Lords Sitting of 5 November 1998

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lichfield.

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before business begins, I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to the Crown and county courts in Bristol tomorrow, Friday 6th November. I shall also be attending the opening of the new Public Record Office Data Archive at the University of London with Her Royal Highness the Princess Royal on Monday 9th November when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

European Union: Prevention of Fraud
3.7 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke Lord Willoughby de Broke asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied that the European Union's satellite aid programmes are subject to sufficient financial control to prevent fraud.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the Government are very concerned at recent allegations of fraud within the Commission, notably in the EC Humanitarian Office (ECHO). We are strongly in favour of fighting fraud inside Community institutions by the most effective machinery that can be devised. The Commission's anti-fraud unit takes the lead in fraud investigations. The Government strongly support measures to improve the effectiveness of the anti-fraud unit.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for her reply. However, is the noble Baroness aware that, first, UCLAF—I believe that it is the unit to which she referred; namely, the anti-fraud unit—is itself the subject of a deeply critical report by the European Court of Auditors which was published in July of this year? First, I do not believe that the Government can rely on UCLAF to safeguard funds distributed through ECHO, which has been shown to be deeply flawed. Secondly, is the Minister aware that the British taxpayer in 1997 contributed £46 million to the ECHO pot? Does the Minister agree that that money might be better spent and more wisely accounted for if it were distributed unilaterally rather than through the highly dubious channel of ECHO, or any other European agency?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said in my original Answer, we take a very serious view of the matter. Indeed, we have always been in the vanguard of member
366
states who are working to ensure financial propriety. In fact, the Government have consistently supported measures to improve financial management within the EC. In particular, we supported the measures to strengthen the role of the European Court of Auditors which were agreed at Amsterdam last year. We are in fact committed to our aid being channelled through a number of sources. We work in partnership—it is one of the factors most strongly outlined in last year's White Paper—with a number of institutions.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I welcome the statement by the Minister that the Government are determined to tackle financial irregularity in the European Union. However, can my noble friend tell us whether the Government believe that ECHO is making a positive contribution to international humanitarian work?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her question. As I said, the Government are keen for fraud to be dealt with both promptly and effectively. But, yes, ECHO is a major provider of humanitarian assistance and has made an effective contribution to humanitarian programmes in many parts of the world. We believe that considerable progress has been made in the past year to ensure that ECHO's assistance is provided in a well-targeted and principled manner. We shall continue to support and encourage that process.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether immunity from prosecution will be lifted from Commission employees who may be implicated in either irregularities or fraud, so that they can be prosecuted in one of the EC countries?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, a criminal investigation into the missing ecus is being separately undertaken by the Public Prosecutor's Office in Luxembourg. There has also been a call for the establishment of an anti-fraud office which is independent of the Commission. We await the outcome of both processes with interest.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister take into account not only the recent reports which point to a considerable amount of fraud and irregularity within the Commission's structure itself, but also the necessity for an immediate overhaul of the financial regulations by virtue of which an endeavour is made at Commission level to control such matters? Will my noble friend emphasise to the Government the necessity for an urgent examination—and I mean "urgent"—of the financial regulations, which are at present in a form which facilitates fraud rather than preventing it?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as I said earlier, the Government have consistently supported measures to improve financial management within the EC. This was one of the areas in which we took a lead during our presidency of the European Union.
Baroness Ludford: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that much of the fraud in the use of European money occurs, sadly, in national administrations, unfortunately particularly in the farming sector, but that in those cases the requirement for unanimous voting in the Council of Ministers has often blocked serious anti-fraud measures? It is therefore inconsistent for those who want to tackle fraud in the use of European Union money to resist the use of majority voting to get anti-fraud measures accepted.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness has widened the Question considerably. I am unable to address the specific area of farming that she mentioned. We are not aware of fraud in any other European development programmes other than the ones that I have already mentioned. If I can assist the noble Baroness further I shall write to her.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on the first occasion she has answered Questions at the Dispatch Box. With regard to the question about humanitarian aid asked by the noble Baroness on the Benches opposite, is the Minister aware that at present NGOs which are applying to the European Commission for funding for humanitarian aid are not receiving a reply either in the affirmative or the negative? There is something wrong; the whole system seems to be rather bogged down. Is the Minister aware of that problem, and if she is able to do so will she try to obtain responses with regard to this badly needed humanitarian aid?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her kind words of welcome. I am not aware of NGOs experiencing particular problems in the area that she identified. However, I shall investigate the matter and write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble friend on her elevation to answering Questions in this House. I am particularly pleased to hear that the Government wish to strengthen the hand of the Court of Auditors. Is the Minister aware that Mr. Bernhard Friedmann, the President of the Court of Auditors, has recently criticised M. Santer and the Commission for delaying for four years information which would have enabled the Court of Auditors to examine this fraud in the ECHO system? Do the Government have any plans to make representation to the Commission to be more open and more honest in its dealings in the future?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, as far as I am aware the Commission agreed to release the documents relating to this matter for European parliamentary scrutiny. We have supported the measures to increase transparency. However, it is important to recognise that nothing can be done at this stage which would prejudice the early completion of the present investigations.

Medical Treatment: Right of Refusal
3.16 p.m.
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is the position of adults or parents of children who refuse treatment for themselves or their children recommended by their general medical practitioner or consultant when there is no imminent risk to life.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, it is a general principle of law and medical practice that any adult person with the mental capacity to make a valid decision has the right to choose whether or not to accept medical treatment. A child of any age with the mental capacity to consent to medical treatment is entitled to do so without parental involvement. Where a child has refused medical treatment either the parent or the court may override the refusal where treatment would be in the child's best interests. When there is a dispute between a child and parent a reference should be made to the court. Where the child does not have the capacity to make the decision, the person with parental responsibility may do so on the child's behalf. If parental refusal was not considered to be in the child's best interest, the medical practitioner would need to refer the matter to the court if he or she considered the medical treatment to be necessary.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that full Answer. Is she aware that there is a growing list of children diagnosed as suffering from ME who are being placed by social services on the at risk register? Is she aware of the enormous trauma this causes in families, which is not good for children suffering from ME, and the fact that some of the children are being forced into psychiatric hospitals for treatment which many practitioners agree is not the right treatment for ME?
In the light of the decision by the High Court Queen's Bench Division on 15th October 1998 that referrals by community physicians to social services are illegal; that the use of Section 47 of the Children Act in these cases is also unlawful; and that parents should have the right to choose treatment for their children, will the Minister now instruct social services and all those physicians dealing with these children in the current state of the law and enable parents once more to exercise their right to consent? Will she also consider whether it is appropriate to lift the restrictions imposed by the court on the Olie family?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as regards the final point, the House will understand if I do not comment on a particular case, especially where the child in question is a ward of court. It would not be appropriate so to do.
The noble Countess referred to a number of cases. I am aware that there has been controversy around the treatment of certain children and young adults suffering from ME/chronic fatigue syndrome. This is an area where treatment is a matter of controversy. The working

369
group announced by the Chief Medical Officer, the membership of which was made public yesterday and which has a specific sub-group on the treatment of children, will, it is to be hoped, help to provide some clarity in this area.
Regarding the High Court judgment, to which the noble Countess referred, it would be for colleagues at the department which has responsibility in these areas to examine the judgment carefully to see whether it is appropriate to offer advice to social services departments.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply to the Question. Clearly, the issue of consent gives rise to a number of difficulties in many cases. Will the Minister comment on whether she believes that the balance of law was correct in the case of the St. George's Healthcare Trust involving a caesarean section where a mother was entitled to refuse a caesarean even at risk to the life of her unborn child? Will she say whether or not, in the light of that case, the Department of Health plans to amend its guidance on consent?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall avoid giving my views on the correctness of the judgment. In the past there has been controversy over compulsory caesarean treatment. Courts have recently clarified the position in a number of cases. It has been made absolutely clear that mentally competent women in labour have the same right in common law to give or refuse consent to treatment as any other patient. In such cases the court does not have jurisdiction to declare medical intervention lawful and the question of best interest does not arise. In such cases, if a woman refuses consent to a caesarean section, a declaration of the High Court is required to decide whether or not it is lawful to carry out such treatment. The department issued guidance summarising court rulings in these areas and the principles were expanded earlier this year. We shall be conveying those expanded principles to the NHS.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, does the Minister agree that ME/chronic fatigue syndrome is not a psychiatric condition as such but is more usually multi-factorial, and that psychiatric symptoms can have physical causes just as physical symptoms can have psychiatric causes?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, just as I do not pretend to be a lawyer, nor shall I pretend to be a doctor. Certainly, the issues referred to by the noble Earl are of deep concern to patients and to carers of those suffering very distressing conditions. It is important that their views are well understood. That is why, in the membership of the working groups on ME in both adults and children, we have taken great care to reflect a broad range of professional and patient opinion.

Chile: Relations
3.24 p.m.
Lord Moynihan Lord Moynihan asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current assessment of relations between the United Kingdom and Chile.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, before my noble friend replies to the noble Lord's Question, perhaps I may remind your Lordships that the House in its judicial capacity is hearing an appeal in the matter of the requested extradition of Senator Pinochet. The matter is therefore sub judice and under the rules of the House no reference should be made to the case.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I refer noble Lords to the Answer that I gave to the House on 28th October. We are continuing to work hard to make sure that the detention of Senator Pinochet does not affect our healthy relationship. We have long, historical ties and a strong trade and investment relationship with Chile. UK exports to Chile reached a record high of £210 million in 1997. The Chilean Foreign Minister, Señor Insulza, visited London in October 1997. My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis, then Trade Minister, and my honourable friend Tony Lloyd, the Minister of State, have both recently made successful visits to Chile. Our relations with Chile are cordial. They are based on dialogue and co-operation on a wide range of political, economic and other issues of mutual interest.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, adhering strictly to a "nil by mouth" policy on matters that are sub judice, will the Minister tell the House in what way the comments of the Minister of State for Trade and Industry, Peter Mandelson, during the BBC "Breakfast with Frost" programme on 18th October represent government policy? Furthermore, what is the Minister's reaction to the criticism by the Chilean Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister that the Government's updated advice on travel to Chile is not the best way to avoid a political escalation of the situation and that it paves the way for the interpretation that the advice further damages Anglo-Chilean relations?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my right honourable friend Mr. Mandelson expressed a personal opinion, as I understand have many Members of the Opposition. I recall that in this House last week the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford reminded us of some of the difficulties in regard to what has happened in Chile in the past. That must not be confused with the important point that this process is in the hands of the judicial authorities, and has been from the start. The issue is one that will be dealt with by the legal process, not political processes.
The noble Lord asked specifically about travel advice regarding Chile. It is the FCO's duty to advise British citizens travelling abroad as to their safety. Our advice

371
in relation to Chile was reviewed on 2nd November in the light of the situation prevailing in Santiago and elsewhere in Chile. We must alert British nationals to the difficulties that they may experience when they travel abroad. We hope, of course, to be able to review the travel advice again soon to reflect the easy and untroubled travel that most Britons normally experience when visiting Chile.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, does the Minister agree that Chile has made a remarkable transition to democracy, a transition in which that country has consistently upheld the rule of law within the country, and that it has brought about a remarkable diminution in levels of poverty? Does Chile not deserve our applause for that remarkable achievement over the past few years?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, yes. I can agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness's remarks. The United Kingdom and Chile see eye to eye on many issues, including those around social justice and the free market. Chile is a valued partner on the world stage. I believe that those sentiments have been reflected in the discussions held recently by my honourable friend Mr. Lloyd with Señor Fernandez. Indeed, the discussions that my noble friend Lord Williams had with a number of Chilean senators only last week were of a constructive and helpful nature. I believe that during those discussions United Kingdom Ministers were able to explain to Chilean counterparts the position regarding the legal process in this country, and that has been fully understood.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is the Minister aware that during the visit that I made to Chile to which she referred a number of Ministers in the Chilean Government expressed their great appreciation of the help and sustenance that were offered to refugees and people in exile during the dark days in Chile by the Labour Party? They felt that that was a great help in enhancing what has been a very good trading relationship between our two countries since the Labour Government took office.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that the warm approach which is fundamental to the way in which Her Majesty's Government and Chile normally carry on their relations is a characteristic that will inform our general relationship.
On the issue of commercial relationships, our position in regard to Chile is strong. Our exports last year were at a record high. Chile is the UK's third largest market in South America, after Brazil and Argentina. We hope that that trading position will continue to improve.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, is the Minister aware that most people in this country cannot understand how the President was invited to this country, given VIP treatment by the Foreign Office and
372
subsequently arrested? Would it not have been better for the Foreign Office to have advised the President not to come to this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, perhaps I may put this matter straight. The President was not invited to this country. He came on a private visit. That position was also the case under the previous administration.
Lord Shepherd: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene at this point. Noble Lords should take note of the warning given by the Leader of the House. The matter is being considered at this very moment within this building. Without being critical of many of the questions put, I suspect that some have touched upon what could be considered matters of influence, in particular as I understand that the noble and learned Lords of the Appellate Committee are themselves taking evidence in this case. I strongly advise the House to leave the matter to another day. We can return to it once the Law Lords have reached their decision.

Dyslexia among Prisoners
3.30 p.m.
Lord Addington Lord Addington asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to recognise dyslexia among the adult prison population.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, we were much too prompt in stopping the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, from intervening. I am sorry that we did so. I understand that he simply wished to congratulate my noble friend. We were in the wrong—on that occasion.
I had the opportunity of speaking to the Dyspel conference on Tuesday. Dyspel was set up to explore and address the relationship between dyslexia and offending, and I am pleased to support the essential work that it is undertaking.
The Prison Service is taking a number of steps to recognise dyslexia among the adult population in terms of research, development and current and future practice. It will be issuing advice by the end of this year on screening prisoners for dyslexia.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that, if we are to deal with the problem within the prison population, of which it is thought that up to 50 per cent. may be suffering from dyslexia, help must be given in a way that is suitable to adults who are in prison? Giving help which is based on school assessment and teaching may merely accentuate any feelings of isolation or resentment towards the system.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord makes an extremely important point. The guidance on screening will be in place for those in the dispersal

373
prison regime by 1st January 1999. One needs to remember, however, that there are many juveniles in custody who also have problems. That is a significant matter which we must address with great care.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that many dyslexic school children do not receive enough help and remedial teaching and therefore drop out of school and turn to crime through frustration and boredom? The level of those who have dropped out in young offenders' institutions is very high. Could the Department of Education and the Home Office work together in looking at the problem?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we believe that that is central. We cannot fragment the Prison Service from the Probation Service and the rest of the criminal justice system and from mainstream education. There has unfortunately been a misapprehension in the past that dyslexic children are dull or stupid, and that has caused them to lose heart. They are not dull or stupid; they have special needs which must be attended to.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that the connection between the frustration of intelligent people in school at their failure to progress has been established as a link with offending, that the link between that and dyslexia is obvious and that the progress of the programme which he proposes is therefore urgent? Can he tell us whether resources will he available to guarantee sufficient out-of-cell time to make it effective?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with the proposition made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The STOP research project, which was run by Shropshire Probation Service, discovered that, of a large number of those who had learning difficulties, including dyslexia, in one study 90 per cent. had truanted from school at some time, 64 per cent. habitually. I stress the importance that we attach to this matter. The screening guidance in the dispersal regime will be available to governors not later than 1st January next year.
Lord Henley: My Lords, as one of those classed as hopeless by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, perhaps I may put a question to the noble Lord. Does he agree that funding is of crucial importance in terms of tackling dyslexia in prisons? Does he, therefore, also agree that it was unfortunate that last year the Prisons Minister announced a cut in funding from some £1,774 million to some £1,733 million? I accept that since then the noble Lord has announced an increase in funding of some £200 million. Is that an increase on the previous figure or on the higher figure, or is it an increase on the figure that we would have announced had we remained in office, which would have been a figure larger than that announced by the Government?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not know what figure the noble Lord would have announced had he still been in government. On past form—if I may use that phrase in this context—it would probably have been a
374
reduction. As has already been announced, we are providing an increase of £226 million for prison regimes and, in particular, proper directorates of regimes which will deliver focused, useful benefit to those in prison. It is undoubted, as I think all your Lordships will agree, that there is a distinct connection between poor levels of literacy and numeracy, and therefore poor performance in the job market, and the prospect of re-offending.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I welcome the Minister's reply. Does he agree with Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons that rarely have adequate needs analyses been undertaken of prison education? Would he consider it appropriate to set up monitoring machinery at every prison reception so that dyslexia is identified at an early stage? The sooner it is identified, the sooner it can be dealt with.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, is quite right. The reference I made to instructions being given to governors in the dispersal estate by 1st January 1999 dealt with precisely this point. Dyslexia needs to be identified at the induction stage, which is when the screening is intended to occur. I am glad to say that, not for the first time, we are both in complete agreement.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I must declare an interest as the father of a dyslexic and therefore, genetically, in part to blame. Is the Minister aware that, while dyslexia affects between 5 per cent. and 10 per cent. of children, it affects 52 per cent. of prisoners? Does that discrepancy suggest that the Dyspel report is correct in saying that dyslexia is a factor in offending behaviour in a significant proportion of offenders?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that he recognises that the hereditary principle is not immaculate. There are different views about the proportions. Dyspel has one view; other research has another, which we need to evaluate. However, there is no doubt in the mind of anyone who has studied these matters that there is a connection between failure educationally, for whatever cause, and the drift into crime and re-offending.
Lord Addington: My Lords, as the figure for re-offending once people have got into the prison system is much lower for those who are in work than for those who are without work, is there not a strong case for pump-priming this project to ensure that more dyslexics can gain literacy and therefore become employable, thus ultimately not only cutting crime rates but also saving the Treasury considerable sums of money?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there is no doubt about the link between lack of employment on release from prison and re-offending and re-conviction rates. We are pump-priming very significantly. The figure of £226 million is a vast improvement on anything that could formerly have been contemplated. Some of that money will go to improved educational regimes and targets.

Utting Report: Response
3.38 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"In November last year the Government published the Utting Report which reviewed the safeguards for children in care. In my Statement to the House I made clear that the report painted a woeful picture of failure. Many children who had been 'taken into care' to protect and help them had received neither protection nor help. Instead they had been abused and molested. Many more had been let down, never given the attention they needed, shifted from place to place, school to school, and often simply turned out to fend for themselves when they turned 16.
"This was not just a failure by the care staff directly concerned. It was a failure by social services managers, councils, councillors, the police, the criminal justice system, schools, voluntary organisations, neighbours, the news media, the Government's social services inspectorate, government departments, Ministers and Parliament. Some people from all these institutions and in all these categories had worked hard to do a good job for these children. But too many had not. The whole system had failed.
"Last November I reported to the House that the Prime Minister had asked me to lead a ministerial task force to draw up the Government's response to the children's safeguards review. The task force involved Ministers from 10 government departments together with outside representatives from social services, education, the police and the voluntary sector. It also included a young woman who had recently been through the care system. She made some most valuable contributions to our deliberations and provided salutary reminders of the real world in which some children are being expected to grow up. I am grateful to her and all the other members of the task force for their positive contributions to the work of developing a comprehensive and practical set of measures.
"In July this year the Health Select Committee strongly endorsed the need for action. Its report covered some aspects not the subject of the Utting Report. The Government will be making a full response to the Select Committee after the publication of our White Paper on social services.
"Today I am publishing the report of the task force. It sets out the practical measures it has proposed and which the Government have accepted. We want to make sure that in future children in care are looked after properly and get a decent start in life. We started from a recognition that if the whole system had failed these children, then the whole system had to be put right. Tinkering with a few aspects was not enough.
376
"Throughout our deliberations I asked everyone involved to look at things from the point of view of the children and to ask, 'Would this have been good enough for me when I was a child?' or 'Would this be good enough for my own children?' And that is what the task force has tried to do. As a result, our proposals are intended to ensure that those responsible, at any level, for children in care behave towards them as any good parent tries to behave towards their own children.
"With this in mind, the Government are implementing the recommendations of the task force. We have already launched a three-year programme called Quality Protects. Its job is to transform the care system for children by setting clear objectives and targets, putting action plans in place and measuring whether those targets have been met. It also provides new guidance to strengthen the hand of conscientious elected local councillors. That will call for joined-up government—all government departments, local authorities, the criminal justice system, schools, the police and voluntary organisations working together towards a common goal with clear targets and a demanding timetable. There can be no more excuses. All this cannot be done for nothing. So today I can announce that we are establishing a new children's services grant which will provide an extra £375 million over the next three years to help fund the improvements which are necessary.
"To stop potential child abusers from working with children we are establishing a new criminal records agency to improve and widen access to police checks on people wishing to work with children. This is a first step towards a 'one stop shop' which will be able to give employers access to police records and the separate lists kept by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health. The present system is a confusing mess which denies an elementary protection for the children concerned.
"The present law provides that councils have a duty to children while they are in care up to the age of 16 and a discretionary power to help them up to the age of 18 when they leave care. As a result, some unfortunate children are turned out at the age of 16, with little or no help after that. That cannot be right.
"So that the task force could consider the question of when young children should leave care, and how they should be helped to do it when they do. I insisted that my officials produce a paper which spelled out what parents usually provide for members of an ordinary family between the ages of 16 and 18 or 21. Can I ask Members of the House to think for a minute about when they were between 16 and 21? Or what we did or are doing for our own children in that age group? And now can we think about having to do any of that? No home to live in or return to. No shoulder to cry on. No encouragement to do our work at school or college. No morale boosting chat before an interview nor anyone to console us if it went badly. No one to give us a lift, or to make us a meal. Nowhere to get our washing done for nothing. No

377
mother or father to touch us for a tenner when we are skint. The list is endless. And it is a disgrace. It is just wrong. And this Government are going to change it.
"We will change the law to extend the duty of care for these young people from 16 up to the age of 18 and ensure that councils' responsibilities up to 18 and beyond correspond more closely with those accepted by any good parent. And that includes trying to keep in touch with children after they have left home.
"We are taking steps to ensure better school attendance by children in care and setting targets so that they achieve more at school than they do at present. We are taking steps and setting targets to reduce the number of children exposed to a succession of placements every year and to make sure that those placements are more suitable. We are taking action to increase the number of foster parents through new recruitment campaigns. We will also increase the skills of foster parents by providing new funds for training and by establishing a code of practice and national standards for foster care.
"We propose to bring all children's homes, whatever their size, and residential schools and independent fostering agencies within a new and more effective regulatory system, with simpler and faster action against schools and children's homes with unacceptable standards.
"We are taking steps to monitor and safeguard better the welfare of children in hospitals, nursing homes and hospices and improve the health of children in care, including their mental health. We are changing local government law and practice to bring about across-the-board improvements in services for children in care or with special needs. In future the whole local authority will have to accept its responsibilities for supporting them.
"The voice of the children involved has been ignored for too long. We will improve the arrangements for whistleblowing and fund a new group to provide a national voice for children in care and those formerly in care.
"We are taking steps to ensure that children in court as witnesses get better protection and children who are detained are kept separate from adults.
"These are just some of the major measures which the Government are starting to put in place. Many others are set out in the report. It will take time to thrash out the details of some; others will depend upon the availability of parliamentary time. But action is already under way.
"The task force report covers England and Wales and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales shares my commitment to its implementation. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is today publishing a separate response to the Kent Report which covered the same issues in Scotland.
"Finally, I should like to make clear that many dedicated people are doing a good job looking after vulnerable children living away from home. It is never an easy task and we owe them our thanks. But
378
that is not all we owe them. We owe it to them and to all the children in care to root out and punish the wrongdoers and to put in place a system which really cares for children in care. Vulnerable children are the responsibility of us all. In the past the whole system failed. We intend to make sure that in future the whole system delivers".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.47 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, from these Benches I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. The issues addressed by Sir William Utting in his report are of the most serious and disturbing kind. We welcome the importance that the Government have attached to considering Sir William's recommendations, both in depth and inter-departmentally. The previous government commissioned the report in June 1996 in the face of widespread reports of abused children in care. When it was published almost a year ago, I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, that the Opposition would support any fair and workable proposals which Ministers chose to bring forward to address the fundamental shortcomings in the care system which the report exposed. I repeat that assurance today.
I welcome in particular the establishment of a new criminal records agency as a precursor to setting up a one stop shop for employers wishing to verify the backgrounds of those who apply to work with children. Can the Minister tell us what is the timetable for setting up that one stop shop? It is widely felt that there should be a single, readily accessible database—a single blacklist, if I can put it that way—to prevent the sadly all too common phenomenon of unsuitable individuals, sometimes people with criminal convictions, moving from one institution and being employed by another.
I have one or two further questions to put to the Minister. The Statement announces additional funding in the form of a special grant for children's services of £375 million over three years. Can the Minister say whether this is new money, or is it funded by a reduction in the social services SSA in the revenue support grant settlement? If it is not the latter, is it simply an allocation of money already announced within the totals of the comprehensive spending review?
My second question relates to local autonomy. We entirely accept the need for the setting of national standards to ensure the safety of children living away from home, but we also believe that local authorities should retain the autonomy to develop service provision to meet local needs. The risk of centralising any function is overprescriptiveness. It is right and proper that local councillors should be held responsible for the quality of the service they oversee. But alongside that, and within a framework of national safety standards, they must also be able to exercise discretion in implementing the delivery of a locally appropriate service. In other words, local authorities should not become merely an agent of the Secretary of State in the delivery of children's services to meet the targets which he will be setting.
The Statement makes no mention of Sir William Utting's recommendation that the rights and responsibilities of parents should be defined in primary

379
legislation. My understanding is that the Home Secretary is reviewing that issue, but the recent Green Paper on the family made no mention of it. Can the Minister say whether this recommendation has been rejected by the Government?
Finally, can the Minister confirm that the announcement of a new and more effective regulatory system will include an inspectorate that is dedicated to children's services, or is it intended that there should be a broader, all-encompassing inspectorate with a wider remit? Can she say also whether the inspectorate, if it is to be set up, will be a nationally based system?
I recognise, as the Statement does, that the measures the Government have announced, which we broadly support, are aimed at a very small number of individuals—rotten apples in the system—and that the vast majority of those who work with children in care homes, boarding schools and other environments away from home are skilled, dedicated and of unquestionable integrity. The task now is to ensure that a robust system is set up which identifies the rotten apples at the earliest possible moment. From these Benches, we will follow the new initiatives in a constructive spirit. We wish them well.
3.52 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating this important Statement which introduces the Government's response to the Utting Report. Both the report a year ago and the Government's response today are substantial documents which undoubtedly provide blueprints for the future to reduce the mess to which the Statement refers.
Earlier this week we were being asked to consider more abstract questions of supporting family life. The problems being addressed today are the all too real problems of the state's response when family life breaks down or really does not exist at all and local authorities have to step in to take over parental responsibility. I welcome the suggested response of asking in almost every situation whether this would be good enough for our own children. Children who go into care following abuse of whatever type are particularly vulnerable. They must be protected from further abuse if damaged children are not to become damaged adults creating problems, generation after generation.
I welcome the safeguards proposed in the recruitment of those who work with children and the elementary precautions which must be taken to ensure that those who are manifestly unsuitable go nowhere near children's homes or foster care situations. In that context, it is noticeable that the Statement does not mention training, particularly the training of those who work in children's homes or residential care situations. That clearly needs investment in staff and in training.
I welcome the attention paid to 16 to 21 year-olds. We all know that family life does not dissolve when children leave home, or leave school at 16, or when they become legally adult. I welcome the extension of the statutory duty for children under the Children Act to the
380
age of 18, although I cannot help wondering what in practice the reality will be in the absence of proper resources.
At the beginning of the care process, since the Children Act the courts have played their part in ensuring that care proceedings are dealt with quickly, a responsibility which both the courts and family lawyers take seriously. The difficulty is that once the court makes the order the court has no further function or responsibility. The court makes an order on the basis of a local authority care plan which it has to accept. It has no ability to review cases when care plans are not put into operation. I suggest that there is now a need for serious consideration to be given to giving the courts some ability to review care plans after a year if they have not been put into operation.
There is a recognition that all too often lack of resources means that children are exposed to a series of short-term placements. One of the most depressing features of dealing with child care cases is that, even by the time the case comes to court, a child may have been in two, three, four or even more placements before a decision is made. Even then, more placements are likely before a final placement for that child is found. That places an enormous burden on foster carers and defers and hampers what the Statement refers to as a decent start in life. Can the Minister say whether attention will be paid to the recruitment and retention of foster parents, who must be amazingly demoralised if they see that all the hard work they put in comes to nothing if a final placement cannot be found?
We hear about children's homes when things go wrong and we must await the North Wales inquiry with some foreboding. But, as the Minister said, a great deal goes right. However, putting children into homes must be a last resort. It is disappointing that the Statement is silent on the question of adoption services. It is disappointing that the Government have left the adoption Bill on the shelf where it was placed by the previous government. The most precious untapped resources for children in care are those who are willing and able to adopt children. I hope that the Government will heed the initiatives of the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.
3.59 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome of both noble Lords for the broad principles set out in the Statement. I shall certainly try to reply to the issues they raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the issue of national standards as against local autonomy. A balance has to be struck. In the past, too many services provided locally for children have not been adequate and have fallen below minimum standard. Too many children have suffered as a result. We therefore believe that we need a tightly monitored system in which there is central support and direction and funding. But there must also be a balance with regard to local decision making so that local authorities can decide on the changes appropriate in their areas and can listen locally to the voice of children in their areas. That is an important theme running through the response.

381
The noble Earl referred to the £375 million. This is new money which is ring-fenced grant in terms of the children's grant and is part of the total announced in the comprehensive spending review, as in the case of many other aspects. That money is for the children's plans and part of the Quality Protects programme, but all the other financial repercussions have been funded as part of the comprehensive spending review. Referring to the inspectorate, I must ask the noble Earl to be patient until the social services White Paper is published. That document will provide the details as to that. In addition, a circular will be published quite soon on the targeting of the special grant.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised a number of issues. He referred to the training and vetting of staff who work in children's homes. This is an enormously important area which must be tackled at both national and local level. This is an area to which we shall be devoting resources and attention as part of the implementation. The noble Lord also highlighted the importance of foster parents. We shall be initiating a campaign to recruit more foster parents and to give them more support and better training. We must recognise that sometimes we ask people to do very difficult jobs in these areas. It is hoped that both initiatives will help to reduce the number of placements to which children are subjected.
I deal next with the establishment of a criminal records agency. We are anxious to get on with that as soon as possible in order to improve and widen access to checks. The whole issue of the categories of people beyond those with criminal records that we do not wish to work with children is an extremely difficult one. This matter is being considered at the moment by an inter-departmental group. It is also looking at the question of abuse of trust. We hope that that will report by the end of the year so that we can see how to make progress.
It is also important that we make progress on the so far somewhat patchy implementation of the recommendations on recruitment and selection made in Choosing with Care. As soon as parliamentary time is available we want to put the consultancy index that lists social services personnel—rather than Department of Health or DfEE personnel—who are unsuitable to work with children on a statutory basis to make sure that it is an effective bar to employment and to put in place an appeals mechanism.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will not under-estimate the welcome that awaits the determination in this field. The report of Sir William Utting and the Government's policy—if they can bring it off—will be a landmark in the history of childcare. I hope that she will also not under-estimate the difficulty of what is being undertaken, particularly in the area of what is popularly known as joined-up government, which used to be called partnership. I cannot help recalling with a poignant pang the death of Maria Colwell about 20 years ago which was attributed to a failure in joined-up government or, as it was then called, communication between the voluntary and
382
statutory sectors. It is a nettle that people have been trying to grasp ever since. If the Government are successful their achievement will be hugely welcomed.
The difficulty arises in part from the different languages that practitioners in various fields speak and the differing objectives set by their governing bodies. An important element is the training of all practitioners in a common language. That best starts as the Government's approach has started, from the position of the child so that everyone speaks from the same standpoint.
The subject of the child brings one to the essential element which government cannot introduce: compassion. A government can provide incentives, resources and administration. But what is essential to the growth of a healthy and (be it added) non-criminal child is love. Therefore, one must attract into the system not people who are looking for jobs but people with a vocation. That must be remembered in the recruitment programme.
With regard to selection, I should like to ask one question of the noble Baroness that is of particular interest to me and the DIVERT Trust which I chair. She said that there would be access to information about the criminal records and perhaps other characteristics of employees who might work with children. Can she now give an assurance—if not, can she strive to ensure that such an assurance is given—that that information will also be available to voluntary bodies who appoint volunteers they train but whom they do not pay or employ to take on equally responsible work?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in his last point the noble Lord raises an important area. We must carefully work out the methods of implementation and the implications particularly for the voluntary sector which, as he points out, is extremely important. That is one of the issues now being considered by the inter-departmental working group, led by the Home Office, on preventing unsuitable people from working with children. We will need to consider that matter when the group reports. But I am aware of the wider concerns than simply those relating to people in paid employment. We are all aware of cases where abuse has taken place in settings other than paid employment.
The noble Lord rightly points out that the messages about joined-up government, inter-agency working, partnership—whatever it is called—have emerged from every one of the tragic inquiry reports. We do not under-estimate the difficulties arising from a whole range of specific policies and duties, for example, ensuring that a local authority looks at its total responsibility for the child, not simply the social services department. The joint planning guidance given to the National Health Service and to local authorities in which children are a priority is an example of trying to turn that into a reality. As to child protection, we shall be issuing further guidance next spring in relation to inter-agency and inter-departmental working. Therefore, the noble Lord is right to say that it is not something that is simple to put right. We must put in place the structures to facilitate it rather than stand in its way.

383
The noble Lord rightly said that the Government could take certain steps but could not ensure that there was compassion or love. However, the framework that my right honourable friend has set for the work of the inter-ministerial group in terms of looking at how any of us would feel as parents and trying to replicate, however inadequately, in a statutory and non-parental framework those kinds of values is the best way of beginning to ensure that non-family-based services have some of the qualities that we hope the family-based care of children also provides.
Lord Laming: My Lords, despite being one of the most junior Members of your Lordships' House, I hope that I, too, may welcome the Minister's Statement. It is a powerful and heart-warming Statement. I do not recall key Ministers from all the departments with responsibility for this matter, several of which are represented here today, coming together to produce an action plan committing them to take such detailed action.
Does the Minister agree that the responsibility given to local authorities to care for children, many of whom have been damaged in early life and who have had a poor start, is one of the most serious placed upon them? Does she further agree that the report outlines a great deal of detail which local authorities should be addressing without waiting for legislation? There are many recommendations in the report which local authorities can immediately put into practice.
If children cannot be helped entirely to overcome some of their experiences during the first years of life, at least they can be safeguarded from further abuse or exploitation. Will the Minister give an assurance that steps will be taken forthwith to ensure that all local authorities, not only the best, operate to the standards set out in this very heart-warming document?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord may be a junior Member of this House, but he is not junior in terms of his contributions in this particular area where his knowledge and achievements are well known. He makes a very important point. Although there are elements in respect of which we need to take legislative action, there are elements where we need to refine the fine detail as regards the key requirement of asking local authorities to set out Quality Protects action plans and implement them over the next three years. There are things that can be done and must be done immediately and the financing will be available. We are making very clear the criteria against which we shall judge those plans. As the noble Lord said, we must look not only to those who are leaders in good practice in this area, but ensure that we raise the standard of those local authorities which do not have a good record. There is no reason whatever for any delay.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps the Minister remembers answering a Question of mine on 21st October about the provision of refuges for under-16 runaways under Section 51 of the Children Act. She then said that
384
the matter might be better addressed in the Government's response to the Utting Report. Perhaps I may ask the proverbial question: has she anything to add to that reply?
In reply to the Front Benchers, the Minister referred to the inadequacy of many services provided locally. Will she consider the possibility that in some cases the adequacy of those services may have been proportional to the adequacy of the standard spending assessment? Does she agree that in the concern for the funding of education, which I share, there is a risk that social services might become the poor relation and that that risk needs watching?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not believe that any Minister ever forgets an occasion when the noble Earl asks him or her a Question. I do indeed recall his Question on children's refuges. The report refers to the importance of refuges and of national government working with local government and the voluntary sector to strengthen its role and financial basis. I do not recall my exact words, but the spirit in which I answered was that the response to the Utting Report was important in terms of improving the standards of care in order to prevent the need for refuges in the first place. I hope that we have a comprehensive plan which will enable us to provide a system from which fewer children feel the need to run away and therefore need the breakdown service which a refuge provides.
As regards the inadequacy of some local services, I hear what the noble Earl says about the resource background of some of the areas which have failed. However, it is not a simple equation between the amount of money that is allocated and spent and the quality of the available services. It is also a matter of commitment and the rigorous monitoring of the quality of the services. There is also a special responsibility on local authority members which the Quality Protects initiative is keen to foster and improve.
Baroness David: My Lords, I, too, give a warm welcome to the Statement to which we have been looking forward for some time. I welcome in particular what is said about 16 year-olds and over who may be thrown out of local authority care with no support. That does not always happen, but it can happen and we try to do something about it. Indeed, Lady Faithfull was keen to do something about it when the Children Act was being debated in 1989. We really wanted to do something about 16 year-olds but it was not possible. Therefore, I particularly welcome that recommendation.
Perhaps I may make one other point about training. Workers in local authority homes are often ill trained or may have no training. Can we have a reassurance that there will be proper training and that properly qualified people will work in children's homes? Can we be assured that training will be given not only before they enter the homes, but that there will be ongoing training and retraining as time goes by?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I recognise the point made by my noble friend. It is important that we resource improvements in post-qualifying training, in the take-up of vocational training and in management

385
development so that across all areas we are improving the quality, the training and the resources available to the staff in post.
I am grateful for my noble friend's welcome of the improved services for over 16 year-olds. Although in terms of legislation that may take time, we have made it clear that in the Quality Protects initiative local authorities must take action now to improve the services which they offer to care leaders, in particular in relation to young children who are thrown out into the world and, if I say, often "fail to thrive", it would be an understatement.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I wish to follow on the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Elton and the Minister's remarks about love and compassion. Does not that lie at the heart of good childcare? One can have all the action plans, targets and so forth, but if in the end there is not at least one person on this earth who is totally committed to the well-being of the child the service can never approach what has been widely welcomed—care comparable to that of our own children.
Furthermore, does the Minister accept that there is bound to be a "tug" between the desire to protect the child in a climate of child protection, with all the formality required to support it, and the circumstances in which positive childcare can flourish? Is the Minister aware that in my former constituency there is a splendid children's home in which the professional involved was involved in the Kincora study in Northern Ireland and reached the conclusion that the whole climate of fear in the childcare system, bolstered by regulations, legislation and departmental procedures, made positive, creative childcare almost impossible?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I listened with great care to what the noble Lord said. I certainly share his aspiration for the quality of service he was describing. I should not wish there to be anything in place which detracted from that creativity and the affection and concern he described which accompanies that.
We do not start from a position where even fundamental protection has been given to many of those children. Unfortunately, it is not a matter of increasing the level of compassion for some children who have been through the care system. Rather, it is taking fundamental steps to stop the dreadful abuse to which they have been subjected. I am afraid that that is why there is emphasis on areas of regulation which are absolutely inevitable, given the history of what has gone on before in this field.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as someone who had the somewhat frustrating experience of introducing a debate in your Lordships' House some seven or eight years ago on childcare, may I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness and the Government on the Statement and all the intentions which lie behind it. However, if we look at the soil in which the roots of our social work system feeds, we come, do we not, to the training of social workers? In this respect, the Government are to be particularly congratulated on their decision to phase out or abolish
386
CCETSW—the Central Council for Education and Training in Social Work. Will the noble Baroness tell the House what progress the Government are making to replace CCETSW with a system of validation of social work courses which produces more practical social workers with a genuine respect for human nature and less respect for outdated notions of social engineering? She will find that this is not just a question of money. It is a question of the content of the courses which the Government have agreed is pretty dreadful.
In this respect, the Minster indicated that the Government also agree that too many children may be taken into care. The Orkneys syndrome comes to mind. And so I hope the Government will stand up to the ideology which is being produced in large part by these courses and encourage more placements of children with suitable families rather than having them taken into care, whatever the colour of the family or the colour of the child concerned.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government have announced that they are to establish a general social care council to regulate the social care workforce for the first time and to register staff. Department of Health Ministers have said that they propose that childcare staff will be among the early registrants. That is one of the organisations which should become a driving force to increase the level of training and qualifications across the social care sector. We have several initiatives under way in that sphere, including the development of a new post-qualifying award for professional social workers. The first candidates will begin training in January 2000. We are setting aside funds for training for other childcare staff to national vocational level three, which will start this year and continue for a further two years.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I have been sickened by the events that took place in those homes. I feel that we all bear a responsibility for what happened. We should never forget that those children had already undergone a traumatic event in their lives, otherwise they would not have been in care. My concern today is the discretional care for those aged between 16 and 18. We should think very carefully before we support any lowering of the age of consent. If a homosexual relationship was established between a member of staff and someone in that discretionary care area he was looking after, would he fall outside the proposed legislation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we recognise the concerns that have been raised as regards the potential for the abuse of trust if consensual sexual relations occur between a person in a position of trust and a young person aged 16 or 17 in his care or under his supervision. That is an area which the inter-departmental working group on preventing unsuitable people working with children, to which I referred earlier, is considering. The Government will need to decide whether new legislation is needed in that specific area in the light of the proposals from that group.

Registration of Political Parties Bill
4.26 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Baroness Serota) in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The register]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 10, at end insert—
("(3) The Secretary of State may by order transfer the functions of the registrar under this Act to such body established by statute or the holder of such office so established as the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: Clause 1 of the Bill requires the register of political parties to be maintained by the registrar of companies. The registrar of companies is not in fact a particularly appropriate person to handle the responsibility of maintaining the register under this Bill. The existing duties of the registrar are largely administrative and record-keeping and the registrar has no functions comparable with those to be exercised by him under this Bill.
Control over the names of companies is the responsibility not of the registrar but of the Secretary of State under Chapter II of the Companies Act 1985. It is not obvious that any other existing office holder would be more appropriate for the maintenance of the register of political parties. The use of the registrar for the purposes of the Bill may therefore be acceptable in the short-term but not acceptable in the long term. Therefore, sooner or later, a new office or body will need to be created for that purpose.
Since Second Reading, the report of the Neill Committee on standards in public life on the funding of political parties has been published. Of course, I am a member of that committee. The committee recommended the setting up of an election commission for various purposes, including the monitoring of donations to political parties and spending limits. The Jenkins Commission has also recommended that certain functions should be exercised by an election commission.
The election commission seems to be the obviously appropriate body to carry out the functions of the registration of parties. This amendment has been included in order to raise for discussion the question of the transfer of the registrar's functions in due course to the election commission.
I recognise that the appropriate course for doing so is not by way of this amendment but to transfer that jurisdiction by an amendment to Clause 1 which establishes the election commission. I should make it clear that for that reason, I do not intend to press the amendment. However, I seek an assurance from the
388
Government that they will give favourable consideration to the transfer of those functions from the inappropriate hands of the registrar of companies to the appropriate hands of the election commission or a similar body which may be set up—and I trust will be set up—to carry out the functions proposed in the Neill Committee's report.
Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 are purely consequential but Amendment No. 43, which is also grouped with Amendment No. 1, is a variation on the theme of the election commission. The returning officer is clearly the right person to take the initial decision on whether a description selected by a candidate is one which is likely to cause confusion with a registered political party. At present, under this Bill, that decision would be subject to judicial review. But judicial review inevitably involves some delay and certainly involves considerable expense. It would be better to provide, as a first step, a right of appeal to an independent body which can hear the appeal quickly and informally and will impose rules consistently throughout the country. Here again the election commission is the appropriate body for that purpose. It can, for example, have members standing by during the nomination period to hear appeals arising from the decision of returning officers more or less instantly.
Here again, I recognise that the proper procedure will be to include such a right of appeal in a Bill establishing an election commission, but Amendment No. 43, like Amendment No. 1, is put down as a marker and in order to seek the Government's reaction.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I rise very briefly to say to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I have considerable sympathy with Amendment No. 1 and its consequential amendments. I should like to comment on Amendment No. 43; in fact I might even have put my name to that amendment, but it seems that my Liberal Democrat colleagues were not at all keen on dirtying their hands by allowing me to be associated with their amendments. Indeed, all their subsequent amendments were put down in blocks of four names to prevent my attaching my name to them, as I did to a later amendment, Amendment No. 21. However, I do say to the noble Lord that if he wants my support I am always prepared to offer it on certain occasions.
I have only one point that I want to make in relation to this amendment to Clause 1 of the Bill. Clause 1(2) suggests that,
"The register shall he maintained by the registrar or other officer who performs the duty of registration of companies in England and Wales under the Companies Act 1985".
It seems somewhat odd to me, in these days of devolution, that we should be using an officer who registers companies in England and Wales, when we are registering parties throughout the United Kingdom. Although I imagine this will not affect parties which are based in or have their headquarters in London, parties such as the SNP might have considerable misgivings about having to register with a body which operates principally in England and Wales. The same might be

389
true, for example, of federal parties and the Liberal Democrat Party, as with separate organisations in different parts of the United Kingdom.
I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that it would be more appropriate that some other body should be given the task of establishing the register and that the body which registers companies in England and Wales is not necessarily the appropriate body to do this.
Lord Borrie: We discussed this to some extent at Second Reading, but of course we did not then have the benefit of the Neill Report. Now we do have that benefit, it is natural that one should think of an electoral commission, which may well be set up to deal with the funding of political parties and other matters, as being suitable for this purpose. In so far as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, wants to put a provision in the Bill making that a possibility it seems to me to make quite a lot of sense.
I have, from the beginning, been somewhat concerned that it may not be suitable to appoint the Registrar of Companies to deal with what over the years to come may well be a very major job. It seems as though the Government, quite properly, were casting around for some appropriate existing body rather than setting up a new one. That is quite understandable, but if in due course, when they have considered the Neill Report and find they have to set up a new body—the electoral commission would seem to be suitable—this amendment would make it possible for the Government to do that.
When I looked at the Neill Report—and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will not mind my saying this although he was a member of the committee—there seemed to me to be a lot of loose ends left in relation to its appointment. I feel some uncertainty as to whether it is appropriate that all members of the electoral commission will be part time and so forth. However, leaving that aside, in my view there is quite a lot in what the noble Lord has said.
In relation to Amendment No. 43, I believe that there are quite different considerations and concerns that any sort of appeal from the returning officer during the very brief period of an election may not be suitable. In so far as I am speaking favourably of the main amendment, Amendment No. 1, that does not mean that I am very keen, and it is slightly odd that Amendment No. 43 should be linked with it.
Lord Goodhart: I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, would accept that at present the decision of the returning officer can be subject to judicial review. Indeed, there have been a number of cases. What is proposed here is actually a quicker procedure than would be involved in a judicial review.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I shall speak very briefly, and as one who is far from being an enthusiast for the Bill and therefore for the appointment of a registrar. My other reluctance is to confer upon Secretaries of State—any of them—powers which they do not presently need. I see little point in establishing, as this Bill does, a registrar and then tipping him upside down and
390
emptying out all his functions. I think it would be much better to wait until it is clear what the Government want to do. I am very much in favour of rejecting the amendment, as I hope the noble Lord, the Minister, will.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am very grateful for the contributions of Members of the Committee. It is a fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, indicated, that following our earlier discussions the Neill Committee reported. It is useful to bear its view in mind. It set out the question of registration being handled by Companies House in paragraph 11.25. In next paragraph 11.26, it said:
"This is clearly a pragmatic interim measure, but we believe that registration should be brought together with other aspects of regulation under the aegis of the Election Commission."
Since this is a regime which is to be valid across the whole of the United Kingdom we thought it was sensible to have the registrar dealing with it on a UK-wide basis. It is true, of course, that recommendation 82 of the Neill Report was that the election commission should assume the role of registrar of political parties. We are giving careful consideration, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to all the recommendations of the Neill Committee. If an election commission or a similar body is established, it may well make sense for it to take over the role of registrar.
At the moment, as your Lordships know, we need registration urgently for the elections to be held next year. They will be in May for the Scottish parliament and the Welsh national assembly and in June for the European Parliament, so time is quite tight.
To repeat what the Neill Committee said, this Bill takes a pragmatic approach and places the task on the registrar. I say again that we may well want to change this in the future. Your Lordships may think that the appropriate vehicle for such a step is not this Bill—and here I respectfully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil,—but a Bill dealing with party funding. We have already committed ourselves to that, and I repeat that we are committed to publishing in draft form the Bill on party funding before next year's summer Recess.
I do not deal with the consequential matters, which, as the noble Lord said, are matters of detail. Similarly, as regards Amendment No. 43, at the moment the returning officers make a decision and there is no appeal against that decision, in the sense that an appeal is normally understood. There are only 11 working days between the last day for delivery of nomination papers and polling day. I do not dismiss the observations made by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Borrie, about appeals. We will look very carefully at what the Neill Committee has had to say. I hope that the indications I have given, although not promises or commitments, give a pretty clear indication of what we have in mind and that they will satisfy the noble Lords who raised these questions.
Lord Goodhart: I am most grateful to the Minister for his reply. I accept that what he has said is not a commitment in any formal sense, but it is an answer that

391
I find of considerable assistance. For that reason, as well as for the one I gave earlier, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Applications for registration]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Where the constitution of a party establishes a devolved or federal structure, the party may apply for several entries in the register to reflect these arrangements.
( ) Any such entry may specify a different name for each branch of the organisation.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 2 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 8 in my name and Amendment No. 3 in the names of the Liberal Democrat Peers. The noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, will not be surprised to hear me say that I am fundamentally opposed and suspicious of a proposition for the state to register political parties. It suggests that the state may not register those political parties it does not like. As I have said before, if I were setting up as a dictator in the United Kingdom, one of the first steps I should take would be to register political parties.
I understand that we need some measure like the Bill to deal with the various forms of proportional representation foisted upon us by the Government. But the reason I tabled these amendments goes back to a report in the Independent on Sunday of 27th September which said that the Government were bringing forward, under a later part of Clause 3 of the Bill, an order whereby certain words would be banned. Among those words to be banned is, for example, the word "independent". In the words of the report the Government believe that it gives the impression of "partisan politicians". I am not sure what that means.
Under the regulations, which will not apply to existing names, titles such as the Scottish National Party, the National Front and the British National Party would be illegal. The report lists some of the words that would be banned—Ireland, Irish, Northern Ireland, Northern Irish, Scotland, Scottish and, nearer to home for the noble Lord, Lord Williams, Wales and the Welsh. The Scottish press are slow to pick up on these matters but by 11th October Joanne Robertson in the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times was writing an article headed,
"Only one party can call itself Scottish at polls".
To explain my amendment it is worth reading out what she had to say:
"Only one party in Scotland will be allowed to call itself Scottish for the Holyrood elections next May—the Scottish National party. A new law going through the House of Lords will force all parties to register only one name and logo throughout Britain. This means Labour, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats will be barred from using 'Scottish' … north of the border".
The same article could have been written for Wales. She went on to say,
"The SNP was delighted last night. Mike Russell, the party's chief executive, said: 'Next May the truth about the British parties will be revealed for all to see on the ballot paper"'.
There is perhaps on this occasion a community of interest between the Liberal Democrats and myself and, indeed, between us and the Labour Party. The last thing we wish in Scotland or Wales is to see the national parties in both those countries being able to take unto themselves and themselves alone the words "Scottish" and "Welsh".
Therefore I tabled these amendments. Amendment No. 8 was a clumsy and early version. Amendment No. 2 is a better way of dealing with it. My noble friend Lord Henley has just handed me a draft statutory instrument which is the one spoken about by Rachel Sylvester. It has taken since 27th September until now to appear. She obviously had a quick insight into it. When I asked the Library on 13th October, it could not find it but perhaps I have not been keeping my eye on this ball because there have been other balls in place.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: To be helpful, I was going to say later in my remarks that I was arranging to have a copy placed in the Library tomorrow. In fact, in order to assist my colleagues on the other side, I asked for it to be brought here this afternoon and as soon as I received it I handed it to the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Goodhart, so that people who wanted to read it this afternoon did not have to linger in London until tomorrow. It was purely an act of Scottish philanthropy.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for showing any act of philanthropy towards me. I hope I said in my remarks that the document was handed to my noble friend and I am grateful for that.
As always, the document is in good, solid, "legalese". If I read it aright, it will mean that the parties in Scotland and Wales will be able to call themselves the Scottish Labour Party, the Scottish Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party; and in Wales the same will happen with the Welsh parties. But will those parties have to register separately or will the registration of the Labour party nationally encompass the Scottish and Welsh variations? My amendment was to enable the Labour Party, when it registered, to be able to say that in Scotland it is called the Scottish Labour Party and in Wales the Welsh Labour Party.
But I go one step further. Parties in Scotland and Wales may have different emblems to the party in the UK—that is certainly true of the Conservative Party. It would help if the noble Lord, Lord Williams, could indicate whether the Bill covers emblems as well.
I note that the Irish problem—if I can call it that—is not mentioned in the draft statutory instrument; Ireland, Irish, Northern Ireland and Northern Irish are not mentioned. So if politics in Ireland were to move in a different direction, political parties on the mainland could fight in Northern Ireland with the prefix "Northern Irish" or "Ulster". In fact, the Conservative Party has fought in Northern Ireland as the Conservative Party, but if that were to happen in the future, would those names be allowed? I can understand that they are not in the list because it is not strictly relevant. There is an

393
Ulster Democrat Party; and I believe that the word "Ulster" comes into the title of some Northern Ireland parties although I have not had an opportunity to check.
I should be grateful if, now or later, the Minister could indicate why none of the Northern Irish names has been included in the draft when Scotland, Wales and the United Kingdom appear to have been properly included. I hope the noble Lord can confirm that I read the draft instrument aright and that in relation to Scotland and Wales there is no problem. However, perhaps he can answer my point in regard to the logo and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: This is an important group of amendments. My party tabled Amendments Nos. 3 and 10 to which I shall speak. I shall speak also to the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish.
My party is known as the Liberal Democrats. It is a federal party—a federation of three separate entities whose official titles are the Scottish Liberal Democrats, the Welsh Liberal Democrats (also known as Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru, if that is the correct pronunciation and no doubt the noble Lord will correct me if it is not) and the Liberal Democrats in England. Each of those entities, in legal terms, is a separate unincorporated association. The federal party will register as the Liberal Democrats and it is likely that the Liberal Democrats in England will simply use the same title. But the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrats will almost certainly wish to register under those names and perhaps to use an emblem not identical to that of the federal party.
The question is: can the Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrats do that? In the debate in Standing Committee A, in the other place on 18th June, the Minister, Mr. Howarth, said,
"The Bill will allow parties to use a description that denotes a constituent part of the United Kingdom—for example, Scottish Conservative or Welsh Liberal Democrat—but requires the emblem to he the same throughout the country".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee A, 18/6/98; col. 42.]
I have found considerable difficulty in extracting that particular conclusion from the terms of the Bill. It seems clear that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and the Welsh Liberal Democrats are separate organisations, as is the federal party, and each of them is, therefore, a party as defined in Clause 22. If so, each party can register its name under Clause 2, and, if it wishes to do so, can register a separate emblem under Clause 5. The Scottish and Welsh parties do not use separate emblems at present but they might wish to do so in the future.
Can the Minister clarify the position? In particular, can the Welsh and Scottish Liberal Democrats register as separate parties and register separate emblems? Our amendments are, to a large extent, the same as those of the Conservatives, and to that extent we support them. The practical difference is, as I see it, that our amendments allow registration of distinct emblems as well as distinct names.
As with names, an emblem is likely to be a variant on the principal emblem rather than a completely different one. There seems no reason why variations of
394
an emblem should not be allowed. The Scottish Labour Party may wish to have an emblem which is a hybrid of the rose and the thistle to demonstrate how prickly they are likely to be.
I have just seen the draft order. I find it a little difficult to follow. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten me. Article 2(1) says:
"Subject to paragraph (2), the registered name of a party shall not include any word or expression which is listed in any Part of the Schedule to this Order".
Paragraph (2) of that article says:
"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a word or expression listed in Part II of the Schedule where it is qualified by another word or expression other than the registered name of a registered party".
Part II of the schedule includes the words "Scotland", "Scots" and "Scottish". My reading of that, which may be incorrect, is that the use of the words "Scotland", "Scots" and "Scottish" is legitimate only when used with a name which is not a registered name of a registered party. Therefore, for the Conservative Party, which has a registered name also, to register as the "Scottish Conservative Party" would be specifically forbidden. I may be wrong. I have not had time to examine the document in detail but it concerns me. Perhaps the Minister can explain what is intended.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I do not want to delay your Lordships for any length of time. First, on the amendment proposed by my noble friend, is there anything in the Bill at the moment which stops a political party doing what the amendment proposes that it should be able to do?
My second point is an old-fashioned prejudice but I favour the idea of legislation being kept as short and as simple as possible. I have noted, with increasing anxiety and discontent, that a Bill being launched is rather like a ship putting to sea. With the help of noble Lords of all parties, it gathers to itself any number of unwanted barnacles in its progress. For those reasons, I hope that noble Lords will reject both the amendments.
I have come to regard political parties with restricted enthusiasm. I know of nobody who behaves better, or more intelligently, or who does wiser things when they are wearing a party hat than when they are not. For that simple reason, I regret any measure of this kind which gives political parties more power or any sort of privileged position, and I greatly abhor any notion of having party lists. That is a most offensive idea and I hope that your Lordships will not hear too much about it in the future. I realise that is probably the height of optimism.
Finally, perhaps I may advise the Minister that I greatly admire his skills, so much so that when he speaks it seems to be almost impossible to believe that he could be wrong. However, there are times when my mind drifts towards suspecting that that could be possible. Although I congratulate the Government on the skill they have shown in selecting him as their pilot, I look with some suspicion upon the way in which he uses his talents.
Viscount Bledisloe: I seek some enlightenment from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. On the

395
Welsh and Scottish Bills he made the point, with great clarity and enthusiasm, and indeed frequency, that there was scope in those Bills for diddling the system. A candidate could stand under one name at stage 1 and under another name at stage 2, and thereby a party would have more candidates than it should. He gave the example that a Conservative could call himself a "Conservative" and then call himself a "Unionist" and do a lot better. It was suggested to him that the right way of dealing with that was in the course of this Bill. So perhaps I may ask him two questions.
First, has be abandoned any hope of achieving that result? Secondly, if he has, do not these amendments, and in particular the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, make that even more likely, because a candidate could stand at stage 1 as a Conservative and at stage 2 as a Welsh Conservative and so benefit from the trick which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, so lucidly explained? However, he then assured us that nobody in his party would ever dream of doing that. I would like some enlightenment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As this is the Committee stage, I think I can answer immediately. If the noble Lord looks at Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 he will find that I am tackling that problem by the use of those amendments. The amendments try to clarify the position I explained about the use of the word "Scottish". I believe that Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 will deal with the other problem.
Viscount Bledisloe: The noble Lord's amendment allows—if it did not, the speech that he made would be impractical—a party to have the name "Conservative Party" and to have the name "Welsh Conservative Party". Would his amendment prevent a candidate switching the labels and thereby achieving the trick he was talking about?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I may come back again on that point. Depending on what the Minister says, of course, if the position came about that a candidate for the Conservative Party tried to stand in the first ballot for the "Conservative Party" and in the second ballot for the "Scottish Conservative Party", under my Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 the registrar would probably rightly refuse to register him and the returning officer would probably refuse to accept that he should stand.
5 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, for being such a lodestar to me. I do not propose to accept those amendments, so I am following his advice. He spoke of subtlety of language being irresistible. Between 1992 and 1997 I had the great pleasure of sitting where he is now and watching a master of subtlety of language demolish his own Government Front Bench. So I think I have learned whatever modest skill I have from the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
396
I handed over the draft order as soon as it was in my hand. I believe that it should allay a number of the concerns that have been raised.
This group contains Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 8, 10 and 28. If it is convenient to the Committee, I shall deal with them together. Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 would allow individual branches or component parts of a registered political party to have separate register entries. This would, in effect, allow a party to have a number of register entries; the Bill at present allows each party only one name and register entry.
I understand the desire that one might wish to continue to prefix the name of a party with words such as "Scottish" or "Welsh" in a description on the ballot paper. However, I can reassure the Committee that that is possible without the amendments, as I think is explained by the draft order.
There is no requirement that candidates of a political party must use that party's name in exactly the form in which it is registered as their description on the ballot paper; for example, if a candidate of the Liberal Democrat Party, assuming the party registers under that name—a fair assumption—wishes to describe himself as a "Scottish Liberal Democrat" on the ballot paper, that party's nominating officer would probably give his consent. If, however, the candidate was not a member of that party, no such consent would be forthcoming and the returning officer would be able to reject the description as it would be likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party, the Liberal Democrat Party. That is the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 2.
Amendment No. 8 would mean that the registrar could not refuse to grant an application to register a party name on the grounds that to do so would be likely to result in that party being confused by voters with a party which is already registered solely because both names included the same word from the list in the amendment. Hence, for example, if the "National Youth Party" were already registered, the registrar could not on this basis refuse to register the "National Middle-Aged Party" solely because "National" has been used.
The amendment is unnecessary. It implies that once a party has used a particular word in its name, the registrar might decide not to register another party simply because its name includes the same word. That is not the case. That is why we have given the registrar the power to decide whether the use of that word is likely to confuse the two parties in the minds of voters.
The words listed in the amendment are words which a number of parties are likely to use in their names. It is intended that this will be dealt with by the order to be made under Clause 3(1)(f). Perhaps I may give an example. We intend to use the order—I am sorry that not all noble Lords have been able to see a copy—to forbid, for instance, a false implication of a connection with the Royal Family.
The order will not allow a party to register a name which is the same as the name of a registered party, qualified by a word such as "Scottish" or "Welsh". Therefore, a party's nominating officer could authorise

397
a candidate to put the word "Scottish" or "Welsh" before the party's name in his description on his nomination paper.
We also intend to ensure that certain generic words or phrases—I gave the Committee examples earlier—such as "residents association" are not registered by a single party to prevent their being used widely by individual candidates. We also intend in the order to provide that the word "independent" may not be registered on its own as, for instance, in the "Independent Party".
I accept that this issue is complicated and that it is not fair to expect everyone to have understood the drafting of the order. I was simply seeking to be as helpful as possible because, the drafting was not completed until today. Therefore, perhaps I may repeat that a copy of the current draft will be placed in the Library tomorrow morning.
Amendment No. 10 would allow the branches or component parts of a registered party to register their own emblems if different from the overall party emblem. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, raised this point and I sympathise with it. However, we must bear in mind the fact that the space for the emblem or logo will be only two centimetres square. There will be difficulties if, for instance, more than one Scottish party wishes to use the thistle as its national emblem. It would be extremely confusing to try to get a variant of a thistle emblem into a tiny box only two centimetres square. This is, therefore, an answer of practicality rather than of principle.
Amendment No. 28 would allow parties to register as many names as they choose, thus preventing other parties from using those descriptions. I have already explained that, if a candidate's description is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party, the nominating officer of that party must certify that the candidate is entitled to use that description. If, however, no such authorisation is forthcoming, the returning officer will be able to reject the description as it would be likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered party. Under the present scheme, the registrar will have to make a similar judgment under the provisions of Clauses 3(1)(a) and 18(1)(a). We consider that those provisions are sufficiently robust, particularly bearing in mind that experience in the Welsh, Scottish and European elections will indicate whether or not our scheme is workable.
Specific questions have been asked about devolved parties. They can register separately, but they will not be able to register by adding "Scottish" to the registered name of the main party.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, asked about the particular circumstances of the different Liberal Democrat parties. The provisions of Article 2(2)(b) and Part 2 of the schedule prevent registration of the "Scottish Liberal Democrats"—I stress the words "prevent registration"—but do not prevent the Liberal Democrat Party in Scotland or the Conservative Party in Scotland from putting the word "Scottish" on the ballot
398
paper. Those questions relate to practice which should be allowed, subject to the discretion of the relevant officer.
I hope that those explanations are helpful. I recognise that the draft order is simply that and that it is not generally available, but I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee.
Lord Goodhart: I think that I now understand the position and the effect of the order. However, I do not find it altogether satisfactory. The Scottish and Welsh Liberal Democrat parties regard themselves as independent parties as well as being component parts of the Liberal Democrat Party in Great Britain as a whole. They will not find this position satisfactory, so we may have to return to it at a later date.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I was slightly relieved that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who I understand is an eminent QC, said that he was having trouble understanding the order. That gives me every possible excuse because, as I have told noble Lords before, I am the only Mackay of the threesome who is not a lawyer.
Perhaps the Minister can help me with one or two points. I listened to what he said about a candidate in Scotland of, say, the Liberal Democrat Party being able to put "Scottish Liberal Democrat" on the ballot paper because he would have cover from the official body of the Liberal Democrat Party. I presume that that applies also to the party in Scotland with regard to the list. A party will have to put itself on the list as, I imagine, the "Scottish Liberal Democrat Party", or the "Scottish Labour Party", or the "Scottish Conservative Party".
I did not quite follow the Minister on his point about logos. However, in so far as I did follow him, I understand that a party will not be able to have a separate logo in Scotland and in Wales from its national logo. I am not sure about the position of the Scottish Liberal Democrats, but such a provision would certainly affect the Scottish Conservative Party. By some amazing sleight of hand, which I have never been quite able to understand, the Labour Party in Scotland has managed to get away with incorporating an English rose into Scotland as the emblem of the Scottish Labour Party. I do not think that the Conservatives would ever have got away with that! I am not sure where the Liberal Democrats stand in relation to emblems and whether they have a different Scottish emblem. The indications are that they do not, but the Conservatives do. Perhaps I may return to this point in correspondence with the Minister.
The Minister did not answer my points about the words "Northern Ireland", "Irish", or "Ulster". This is a draft order, so perhaps the draft will have to be revisited. However, it seems a little odd to leave out that part of the kingdom as parties may want to describe themselves using such a label in that part of the kingdom. If the noble Lord wants to reply on that point, I shall be delighted to give way—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thank the noble Lord for his customary courtesy. We want a practical system

399
that will work and avoid confusion. It seems to me that the words "Scottish Conservative Party" are perfectly plain and indicate to the voter just what he or she is voting for. As regards the list, the noble Lord is quite right to say that reference to the Scottish Labour Party or the Scottish Conservative Party will be allowed. However, I should point out to the noble Lord that there is in fact a Northern Irish Labour Party and a Communist Party of Ireland, which is separate from the Communist Party of Great Britain. We need to frame the order so that such parties can register. I am happy to give the noble Lord that confirmation.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the Minister for that very clear response. Indeed, I am grateful to him for clearing up the matter. Perhaps we might even reach the columns of the Scottish edition of the Sunday Times to show that it is not only members the Scottish National Party who will be able to call themselves Scottish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 4.
After Clause 2, insert the following new clause—

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION, AND OBJECTIONS
(" . The Secretary of State shall by regulations—

(a) provide for notice to be given to all registered parties of any application under section 2; and

(b) authorise a party which is already registered to make objections to an application under section 2 on the ground that the name or emblem proposed in that application would be likely to result in the party making the application being confused by voters with the party objecting to the application.").

The noble Lord said: This is one of a number of amendments tabled by these Benches which reflect the widespread concern about the transparency of the registration process. Indeed, there are further subsequent amendments regarding appeal which reflect that concern. I was most interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, had to say. As a renegade company lawyer, although I have admiration for provisions of the Companies Act, I certainly do not believe that we should be slavishly following them in this registration process, although it is convenient to use the Registrar of Companies for this purpose.
Under the Bill as drafted there is no provision for advertisement of the application for registration and there is no provision for representations or objections to be made. That may be perfectly acceptable in terms of registering a company's name, but I would suggest that the consequences of a political party failing to register a particular name are much more far-reaching than those applying to a company, which is perfectly able to change its name to something similar. Indeed, that is not ultimately damaging if the company is unable to get the precise form of words that it wants, but that may well be the case in terms of a political party in the political market-place.
Therefore, as I said, we do not need slavishly to follow the provisions of the Companies Act; indeed, we can use a different model if we wish to do so. I have in mind, for example, legislation on trade marks. I notice that the amendment drafted by the Opposition follows that perhaps rather more closely. Provision is certainly made in trade marks law for advertisement and for objections to be given. After all, if it is good enough for the trade marks law, why is it not good enough for our law on the registration of political parties?
I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that, in the early years of the exercise of the powers of the registrar under the Bill, it is particularly important that there should be the ability to make representations so that argument before the registrar can take place before those precedents are set in concrete. At present, there is neither the right of representation nor of appeal. That gives the registrar enormous discretion.
Finally, I turn now to the amendment tabled by the Opposition. Clearly the sentiment is the same, or very similar; and, of course, we would agree with such sentiments. However, Members of the Committee will see that the actual drafting of our amendment is designed to create rather more flexibility so that the actual mechanics of giving notice can be decided by regulation. It would allow rather more mature consideration to be given to the exact way in which that would operate. I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Henley: Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I believe that we are now dealing with an important group of amendments, although our amendment attacks the problems from a slightly different angle from that put forward by the Liberal Democrat Party. As I understand it, Amendment No. 4 would only allow a right of objection to those parties which are already registered and the latter could only object on certain particular grounds. It seemed to us that it would be better if the right of objection was widened considerably. That is why we have tabled Amendment No. 6 and why it is worded in the way set out on the Marshalled List. Under this amendment any party would be able to object to a registration, whether or not it is registered. That would mean that a party which had not yet registered would have a right to object to a registration if it thought that that registration might affect its future registration.
Similarly, a party which was already registered would have a right of objection. The amendment would also allow a right of objection to other people where, for one reason or another, they considered that they had some interest in objecting. We have also drafted our amendment in such a manner that it would be possible to object on any grounds that may be thought appropriate, rather than being limited as suggested by Amendment No. 4.
There is a possibility that the Minister will tell us that it will be possible for parties, whether registered or not, to make objections as they wish. In that case, we shall obviously not take these amendments any further. However, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it

401
is only right for parties to have some channel through which they can make their views known. I should be most grateful for an assurance from the noble Lord to that effect.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I believe I am getting into deeper and deeper waters here because every time an amendment has been debated today I have felt obliged—although I think that I must somehow be wrong—to oppose it and support the Government. In his wisdom, to which I have already paid tribute, I hope the noble Lord will see fit to reject both amendments, even though one of them, sadly, comes from my noble friend who sits on the Front Bench in front of me.
I have three points to make. First, I do not like giving the Secretary of State power to make regulations. I have great reservations as to the wisdom of Secretaries of State wherever they come from, however old they may be and whatever their sex. I just doubt the wisdom of Secretaries of State and I do not wish to lavish further powers upon them. Secondly, it seems to me that both amendments seek to protect the members of the club; in other words, to give them every opportunity to keep intruders out. As I have already said, I am not so much in favour of established political parties that I want to see this kind of thing done.
Thirdly, presumably the registrar will have his wits about him and will be someone with reasonable competence, not an idiot. Indeed, he has powers and duties under Clause 3 under which he is obliged to refuse registration if it,
"would be likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".
What more protection could an established party want? It makes me very suspicious and upset if people want further to extend the Bill—in other words, to swell it out with words—when nothing will be achieved by it; or, alternatively, when something rather sinister will be achieved. I know not which is true.
Lord Borrie: Before my noble friend the Minister responds, perhaps I may pursue a disagreement with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton. In particular, I believe that the amendment from the Opposition is intended, among other things, to enable parties which are neither established nor registered to have some say in whether a name should be registered.
I draw attention to the point made on Second Reading by a number of speakers; namely, there is the first stage application for registration and there is the second stage. There is what might be called the first mover advantage. That is, if a party is entitled to register at the first stage—this applies only to parties which have at least one Member of Parliament—it gets in at the first stage and it obtains a certain advantage. If, however, a party does not have a single Member of Parliament, it has to wait a certain period. When someone wants to be registered as a party under the first stage—this applies only to a limited number of existing parties—that application should be notified to, and objected to, by others, for example, others who have an intention of registering under the second stage and who may have a similar name. That would give the proposition of the
402
Opposition Front Bench some merit. If I may be so bold as to arbitrate between the two Front Benches. I prefer the Conservative proposal to that of the Liberal Democrats.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry if anything I said was responsible for stirring the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to get to his feet. However, my grief and sadness at not being able to agree with my own Front Bench is much more severe than that caused by my inability to agree with him.
Viscount Bledisloe: I suggest that if there is to be a right of objection it cannot be reserved only to registered parties. What about someone who is trying in some way to pretend to be independent and who sought to register the Cross-Bench party? Surely those who are Cross-Benchers must be entitled to object even though they are not a party and therefore obviously would not be registered. There must be a right for the public to object if there is to be a right to object at all.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: I welcome the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, because on Second Reading I said that we had to be particularly careful in considering a Bill which may on the face of it appear to be "carving things up" between the major parties. That remark was not received in the Chamber with universal approbation. The noble Lord, Lord Peyton, is the first person I have heard make the same point. I believe we need to be careful with this matter. What concerns me with regard to Amendment No. 6 of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is mention of,
"such national newspapers as appear to him"—
that is, the registrar—
"to be appropriate".
I have in this Chamber previously drawn attention to the way in which the "chattering classes" have thrashed through their constitutional change programme. The national newspapers they have used have been restricted to the Guardian, the Independent, the Telegraph, and one insertion in a tabloid newspaper—Today. However, nothing else has been used. A phrase such as the one I have mentioned is far too sloppy. If the registrar is to be given some kind of control over which national newspapers may be used to advertise in, the provision must be much more specific to ensure that it is not simply a case of special pleading appealing to a particular audience.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: As is so often the case, the propositions put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, seem to me unarguable. In other words, one could not sensibly dispute them. Had I been irresolute, he would have stiffened my resolve. He said—I think this is the heart of the matter—that if one is to appoint a person to do this work, one will assume that he or she will have his or her wits about him. That is precisely the case. I shall develop that theme in a limited way.
Amendment No. 4 limits the right of objection—I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Henley—to registered parties. That is a point of concern to both the

403
noble Lords, Lord Peyton and Lord Cocks. Amendment No. 6 puts that in a wider context. Clause 3(1)(a) already requires the registrar, when considering applications, to take account of whether the proposed name is,
"likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".
During the transitional stages, Clause 18(1)(b) provides an additional test of considering the historic use of a name when deciding whether an application for registration should be granted. If one wants the belt, the braces and the corset, Clause 10 gives the registrar the opportunity to take advice from the Speaker's committee. It is difficult to understand why anything further should sensibly be wanted bearing in mind that we need a scheme to be operative by May of next year, which is not far away. We do not want significant delays. The scheme gives the registrar the authority and the discretion to come to sensible judgments which are not difficult for a person charged with those responsibilities.
Lord Henley: I take it therefore that there is no objection—the noble Lord did not touch on this—to individuals, whether they be Cross-Benchers or parties, making objections to the registrar. The registrar would obviously take note of those objections if they were made.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think the registrar would be derelict if he did not take them into account.
Lord Clement-Jones: I think the Minister will forgive me for saying that we on these Benches are rather disappointed with his response. He displays an ultimate faith in the registrar who will have a difficult job to discharge in a political minefield, especially if he is not to have the benefit of hearing people argue their case. There is the issue of political parties being given notice of the applications for registration. There is also the important issue of their being able to argue their case before the registrar.
I accept to some degree the criticisms that have been made about the Liberal Democrat amendment. Clearly I do not wish to create a closed shop—albeit I am a lawyer—which prevents representations being made by those other than existing registered political parties. The system should be more open than that. However, we defend the making of regulations to allow more considered regulations to be made rather than bringing forward a scheme involving a 28-day notice period. As I said, we are disappointed at the Minister's response to the sentiments behind this amendment. We shall withdraw it at this stage and reconsider it for Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 [Grant of applications]:
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("script") to end of line 11.
The noble Lord said: The Minister will undoubtedly have heard the old adage that there is no such thing as a free lunch. Bearing in mind how helpful I have been
404
to the Government with regard to the previous amendments I believe the moment has come for a tiny pay-off. I would find that gratifying although there is a great limit to my ambitions in that context.
I know it is original to consider the Bill, but I invite the Committee to have a brief look at Clause 3. Clause 3(1) states,
"The registrar shall grant an application by a party under section 2 unless in his opinion it proposes a registered name which—

(a) would be likely to result in the party's being confused …

(b) comprises more than six words

(c) is obscene or offensive

(d) includes words the publication of which would be likely to amount to the commission of an offence".

I know that there is little limit to the noble Lord's intellectual powers. He can perhaps help me on this matter. I have omitted the provision about the application needing to be written in Roman script. There follows a kind of "sweep-up" provision:
"(f) includes any word or expression prohibited by order made by the Secretary of State".
By including that kind of verbiage in the Bill, do the Government have anything in mind? Or are they merely having a general sweep-up? Did they say, "We are getting awfully tired of this exercise. Let's include a general, safety-net clause that will catch everything that the Secretary of State finds in the least distasteful"?
In relation to the previous amendment, which he sensibly rejected, the noble Lord said that a "belt and braces" provision was unnecessary. Clause 3(1)(f) is a further example of belt and braces and the Government saying, "In case we have left anything out, let us include some words that will cover more or less whatever we do."
I hope that the noble Lord will give serious thought to this matter and give me a tiny pay-back, which I believe I have fully earned for my very helpful conduct so far.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Henley: I do not know whether my noble friend wants support from this Bench, or whether he thinks it might upset the "pay-back" to which he believes he is entitled, the "free lunch" to which he referred earlier. However, I can offer him some slight support for his amendment. It may be useful if I refer the Committee to the 29th Report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which made only one recommendation in regard to this Bill; namely, it invited the House to consider the degree of parliamentary control that should be provided for the power being granted to the Secretary of State by Clause 3(1)(f).
A better way of dealing with the matter, as my noble friend proposes in his amendment, may be to remove the power from the Secretary of State absolutely. That seems to be what my noble friend generally likes to do, operating on the basis that powers should be taken away from Secretaries of State rather than granted to them. But if we are not to remove that power, it is right that the Committee should consider exactly what control we should have over this particular clause. I understand that at present it is subject to the negative resolution procedure. I should be grateful for confirmation from the noble Lord that that is correct and that it appears in the Bill.

405
At this stage I simply give notice that we shall probably wish to return to this matter at a later stage so that the House can give proper consideration to whether the provision should be under the negative or affirmative resolution procedure.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am sure that there is no such thing as a free lunch. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, say that he had been co-operative. There was then a considered pause before he introduced those two words which sent a shiver down my back—"so far".
The noble Lord asked for examples. It is not a matter of over-nannying. We have in mind names containing a word such as "royal". That would be inappropriate and ought to be forbidden. Words in the same context are "duke", "duchess", "Her Majesty", "His Majesty", "king", "prince", "princess", "queen" and "royalty". Those are the kinds of expression that we should wish not to see used. I mentioned other examples earlier. We do not want people to be able to register and simply use the word "independent" in order to prevent anyone else using a similar word. But questions relating to the Royal Family ought to be subject to the prohibition that is anticipated.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is right. Clause 3(1)(f) is subject to the negative resolution procedure by virtue of Clause 20(2). I hope that I have satisfied the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, with my persuasive explanation.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am sorry to say that the noble Lord has done nothing of the kind. I am deeply disappointed. On the other hand I am grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I recognise that on this occasion I have done nothing to deserve his support, and I am therefore the more grateful for his gallantry in giving it. He has a generous spirit, as we all know and I wish to acknowledge that.
The Minister's reply is disappointing. If particular words must be avoided, the statute should say so. Why on earth should we endow the Secretary of State with these extra powers? I find this sort of thing vaguely inconvenient. It is distasteful to me; I do not like it. I do not care to give Secretaries of State that kind of power. I should have said as much with the same firmness had the provision related to a Secretary of State in the previous administration.
However, in view of the noble Lord's remarks I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage. I have tabled other amendments which I contemplate not moving for the present. I shall leave them until a later stage so that I can examine the Minister's remarks in the Official Report to see whether there is any chance of a little "give". So far, the noble Lord has taken everything that I have offered and given me nothing in return. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The registrar shall refuse an application by a party under section 2 if he believes, irrespective of the party's proposed registered name, that the party is substantially the same as a registered party, having regard to the applicant party's objectives, membership, officers or geographical base.").
The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 15. Perhaps I may say to the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, that this amendment addresses a problem that I have raised in relation to both the Welsh and Scottish Bills. Although I detect a few Members of the Committee present today who have not been present for the Welsh and Scottish legislation, I know that the Minister has been present, and for his sake if not my own. I shall truncate the problem and come to the solution.
The problem relates to a suggestion made by a lecturer from Aberdeen University, taken up by a Labour MP in the city of Glasgow. I shall give the example that was provided, so I am not picking on the governing party. It is this. In Glasgow the Labour Party, at least to date, has dominated the first-past-the-post elections. When it comes to the top-up seats in the Scottish parliament—this discussion could also relate to most of the Welsh seats—the Labour Party will not gain many because of its dominant share of first-past-the-post seats. The idea was advanced that instead of the Labour Party standing in the second ballot, it would allow the Co-operative Party to stand in Scotland, and, I suspect, in Wales. The public are well aware that the words "Labour" and "Co-operative" go together rather like "gin and tonic" or whatever else your Lordships may care to think about; therefore it would not be difficult for the public to understand what the Labour Party was up to. If that were to happen, and Labour voters were to vote Co-operative in the second ballot and the Labour Party did not stand at all, then, because the Co-operative Party would have no seats on first-past-the-post, it would gain a generous harvest of top-up seats. Therefore, when members of the party appeared at Holyrood or in Cardiff following the election, their numbers would be much higher than if the Co-operative Party had not stood in the second ballot but the Labour Party had. That is essentially the problem.
I have not made this up from my own fevered imagination, as is sometimes said of one or two amendments I propose. The problem was put forward seriously and was discussed in another place. The Glasgow Labour MP made no pretence that it was not an idea he thought well worth considering. In fairness it has to be said that in this House—I am not sure about the other place—the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and myself gave assurances that we would never play a game like that. However, I pointed out to the Labour Benches that that did not bind the Scottish National Party were it ever to be in a position where it might be a good trick or wheeze for it to play. I believe that this is potentially a way in which parties could abuse the electoral system. I came forward with a number of suggestions on both the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, none of which met

407
with the Government's approval. Indeed, I do not believe that they met with the approval of the Liberal Democrat Party. However, it was indicated to me—certainly from the Liberal Democrat Benches—that this was the correct Bill on which to seek a way to deal with the problem, and Amendments Nos. 7 and 15 attempt to do that.
Amendment No. 7 provides that, if the registrar of political parties has grounds to believe that a party which applies for registration is to all intents and purposes the same party as one already on the register and is clearly registering in order to take advantage of the top-up system in the way I have outlined, he would be able to refuse registration.
Amendment No. 15 provides that, if the registrar had granted an application for registration to a party which it transpired was to all intents and purposes the same party as one standing in first-past-the-post, he would be able to withdraw the registration.
I believe that the amendments are reasonably well drafted. I did not draft them myself; that was done by someone who knows about these things. I believe that they tackle the problem. I know from our discussions on the Government of Wales Bill that the Minister does not think that the problem is likely to occur. However, it has been discussed. I gather from the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, who shared the workplace of Aberdeen University with the gentleman who raised the matter that he is reputable. His suggestion was given fairly wide coverage in Scotland, as was the backing it received from the Labour MP. It is not a totally ridiculous position to theorise over. It could happen and certainly would bring considerable rewards in some circumstances. Although the Labour Party has clearly said—and I believe it—that it would not do so, the attraction of stopping the Scottish nationalists obtaining a lot of top-up seats and creating difficulty for the Scottish parliament will certainly exist for the Labour Party. Indeed those of us who do not want to see the Scottish Nationalist Party obtain enough seats in the Scottish parliament to upset the Union might be tempted to think that it was a good wheeze. However, I do not think it is a good wheeze; it would be wrong and an abuse of the system.
I hope that the Minister will look sympathetically at these two amendments, which seek to deal with the problem. When the matter was raised on the Government of Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill, it was accepted that it could be a problem although the Minister did not think that it would arise. However, noble Lords indicated that this was the Bill in which the matter should be dealt with. I therefore propose these amendments to deal with what I fear could, one day in the future, be a serious abuse of the two-vote top-up system to be used in Scotland and Wales. I beg to move.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: Having listened to the noble Lord who moved the amendment, I am coming more and more to the conclusion that the Bill is an absolute mess. When giving examples of words which would not be used, my noble friend on the Front Bench produced a string of words about the Monarchy. That is
408
not what I would have thought of. I would have thought of a group of people filled with malice, deliberately setting out to mess up the system. Even earlier my noble friend said that there were several important groups of elections coming up and we could therefore see how the system works. What a basis on which to go forward!
I believe that the amendment indicates further problems ahead. When discussing the Bill we have assumed that people will be filled with good will. When those who are filled with malice, who do not like this country, its open system and democratic traditions, get to work, I believe that the Bill could become a vehicle by which they could do serious damage to the way we proceed.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: I have a good deal of sympathy for the view of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It seems to me that, at least in theory, there is a problem, and it is not difficult to see what that problem is. I have some concern about the drafting of the amendments. I do not believe that they block all the ways in which the problem could arise. For instance, looking back at the history of my own party, it would have been possible for the SDP and the Liberal Party to have one party fighting all the first-past-the-post seats and another putting up all the candidates for the list. I am sure that we would not have done that, but it would have been a possibility. It would not have been met by this amendment because the two parties had different memberships, different offices and not wholly identical objectives. That is not the only example where that kind of problem could have arisen. It could also have arisen 50 or 60 years ago with the Conservative Party and the National Liberal Party, which were, at least for a period, separate parties.
The problem arises only in connection with AMS elections, but it nevertheless needs to be considered. While I cannot support the amendments, for the reasons I have given, I wonder whether the Minister would be prepared to give the matter further consideration and see whether some alternative can be devised.
Viscount Bledisloe: Whenever the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has explained this problem, he has convinced me that it is a real problem and not merely theoretical. It is unacceptable to wave it away on the basis that the parties have said that they will not behave in that way. First, that has only been said by the three principal parties represented in this House. Secondly, undertakings of that kind tend to be forgotten over the years, especially when the prize to be gained is substantial. Thirdly, it is surely fundamentally unacceptable to enact legislation on the basis that it contains a defect but that we can trust people not to cheat. That is not what legislation is for.
On the other hand, in the case of the other Bills I considered the solutions propounded by the noble Lord to be worse than the ills he was seeking to cure. I believe that the amendments he is now proposing, in particular Amendment No. 15, are very apt to cure the ill he is worried about and will have no side effects. It may be that the drafting is not perfect, but I hope that the

409
Minister will accept the principle behind the amendments and that he will discuss the matter with noble Lords on the other Front Benches and agree, by the next stage of the Bill, an amendment to achieve this end.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I believe that the problem is largely theoretical. To take the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, the Bill is not intended to prevent two distinct parties with similar aims and objectives from registering. If two distinct registered parties with similar aims wish to enter into an electoral pact to try to maximise their support, as they may well do, we think they should be entitled to do so.
It is the abusive manipulation of the additional member system which has troubled Members of the Committee. One must remember that to obtain such an unfair advantage a party must first win a significant number of constituency seats within a region and its alter ego party must receive a significant proportion of the regional vote for the additional member seats. I reaffirmed the undertaking given by the Labour Party. The Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru gave the same undertaking, and it is my understanding that the Scottish Nationalist Party has said that it will not seek to deceive the voters in this way.
Voters are not simple-minded. They are perfectly able to know when deceit is being practised on them. In the elections we are speaking of, the media would be alert to any mendacity or deception. I believe that the Bill and the powers given to the registrar are sufficient. One could not obtain an unfair advantage by manipulation outside the context of those parties which have already promised never to do that.
There are difficulties with the amendments in any event. It is difficult to understand how a registrar will have access to the objectives, membership, officers and geographical bases before he comes to his conclusion. It would be a very difficult duty for the registrar to discharge. But that is not my fundamental objection. My objection is, to use the words of the noble Viscount, that this is a theoretical mischief, which is not a real one.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for their support. While I accept that it is theoretical, as I explained it was being seriously discussed inside some parts of the Labour Party in Scotland. As the noble Lord, Lord Williams, has said, it would be very beneficial in those parts of the country where a political party gained all the first-past-the-post seats in a region and yet did not gain well over 50 per cent. of the vote. Even if they did gain over 50 per cent., it would still be beneficial. Regrettably, there are many regions in Scotland where the Labour Party did win all the first-past-the-post seats, and the same is true in Wales. The noble Lord heard me give examples of how it could be done in Wales.
I accept that, apart from the discussions I mentioned earlier, nobody has suggested that they would do it. The political parties have said that they would not do it. But, just to raise the concerns of the Liberal Democrat Party,
410
there would be a temptation above all temptations for it to do it in the Highland region. It received a lot of the first-past-the-post seats in the Highland region on a minority of the vote. On the basis of the last election results, it would have no chance of getting any of the top-up seats in the Scottish parliament. It is very decent of the Liberal Democrat Party to assure us that it would never be tempted into this.
Clearly, I am not making any progress with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. The assurances I have received are certainly welcome but, as these are not matters which would be resolved in a court, I do not believe that the usual Government or other party assurances would be a protection against a party in the future using this method of abusing the additional member system. I will read the objections which have been made to the drafting and see if we can improve it. I will come back at the next stage and perhaps at that time I shall persuade the noble Lord, Lord Williams, with a tightly drafted amendment that meets with no objection, that it would be worth putting a few more words into this Bill. That would ensure for all time in the future that the additional member system is made foolproof against any political party deciding to abuse it by the type of operation that I have described. For the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Entries in the register]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 15, leave out ("home").
The noble Lord said: In speaking to Amendment No. 9 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 13, 30, 32 and 36. This is a very simple probing amendment which can be dealt with very quickly in the form of a question. As the noble Lord has seen, we seek to remove the word "home" from "home addresses". We appreciate that the Bill has been drafted in such a manner so that people's personal security can be protected. Their home addresses are not made public and they are not put at risk, should there be a risk. We welcome that.
But there might be cases—and I am thinking particularly of Northern Ireland—where the party headquarters might be seen to be a target of terrorists. It might be that on some occasions a party will have a legitimate desire to keep its headquarters' address secret—odd though that might sound for a party engaged in the business of trying to attract publicity and support. Can the noble Lord assure us that, where there were legitimate concerns of that sort, it would be possible to have such details left off the public register? I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: This is a legitimate concern. I am happy to reaffirm that the privacy of the leader, the nominating officer and the families is preserved by Clause 4. Clause 4 prohibits the inclusion of home addresses on the register, which will be a document in the public domain. It is a perfectly legitimate concern to have raised.

411
There is nothing sinister about this. We simply need home addresses, for instance, if there is a circumstance where a party splits or divides. Then it may be necessary for the registrar to be able to contact a person at his or her home address to make sure of the true factual position. Clause 4 gives the protection which may be needed in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord.
Lord Henley: I obviously did not make my question clear. There might be occasions where the party might want to keep its address out of the public domain. Obviously, once it is in the register it would be in the public domain. Would the address of the party have to be part of the register and therefore in the public domain?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I cannot think of any circumstances in which a party could possibly stand for election without having its address known. One has the usual details to be included on election material, for example, which is disseminated. I cannot think of any party that could possibly exist without its registered office being known. In Northern Ireland—which, after all, in some ways is a limited community in terms of the electorate—everybody knows where Sinn Fein's office is. I know perfectly well where the SDLP office is. Even the Flat Earth Society has an office. One has to be sensible. One has to have proper protection of privacy. That is why we have put it in Clause 4. Other than that, I think the noble Lord's concerns are overdone.
Lord Henley: I accept that it would be fairly difficult to imagine circumstances where a party did wish to keep such matters confidential. All I sought was an assurance that such matters could be kept secret should it be necessary. Obviously the noble Lord thinks that that is not the case. I will ponder over his words very carefully and for the moment withdraw my amendments. I suspect I shall not come back to them. I shall give the noble Lord that assurance at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Emblems]:
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Henley: My noble friend and I gave notice that we would oppose the Question that Clause 5 stand part of the Bill. Grouped with the debate on Clause 5 stand part are Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 24, 34 and 42. My noble friend Lord Peyton of Yeovil is no longer in his place but I know that he likes brevity in a Bill. Should I press these amendments, and should they be agreed to, it would mean the deletion of some 46 lines in total from the Bill, which would reduce it by at least one page. I suspect that that would have some support from my noble friend.
412
I brought forward these amendments only because there were one or two concerns about the use of logos and a regret that they should be used on ballot papers. I am thinking particularly of the speech made by my noble friend Lord Freeman at Second Reading. As we all know, it is only relatively recently in electoral terms that we even included the names of political parties on ballot papers. Before that, one of the duties of those canvassing was to make sure that people would recognise the name of their party candidate. Changes were then made and the names of parties were included. That is one of the points which the Bill addresses. I rather regret that we have to extend this to include logos on the ballot paper and therefore have to have some system of registering logos.
We heard in response to Amendment No. 10 that it will not be possible to register separate logos for different parts of the same party. I am thinking of the separate logos that the Scottish Liberal Democrats and their English counterpart might have. Similarly, as I understand it, it will not be possible for my colleagues in Scotland to register their distinctive logo—my noble friend Lord Mackay assures me that they have a distinctive logo—rather than the logo of the English party. It seems to me that if we are to have the registration of logos, it would be preferable for them to be registered in separate manners, as was suggested originally in Amendment No. 10.
Those are the only points I want to make on the Question whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Peyton would or would not have supported a move to remove 46 lines from the Bill. However, I live in hope that on some later occasion he might come back and offer support.
6 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My reaction is: why not have logos? I do not know whether the Conservatives are perhaps upset by the rather smoky looking torch that appears in the appendix to the Bill, but there are plainly two advantages to logos. The first is that they reinforce the protection for party names given by the Bill by making it doubly obvious which party people are voting for. The second advantage relates to the fact that not everyone is capable of reading English. In countries such as India, where there are large numbers of illiterate people, the existence of a logo is essential to voters. In this country those who are functionally illiterate may be dissuaded from voting because they might find considerable difficulty identifying on a written ballot paper the candidate they wished to support. There are also people who are literate but not literate in the English language. They may be literate in one of the Indian scripts but not in an English script. In that case, once again, the existence of a logo would very much help them to vote. While we have had a good deal of sympathy for the other amendments put forward by the Conservative Party, we have to take an entirely different line on this occasion.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The important point to bear in mind is that Clause 5 is purely permissive. I take

413
up the reference of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to the draft counterfoil on page 10 of the Bill. One sees there that of the six candidates five have logos and Catherine Angelina Smith, Independent, has none. One needs to bear in mind that the clause is purely permissive. It states:
"A party's application under section 2 may include a request for the registration of an emblem".
We want to encourage people to participate in the electoral process. That is good in a healthy democracy. If people who are unfamiliar with the English language, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, indicated—there are also those who are partially sighted, those who have reading difficulties and those who have difficulty in distinguishing names—can be encouraged to come forward, then so much the better.
The logo also deals with the difficulty where a candidate assumes the same name as another candidate. The logo is a means of differentiation. Quite often—this is certainly the case in Wales—there might be five legitimate candidates who all have the same name—possibly a common one like Williams. The emblem is simply a device, no more—it is not obligatory—to make the electoral process easier, simpler and more attractive. That should be an advantage not a disadvantage.
As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, there was a time when party names were not included and the "Where will it all end?" and "The end of civilisation as we know it" arguments were put forward. But I know of no one who is seriously interested in electoral matters who does not think that that was a positive advance.
Lord Henley: Can the noble Lord deal with the point I made about Scotland? Can he confirm that it will not be possible for different constituent parts of the same party to register different emblems?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I thought I had given that answer to the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, when I referred to the two square centimetres.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Changes to the register]:
{Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.}
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Removal of entries from the register]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 34, at end insert—
("( ) The registrar may remove a party's entry from the register if any of the party's registered officers have been convicted of an offence under section 19(1) in connection with the party's registration or continued registration.").
The noble Lord said: This is a probing amendment which is self-explanatory in its wording. As the noble Lord will see, it seeks to give the registrar a power to remove an entry from the register if any of the party's registered officers have been convicted of an offence under Clause 19, which, the Committee will remember, deals with false statements. It seems fairly obvious to us
414
that there should be such a power. I should be grateful for a response from the noble Lord, Lord Williams. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: On these Benches we believe that this is a somewhat draconian power for the registrar to have. I have been a party officer for some years now. If we had someone in my party who was convicted in such circumstances, we should certainly make sure that his feet did not touch the ground and that he did not darken the doors of our party headquarters after that. For the registrar to have a power to disqualify the party as a whole from registering because of the misdemeanours of one officer is extraordinarily draconian. What the amendment seems to imply is that parties themselves have connived at the misdemeanour of the party officer who has been convicted and, therefore, that the party should pay the penalty. I recognise that the amendment says "may" and not "shall". Nevertheless, having something on the statute book of this strength seems to us to be extremely dangerous, and we cannot support it.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I sympathise with the intention behind the amendment but I do not think it is necessary. If false information were provided of such seriousness as to merit prosecution, the party probably would not have provided the information required to enable registration, so the entry would be void. In any event, looking at the practicalities, if a party were removed, it could immediately apply for registration under another name or simply wait three months and register under the same name. I do not think there is any practical utility here, although I repeat that I sympathise with the intention of the amendment.
Lord Henley: I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, implied, that the Liberal Democrat Party is as pure as the driven snow and I am sure that the same applies to my party and all other parties. However, it is possible—I think we should remember the words of the noble Lord, Lord Cocks—that not all parties in the future will behave in such a manner. It is possible that some may not have the same devotion to democracy and openness as others. It may be right to consider the inclusion of a power of this kind. I shall read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Williams, said and possibly return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("three") and insert ("six").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 17 is purely a probing amendment related to the transitional period. One asks why it should be three months as opposed to any other period. I suggested six months almost as a result of drawing a number out of a hat. The amendment is tabled purely to ask the Government why they

415
consider three months an appropriate period for the transitional stage, and whether they considered other periods and, if so, why.
Lord Clement-Jones: I cannot see the purpose of the amendment. In the end there is still a six-month transitional period. The provision specifies a transitional period of three months plus a further three months, which accords with reality, rather than a block of six months after which one falls off the edge of a cliff, so to speak. We do not support the amendment.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The short answer is that the Government thought three months a practical length of time and quite long enough to establish a proper distance. In seeking to achieve a workable electoral system we saw no compelling reason to provide a longer period.
Lord Henley: I am most grateful for that explanation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 agreed to.
6.15 p.m.
Clause 9 [Applications under section 6 or 8]:
On Question, Whether Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Brightman: I raise one small point on Clause 9. My query is whether the clause requires further scrutiny. The declared intention of the Bill in both its Short Title and Long Title is to make provision for the registration of political parties. However, it seems clear that the Bill applies also to a person who desires to stand as an independent candidate and has no organisation or party of any description behind him. That is clear beyond peradventure by virtue of Clause 22 (the interpretation clause) in which "party" includes "any person".
If one reads Clause 9 as applying not only to a party but to a person, the wording appears a little odd:
"Subject to subsection (3), an application by a person under section 6 or 8 must be signed by his or her responsible officers.
(2) For the purposes of this section 'the responsible officers' are—

(a) The registered leader;

(b) the registered nominating officer;

(c) where the leader and the nominating officer are the same person, the other registered officer.

(3) If any responsible officer is unable to sign an application—
(a) the holder of some other office in the party"—
I cannot insert "person" there—
"may sign in his place, and
(b) the application must include",
etcetera, etcetera.
Without some change that wording does not appear to me entirely happy and consistent with the inclusion of an independent person with no party or organisation behind him. Reading, as I have, Clause 9 substituting
416
"person" for "party", I find myself in a bit of a muddle. Can the Minister, having confirmed that the Bill is intended to apply to an independent candidate with no party or organisation behind him, inform the Committee whether he is satisfied with the present wording or whether it should be referred back to parliamentary counsel for reconsideration?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his courtesy in giving me notice that he would raise this matter. I have therefore been able to take advice upon it. I confirm that someone with no party organisation can register as the leader and nominating officer of a party. Having done that he needs to name another person—only one—as holding a specific office. That is to be found in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1:
"If one person is named in an application both as leader and as nominating officer, the application must also give the name and home address of the holder of some other specified office in the party".
That does not prevent anyone from standing as an independent provided he can get one other person to act as his supporter. We do not believe that that is unduly onerous. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising the matter. My advice is that, having listened to his question and his understanding of Clause 9 as read with the other clause he identified, it is properly drafted and does not place any undue difficulty in the path of anyone who wants to stand as an independent.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Speaker's committee]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 12, at end insert—
("(2) A party whose application under section 3, 5, 6 or 18 is refused may appeal to the committee against the decision of the registrar.
(3) A registered party may appeal to the committee against a decision of the registrar under section 3, 5 or 6 in respect of another party.").
The noble Lord said: I return to the question of the transparency of the process involved in registration and appeal against it. Many of the same principles debated earlier apply here since we have doubts about the width of the discretion that is available to the registrar. Given that currently there is discretion purely in the hands of the registrar as to whether to refer a particular matter to the Speaker's committee, in those circumstances only judicial review is available to an aggrieved would-be registrant. One is aware that judicial review may involve some extremely eminent lawyers but it is a very blunt instrument particularly in cases such as this where effectively political judgments need to be made. Obviously, it will not be the full appeal process on the merits of a particular case.
It is important to have an appeal that is presided over by people with some political understanding of the process. For that reason we believe that the choice of the Speaker's committee is appropriate. Obviously, it is left to the Speaker's discretion as to who should be appointed to that task. But we believe that that body would be appropriate to carry out the task. For that

417
reason we prefer the choice of the Speaker's committee pure and simple rather than the registration appeals committee referred to in the Conservative Party's amendment which specifically provides that a majority shall not be members of any political party.
This may well be a political process and perhaps fine political judgments will have to be made by the Speaker's committee. We believe that an appeal process is necessary. It would be a quick and effective process, the right people would be involved, and there would be the minimum of legal argument. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: Our amendment is grouped with this amendment and it attacks the problem from a slightly different angle. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, does not like our amendment. I believe that it is somewhat superior, but then, "I would, wouldn't I?". Furthermore, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Peyton would not welcome our amendment in that it seems to offer yet greater powers to the Secretary of State to establish a committee. My noble friend is not keen on offering any further powers to the Secretary of State. So be it; I shall have to live without his support.
If Members of the Committee cast their mind back to Second Reading they will remember that almost every speaker commented on the desirability of having some kind of appeals process built into the Bill. From that point of view, I am at one with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It may be that we shall have to return to the matter at a later stage. Perhaps on that occasion the Liberal Democrats will allow me to add my name to their amendment. I appreciate that on most occasions they want to exclude me; indeed, it was only by quick footwork that I was able to attach my name to one of their amendments today. However, I live in hope that occasionally we might work together. I believe that on Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, spoke of the desirability of an appeals process. We might come together and table an all-party amendment which the Minister will have to address with even greater weight than is required for an amendment tabled by myself and my noble friend Lord Mackay.
Our amendment empowers the Secretary of State to set up a committee which, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made clear, will not be dominated by party political people. This is one of those occasions when I suspect that it would be better to keep party politics out of the process. I understood the argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in favour of involving politicians, but we can discuss that further at a later stage. For the moment, I would welcome the Minister's view and I shall listen carefully to what he has to say. I give an assurance that I and others will wish to return to the matter at a later stage.
Lord Borrie: Without wishing to prolong the matter, and before hearing what must be an important and interesting statement by the Minister, I wish to explain that the reason why on Second Reading a number of us felt that some kind of appeal process was necessary was because, among other things, the registrar, without any initial experience and appointed by the Department of
418
Trade and Industry rather than by the Home Office, and with experience of a world which is different from that of political parties, was being given enormous power, the results of which would last for a considerable period of time. To a large degree, it would be a one-off series of decisions by the registrar taken during a fairly short period. It would be unsatisfactory if those decisions were unappealable.
Earlier today, I said that I preferred the Conservative rather than the Liberal Democrat amendment. On this occasion, I dislike less the Conservative amendment. I do not believe that either is satisfactory. The Liberal Democrat amendment is not satisfactory because it gives a tremendous degree of power to an appeal committee which, unless Mr. Martin Bell is a member, will comprise only party politicians, all of whom, in different ways, will have an interest in the application for the registration of political parties.
There is somewhat more appeal—I did not mean to make a pun—in the Conservative amendment. However, if the appointment is by the Speaker and no guidance is given, it will presumably be made up at least in part of party politicians who are Members of the House of Commons. Who the other members will be is unstated. I believe that further thought should be given to the matter. I do not wish to support either amendment at this stage, but I, too, will be fascinated to hear the Minister's response on the principle of an appeal.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the basis behind the arguments put forward by your Lordships. I believe that the framework we have set out in the Bill provides sufficient safeguards. I suggest that it is important to bear in mind that Clause 10 specifically provides that before the registrar decides any question arising under Sections 3, 5, 6 or 18—they are the relevant sections spoken to in the amendments—he may seek advice from a committee of Members of the House of Commons appointed by the Speaker for the purpose.
Amendment No. 18 provides for a right of appeal to the Speaker's committee. But we are getting rather circuitous because, bearing in mind Clause 12, in any difficult or contentious case the registrar is likely to refer the application for advice to the Speaker's committee. One would expect in those circumstances that the registrar would act on the advice. Therefore, there would be no point in having an appeal to the Speaker's Committee because it would be reviewing its own decisions.
Amendment No. 19 offers an alternative appeal mechanism to the registration appeals committee. The new clause is a shade short on detail. It makes no provision for parliamentary control. We were looking for a framework which would be fair, straightforward and simple to operate. There is the remedy of judicial review. If the registrar misapplies the law, misdirects himself or herself, or acts unreasonably, the remedy already exists; namely, judicial review. We believe that we have got the balance about right and I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord is saying that the only remedy shall be judicial review. He will accept that

419
judicial review would be both expensive and time consuming. There will be occasions when, whatever appeal is made, it must be dealt with speedily. Will he not reconsider the whole matter and at least agree to discussions about whether it might be possible to include some formal appeals procedure by whatever means so that such matters can be dealt with without the expense of going to the courts and without the time consuming nature of doing so?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: That is what we have provided. We have provided an informal mechanism, to use the noble Lord's phrase, because it specifically allows that the registrar may take advice by virtue of Clause 10. We have struck exactly the balance of efficiency, speed, lack of expense and informality. It is said that the courts are very slow but, without commenting on the merits of the issue, the Lord Chief Justice heard Senator Pinochet's original application very quickly and the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House is hearing it at the moment. One could not be quicker than that. The informality and advice is well provided for in Clause 10.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: The noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked for informal talks? Would that not be a good idea? The Minister did not respond to the request. I believe that the measure is largely agreed and that it would be sensible if the Minister were able to agree to such discussions.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I may have misunderstood what the noble Lord was saying because I took his reference to "informal advice" to be in relation to the provision in Clause 10.
I am always willing to listen but I am sure that noble Lords will bear in mind the timetable of this Bill and the very tight schedule to which we are working bearing in mind that the first elections are as early as May of next year. I cannot say more than that I shall listen. I should not like to give a hint that we shall change our minds. However, as always, I shall listen to anything which noble Lords wish to say.
Lord Henley: I am extremely grateful for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich. It may be useful for members of my party and members of the noble Lord's party to have some informal discussions. From the Minister's answers, I suspect that he is not prepared to move on this matter. It is an issue on which virtually every noble Lord expressed concerns at Second Reading. That includes noble Lords sitting behind the Minister as well as those sitting opposite. It was thought that there should be an appeals procedure.
The noble Lord referred to Clause 10 and said that the registrar may seek advice on any question arising under Clauses 3, 5, 6 or 18 from the commission appointed by the Speaker of another place. That really does not go far enough. That is merely offering advice to the registrar. It does not provide an appeals process,
420
whether informal or otherwise, to other people who may be affected. It simply offers the provision of advice to the registrar.
I do not know what line the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, wants to take about his amendment but it is certainly a matter to which I shall wish to return at a later stage.
Lord Clement-Jones: Certainly we feel strongly about this principle. We are not wedded to the precise form of words of the amendment. I was going to say that there was no chink of daylight shown by the Minister but there may have been a smidgen of a hint in terms of being prepared at least to listen, if not to agree.
I can give some encouragement to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and tell him that this is a matter about which we feel extremely strongly. We may be able to bring forward a cross-party amendment on Report which may attract the support of some Labour Back-Benchers. The matter has been understood but not enough sympathy has been shown to the principle. At the end of the day, we believe that problems may arise unless there is a proper appeals mechanism. We shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but reserve our right to return to the matter on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 not moved.]
Clauses 11 to 13 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 13, insert the following new clause—

NOMINATION PAPERS: GUIDANCE FOR RETURNING OFFICERS
(" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall, from time to time, issue guidance to returning officers on the exercise of their powers under rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered political party) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act"), as inserted by paragraph 2 of Schedule 2 to this Act.
(2) Before issuing any guidance under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall take into account information, which he shall cause to be collected from time to time for the purposes of this subsection, about the extent to which returning officers are applying their discretion under rule 6A of Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act in a manner which is consistent both over time and between different areas of the United Kingdom.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is very similar to one tabled by the Conservative Party in Committee in another place. I hope that Members of the Committee on the Conservative Benches may support this amendment.
It seems to us—and certainly it is the view taken by electoral officers who will be responsible for running the elections—that guidance is needed from the Home Office for returning officers in those circumstances. Considerable discretion is being exercised by them and we cannot see why there should not be specific provision for such guidelines to be provided to them. In many respects, this will be new territory for them. The electoral officers association pointed out a number of flaws in the rules. Without wishing to become involved in the minutiae of the detail, it is clear that there will be interpretation issues which returning officers will wish to test.
It seems to me that many problems would be obviated for the future if the Home Office produced suitable guidelines for those returning officers. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: I offer my support for this amendment. This is the only occasion on which the Liberal Democrats have allowed me to join with them in adding my name to an amendment. It may be that because my name has been misspelt, it has slipped under their guard. It may be that they mistook me for my late father, a Liberal of some standing. I do not know. The simple fact is that they have allowed me in, and I am very grateful for that.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: We believe that Amendment No. 21 is unnecessary. The Secretary of State is able to issue guidance without any need for statutory authority. The new clause is a shade confused but that is perhaps not the heart of what I can say, which may be of benefit.
I can tell the noble Lord that we have been discussing with representatives of returning officers what information it would be appropriate to make available to assist returning officers to make their decisions under new rule 6A; how to collate the information; how to promulgate it; and when and how often to do so. Therefore, we have been having those discussions. I hope that that is genuinely helpful to the Committee. Copies of any guidance which my right honourable friend issues to returning officers on this matter will be placed in the Library. Therefore, I hope that I have met the purpose which the noble Lord's amendment sought to achieve.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. On the basis that he is saying that guidelines will be issued, I shall withdraw the amendment. That is what I understood him to be saying and if that is so, I shall withdraw the amendment and look forward to seeing those guidelines.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 14 and 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [First transitional stage]:
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 5, line 17, leave out from ("least") to ("at") in line 18 and insert ("two Members of the House of Commons who have taken their seats in that House belong").
The noble Lord said: Again, this is a probing amendment but I may wish to take the matter further depending on the response that I receive from the Minister.
At present, as I understand it, only parties with at least one Member of the House of Commons will be eligible to register during the transitional period. First, that excludes parties which are not there—and I shall deal with them on Amendment No. 23. However, as regards Amendment No. 22, I seek only to pose two questions.
First, does it mean that Mr. Martin Bell, an independent Member, could register himself as a party, should he have the one other friend that he needs, as I understand it from an earlier response? Secondly, what is the position of Members of the House of Commons
422
who have not taken their seats? I refer to Sinn Fein which has two elected Members of the Westminster Parliament but because they do not recognise its authority, they have never taken their seats. Will it be possible for them to register in the earlier phase or do they have to be Members of the House of Commons who have taken their seats in that House as our amendment sets out? I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: On Amendment No. 22, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, seems to be following the opposite course from that which he proposes in Amendment No. 23. The effect of Amendment No. 22 would be to exclude members of Sinn Fein on the grounds that they have not taken their seats and to exclude—I think it is called—the United Kingdom Unionist Party and Mr. Robert McCartney who is undoubtedly the representative of a party but is its only representative in another place.
On the other hand, Amendment No. 23 would let in everybody including, as I understand it, the Monster Raving Loony Party, who has at least one elected representative on one council somewhere. Indeed, it would let in people on parish councils for the first stage registration process. It seems to me that in saying you have to have one MP to qualify for the first stage registration process the Government have got it about right.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: There are three individual Members without a major party label who would be excluded from registration: Martin Bell, the Independent Member for Tatton; Tommy Graham, the Member for West Renfrewshire, who has been expelled from the parliamentary Labour Party; and Robert McCartney, the United Kingdom Unionist, who is the Member in the other place for North Down. Martin Bell can register at the moment, and if he wishes to stand again for another Parliament—as he said he did not—then he ought to be able to register, or so it seems to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, is quite right, because his amendment would not only extend the number from one to two or more Members but it also includes the words:
"who have taken their seats …".
That would mean that Sinn Fein would not be able to register if this amendment were accepted; nor would Robert McCartney. Whether or not one agrees with Robert McCartney in all his views, it seems to me that it would be unjust to exclude him by increasing the number from one to two. We see no virtue in excluding those two parties from the first stage. In fact Robert McCartney, if I may speak personally, makes an interesting and individualistic contribution to the affairs not only of Northern Ireland but of Westminster generally.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Henley: I am very grateful for that explanation from the noble Lord. Perhaps I might explain to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there a number of occasions when one puts down contradictory

423
amendments. There is nothing odd about that. One is simply probing, and it is a useful device to seek from the Government the appropriate responses. I quite accept that Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 attack the issue from rather different points of view. However, in a moment I shall be withdrawing Amendment No. 22 and moving on to Amendment No. 23, and I hope to explain to the Committee the ideas that lie behind that amendment. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 22.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 18, at end insert (", or
(ii) represented by a Member of Parliament, an elected member of a local authority, an elected Member of the European Parliament, or an elected member of the Northern Ireland Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 23, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, kindly pointed out, is slightly contradictory of Amendment No. 22. I rather regret the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, because by means of this amendment I want to take your Lordships back to the Maastricht Treaty of some years ago. I note the look of enthusiasm on the face of the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn!
I should like to refer him to Article 138A of the Maastricht Treaty, with which I imagine the noble Lord will be most familiar. It reads as follows:
"Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union."
I think it is important that this Bill contributes towards that process to which we signed up in the Maastricht Treaty. The purpose of my amendment, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explained, it would also allow people such as the Monster Raving Loony Party to register in the first stage, was to bring in such bodies as the Greens or, for that matter, European parties represented in the European Parliament but not in our own Parliament. I appreciate that obviously they can register at the second stage. However, it seems to me that when we have signed up to the Maastricht Treaty, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and others might think of the process, this Bill ought to go along with the spirit of that treaty. To exclude the Greens, a party represented in the German Government, seems to me somewhat odd at this stage. I wonder, therefore, whether the noble Lord would be able to give us some assurance of his willingness to accept some changes on these lines to allow us to comply with the Maastricht Treaty and the obligations we signed up to there. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I think we are compliant with our treaty obligations, not least with Article 138A. I take it this is simply a probing amendment, as the earlier contradictory amendment was.
The first transitional phase for registration applies to parties represented in the House of Commons and we think that is reasonable, but to extend it to include the
424
Northern Ireland Assembly, and in particular local authorities, would greatly increase the number of parties to be registered in the first transitional phase, which is only a six week period, and would put intolerable pressure on the registrar at that time. After all, a party which registers at the second stage, if it uses a name by which it has become known, is likely to be able to register that name and continue to use it, even if it is similar to a name used by a party represented in the House of Commons. On an earlier occasion I gave the illustration that people will be able to distinguish as voters between the Labour Party and Mr. Scargill's Socialist Labour Party.
We think we have got this about right. To extend it as widely as the noble Lord's amendment suggests would place an intolerable burden on the registrar for a fairly short period of time for these first elections, which are due in May of next year.
Lord Henley: I accept the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Williams. My knowledge and understanding of the Maastricht Treaty is not as great as some people's, but it may be that I should ask the Minister's noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington to have a further look at that treaty between now and the next stage to see whether it is a matter to which we could return.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I beseech the noble Lord not to do that!
Lord Henley: I just offer it as a suggestion in the interests of your Lordships, and I have noted the noble Lord's reaction. I have my copy of the Maastricht Treaty here and I will study it a little further myself, and possibly seek a little advice from the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Transitional ground for refusal to register]:
[Amendment No. 24 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 26 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Applications for Registration]:
[Amendments Nos. 27 to 37 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Amendments of the Parliamentary Elections Rules]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 17, at end insert—
("(1A) A nomination paper may not refer to a candidate by a name which has been adopted by that candidate in substitution for a name previously used by him and which is likely to lead voters to confuse the candidate with a candidate representing a registered political party.").
The noble Lord said: This provision seeks to amend the election rules to ensure that the mischief that we have seen on a number of occasions is firmly put to rights. It is not perhaps on the scale of Calais, but on Liberal Democrat hearts is firmly engraved the experience that we had—as we heard on Second Reading from both myself and my noble friend Lord Goodhart—at the Hillhead by-election when Roy Harold Jenkins stood against the former leader of my party in this House, Roy Harris Jenkins. That caused enormous problems, but because it was a by-election we were able to throw our full weight behind the noble Lord—now my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead—and get across the message to the electorate in all kinds of outlandish and perhaps not so outlandish ways. Again, we heard about some of those ways at Second Reading.
Similarly, at the last general election candidates were intervening in elections—for instance, against Sir Nicholas Lyell in Bedfordshire North East, Mr. Rod Richards in Clwyd West and Miss Alice Mahon in Halifax. On those occasions they were able to rely on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, in particular Section 115(2)(b) which provides, that,
"A person shall be guilty of undue influence [and thereby of corrupt practice] if … by any fraudulent device or contrivance, he impedes or prevents the free exercise of the franchise of an elector".
That seems to be somewhat serendipitous. In the case of my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Hillhead the court did not decide in his favour. But a different court and a different set of judges, perhaps by coincidence, agreed on each of the three occasions I mentioned at the last general election and granted injunctions.
We believe that it is almost as important that there should be no ambiguity about the candidates as it is that there should be no ambiguity about the political party for which people are voting. We cannot see why an amendment such as this to the election rules should not be added to the Bill in a fairly painless way. This is something which, in a sense, goes hand in glove with the registration of political parties. It means that in future there would be no ambiguity whatever for a member of the electorate voting for candidate and party. That must be desirable. I beg to move.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I understand the noble Lord's point but this is not the way to deal with it. In fact, I do not see how this test could work in practice. Mischievous officials have given me a brief to read out, which I do without comment: how will the returning officer know whether the candidate calling himself, for example, Gareth Williams, has always used that name or adopted it only recently?
426
The answer derives from the discussion we had to which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, earlier contributed. The real safeguard here is the party registered name together with the emblem. That will provide the safeguards required.
In response to the noble Lord's specific point concerning Sir Nicholas Lyell, he will recall that Sir Nicholas Lyell was able to obtain speedy relief from the court and the false Sir Nicholas Lyell was not allowed to stand under the bogus name.
The emblem therefore and the registered party name offer a decent safeguard. That is one reason why an emblem is important. On the basis of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. It does not go any part of the way towards accepting my case. But I understand why he would not wish to accept the case, and accept that the drafting of the amendment may not be perfect. However, the principle involved—as regards seeking to make sure that the electorate is not confused and, in a sense, firing the second barrel of a specific solution to electoral confusion—is desirable. We may well come back with some rather more tightly drafted provision at a later stage, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Henley Lord Henley moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 9, line 24, at end insert—
("6B. No nomination of a candidate which purports to be made on behalf of a registered party shall be accepted as valid unless the relevant nomination paper is accompanied by a certificate signed by the party's registered nominating officer to the effect that the candidate is entitled to use a description identifying him with the party.
6C. The party's registered nominating officer shall not refuse the nomination of a candidate who has been selected in the manner set out in the party's constitution.
6D. A copy of each party's constitution shall be deposited with the registrar."").
The noble Lord said: We come now to the last group of amendments. I see the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, coming in ready to continue with her debate the minute we conclude our deliberations at Committee stage.
At Second Reading I expressed some concerns in relation to Schedule 2 in that it concentrated all the power of the party machinery in central hands. It could mean that an individual, or the individual described in Schedule 2—the registered nominating officer—could refuse to register people of whom he did not approve.
The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did not accept my fears and said that these matters could be dealt with by the internal constitution of the political party; and I accept that point. However, my amendment seeks to deliver safeguards by including the constitution, and making sure that a copy of each party's constitution shall be deposited with the registrar. New rules 6C and 6D indicate that, first, the party's registered nominating officer will not be able to refuse the nomination of a candidate who has been selected in the manner set out

427
in the party's constitution. I hope that will deal with the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. New rule 6D makes clear that,
"A copy of each party's constitution shall be deposited with the registrar".
It makes it clear to the registrar that the rules have been complied with.
This is a genuine concern. A number of people are worried that too much power is concentrated in the hands of the party machinery by means of a Bill of this sort; and the same is true of the extension that we are seeing, in one way or another, into proportional representation. By its nature that increases the power of the party machinery. Schedule 2, and in particular new rule 6A in paragraph 2, is a strong example of that. It requires a degree of amendment to deal with the concerns that I put forward. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to intervene briefly because I realise that we are coming to the end of Committee stage. But that does not make this amendment any less important. We on these Benches support this amendment and the spirit behind it.
I take on board much of what the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said in relation to the potential over-centralisation of the parties. List systems of the kind being introduced into the European elections, and the Welsh, Scottish and other elections in the future, will inevitably put more power into the hands of political parties. It is therefore incumbent on us to make sure that those political parties behave themselves.
It is possible for the returning officer to look behind the nomination paper to make sure that due process was gone through for that candidate to be on that nomination paper. We therefore support the spirit behind the amendment and hope that something along those lines can be incorporated in the Bill. It will add to the transparency and proper process of it.
The Earl of Stockton: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Henley, particularly new rules 6C and 6D. I declare an interest as a potential candidate for the European Parliament who has yet to be nominated. While I am absolutely convinced that my own party is happy to accept the broad range of politicals on the European issue, I would hate to think that others less generous may choose to weed out those selected by due process within their political party and so not include them. It is a necessary control on the inherent centralising tendency in the Bill, and I hope that the Government will see their way to bringing back something at a later stage to cover the point if they cannot agree to my noble friend's amendment.
7 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: I am grateful for the explanations given, not least by the noble Earl, Lord Stockton, about the thinking behind this proposal. I come back to the stance we adopted on Second Reading. Essentially, this is a technical measure, principally designed to facilitate new systems of elections to the
428
Scottish parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament. It involves putting forward party lists. In that context we have provided for the registration of party names, the registration of emblems and the other benefits already discussed.
The Bill does not attempt to interfere, nor do I believe that it should, in the internal organisation of political parties. Issues such as how a party selects its candidates internally have no place in the Bill. It is entirely a matter for a party whether it organises itself on a constituency basis and, if so, what degree of autonomy the individual constituency association should have in the selection of candidates. I submit that parties are entitled to determine their own constitution and rules for the selection of candidates. It is not for the registrar or the returning officers to police internal party arrangements. If a candidate has been selected properly, I do not see why a nominating officer should be able to block the nomination of that candidate. Therefore, we see no place in the Bill for this amendment. We developed the theme yesterday—unfortunately unsuccessfully, as I remember—that the electoral system is quite different from the internal party mechanism which varies from party to party in the way party members choose their candidates.
Fairly recent experience demonstrates that if a party does not abide by its own constitution and rules in the selection of candidates, a disappointed, disaffected or wronged candidate will have ready recourse to the courts. It is not for the registrar to police internal party arrangements. My objection to the amendment comes down to that simple proposition.
Lord Henley: I find the Minister's response somewhat disappointing. It is in line with most of his responses today. There has been little indication that he is prepared to move on any aspects of the Bill. I suspect he is under very strong riding instructions to get the Bill through unamended in any way at all. The noble Lord smiles. I do not know what to interpret from that smile.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Like a sphinx.
Lord Henley: The noble Lord suggests a sphinx. I shall interpret it as I wish in due course. However, we shall come back to this matter at a later stage. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, just as I am grateful for the support of my noble friend Lord Stockton. It is something, along with the appeals process, that we shall have to come back to at the next stage of the Bill. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, the Deputy Chief Whip, I say that we shall probably have a slightly more exciting Report stage than Committee stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 43 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Remaining schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the early completion of the Registration of Political Parties Bill

429
means that the time available for this evening's Unstarred Question is no longer limited to the one hour dinner adjournment. The debate can now run for a maximum of one and a half hours allowing all speakers a maximum of 12 minutes in which to make their speeches. However, I am sure that noble Lords would be grateful if those noble Lords who have prepared shorter speeches would not extend them.

Social Policy
7.6 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the open letter from members of the Social Policy Association published in the Guardian of 29th July.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am delighted to observe that reports that the Minister had been locked in a broom cupboard were grossly exaggerated.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, it is true.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am delighted even more to hear that that is entirely true and that she has succeeded in securing her release. I also look forward warmly to the maiden speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Many years ago his family and mine were close friends. I look forward to listening to him and to resuming that friendship.
Tonight I am drawing attention to an open letter from the Social Policy Association to the Secretary of State about the Government's Green Paper on welfare reform. This is an audience which may be presumed to know a certain amount about what it is talking about. The response is largely interrogatory, but it is not exactly a ringing endorsement. I have a series of supporting letters behind that open letter in the Guardian, which the Minister will have as they were addressed to him. I can take up only a limited number of the questions that they raise.
First, I take up the dissatisfaction with the Government's use of the term "welfare" rather than "social security". It is a part of the Americanisation of our public life. It could be questioned on that ground alone. It also causes some anxiety to them, as it does to me, because of the somewhat derogatory innuendoes that people sometimes sense from my noble friends.
My noble friend Lady Williams of Crosby, writing in the Guardian on 11 th February 1998, said:
"Welfare-to-work in the United States has been based on a withering moral contempt for those dependent on benefit".
Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Government to be particularly careful that nobody finds in their utterances any such suggestion of de-legitimisation or of contempt.
I was a little taken aback, to put in no higher, to see in the Statement of 28th October last an entirely unsupported statement that many are dependent on benefits when they need not be. There was no
430
supporting argument behind it and no explanation. I do not know what is meant by that. The effect on Daily Mail readers, for example, could be unfortunate. But that is not my main concern, nor indeed that of the Social Policy Association. They are concerned to find out the exact meaning of the Government's mantra, repeated over and over again, "Work for those who can, security for those who cannot". As a soundbite, I have absolutely nothing against it. However, what worries me is that I am terribly afraid that the Prime Minister may think that it means something—and once you begin thinking that, it begins to become potentially dangerous. If it were developed to have the sort of meaning which I hope it has not, it would start developing, almost inevitably and probably unintentionally, towards a distinction between the able-bodied and the impotent poor, which I am sure is not the Minister's wish.
The real problem here is who decides on the word "can". That cannot be a unilateral decision. If it were a unilateral decision by the claimant, it would make all work voluntary. If it were a unilateral decision by the state, it would turn all work into forced labour. I hope that the House will forgive me for not deciding which of those is the more unacceptable conclusion. There must be a process of negotiation. I am not sure whether that is achieved in a number of cases under the present workings of the social security system. I refer, for example, to the application of the actively-seeking-work rules. It is necessary that people should be able, for their own safety, sometimes to decide for themselves whether or not they can remain in a job. As long as people lose benefit pending appeal should they leave a job, that is not entirely achievable.
I do not generally remind the Minister of her own speeches, but her speeches on the Jobseekers Bill and on loss of benefit pending appeal were some of the best parliamentary speeches that I have ever heard in this Chamber. I have not forgotten them and I hope that the Minister has not either. If there were to be any progress on that front, I should be very glad to hear it.
The same problem arises with incapacity benefit, especially in judging the effect of pain on fitness to work. I was listening only yesterday to somebody whose sister persistently reported severe pain and an inability to move her arm. The doctors thought that she was malingering until they finally did a scan and discovered that the patient had a severe blood clot in her brain and was in imminent danger of death. I can see gross injustices occurring if we do not take some account of a claimant's own statements on the subject of pain. After all, the claimant is the only one who knows—just as I am the only one who knows how difficult it is to keep these papers in order!
There is also the danger of over-zealous enforcement. The Minister has been in office long enough now to know that whenever she and her colleagues have worked out a principle, over-enthusiastic enforcement is capable of turning it into something really dangerous. The good cause provisions in the Child Support Act are an example of that.
I agree with the Social Policy Association that, when we talk about "work for those who can", we do not find any reciprocal duty on the Government to provide work.

431
I welcome today's cut in interest rates, but, in the light of the global economic situation, I believe that, worldwide, we need to readjust our economic thinking and to think a bit more about the demand side—about the importance of keeping up demand enough to generate sufficient employment. If that is not being done, chasing claimants to look for work that is not there will be a heart-breaking process.
I was pleased to read in the papers published on 28th October, that account will be taken in interviews of individual circumstances. I should have liked to read also that account will be taken of individual areas. I am thinking of an area such as south Kilburn, where sending people round and round chasing jobs that do not exist may not be a particularly useful process.
Again, there is the problem of over-enthusiastic enforcement with that. There has recently been a case of somebody being disqualified from benefit under the actively-seeking-work rules for not applying for a job because she discovered that she was not qualified for it. If that sort of thing happens, it is a waste of employers' time as well as a cruelty to the claimant. This needs watching. As my right honourable friend Mr. Ashdown said at our spring conference, welfare to work is concerned with employability, not employment. It is not enough by itself.
Attention is also drawn to the problem of benefit levels, which is a problem that I have addressed in this Chamber a good many times. I agree with the Social Policy Association that the Green Paper contains an unfortunate phrase. It complains of people who believe that poverty is relieved exclusively by cash handouts. I have looked at my copy of the Green Paper. What I marked with a mass of red ink appears two paragraphs before, where it is stated that cash handouts alone can lead to a life of dependency. That is a statement akin to "Man shall not live by bread alone"; it is a perfectly true statement, but you do not deal with it by taking away the bread.
Attention is also drawn to a number of exclusions. Time allows me to mention only housing benefit. I hope that the Government understand that with regard to housing benefit, we are dealing with a sellers' market in which one cannot bring down rents by lowering, controlling or capping the level of housing benefit. If one does that, all that happens is either landlords stop letting to claimants or they sell the house, leave the business of letting and make more money by investing the sale price at interest. I hope the department will give that some thought. I shall be interested to hear any current government thinking on this question.
7.16 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I beg your Lordships' indulgence because this is my maiden speech. I begin by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his kind words. I look forward to our families reacquainting themselves with one another.
Over several years I did work in part-time and temporary, paid and voluntary jobs with young people on housing estates in London. Recently I have taken an
432
interest in the charity Centrepoint, which provides support for homeless nine to 25 year-old people, including a refuge for 12 to 15 year-olds, a shelter for 16 to 25 year-olds and 13 other projects in London. I therefore have an interest in this subject and some practical knowledge.
Those young people are among the most vulnerable in society. According to Centrepoint's 1996–97 annual report, nearly 50 per cent. of the people it helps come from the ethnic minorities and almost a quarter of them have been brought up in care. One young woman was physically abused by her father and later sexually abused by her stepfather. Another young man ran away at the age of 15 because his parents had often expected him to look after his younger siblings; when things went wrong, they vented their anger on him.
The Government's Green and White Papers on welfare reform, their Green Paper on the family, and the Guardian letter of 29th July agree that the family is under pressure. It could be said that the 2,500 young people Centrepoint helps each year are the fallout from this family pressure. A good test of any reform would be to see how well this group is treated in terms of housing, training and employment. The Government's Green and White Papers are positive in that they speak about helping rough sleepers. They set high targets which I very much hope are achievable.
The Government do not want to make people dependent on benefit, but rather wish to help them to find work and to develop confidence and independence. That is exactly the ethos of Centrepoint. However, I was very surprised to learn last week that, due to a stricter application of housing benefit rules, Centrepoint is a quarter of a million pounds worse off than last year. In its Soho shelter, Centrepoint aims to find more permanent accommodation within two or three days for the people it helps.
Those young people have often run from home with no papers to prove their identity. Since April the Department of Social Security has insisted on receiving original documents of identity, not photocopies, from claimants and has declined to make payments to claimants who spend less than a whole week at an address. To the Government's credit, they have recently allowed a short stay exemption of two days for those in shelters and refuges such as Centrepoint's, but this does not cover many of Centrepoint's clients whose stay is a little longer.
The original tightening of regulations in April of this year may reflect another vein within the Government's welfare policies, to which the noble Earl just drew our attention. The Government are keen to be tough on fraud and the causes of fraud. In their White Paper they emphasise the need to combat exploitation of the welfare system by the unscrupulous. However, there is a balance to be struck between being flexible enough to meet the needs of a transient group of people who may not have proper papers to prove their identity and the need to protect the taxpayer and legitimate beneficiaries.
So, to conclude, I do hope that the Government will err on the side of generosity when it comes to the needs of young homeless people. They need a helping hand to

433
enable them to find accommodation, training and work. To withdraw that hand may be to see them fall into drug taking, prostitution and crime. To give it may well see them becoming independent adults, contributors to society and to the Treasury. Not to help would be both hard-hearted and very short-sighted. I urge the Government to show flexibility.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, it is my pleasurable task to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on behalf of the whole House. He clearly spoke from experience, especially his own experience with young people and the homeless. He also spoke with genuine concern for social problems and made a number of very practical points. Your Lordships will know that the noble Earl follows in the distinguished steps of Earl Listowel who sat in this Chamber for more than 60 years and who became a very much loved figure. I wish the noble Earl many years equivalent to those of his father in this House. Of course, we all look forward to hearing from him again on many occasions. I regret that, unlike his father, he does not sit on the Labour Benches, but perhaps he is not very far from us in spirit. Indeed, I hope that the noble Earl will be a regular attender at our debates.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I was most interested in the letter to the Guardian of 29th July from leaders of the Social Policy Association, both for its interesting but critical and, in many ways, constructive comments and for the fact that two of its principal signatories were key members of the Commission on Social Justice set up by the late John Smith when he was leader of the Labour Party and chaired by myself. I have in mind Professor Ruth Lister and Dr. Ethne McLaughlin, both distinguished scholars of social policy. Therefore, I take a great note of what they say now, almost exactly four years after the report of our commission. Commenting on the Government's Green Paper, A New Contract for Welfare, they criticised it for lack of any mention of our commission's proposals for,
"a modernised, more inclusive social insurance system hotter attuned to women's needs and employment patterns".
I believe that they must have been thinking about a number of our commission's proposals, such as that for a part-time unemployment benefit which would be of particular value to women who, after all, represent 90 per cent. of the part-time workers in this country. It would also match the needs of part-time workers and certainly be most helpful to women.
However, both before and after the Green Paper, upon which the letter was commenting, the Government announced numerous policies designed to cater especially for—and I use the same words—women's needs and employment patterns. Indeed, like the noble Earl, I could mention the welfare to work New Deal and especially emphasise the part of it concerned with lone parents, mostly women of course. The scheme began in operation last week with lone parents.
I could mention the increases in child benefit—considerable increases on this occasion—which will be operative, together with child personal allowance increases, from next April. There is also the childcare
434
tax credit scheme which will commence from October next and 1 million new childcare places. Surely no one can deny the vital importance of childcare if women's needs are to be met. Of course, there has been improvement and simplification in child support provision. It was a pleasure for me to chair a conference a few weeks ago at which both my noble friend the Minister and the noble Earl were the principal speakers. We spent a day on that particular aspect of women's needs. I could also mention the working time regulations and part-time working directive which will increase access for part-time work. There are many policy proposals like the minimum wage which are not put forward in a way which is gender specific because they can also help men. However, I would argue that they certainly promote the needs of women, among others.
I am delighted to take part in this debate and I am especially pleased that it happens to fall on an evening when we have a little longer than the usual one-hour limit. However, in a way, the timing is not ideal for the noble Earl if he wants to be particularly critical of the Government. This debate falls only 48 hours after the announcements made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his pre-Budget Statement. I could not help but be impressed by an article in yesterday's edition of the Guardian by Julia Finch in which she said:
"Chancellor Gordon Brown is rapidly asserting himself as a champion of the women of Britain".
I hope that my good friends and former colleagues on the Commission on Social Justice, Professor Lister and Dr McLaughlin, have taken note of that comment. Julia Finch used those words about Gordon Brown because she was referring to the fact that it was announced seven months ago that the children's tax credit scheme (designed to cover childcare costs and encourage women back to work) would apply only where the children were aged under 11. But Gordon Brown has now announced that that is to be extended to cover children up to the age of 14 and, if a child is disabled, it will be extended to the age of 16.
I am not sure that the Social Policy Association recognises clearly enough the fact that work is almost certainly a better route out of poverty than benefits. That relates to the points that the noble Earl made in his opening remarks. Of course benefits for those who cannot work through age, disability or whatever, must be adequate. I must agree with that. I say to my noble friend the Minister that we need to know more from the Government about the second part of that equation—or mantra, as the noble Earl put it—which reads: work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
The Government have made the position plain. Several Green Papers have been published and others are to follow. We all look forward to the one concerning pensions which of course affect men as well as women. There are many more aspects of the Government's policy which have yet to appear. The Government have been in power for 18 months. People on the other side of the Chamber are entitled to say that the Government can no longer spend their days blaming the previous government for this, that and the other. However, it is only 18 months. Can one really judge the capacity of the Government for building a considerable new structure of

435
welfare when up to now we have barely seen more than the rough drawings and perhaps a little of the foundations? I do not know whether the Minister would use those terms. That is the stage we have reached at the moment. It is fascinating to have this debate on the subject but I think that judgment must come later.
7.31 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for tonight's timely debate. It comes at the end of some months of confusing messages from the Government about their plans for the future of welfare provision. Since the Green Paper was launched, two Ministers have departed and numerous new documents have been produced, the last of which, Supporting Families, was launched only yesterday.
The principle which guides the reforms is work for those who can and security for those who cannot. The letter from the Social Policy Association poses the question: with all the emphasis in the welfare contract on the duties of individual benefit recipients to take up work and training, where is the duty of government and employers to provide employment? The noble Earl referred to that matter earlier. The group also reminds us that the Green Paper ignores other forms of work, mostly the work of caring undertaken in the home. That is still carried out mainly by women.
On 17th July the Telegraph stated that,
"stay at home mothers would get extra pensions",
a state funded second pension. However, there was no mention of that possibility in the booklet, Supporting Families. The Government state they are considering the role and status of carers and of the long-term care of the elderly. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that matter later. The Labour Party's manifesto clearly states,
"We will also seek to develop the administrative structure of SERPS so as to create a 'citizenship pension' for those who assume the responsibility as careers, and as a result lose out on the pension entitlements they would otherwise acquire and currently end up on means-tested benefits".
I hope the Minister will clarify that position when she replies to the debate.
I find these different messages confusing. Families face challenges from birth to the grave. Surely we should not consider certain aspects and challenges in isolation. We should consider them as a whole because in real life problems can occur at any time across the age range. This is even more worrying at a time when the numbers of elderly people are increasing dramatically, changes are occurring in family structures, there is a decline in the number of male breadwinners and a geographical dispersion of families. That will put enormous pressure on both the family and state support in future years.
In his foreword to the consultation document, Supporting Families, the right honourable Jack Straw acknowledges that family life is the foundation on which our communities, our society and our country are built. The introduction to that document states at paragraph 8 on page 4 that marriage is still the surest foundation for raising children and remains the choice of the majority
436
of people in Britain. But families need stability and they need to know where they are going. Rumours do not help. It was recently rumoured that the state pension and child benefit might be means tested or taxed. What we have is confusion. Perhaps the Minister will confirm or deny that the Government are considering taxing child benefit and that this tax may apply only to married couples.
Confusion also exists in the minds of lone parents. The New Deal which is aimed at helping parents back into work has had mixed success. On 26th October a headline stated,
"Millions spent on saving the New Deal".
A multi-million pound advertising campaign was to be launched. The Secretary of State, the right honourable Mr. Darling, gave the clearest hint that lone parents would be compelled to attend an interview. However, as regards the pilot scheme in Cardiff, only 4 per cent. of single mothers with school age children who were invited to participate replied. Some 48,000 invitations were sent and nearly 27,000 interviews were arranged. Nearly 24,500 turned up for interview. Some 17,500 signed up for the scheme but at the end of the day only 4,736 gained jobs. I am sure that all of us in this Chamber are pleased that those jobs were secured but we also have to recognise that at the present time the success rate of the scheme is somewhat disappointing.
How do lone parents view the prospect of compulsion? Last week in this House I attended the single parent roadshow which was held in the Grand Committee Room. Speakers expressed their reluctance to be forced to attend interviews. They felt that they should be able to choose whether or not they had paid employment or spent their time as homemakers with their children. They were concerned about the availability of a sufficient number of well paid jobs which would pay them more than they spent on childcare.
On 27th October Maeve Sherlock, director of the National Council for One Parent Families said that,
"the New Deal … can only be damaged by threats of compulsion".
Noble Lords should be aware of the conflicting views expressed by lone parents. For many the chance of a job is a tremendous boost and one which they relish, but for some the chance to care for their own children carries equal weight.
I have spoken at some length about the younger people in our society. I now turn to pensioners. I visited Age Concern in Leicestershire in September. I asked people there what was the greatest concern expressed by clients. Perhaps not unexpectedly, it was that of provision for old age. Like other noble Lords tonight I welcome the minimum income guarantee for pensioners which was announced recently. However, there are many pensioners who have looked ahead and who have saved a little of their own money. They now wonder whether that money will be sufficient for their needs and whether those modest savings will bring in the income they will need. They ponder whether it is worth saving when they see others who have enjoyed a similar income but who have not saved and are still looked after by the state.

437
The Government acknowledge that people are living longer and that the numbers of such people will rise dramatically. At the same time, the number of people of working age is decreasing rapidly. So it is understandable that so many people are posing questions about future provision.
I wish to add my congratulations to the noble Earl. It was a huge pleasure to hear his maiden speech. It came from the heart and from his practical experience.
Perhaps I may quote a remark of the noble Lord, Lord Callaghan, in a recent article in the Express on 27th July. The noble Lord said:
"The domestic programme is a ratbag of unrelated policies".
I have not been as direct as the noble Lord. However, this Government have raised the hopes of millions of people, and at this present moment they are concerned and not a little confused about what to expect. I look forward to the Minister's response, and I thank the noble Earl for making the debate possible.
7.40 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, it has been some time since I have been able to say this with such a degree of certainty, but most of what I intended to say has already been said by other speakers. My remarks will therefore be restricted.
I had to agree with the initial letter in the Guardian referring to the Government's policy documents. The basic argument was: "Sounds nice; may not mean anything". Many of us who went through those papers had also said, "Yes, well-intentioned, well-intentioned".
Over the past few days some more flesh has been added to the bones of the arguments. Some of it is good, and some is promising. What troubles many of us is that we are still not sure of the overall direction. Too many matters have been left behind which need to be drawn together.
The idea of interviews has been touched on by a number of speakers. It could either make or break this new approach. If interviews are used creatively and look towards a person's needs, they will be a good thing. They may well mean that the overall bill will go up—when it comes to disability matters, for instance, we know that there is under-claiming.
Also, in any area where there are complicated forms, a few people will have read them all backwards and know exactly what they are doing, and many more will not. In any field we come across there will be small numbers of people knowing exactly what they want, even smaller areas of complicated fraud, and large numbers of people who are not extracting the correct benefit.
There is also a problem that sits like a dark shadow beside the Government; namely, that at present the economy is in slow-down. How deep that is and how long it will last we do not know. "Welfare to work" may mean exactly that. It may mean welfare to absolutely no work; or merely welfare to training schemes that go on forever.
438
I hate to say this, but we have been down this path many times. Indeed, I remember when, at the age of 16, the YOPS scheme was thrown at us. We were told: "If you join the scheme you will be able to find jobs". I remember many of the people with whom I was at school ending up on those schemes and saying, "God, four weeks of making tea, and out!". With the best will in the world, that danger is still there. Unless we attempt to address it in the maintenance of the scheme, matters could go wrong again. I very much doubt whether any new scheme brought forward by the present Government would be anywhere near as bad as that scheme. I sincerely hope that at the very least the Government will not make the same level of mistakes. But it must always be remembered that unless the scheme works properly, it will merely involve further shifting around of paper.
I wish to put a specific question to the Minister. It was raised initially by my noble friend Lord Goodhart in relation to the Statement made two days ago and relates to students who fall into a loophole, to use my noble friend's words, if they become disabled at the age of 20 or more. It means that they will not qualify for severe disability allowance since it is limited to those who are under 20; however, they will not qualify for income capacity benefit as they have had no chance to contribute. If we are talking of getting people into work, I suggest that the matter of people in training should be addressed by the Government.
There will always be loopholes in all types of regulation. I hope that this one has merely been overlooked. It has happened before under governments of all colours at all times. I should be glad if the Minister could offer some reassurance that this matter has either been dealt with, or will be dealt with in future.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating this debate, and in particular for the reference to the letter in the Guardian from the Social Policy Association. As he pointed out, there is a rather more lengthy letter elaborating some of the points made in that published in the press.
I wish to join with those who have congratulated the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, on his maiden speech. He spoke with great feeling and experience in regard to those who suffer, in London in particular. He also referred to the problems of ethnic minorities—a matter specifically referred to in the letter that we are debating, and in relation to which, as the letter points out, the Government have not made any clear pronouncements. We welcome the noble Earl's speech, and look forward to hearing him again. I suppose that in many ways he exemplifies the case for the hereditary peerage. Alas, while hoping that we shall hear him on many more occasions, his time may be—though I hope not—somewhat limited.
The document to which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, referred gives a lukewarm response to the Government's publication on a new policy for welfare. Indeed, it states

439
in terms—and it is almost the best that it can say—that they could do quite a bit better. That is scarcely a ringing endorsement.
I have much sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in questioning the use of the expression, "welfare", as against "social security". There are some problems. However, it is difficult to find a phrase that does not carry some of the overtones which are so unfortunate, for instance, in the United States.
The letter should be read in the context of the Chancellor's Statement this week. It is concerned in particular with the question of opportunities for employment. The fact that the Chancellor envisages a slow-down clearly diminishes the case for creating more jobs, and that is to be regretted.
When I pointed out yesterday that the growth rate in Britain is likely to be less than half that in France, Germany or Australia, the reply I received from the Government Front Bench was that that is because we are at a different stage of the cycle. The Government ought to consider the implication of that remark, which must be that we are now in a general down-turn. At all events, it is an important issue.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister one specific question regarding employment in her own department. We are told that the Government are to spend some £7 billion in improving the IT arrangements throughout her department. That must presumably create a strong likelihood of redundancies as a result of such a massive injection of technology. Since this forms part of the overall employment situation, perhaps the Minister will tell us what is intended.
It remains my view that, despite today's cut in interest rates, the situation faced by the Chancellor is critical. I am reminded of the story of the small child who was asked by his teacher to continue a story in which the hero was tied to the railway line and the express was approaching at 80 mph. The teacher said: "Now get on with the rest of the story"—to which he replied, with one splendid leap, "Our hero extricated himself from his predicament". That is rather the kind of feeling that I got from the Chancellor's Statement this week.
There is one aspect of the Chancellor's Statement which I should be grateful if the Minister could explain. The noble Baroness asks me whether it relates to social security. It does indeed; that is the point. The Chancellor is constantly poaching in the area of social security. If there is any good news, it is given by the Chancellor, not by the Secretary of State. There is no doubt that the Chancellor is becoming more and more involved in this area, and shifting Treasury Ministers into the department is not deterring him. The Chancellor said:
"Already 29,000 companies have signed up to the New Deal and 30,000 have found jobs with employers, jobs they would not have had without the New Deal".—[Official Report, 3/11/98; col. 160.]
How does he know that they would not have got those jobs but for the New Deal? Our view on this side of the House is that a considerable amount of the increase in jobs has been due to the underlying situation and not to the New Deal. I hope that, in defence of the Chancellor, the Minister can tell us what the position is.
440
With regard to the letter which the noble Earl has drawn to our attention, one of the supporting papers, by Professor Ruth Lister, states that there are at least three holes in the Government's policies. She says:
"First, the Green Paper does not offer a clear strategy for the reform of the structure of social security. In particular, it contains nothing of substance about the future of the National Insurance system. The only clue to the Government's thinking is one opaque paragraph that explains that the Budget 'changes to the National Insurance scheme provide an opportunity to update the contributory principle"'.
I repeat a point which I have made previously. It seems clear to me that the Government are undermining the contributory principle which has formed the basis of entitlement under our system ever since the end of the Second World War. Measure after measure tends to do this. I therefore raise another point which is relevant in this context. The Chancellor said in his Statement:
"And business will be pleased that I can announce that from April, employers will not pay national insurance on earnings below £83 a week, the 1999 level for the personal tax allowance".—[Official Report, 3/11/98; co1.160]
That is one of the cases in which he made an announcement which we all know he made in the previous Budget. This tendency to regurgitate statements time and again as if they are news is becoming a hallmark of the present government.
The noble Baroness will know perfectly well what I am going to say next, because we debated the matter at length last year. There is no reference in the Pre-Budget Statement to what many people supposed would be in the previous Budget; namely, whether the employee's threshold for contribution would be raised in the same way. The noble Baroness will recall that on that occasion she said clearly that the position of people who no longer paid contributions would be protected. It remains a mystery as to how the Government will do that. Perhaps I may therefore ask the noble Baroness whether the proposal as far as employees are concerned is still on the agenda. It seems strange that it appeared in the previous Budget but is not in the Pre-Budget Statement this year. What do the Government intend to do about the contributory principle in that respect?
As regards the uncertainty in the document to which the noble Earl referred, it seems that the contributory principle is under attack, with all the implications that that will have for means-testing the national insurance pension. Means-testing has become a major feature of the way in which the Government are proceeding. In particular, there is what seems to me to be a disgraceful proposal that a disabled person who has managed to obtain employment and has contributed to a defined-contribution company pension scheme should have that pension taken into account in assessing his disability allowance. Though he did not speak in the House the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is on record as being opposed to that proposal, and I am glad to see that the Liberal Democrat Party take the same view. I find it an extraordinary proposition that a disabled person who manages to obtain work and build up a company pension should have that pension taken into account when assessing his disability allowance.

441
Finally, having in mind the injunction of the noble Earl who introduced the debate, I come to the question of interviews and compulsion, matters referred to by my noble friend Lady Byford and others. One of the threads that has run through the debate is an increasing concern about the Government's attitude to the social security budget. It seems to me extraordinary that in the Statement made from the Front Bench last week we were told that the Government would not compel people who were terminally ill to attend interviews. I can imagine that an official might include that in a Statement to the House, but I cannot imagine that Ministers would even conceive that it might be necessary to do so because Members of this House might think that such a thing could happen.
This raises concerns. Because the Government have so blatantly failed to cut the social security budget in order to spend more on health and education, there are being introduced a series of relatively minor but rather nasty matters with regard to which the House should consider whether the money saved justifies the degree of hardship that is likely to be incurred as a result.
I believe that this has been a helpful debate. We look forward to the Minister's reply. The way things are developing gives people, not least those who wrote to the Guardian, considerable cause for concern.
7.56 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, we have a custom of welcoming debates in this House, whatever their content, though in truth some debates are rather more welcome than others. However, I welcome this debate without reservation because it raises profound and interesting questions about welfare reform. I also welcome it because, as all those who spoke have said, it gave us the opportunity to hear the wise, generous, moving and compassionate speech of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, who spoke from his personal experience of Centrepoint and widened that out into some apt and pertinent comments on our social security system. We all enjoyed listening to his speech and benefited from it; I think we shall all remember it.
I should like to say a few general words about the letter which inspired the debate. As noble Lords have said, the letter welcomed our consultation. There were some warm, slightly fuzzy words in it about our acceptance of a mission to clear the route into paid work for those on benefit. But the letter criticised us more for what is not said than for what is said in the Green Paper. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, shares my view. It is like the irritation authors have when reviewers criticise them for not having written the book that the reviewer would like them to have written and instead having written a different book. It seems to me unfair to be criticised for what one has not done as opposed to what one is seeking to do.
The Green Paper set out to consult on the principles that should guide reforms, not on new reforms themselves, and to establish support and consensus for the future shape of reforms. I hope that the members of
442
the Social Policy Association, whose views I take very seriously and whose work I have read over two decades of social policy research, will recognise, as they see our reforms taking shape, that their criticism was a little hasty.
I agree with the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that if we are not careful the word "welfare" can too easily slip into carrying the stigma that I have seen it carry in some of the poorest housing estates in St. Louis where, the moment one obtained a job, one was out of housing because one was no longer on welfare. Welfare was for those who had dropped out and were to be stigmatised. As someone who cherishes our welfare state, which I believe is one of the proudest achievements of the 1945 government, I too should be appalled if welfare became part of a language of contempt for those who are dependent on benefit and who therefore, by our use of language, become moral outlaws in our society.
The reason that we use the word "welfare" is for the opposite reason. For us, welfare is more than merely social security, important though that is. It embraces health, education, housing and, in social policy terms, what we used to call the social wage. We are arguing to encourage people into partnership with us, to find their own way through into prosperity. That is not only a matter for social security but for the full array of the agencies of government. That is why the word welfare has been used rather than social security.
To understand the basis of our reform, we must appreciate our starting point. To adapt slightly what George Eliot said, the happiest nations have no history. I am not sure whether the noble Earl, Lord Russell, would agree with that. I suspect that it might do him and me out of jobs. We are not in that happy state because social security has a past. It is worth reminding ourselves that in Beveridge's era matters were very different. Some of the statistics still have a power to startle. Women's work then was predominantly in the home while their husbands earned a wage. Today, two women out of three of working age have a job. An intriguing point is that 50 years ago men insured against the risk of a long retirement because the average life expectancy was only 66. Nowadays, men and women need to save for the expectation of 10 or more years of retirement.
The nature of the family has also changed. There were fewer lone parents in Beveridge's day. This was mainly because of shotgun marriages: women got married when they got pregnant. Often men did not want to marry until they were sure that a woman could become pregnant. That may not have said much for the happiness of the marriage, but marriage there was. Today the number is 1.75 million. The noble Lord queries that. I can assure him that, if we look at any of the research on birth registrar statistics, a very high proportion of first births were registered within a month, two months or three months of marriage through from the 1815 period to the Second World War and the widespread use of contraception.

443
Welfare has changed. The state no longer has a monopoly on welfare. Occupational pensions, for example, have played a huge part in enriching the older generation. So these are just some of the examples of social, economic and demographic influences that have changed our world and therefore require us to change our approach to social security.
Over this period, spending on social security has moved inexorably upwards. More and more has been spent and yet, in many ways, less and less has been achieved. By many of the indicators that the noble Lord shared with us, inequality has widened. Between 1979 and 1994–95, households in the top fifth of the population saw income rises in excess of 50 per cent. But the income of those in the bottom fifth of the population barely rose in real terms; in many cases it actually fell.
Worklessness increased too. Almost one in five of working age householders have no breadwinner compared to less than one in 10 in 1979. Nearly three million children are growing up in workless households. Nearly two million children are growing up in families where there is no maintenance from a father.
We must fashion a welfare system which fits this world. I see the Government's role as, first, running an efficient economy, a point made by several noble Lords tonight; secondly, promoting work for those who are able; and, thirdly—and no less importantly—securing a decent standard of living for those unable to do paid work. We have also to value unwaged work as well.
The letter from members of the Social Policy Association asks, as have some of your Lordships tonight, how our strategy for welfare to work fits into the context of an uncertain world economy. It is a pertinent point. For the first time Britain has a consistent framework for both monetary and fiscal policy, one which has replaced boom and bust with stable growth. Under the previous government we saw taxes cut in good times and public spending cut in bad times—and then we were surprised to see the effect of that creeping through into unemployment.
We now have prudent fiscal planning. Even allowing for slower world economic growth, the Government will deliver their spending commitments without risk to public finances. We expect current account surpluses of £33 billion over the next five years. We expect to meet our targets for inflation. In the context of our prudent fiscal planning, the Bank of England monetary policy committee, as your Lordships have mentioned, has decided to cut interest rates again today.
An uncertain economic outlook makes investment in helping people into work rather than dependent on social security even more important. That is why the stable course set out in the pre-Budget Report sets out the platform for the new deal to succeed.
It is worth reminding ourselves that employment has risen by 400,000 since the general election. The economy is still expanding and creating new jobs. About
444
two million people either move into employment or change jobs each quarter, and 250,000 people leave the claimant count each month. Over 200,000 new vacancies are being notified to job centres every month. The last statistics showed that there are currently approximately 300,000 job vacancies in our economy. Many of those vacancies will be part-time. But those changes in the labour market are very often on the side of what single parents tell us that they want—part-time jobs so that they can balance their responsibilities to their children as well as to work.
We believe that prudence in running the economy gives us a firm foundation on which to base reform. We will avoid boom and bust. As a corollary, we shall not end up cutting taxes in good times only to slash spending in bad times. We shall not end up increasing inequality in good times and in the bad times increasing unemployment. That will not be our policy and we will not go down that path.
The first thing, therefore, is to secure sound economic policy, and we are doing so. Our second objective is to promote work. I am not ashamed to say that I believe—and I think your Lordships will agree—that that is the best route, in many ways the only route, out of poverty. It facilitates social inclusion; it gives status; it strengthens independence; it adds a quality to life; and it is the gateway to economic advancement and the foundation of a secure future.
I remember Frank Field telling me that he was talking to his Birkenhead constituents and asked a 10 year-old what he was going to do when he grew up? A decade ago, that 10 year-old would have said, "I am going to be an engine driver" or "I am going to be an airline pilot." This 10 year-old said, "When I grow up I am going to claim my giro payment." That is not a society fit for our children to inherit.
So we must promote work. So important is work that we have attacked worklessness relentlessly since coming to office. Let me respond to a comment made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, when he said that he read a sinister meaning into the language in the statement that people are dependent on benefits who need not be. That is not because we necessarily believe that it is through some act of lack of moral fibre on their part that they are unemployed. Very often, particularly for disabled people, it is because of the exclusion imposed upon them by society; or, for lone parents, because of a lack of childcare and so on, that makes choice of work possible.
The noble Lord asked whether the claimant would have a say in the choice of work. Obviously, it depends on whether we are talking about a young person aged 18 to 24 where we say it is no lack of choice simply to be on benefit. As for other groups of society, the personal adviser approach offers partnership. I thought that the phrases that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, used were exactly right. The personal gateway interviews should be creative, positive, enthusing, inspiring and problem-solving. What the single gateway

445
is about, particularly for lone parents and disabled persons, is a recognition that the knowledge of opportunity is itself about empowering somebody to make choices. Without that knowledge people do not have the strength to take the risk, to take the chances, to explore the opportunities. When they do manage to do so, they will then see that their lives, and the lives of their children, are immensely and immeasurably enriched. That is the point of the interview. Without that knowledge, people do not know what they do not know. With that interview and working with the advisers—in just the language that the noble Lord has spoken of—we hope to give people the empowerment to take and regain control over their lives, to make their own choices and set their own courses.
So we have a four-fold strategy—extra help into work through the range of new deal programmes. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, or the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked whether we were confident that the new deals were producing extra jobs over and beyond the rate that would have been the case without them. We are monitoring our pilots—particularly our new deal pilot for lone parents—and we are already finding a modest, additional value-added factor. Area for area—control groups versus pilot groups—where the new deal is running, a higher proportion of lone parents are going into work than in identical areas where it is not. It is modest. The programme is still in its early stages. We hope to roll it across the country. If we can continue with those results, then both for disabled people and lone parents we will see positive value coming from the New Deal.
So far, so good. We have a long way to go and we are certainly not complacent. We are researching it carefully and the evidence, though we are still at the beginning, is on the side that the New Deal is the most effective way we have so far found to make that possible. If other people, including Her Majesty's Opposition, have alternative views about how best to encourage people into work, we would be delighted to explore them. It does not have to be a party point. But, so far, no one has come to us with a better way forward.
So the first thing we are doing is extending help for work through the range of New Deal programmes. Secondly, we are seeking to make work pay through the minimum wage and tax credits, although I have to say that I am slightly startled by the position of Her Majesty's Opposition and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. They are opposed to the working families' tax credit and therefore they are opposed to all those efforts which will spring so many families off dependency on benefits and into work that will probably pay. But perhaps that was another off-the-cuff policy that the Conservative Party will go on to review, re-consider and revise and then change its mind. Let us hope so. It would be nice to think that on an all-party basis we wish to see people move off dependency into a system in which work is rewarded and people do not lose money by moving into work through penal marginal withdrawal rates.
446
Thirdly, we are removing barriers to work in the benefits system by, for example, allowing those on incapacity benefit to take a job without losing benefit if they fall ill again within 12 months. We are helping people to stay in work by removing the barriers of prejudice; for example, in terms of ensuring that there is a Disability Rights Commission for disabled people, which I know your Lordships will welcome. So on a whole array of fronts we are trying in a positive and creative way to ensure that people get help to move into work.
Our third area of activity is for the group of people who were the concern especially of the letter writers referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. That group is those who cannot work. We recognise that work cannot be the solution for all. As a society, we owe it to those who cannot do paid work to ensure that they have a decent standard of living. We are determined to do that. The Social Policy Association would have us focus more on benefit levels. There is force in its argument and I shall answer it. We have to accept the fundamental point that merely raising benefit levels will never stop poor people being poor or make them prosperous. The statistics I was given by officials a year or so ago showed that to raise all benefit levels by £10 a week would cost us more than £20 billion a year. They would still be poor but we would have spent £20 billion—the same amount that we spend on schools and the same amount that we spend on hospitals. Yet most people in that situation would still be leading lives confined and circumscribed by absolute poverty.
Over the course of this Parliament such a rise would consume all the extra resources that we have earmarked for health and education. Is that the right way forward? We think not. However, we do accept the need to raise benefit levels where we can focus help on those in greatest need. That is what we are doing. We are helping pensioners in terms of the guaranteed minimum income; we are helping families through the increase in child benefit; and we are helping disabled people through the disability income guarantee. Above all, there is a huge increase for young people who become disabled before they can ever enter the world of work. As a result, they will be floated off means-tested benefits in terms of income support for, it is to be hoped, life.
The other main criticism of the Social Policy Association was our failure to say how we should overhaul the entire system and whether in particular we were moving away from a contributory system to means-testing. I think that is partly because of the letter writers' failure to understand that we were consulting on principles and not on the specific reforms. We have set out an ambitious programme for facilitating work which will see a variety of measures ranging from benefits to services and civil rights. Many of our reforms that are in the pipeline will, as my noble friend Lord Borrie said, disproportionately benefit women because women are disproportionately recipients of social security benefits.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Surely the contributory principle is that one only gets benefits if one has met certain contribution requirements. Therefore, the argument that this ought not to be covered by the Green Paper seems an extraordinary one.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the Green Paper set out the principles by which we will go on to adopt reforms. Perhaps I may take up the points made about the social insurance scheme. Our approach has three principles. The first is that protection is better than cure. It is better to fence off the precipice than send in the ambulances. We seek partnership with the private sector and we seek to prioritise in order to focus most resources where they can do most good.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, raised the issue of social insurance benefits. There is a popular assumption that social insurance benefits must always be better than means-tested benefits. This is a false dichotomy. Not all benefits are either contributory benefits or means-tested benefits. Child benefit and disability living allowance are neither contributory nor means-tested. The new incapacity benefit for younger people who have become disabled before the age of 20 will neither be contributory nor means-tested. We have extended, to coin a phrase, a third way of benefits between those two. They each have their own strengths and weaknesses.
Noble Lords do not need me to remind them that national insurance benefits are cheaper to administer and command wider political support, but they have rarely been paid at a substantial level and they are not well focused on need. Means-tested benefits can be expensive to run and can discourage saving but can be more focused on need. We need a variety of benefits. No one category fits all need. Over the next couple of years we will be working out the best benefit structure to meet the different categories of need in our society. We should be judged on the efficacy of that structure.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, commented on the confusion of our messages, particularly to women and to families. No, what we were saying was not confusion. We were saying that there are choices that individuals, not government, may seek to make. A woman may choose to stay with her children; she may wish to have some work and also have childcare; she may wish to work full time. We are saying that, whatever her choice, we as a society and we as government stand behind her shoulder and empower her to make those choices. Therefore, we will support her in whichever of those paths she treads. That is not a confusing message. It is not a conflicting message. We are saying that we are behind her right to choose and will make that right a reality by empowering positively, through childcare, education, training and family-friendly employment, her right to make those choices.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she confirm that lone parents will not be required to come to interview to take jobs in order to be entitled to payment? That is where the confusion lies. At some stage over the past few weeks many speeches have been made on the topic.
448
Some of the lone parents I have spoken to have been under the impression that they would not be entitled to payment if they did not come to interview. I explained in my speech that some of them feel that they would like to choose not to have to come to interview, that they do not wish to work and that that is their right. On the one hand, it has been suggested that they have to come to interview in order to be entitled to the benefit. Indeed, what will happen to those on benefit now? On the other hand, the Minister has today implied that that is not so. That is where the confusion lies.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that confuses two separate policy initiatives. I can well understand why people might be confused as they do overlap. One is the New Deal, which is voluntary and is for lone parents and disabled people, and the other is the single gateway. In the single gateway process we are saying that in certain pilot areas—it may well be rolled out nationwide after the year 2000 if it is successful—new claimants for benefit acquire that benefit through the process of an interview. That was commonplace in 1979 when we carried out 5 million to 6 million interviews a year. It was dropped in the name of expediency by the subsequent government and the number fell to around 500,000. In those gateway pilots we are saying that to acquire income support a disabled person or a lone parent will have an interview. One signs on through an interview rather than through a telephone call or the return of a piece of paper. At that interview, if one is a lone parent, one will probably discuss access to child maintenance, opportunities for education and training, and so on. But there is absolutely no compulsion to go beyond that attendance at interview. That is the first point at which one claims benefit. There is no requirement to go on to work subsequently if one is a lone parent or disabled person. That is one's choice.
We want people to have the knowledge to make an informed choice. In a way compulsion is a red herring. We say that benefit is acquired at the interview rather than as now through a piece of paper. That has always been the way it has been done in the past. I can see why the message has become confused. We regard childcare as being at least as important as going out to work, but we know that most married women choose to do both. We want to ensure that lone parents have the same right to exercise that choice as married women. Seventy-five per cent. of married women with a child under 12 work whereas only about 40 per cent. of lone parents do so. Why? The answer is that they do not have the mechanisms for child support, the knowledge and the infrastructure that they would otherwise have. We will help them if that is what they wish to do but they cannot make that choice unless they know about it. That is how we hope to use the interviewing process.
Time has moved on and I am exploiting the goodwill of the House. I have not covered every point and I shall write to noble Lords as necessary. I could go on for another half an hour but to your Lordships' relief I shall not. To conclude, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said

449
that the Social Policy Association's assessment of the Green Paper A New Contract for Welfare was that they could do better. The Government agree. As a society we can, should and must do better. The Green Paper sets out the principles for reform, not the reforms
450
themselves. We are now putting those principles into practice. We have already done a good deal and we shall do more, and by that we shall rightly be judged.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes past eight o'clock.