary Elections Rules contained in Schedule 2; and
2. (b) making to the House of Commons any recommendations which seem to it to be appropriate in the light of those representations and which are intended to secure—
   1. (i) that any deficiencies in the system of registration are rectified; and
   2. (ii) that returning officers apply their discretion under rule 6A of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (Nomination papers: name of registered political party) in a manner which is consistent both over time and as between different parts of the United Kingdom.'.

No. 3, in page 4, line 11, at end insert— '(1A) A party whose application under sections 3, 5, 6 or 18 is rejected by the registrar may appeal to the committee against the decision of the registrar.'.

Mr. Beith

The amendment would allow a party whose application is refused to appeal to the Speaker's Committee against the registrar's decision. It would apply to decisions under clause 3 on grant of applications, clause 5 on registering emblems, clause 6 on changes to the register, and clause 18 on refusing an application during the transitional stage. The Committee's determination would be final.

Without the amendment, the Bill would have no specific mechanism for appealing against the registrar's decision, so the only challenge possible would be judicial review. We hope that one of the outcomes of the Bill will be to reduce the number of legal challenges caused by attempts to mislead voters. Judicial reviews are costly and time-consuming, and can involve parties in heavy expenditure. There should be a quick and decisive method of reviewing decisions, which will not place a significant burden on the registrar or on political parties.

It may not be possible to resolve a judicial review before an election at which the party challenging a decision wishes to field candidates. It would be unjust if a party could not use a name that it was seeking to register at an election solely because the review had not been determined. The amendment gives that appellate role to the Speaker's Committee.

Amendment No. 3, tabled by the Conservatives, has the same effect, but does not specify what would happen if a party wants to challenge a decision by the Speaker's Committee. It says that any decision would be final, as did an earlier amendment moved by the Conservatives in Committee. We are therefore at one on this matter.

The Conservatives raised the issue in Committee, and the Minister replied: I do not see the use in an appeal to the Speaker's Committee if the registrar had acted on that Committee's advice when refusing an application."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 23 June 1998; c. 55.] There was strong pressure on the Minister to reconsider the matter. He said that he would think about what had been said, and look at the matter again if there was room for doubt. This is an opportunity for him to do so, and we look forward to hearing what he has to say.

Amendment No. 2 has a rather wider purpose. It would give the Speaker's Committee the additional function of considering representations about the operation of the registration system and the rules for returning officers, and making recommendations to the House to rectify any deficiencies in the system.

The Bill is necessary to facilitate the systems to be used for the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly elections, and for the list system to be used in European elections. However, it has another effect and intention: to reduce the likelihood of confusion at elections when candidates try to use confusing party names.

Many areas are left unclear, and will need to be reviewed. The amendment's purpose is to enable the Speaker's Committee to do just that. For example, the Bill does nothing to prevent candidates from choosing to use another candidate's name with the intention of confusing voters.

I fondly remember that, when Jim Callaghan first proposed that description should be allowed on ballot papers, he said: I would hope that most people who stand for election would have a proper sense of responsibility."—[Official Report, 18 December 1968; Vol. 775, c. 1404.] There is a touching Jim Callaghan naivety about that comment. In the event, it did not turn out to be so. As my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) and for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), and various other hon. Members elsewhere in the House know from bitter experience, hope is not enough.

Amendment No. 2 would allow the Speaker's Committee to consider any representations it received about how the system operates, both at registration level and at returning officer level, and to make recommendations. A number of other issues would arise if it had that power. They will come up anyway, and will have to be considered by somebody. For example, the registrar and the returning officers will have to consider the historical and traditional associations of a particular word or phrase when examining applications for registration or inclusion on the ballot paper. That process is necessary, to reduce the likelihood of inconsistency between returning officers or between the registrar and returning officers.

Some confusing matters became apparent in Committee. For example, the Minister implied that the word "Tory" would be protected under the Bill because it is commonly used to refer to the Conservative party."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 18 June 1998; c. 13.] He added that the word "Liberal" would not be protected in the same way. I have to tell him that "Liberal" is commonly used to describe the Liberal Democrats; indeed, I heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer use it no fewer than four times this very afternoon to describe the Liberal Democrats. In the hearing of many hon. Members who are in the Chamber, he vividly demonstrated that that word fits exactly the criterion ascribed by the Minister to the word "Tory".

My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay made that point in Committee, and the Minister's words appeared to set in concrete decisions that would have to be made by the registrar and the returning officers. I hope that the Minister did not intend his words to be used in that way, and I have written to the Home Secretary to say that I hope that he does not think that that was the intention. Clearly the registrar and the returning officers will have to consider the matter themselves; if they cannot resolve it satisfactorily, the Speaker's Committee could appropriately review the issue.

I have mentioned candidates who use a false name. In Committee, we tabled an amendment to deal with candidates who change their name close to an election to one identical to, or designed to be confused with, the name of someone standing for a registered party. The Bill does not deal with that problem, but it is so cognate that it is likely to be raised once the Bill has come into effect. Again, that is an appropriate matter for the Speaker's Committee to consider.

Preventing candidates from using in their election literature names or descriptions that they have been prevented from using on the ballot paper also came up in Committee. The Government's view is that that is not a problem, because the parties will have no difficulty in making their identities clear in their campaigns. The Minister's argument is that the rogue candidate would not want to make public his activities if he intended to benefit primarily from the confusion of voters confronted in the voting booth with a name that they associate with another party.

If the rogue candidate got that far, the assumption that the Government are making is that it would have been better for him not to have done much campaigning or to have used a false name in literature, but I am not convinced by that explanation. It may work in some cases, but it will not work in others. The Speaker's Committee will have to come back to that issue, and it would be appropriate if it had a broader power to enable it to do so.

This amendment would not be necessary if we had an electoral commission, which would be the most appropriate body to deal with many of these disputes, arguments and interpretations about electoral law and procedure. It has never been ideal that so many rulings should come out of the Home Office; that is not a criticism of it, but it is headed by a Secretary of State to whom it owes its primary responsibility. Home Office officials take their wider responsibilities seriously, but they are the servants of the Home Secretary of the day, and it would be much better in the longer term if we had an electoral commission to deal with these matters.

We are developing so many elections and referendums, from which so many questions can arise, that a commission would be an appropriate mechanism. Indeed, it would have been better to have a commission rather than use the Home Office or the unsupported conclusions and jurisdiction of the returning officer to resolve all these matters. We do not have a commission, so the Speaker's Committee, which is being set up under the Bill and which will have an important role in this area, could usefully have its functions widened to deal with some of the matters that I have raised. I suggest that to the Government as a way of dealing with a group of problems that will certainly come down the track, and which will have to be dealt with by someone.

Mr. John Greenway (Ryedale)

One of the most important debates in Committee concerned appeals, and it mainly involved a lengthy exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). The hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), who made the briefest of interventions in support of us, clearly understood the argument, and followed it closely.

In all but one respect, amendment No. 1 seeks to incorporate in the Bill the precise scheme of affairs that my hon. Friend thrashed out in debate with the Minister. They had a fascinating exchange, the Hansard report of which is worth reading by anyone seeking an in-depth understanding of the issue. The Minister smiles at the recollection of that joyous occasion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth)

And the re-reading.

10.15 pm

Mr. Greenway

Indeed.

For the purposes of tonight's debate, I shall attempt a brief resume of what we are trying to achieve. For the benefit of those who were not members of the Standing Committee, let me explain that the Bill's central objective is the registration of political parties. Parties with at least one member in the House of Commons—the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is not a member of a party—will enjoy the benefits of a first-stage registration process.

That will involve a party's registering its name with the registrar of companies. It may also register an emblem, and may subsequently apply to make any necessary changes. The registrar may refuse any such application for a number of reasons, which are set out in clause 3; but, under clause 18, he "shall refuse" an application if he thinks that the registered name is likely to be confused by voters with that of another party.

Clause 10 provides the opportunity for the Speaker to appoint a committee of Members of Parliament to assist the registrar. As the clause clearly states, before the registrar decides, he may seek advice from a committee of Members of the House of Commons". It should be noted that the clause does not state that the registrar "must" or "shall" seek advice. We think that entirely reasonable, because not every application would require advice. The clause, however, does not state that the registrar must accept or act on such advice—although, arguably, he probably would. In any event, the key question is whether the process is likely to satisfy an aggrieved party whose application has been refused.

As was shown by the exchange between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset, it is reasonable to expect that the registrar would refer any contentious matter to the committee. That is clearly the intention, although the decision would still rest with the registrar rather than the committee. We think that an applicant should have a formal mechanism to allow an appeal to the committee if an application is rejected. Our purpose is essentially to make it clear that the applicant can insist that the matter be considered by the committee, with the guarantee that the committee could seek to influence the outcome.

Let me explain where we differ from the Liberal Democrats. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) alluded to this. On the basis of the exchange in Committee to which I have already referred, we expect the Minister to agree with us. The real question is where the final decision should rest. We think, on balance, that it should rest with the registrar rather than the committee, which is why the wording of our amendment differs slightly from both the wording of the Liberal Democrat amendment and that of the amendment that we proposed in Committee.

The House should bear it in mind that a registrar, person sole, can reach a decision. Decisions made by committees—especially Committees of the House of Commons—although free and open, cannot be guaranteed to produce clear-cut answers. We agree with what the Minister said in Committee: the final decision must rest with the registrar.

Our amendment is a sincere attempt to incorporate in the Bill the order of events that, as he intimated in Committee, the Minister expects will happen in practice. To be certain that that does happen in practice, we should make it clear in the Bill.

There is no mechanism in the Bill for a party that is unhappy at the registrar's decision to appeal or to take action against it. That could become extremely important for the Liberal Democrat party and for some of its former friends who masquerade as Liberals. If I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may refer to that point again on Third Reading, should we proceed to Third Reading tonight.

We are satisfied that a form of appeal would be a judicial review of the reasonableness of a registrar's decision. Such reviews are likely to be rare, not to mention expensive, which is a consideration for political parties that do not have much money. They would be even less likely if applicants could make formal representation to the Speaker's Committee. The House should seek to determine not whether our amendment is a good idea and a necessary addition—we believe it is—but whether it is worded correctly. The Minister has the choice of accepting amendment No. 3 or tabling a similar amendment when the Bill is considered in the other place.

It is disappointing that the Minister has not tabled his own amendment, given the exchange of views that took place in Committee between him and my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. For the reasons I have stated, we think that our amendment No. 3 is preferable to amendment No. 1. Amendment No. 2 addresses different issues, and is rather more elaborate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed for his explanation, because he confirmed that it does not deal with the key issue of the right to make representations if an application is refused. It is stretching it a bit to regard the rejection of an application as a deficiency in the system of registration.

We have considerable sympathy with one aspect of amendment No. 2—the need to ensure consistency of application and interpretation of this legislation by returning officers. We raised the issue of guidance in Committee. The Minister agreed that guidance was necessary, and said that it would be issued, but he would not include such a requirement in the Bill. That apart, I am not sure that amendment No. 2 adds very much. There will be a natural progression, and many of these matters will have to be revisited in future.

We firmly believe, having given this matter some considerable thought, that the Bill should provide applicants with a formal right to make representations to the Speaker's Committee if their application is rejected. I commend our amendment to the House.

Mr. George Howarth

As the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said, amendment No. 1 is identical to the amendment proposed in Committee, which was withdrawn by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) after the debate to which the hon. Member for Ryedale referred. I confirm that we had a fascinating debate, and that the Hansard report of that debate made even more fascinating reading.

In Committee, I said that I would review the matter. I have done that, and I have no doubt that we are right. I do not say that smugly, but simply because I am convinced, after giving the matter a great deal of thought, that ours is the right approach. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said, amendment No. 3 would have a similar effect, although it would achieve the ends by different means.

I can understand the reasons for seeking to provide some sort of appeal against a decision by the registrar not to register the proposed name or emblem of a particular party. I hope that I can persuade hon. Members that such a provision is unnecessary, however. If every aggrieved party decided to exercise such a right of appeal, it would simply give rise to unacceptable delay and bureaucracy in what is intended to be a straightforward and simple process.

It will be a matter for Madam Speaker to appoint the committee for which clause 10 provides, and I would expect it to consist of experienced hon. Members whose advice would be sought by the registrar when he faces a difficult judgment. In a difficult case in which the Speaker's Committee had advised the registrar that an application should be refused, there would be no point in providing a right of appeal to that committee, because to do so would be to ask it to consider an appeal against its own advice. That would be illogical and absurd.

In more straightforward cases in which the registrar refused an application without needing to refer it to the committee, to allow an appeal to the committee in every case would simply add to the delay.

Mr. Greenway

I hope that we can agree on this matter. We do not say that there would be a double reference to the Speaker's Committee. If it was clear to the person whose application had been refused that the Speaker's Committee had thoroughly considered all matters and had given advice, it is extremely unlikely that he would want to appeal again. Our key point is that the Bill does not provide the right to make representations at any time, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Howarth

The hon. Gentleman is in a difficulty because he and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed have said, I think, that one of the reasons for the two amendments is that they do not think that in all circumstances people will behave reasonably. However, the hon. Gentleman has just said that most people will behave reasonably.

Mr. Greenway

indicated dissent.

Mr. Howarth

I think that that was the import of what he said.

Mr. Oliver Letwin (West Dorset)

Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Howarth

I shall shortly give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I am anxious not to spend too long on this matter.

I think that the hon. Member for Ryedale was trying to argue that in most cases people will behave reasonably. The Bill's appeal procedure to allow people to seek advice from the Speaker's Committee is the most simple and straightforward way to resolve contentious issues. If, at the end of that process, someone still felt aggrieved—I accept that that may be possible—it would probably be because he was behaving unreasonably. If that were the case, why would we want to create yet another mechanism to take his grievance endlessly forward?

Mr. Letwin

Does not the Minister accept that the kernel of the matter is the possibility that the registrar will not take the same view as the applicant about the seriousness of the point, and may not refer the matter to the committee? As a result, the applicant may feel aggrieved and think that there is a prima facie case of unreasonableness. That would drive the whole process into a much worse corner in the form of judicial review, from which we hope to liberate the Minister by way of this innocuous amendment, which follows exactly the principles that he advanced in Committee.

10.30 pm

Mr. Howarth

What the hon. Gentleman is suggesting could lead, technically, to every decision made by the registrar becoming part of an appeal process. When temperatures were raised, there would be a strong incentive for that, and the process would get clogged up. In straightforward cases where the registrar refused an application without needing to refer it to the committee, there would inevitably be a delay in the process if an appeal were allowed in every case. If the registrar refuses an application, I believe that he will do so reasonably, having considered the case on its merits.

I hope that the House will agree that a committee of Members—reasonable people with a vast amount of experience of politics and the history of political parties—that has been established to provide the registrar with advice on the more difficult and contentious cases should not spend its time reviewing every application that has been refused by the registrar. The amendment could lead us down that path, even though that is not the intention. I stress that we would expect the registrar to refer any difficult cases to the committee for advice, and I shall make sure that he is well aware of that. I am confident that the concerns expressed in the House will be registered with the registrar.

In the unlikely event of the registrar's failing to refer a particular case to the committee and taking a manifestly unreasonable decision to refuse an application, it would be possible for the political party concerned to seek a judicial review on the basis that the registrar had acted so unreasonably that no reasonable person could have reached that view. I hope that that will not arise, although the possibility exists, for the reasons that I gave earlier.

An appeal mechanism as envisaged in the amendments is unnecessary. I therefore ask the right hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Before I deal with amendment No. 2, I shall respond to the point made by the right hon. Member about the vexatious issue of candidates' names, in the circumstances that he mentioned. At the last general election, injunctions were granted in the High Court against spoiler candidates using a similar name and intending to stand against, for example, the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon).

Whatever view the courts may take in future, only a candidate representing a registered political party will be able to use the party's name and emblem on the ballot paper. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that that will go a long way towards preventing confusion arising from the misuse of candidates' names. The courts set useful precedents in those two cases, and I hope that they would behave in a similarly reasonable manner in the future.

Amendment No. 2 would extend considerably the role of the Speaker's Committee, which is established by clause 10. It would give the committee some of the scrutiny functions which it might be more appropriate to consider for an electoral commission, were such a body to be established.

The idea of an electoral commission is not new. In 1993 the Labour party report of the working party on electoral systems, which was chaired by Lord Plant, recommended that an electoral commission should be established to oversee the entire electoral process. In my party's evidence to Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life in connection with its inquiry on party political funding, we proposed that an electoral commission should be established to oversee any controls to be imposed on party funding.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill is not a suitable legislative vehicle through which to establish such a commission. It would be sensible to await the outcome of Lord Neill's inquiry on party funding before we consider whether—and if so, how—such a body should or might be established. It would not be appropriate for the Speaker's Committee established under clause 10 to be charged with those additional scrutiny and oversight functions. I would worry slightly that Madam Speaker might be a little concerned if we were to go along that path at this stage in the proceedings.

On a point of detail, proposed subsection (1A)(b)(ii) in amendment No. 2 suggests that one of the roles of the committee should be to assist returning officers to exercise their judgment consistently, both over time and between different parts of the United Kingdom, when deciding under rule 6(A) whether a proposed candidate's description is misleading. I can confirm—this point was mentioned earlier—that we will be offering guidance to returning officers. We have already started discussions with representatives of returning officers and with Companies house on how that might be done.

In general terms, we expect that there will be a high degree of consistency in the decisions taken by returning officers and we all expect that there will be some misleading descriptions, the most obvious one being "Literal Democrat"—I see that the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders), who was on the receiving end of that, is present—which no returning officer would accept once the Bill came into force. I believe that the problem will be resolved.

We must accept that it is possible that a returning officer in one part of the country may, because of local factors, regard as misleading a description that may be acceptable in another area. There are different traditions and different labels that have meaning in some parts of the country but not in others. Also, as time goes by, there may be changes in what would seem likely to confuse voters in associating a candidate with a registered political party. I hope that the reassurance I have sought to give to the House provides answers to some of the questions that have been asked.

The committee to be established under clause 10 will be made up of hon. and possibly right hon. Members, who will be appointed by the Speaker and who will advise the registrar on the more difficult or contentious applications to register a name or emblem of a political party using the wide political experience that they will be able to offer. In those circumstances, it would not be helpful or desirable to seek to extend the role of the committee, as proposed by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, and I ask him not to press the amendment.

The hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) said that, as we go along and the new arrangements are implemented, a body of experience will build up. It is to be hoped that the arrangements will be robust enough to deal with that. Also, if there are any adjustments to be made along the way, we will have to consider them. I believe that we have taken everything reasonable into account and that we have the balance about right. I believe that any concerns will be covered by the arrangements. I hope that the House will accept that.

Mr. Beith

I seek to intervene because the Minister has not dealt with one of the points I raised which concerned the comments in Committee. Those comments seem to give some authoritative ruling on the use of words associated with a particular political party—identifying "Tory" as a word to be protected but not identifying "Liberal" in the same way. I hope that the Minister will recognise that, just as he said, the returning officers and the registrar will have to work through these matters—we will have to see how the system develops—and that they should be able to do so free from any imputation that they have to regard the Minister's words in Committee as determining what they decide.

Mr. Howarth

I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. I know that he has written to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about that issue in a letter dated 8 August—[Interruption.] I mean 8 July. Such is my desire to be on holiday, that I am jumping ahead of myself. The right hon. Gentleman will receive a reply to his letter after the Bill completes its later stages.

I think I made it clear in Committee that the Government have no desire to try to choke off a future application by the Liberal Democrats, and that such applications will be for the registrar to consider. However, I do not believe that the Bill is intended to prevent already existing parties from registering. I used the example "Tory" because, so far as I am aware, no party other than the Conservative party is known as or understood to be the Tory party. I thought that that would be a useful example.

The difficulty for the Liberal Democrats is that another existing party, although not represented in the House, is known as the Liberal party—as the Liberal Democrats were known originally. However, I do not intend to go into the labyrinthine developments over the years of the Liberal party, the Social Democratic party and the other variants of that name and party. Although I realise the Liberal Democrats' difficulty, I do not think that it is the job of this Bill or of the House to deal with it.

Potentially, the Labour party has the same difficulty, as a party that is usually associated with Mr. Arthur Scargill is called the Socialist Labour party. As I said on a previous occasion, that party fielded a candidate against me at the general election, although—I am pleased to say—it did not do very well. Nevertheless, "Labour" appears in its title. As I represent an entirely different set of politics to Mr. Arthur Scargill and his party—

Mr. Bob Russell (Colchester)

You used not to.

Mr. Howarth

I did, as I am sure Mr. Arthur Scargill would be the first to attest. Although I represent an entirely different set of politics to him and his party, I recognise their right to exist and to contest elections.

There are other contentious issues. I realise that the Liberal Democrats have genuine concerns that they will want to deal with, but the Bill is not the vehicle for doing that.

With those—I hope reasonable—assurances, I hope that the Liberal Democrats will feel that it is unnecessary to press their amendment.

Mr. Beith

I am glad to hear the Minister's recognition that it will be for the registrar and returning officers to deal with some of the difficult problems without being bound by his reflections—as interesting though they are—on them.

I was not convinced by the Minister's arguments on amendment No. 2—such as the argument that the Speaker's Committee would somehow be an inappropriate body to deal with these matters. He said that it is likely that the committee will be composed of hon. Members who are experienced in these matters, capable of giving a very useful steer to the registrar on difficult cases, and, therefore, presumably capable of reflecting on whether the whole system is working well or badly. Although the Minister chooses not to extend the mandate in that direction, I still think it would have been useful to do so.

I welcome the Minister's continuing interest in the concept of an electoral commission. I am sure that that issue will come up again after the new report, and that we shall be pursuing it. As amendment No. 2 is not the first amendment in the group, I do not have to make a decision on whether to withdraw it. However, we think that some of the issues that the amendment raises will have to be reviewed.

An electoral commission will not be established in time to deal with the issue in the first lot of elections that will be fought after the Bill is passed. Therefore, they will all be dealt with by the Home Office, as they always have been. I am not sure that that is an ideal solution.

I am disappointed that the Minister did not come up with some alternative to amendment No. 3, which deals with appeals. He said in Committee that he did not feel that there was an obvious alternative appellate body that could be brought into play. If one accepts his argument that the committee is somehow debarred from this role because it may have given the advice in the first place, we should look for an alternative body.

I do not think that one can ever dismiss the case for an appeals body on the grounds that everyone might appeal. If we adopted that argument, there would be no appeals mechanisms in any of the systems for which the Home Office is responsible. I know that the Minister's colleagues are rather weighed down by the appeals being made under immigration and asylum law. The Home Office is coming up with useful proposals to streamline the system, but that does not advance the principle that there can be no appeals system because too many people might use it. That is not the argument to advance.

Conscious of the fact that we have not yet hit on the ideal solution, and hoping that another place might look rather carefully at the matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.