Sitting of 14 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Clandestine Immigrants
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: How many lorries which contained clandestine immigrants have been stopped by the police in the last six months. [108235]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The police do not keep records of that information. However, I can tell the House that the records of the immigration and nationality directorate show that 11,500 clandestine illegal entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.
    Mr. Prosser: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Does she recall visiting the port of Dover last September with me, and the discussions that we had with immigration officers? Is it not right that those dedicated, hard-working, experienced professionals in the port of Dover were all convinced that the single most effective measure that Government could take to deter the racketeers and those who would smuggle clandestines in the back of their lorries was the introduction of civil penalties? Against that background, does she find it extraordinary that the Conservative party is still opposed to that measure?
    Mrs. Roche: First, I was very grateful to my hon. Friend for accompanying me when I visited Dover, and immigration officers are very grateful for, and pleased about, the very strong support and commitment that he has shown them as a local Member of Parliament. That makes it all the more astonishing that Conservative Members should have spent their time in the Committee on the Bill that became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 filibustering to deny the introduction of that civil penalty. Even now, they continue to oppose it. I would ask the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), if she and her colleagues returned to office—if the country were unfortunate enough for that to happen—would she reverse that legislation? What would she do?
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: What would the Minister's advice be to a haulier who suspects that he has illegal immigrants in the back of his truck?
    586
    Should he drive to a police station and say, "They are in the back of the truck," or should he try to tackle those people, some of whom might be armed?
    Mrs. Roche: This is the refrain that we constantly hear from the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and her colleagues. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] If they care to be a little patient, I will tell them what the answer is. First, hauliers should check that they have the systems in place to ensure that such a situation does not arise; but then they should check before they drive on to the ferry.
    The aim of the civil penalty is to encourage road hauliers to carry out effective checks on their vehicles to prevent the carriage of clandestine entrants to the United Kingdom. Defences are built into the system to protect the honest and careful driver, but may I say to the right hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) and their Opposition colleagues that their mealy mouthed opposition to this important penalty does nothing at all for the hard-pressed people of Kent or the immigration service and just goes to show why it would be so inappropriate for the Conservative party ever to hold office again.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Does the Minister share my view that those who pay money to be illegally smuggled into this country should forfeit their right to claim asylum, given that those with a real fear of persecution or who are subject to a real threat to themselves and their families simply have to come to a port of entry and make clear their wish to apply for asylum at that point?
    Mrs. Roche: I know of my hon. Friend's great interest in this subject, and of course he is Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. The Government are determined to do two things; first, to say that of course Britain will always uphold our international obligations; but, secondly, not to put ourselves in a position where those who engage in the absolutely illegal trade of human smuggling receive any encouragement. That is why I say to my hon. Friend that we have increased the penalty for criminal acts in this area from seven to 10 years, why we shall continue, with the immigration service, to take very firm action indeed, and why we say to all those people who are thinking of making unfounded applications, "Do not do it."

    Police (North Yorkshire)
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What representations he has received on the proposed standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire police for the next financial year. [108236]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I have received representations on the funding of North Yorkshire police from the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and from other Members who represent that area. I replied to the hon. Lady on 25 January. Under proposals approved by the House on 3 February, North Yorkshire police's funding will increase by 2.7 per cent. next year.
    Miss McIntosh: Does the Minister agree that he is failing to deliver on the Home Secretary's pledge of more

    587
    police on the beat, and that he is failing to deliver the necessary resources in North Yorkshire? Representations that I have received from the police authority and from town and parish councils show that the North Yorkshire police will not have enough to cover the millennium policing and the cost of the police radios, that the increase in funding is below the national average and that the rise in police pension costs will leave a shortfall of 2.5 per cent. That will require an equivalent rise in the reserves as well as an increase on the levy. When will the Government deliver on their pledges?
    Mr. Clarke: I do not accept what the hon. Lady says. The facts are as follows. First, in the 12 months to October 1999, crime in North Yorkshire decreased by 0.1 per cent. at a time when crime nationally was increasing. Secondly, the spending capacity of North Yorkshire police in the current year—1999–2000—is an increase of 3.2 per cent. over 1998–99, and that is above the national average of 3.1 per cent. Thirdly, North Yorkshire will receive funding from the crime-fighting fund for 25 police recruits over the next three years, which is a significant improvement for that force.
    Mr. John Grogan: Does my hon. Friend recognise that the standard spending assessment for North Yorkshire police and for other police forces in rural areas would be significantly affected if a sparsity factor were introduced? What are the prospects of such a factor being introduced in future years?
    Mr. Clarke: I have received representations on the sparsity factor from a variety of different forces and from my hon. Friend and colleagues on both sides of the House. We are taking that factor fully into consideration. We have published the report. The details and that factor will be part of the considerations in future spending reviews.

    General Pinochet
    Mr. David Winnick: If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of General Pinochet. [108237]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): My policy in deciding the case of Senator Pinochet is to carry out my responsibilities under the Extradition Act 1989 in accordance with the law.
    Mr. Winnick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us are pleased that the processes regarding Pinochet are continuing in this country and that he has not been sent back? On the more recent speculation that his health may be worsening, is my right hon. Friend also aware that human rights groups would like to see hard medical evidence about this former criminal dictator, who in my view should certainly face justice?
    Mr. Straw: I am certainly aware of the concern that my hon. Friend expresses. On the question of whether the medical report should be published, the House will be aware that the matter has been before a three-judge court
    588
    of the divisional court, which is due to give its judgment later this week. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on the matter.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has said that, because the matter is clearly sub judice before the High Court. The case would have been eligible for judicial review had it not initially been a criminal matter. However, could Her Majesty's Government stop playing cat and mouse with the sitting senator who was admitted into this country as a VIP by the Foreign Office and whom the Government of Chile request be returned to the proper legal jurisdiction, which is in that very country?
    Mr. Straw: As I have said throughout the many months in which there have been extradition proceedings in respect of Senator Pinochet, in making decisions on the case I have sought to follow the duties that are imposed on me by the Extradition Act 1989. I shall continue to do that.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be well aware of the article published in El Pais some time ago and of the release of correspondence between his office and that of Senator Pinochet. He will also be aware that he has since placed that correspondence in the Library of the House. Could he explain why an official in his Department wrote to a lawyer acting on behalf of General Pinochet to offer him medical confidentiality, which, in effect, has given him a power of veto over subsequent proceedings?
    Mr. Straw: The House will understand that the issue that my hon. Friend raises is precisely one of the issues currently before the divisional court. For that reason, I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to comment further until we have a final judgment from the courts.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is it not odd that we should have contemplated the extradition of General Pinochet at the same time as we were creating the circumstances in Northern Ireland for Sinn Fein-IRA Ministers to serve in the Government there? Is not the truth something like this? When a democratic state makes a positive decision to overlook past misdeeds to create a new democratic settlement, other states should respect that decision.
    Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I do not accept the parallel that the right hon. and learned Gentleman draws. We are signatories to the European convention on extradition and we are subject to the Extradition Act 1989, which was passed by an Administration of whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a member. It is my duty, as the Secretary of State, to follow the responsibilities laid down by that Act.

    Private Detectives
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: What plans he has to conduct a review of the work of the private detective industry; and if he will make a statement. [108238]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We have no plans for a review, but we issued a White Paper last year proposing that a new authority be set up to license those who work in private security and to improve standards in the industry. We propose that the scheme should apply to private investigators in due course.
    Mr. Quinn: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Will he confirm that the situation in which my constituent Mr. Kelvin Pickup found himself would not occur under the Government's proposals, which I hope they will introduce soon? Private detectives seemed to act as agents provocateurs to try to get Mr. Pickup to conduct certain physical activities that were damaging to his health, because of his forthcoming industrial injuries case. Will my right hon. Friend confirm also that he will closely examine the relationship between private detective agencies and the insurance industry?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend's constituent's case certainly highlights concerns that exist in the industry and stresses the importance of ensuring that the reputable industry is supported by the codes of practice and regulatory mechanisms that we have in mind. We shall certainly bear in mind the importance of ensuring that the industry is well regulated and kept in good order, because it has an important role to fulfil.

    Asylum Seekers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: If he will make a statement on the numbers of political asylum seekers located in seaside towns. [108239]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): Local authorities are currently responsible for accommodating asylum seekers. Owing to the pressure placed on local authorities in London and the south-east over recent years, a number of asylum seekers have been placed by local authority social services departments in towns and cities around the country. Information is not collected centrally on the numbers of asylum seekers in seaside towns. Once the Home Office takes over responsibility for supporting asylum seekers, such information will be available.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister accept that there is a serious problem in seaside towns, partly because of the shortage of accommodation and partly because other local authorities are dumping refugees in those areas? Bearing in mind the problems that this creates for education and housing and for maintaining good community relations, is there any message of hope that I can give to people in Southend? Is the Minister willing to come to Southend or other seaside towns to discuss the position with local authorities?
    Is it really the case that many asylum seekers who have no right to remain—six out of seven, it is said—are not deported? Southend and other areas would be helped enormously if there were a clear assurance that the issues are being taken seriously and given priority and that the Government take a close interest in the problems.
    Mrs. Roche: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points. I am certainly prepared to visit Southend. I have visited
    590
    other places facing similar problems. I say with all respect to the hon. Gentleman that the problems arise from the policies of the previous Administration, who placed the whole responsibility for in-country applicants on hard-pressed local authorities. That is why we have introduced interim arrangements, and I hope that the forthcoming new support arrangements will relieve local authorities. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have made great progress on removals, and there has been increase of about 50 per cent. on the figure under the previous Administration.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the interim scheme that local authorities are being asked to operate is working to relieve the pressure on seaside towns and parts of London and the south-east that have large numbers of asylum seekers? What level of co-operation is being achieved? Are some local authorities causing difficulties by not being prepared to accept asylum seekers? When can we expect to be given the details of places becoming available through the Home Office scheme, which is supposed to come into operation on 1 April?
    Mrs. Roche: I can perhaps reassure my hon. Friend. We have had very good contact with local authorities throughout the country, and we are grateful for the support that we have received from local government associations, with whom we are having detailed discussions. We are also engaged in detailed negotiations with accommodation providers, including local authorities and the voluntary and private sectors. Arrangements and discussions continue, and we are very grateful to everybody who has participated so far.
    Mr. David Lidington: Will the Minister confirm that, in a letter to the Public Accounts Committee on 13 October last year, the permanent under-secretary to her Department declared that the Government's aim was
    "to clear all current asylum cases by October 2000"?
    Does the Minister think that target will be achieved?
    Mrs. Roche: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the targets that we set out in the White Paper, which were confirmed, rightly, by the permanent under-secretary. Decision making is increasing the whole time and the period is being reduced. I am grateful for all the efforts that staff have made to accomplish that.

    Crime (Metropolitan Police Area)
    Mr. Clive Efford: What measures he is taking to improve the success rate in fighting crime in the Metropolitan police area. [108240]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): We have put in place a comprehensive strategy to cut crime, with new powers for the police, investment in new technology such as the DNA database and a streamlining of the criminal justice system. Crime reduction partnerships between police and local authorities are well established and the Metropolitan police are being reorganised on a borough basis.

    591
    Today, I have announced challenging crime reduction targets for all police forces. The Metropolitan police's target is to reduce domestic burglary by 10 per cent., vehicle crime by 31 per cent and street crime by 15 per cent. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Sir John Stevens, will play a key role in that strategy.
    Mr. Efford: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer, and in particular for the initiative that he has announced today which sets targets for cutting burglary and vehicle crime, but does he share my concern at the negative effect on the recruitment of new officers of the recent adverse publicity that the Metropolitan police in particular have suffered? As the Member of Parliament for Eltham, perhaps I am better placed to understand that than most. More needs to be done to demonstrate to the public the police's important role and the respect that they have in the eyes of the community, to deal with the adverse effect on recruitment.
    Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he says about the development of our strategy, the establishment of the targets and the investment that we have been making in the Metropolitan police, including putting some millions of pounds into various crime reduction programmes under the crime reduction fund and the crime fighting fund. I accept that there is a problem over the recruitment of officers to the Metropolitan police service. I am not certain of the extent to which that goes back to problems that have arisen following the Macpherson report.
    This morning, with the Prime Minister, I visited Newham borough and met officers of various ranks from that Metropolitan police service division. We were told that morale was good there and it palpably was, but there is a problem in relation to the relative pay of Metropolitan police officers, which goes back to the implementation in 1993 of the Sheehy report, which has led to increasing disparity between the pay of officers who were recruited to the Met before 1993 and that of those recruited afterwards. We are seeking to address that matter, not least within the police negotiating board.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Does the Home Secretary accept that crime reduction, about which he made an announcement this morning, is the responsibility of everyone, not just the police? There should be targets for central Government and local government in London, just as there should be for the Metropolitan police. Can he assure us that the selection of those three categories—car crime, burglary and robbery—will not distort policing priorities, particularly in London and elsewhere, on violent crime, where the figures have been rising hugely? What does he say to chief constables, including the new Commissioner of the Met, who have asked for additional resources, who have had only some of their requests met by last week's announcement, and who will say that, unless they see the numbers going up to the figures they want, the Government cannot expect the crime figures to go down to the targets that they are setting them?
    Mr. Straw: On the last point, I want police numbers to start to rise. That is why we will put in the additional funds—£35 million in the next financial year and many millions more in the following two financial years—to ensure that the police are able to recruit an additional
    592
    5,000 officers over and above the 12,500 that they say they were planning to recruit in that three-year period in any event. However, those officers will be best used when the police service is working at optimum efficiency.
    It is a matter of record that under the previous Administration, the number of officers in the Metropolitan police service was cut by 2,000 between 1992 and 1998; that is the biggest cut that any force has ever had to suffer. None the less, owing to good leadership in the Metropolitan police service, crime was reduced to a significant extent in that period. We have to ensure that the investment is made in the police service, not least in London, so that the police can build on that sort of record.
    I accept that the responsibility for getting crime down is not one for the police service alone. We have placed a statutory duty on local authorities to be involved in crime partnerships. As I announced this morning, targets will be set for local authorities as well as for the police service. The targets announced today by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I were set by the chief of police and they are due to be confirmed by the police authorities in due course.
    On the question of the range of crimes, we believe that domestic burglary, vehicle crime and robbery in the main metropolitan areas are among the crimes that cause the greatest concern to the public. Police services that deal effectively with those crimes are likely to be those that are generally the most effective in dealing with other crimes as well.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to combat crime most effectively is not merely a question of resources, but one of public attitudes? Does he accept my congratulations on the fact that this year, we shall have a Greater London Authority that will, for the first time ever, ensure the democratic accountability of the police service in London to the people of London?
    Mr. Paul Flynn: Ken will make sure of that.
    Mr. Straw: I share my hon. Friend's delight—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—that is, at the subject of the question, not the sedentary intervention. I support the comments made on the record by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) about the importance of establishing a Metropolitan Police Authority. My delight is all the more personal in that, 20 years ago, I introduced a private Member's Bill proposing that there should be an elected authority for the Metropolitan police area. I am delighted to have been the Secretary of State who has carried through his own ten-minute Bill.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: I am sure that the Home Secretary accepts that, during the last Parliament, the number of front-line crime fighters in police forces throughout the country rose by 2,200. Since the last general election, he, as Home Secretary, has cut the Metropolitan police force by 1,100 officers who actually work in London. Is it not a cheek for him to set crime reduction targets for the police without setting

    593
    himself a target of restoring police numbers to the level at which they stood when he took office? Instead, he continues to stretch the thin blue line ever thinner.
    Mr. Straw: First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment as Opposition Front-Bench spokesman on home affairs. However, may I offer him some friendly—not to say comradely—advice? When he produces such figures, he should remember who set the budgets for the Metropolitan police. The budget for the Metropolitan police service for 1997–98 was set in January 1997, when the Conservative party was in power—that is on the record. If we take account of the fact that the Conservatives set the budget for 1997–98, about which we could do nothing on entering office, we see that, over the six years from 1992 to 1998, there was a 2.060 reduction in the strength of one single police service, namely the Metropolitan police service.
    I am concerned about the decline in numbers of police officers which has taken place since 1992 and which has continued under the present Government, but I will take no lectures whatever from the Conservative Opposition, not least because of the dramatic and unacceptable changes in police numbers that they forced on the Metropolitan police when they were in office.

    Clandestine Immigrants
    Mr. Ben Chapman: What penalties are available to ensure road hauliers do not bring illegal immigrants into the United Kingdom. [108241]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 provides new powers to impose civil penalties on those who bring clandestine entrants into the United Kingdom.
    Additionally, penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment are available on conviction for facilitators of illegal entrants.
    Mr. Chapman: Does my hon. Friend agree that whereas it has traditionally been the role of the Conservative party, as evidenced in the House again today, to put the interests of the road hauliers first, it is the job of Labour to put the interests of the British public first? Does my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that it is necessary to see that both the facilitators of the trade and the immigrants are appropriately dealt with?
    Mrs. Roche: I am astonished by the attitude of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and her colleagues. Criminal gangs are facilitating illegal entrants into the United Kingdom, often preying on extremely vulnerable people, yet once again the right hon. Lady and her colleagues refuse to back the Government on an important measure to deal with the problem. They have refused to do so time and again. They say one thing and do another, which is typical of their behaviour.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Does the Minister agree that the problem not of illegal immigration, but of political asylum seekers could at least be alleviated if it were Government policy not to entertain any application from people who come from the seven
    594
    countries in Europe that are members of the Council of Europe? As the Council of Europe has high standards on democracy, the rule of law and human rights, no one ought to be allowed in from those seven countries, and if there is cause for such a person to be allowed in, that should be a matter for the Government to take up immediately with the relevant country or with the European Court of Human Rights.
    Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting and important point. As he knows, the difficulty is that the Government, like the Government whom he supported, are a signatory to the 1951 convention on the rights of refugees. That gives us an obligation to consider applications for asylum on an individual, case-by-case basis. Nevertheless, I shall certainly pursue the hon. Gentleman's point.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is my hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, Slough, there is a belief among those who support asylum seekers that there is a lorry driver or someone else bringing in people from Romania once a week on a particular day of the week? I suspect that our local experience is not unusual. Will my hon. Friend make sure that when the urgently needed measure is introduced, such local intelligence is used to make sure that we target the organised gangs of lorry drivers who are bringing in people seeking asylum, sometimes as a totally bogus arrangement and sometimes genuinely, but who are in every case being facilitated by that kind of criminal activity?
    Mrs. Roche: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. There is a problem with organised crime being behind the vile trade in the smuggling and trafficking of human beings—men, women and children. My hon. Friend is right to say that we need intelligence-led operations. Those are being implemented, and I am pleased with the professional approach of the immigration service. Once again, however, we are being let down by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald and the Conservative party, who are soft on that crime.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: If he will make a statement on the numbers of asylum seekers currently awaiting a decision on their asylum application. [108243]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The overall backlog of asylum seekers awaiting a decision is currently just over 100,000. Of those on board the hijacked Ariana Airlines aeroplane, 73 have returned to Afghanistan, 13 men have been arrested and charged in connection with the hijack, and 69 passengers have applied for asylum.
    Mr. Fabricant: Does the Home Secretary accept that the backlog of unprocessed asylum seekers has doubled under this Government since 1997? Is it not the case that while the Government estimate that 38,000 people can be processed in a year, more than double that number are appealing for asylum? Can the Home Secretary understand the anger and incredulity of people in Lichfield, at a time when both Staffordshire and West

    595
    Midlands police are being slashed and when hospitals are under threat, that asylum seekers from Afghanistan are put up in luxury accommodation in the Hilton hotel? Does he understand that that gives the wrong sort of message and leads people to believe that Britain is a soft touch?
    Mr. Straw: I think that what the electors of Lichfield will understand is that the hon. Gentleman is soft. They will also understand that the Administration he supported left extraordinary chaos behind them and that, despite the backlog, the time taken to make initial decisions in asylum cases has decreased from 20 months—the length of time they took in April 1997—to 13 months today. We do not plan only to deal with 32,000 asylum applications a year—thanks to the fact that we have returned investment in the immigration and nationality directorate to an upward path following extraordinary Conservative party plans to cut 1,200 staff even though people were waiting 20 months for an asylum decision. Asylum decisions are 250 per cent. higher than they were before the problems last year.
    As for the litany of problems that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) alleges have arisen in his area since the election, including in education, the police service and the health service, I feel sure that the incredulity will be directed at him, because he is a member of a party that calls for increased investment in all key public services but votes against such investment and describes it as reckless.
    Mr. Bob Russell: I accept that hijackers must be dealt with firmly under international law, but does the Home Secretary agree that all asylum seekers must be judged fairly on the evidence, and not in relation to political statements that he or other members of the Government make?
    Mr. Straw: I made it clear in my statement last Thursday and in subsequent comments that asylum applications are judged in accordance with the law—the 1951 convention as it has been interpreted by statutes here and decisions of the courts—but I wish also to make it clear that the hijack presents us with a clash of obligations. We have obligations under the 1951 convention; we also have clear obligations under international law, which the British public plainly support, to ensure that we take the strongest possible measures to prevent and deter the international terrorist crime of hijacking.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Home Secretary knows that the national fire college at Moreton-in-Marsh is in my constituency. I say in parenthesis that it would have been courteous if someone in Gloucestershire had been informed, before we heard it on the news, that the refugees were coming there. I want to re-emphasise the Home Secretary's comments on "On the Record". We in Gloucestershire hope that the status of the asylum seekers will be determined as quickly as possible, partly for their own good—because the accommodation in Moreton-in-Marsh is spartan and unsuitable for long-term residential use—and partly because the asylum seekers should either be granted asylum, in which case they will receive long-term accommodation in this country, or refused it and immediately sent back to Afghanistan. Will the Home
    596
    Secretary use whatever influence he has to ensure that the hijackers are brought to justice and dealt with swiftly so that, if they are convicted, they can be sent back to Afghanistan as a deterrent to others?
    Mr. Straw: On the first point, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and the authorities in Gloucestershire were not informed, but he will understand that decisions had to be made very swiftly. In a perfect world, he would have been informed: we do our best to ensure that people are informed in similar circumstances. If he does not mind my saying so, we are getting a mixed message from the Opposition. The Essex police are criticised for using the allegedly luxurious accommodation in the Hilton hotel, yet the hon. Gentleman seems to believe that accommodation that is perfectly acceptable for trainee firefighters for many weeks is too spartan for asylum seekers.
    On the speed with which those decisions will be made, I made it clear in the House on 10 February that my aim is to take them as quickly as possible, although the hon. Gentleman will also understand that there may be other processes thereafter.
    On bringing the hijackers to justice, as I told the House a moment ago, I understand that 13 men on board the plane have been charged with offences in respect of the hijacking, but plainly it would not be appropriate for me or any other Member of the House to comment further on those charges.
    Miss Ann Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman informed the House on 10 February:
    "In the special circumstances of this hijacking … I personally will make the determination of any application for asylum made by persons on board the aircraft."
    A sentence later, he said that he
    "would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable."
    Does he accept that that statement was prejudicial to an independent determination? If so, was it a clanger or a ploy?
    Mr. Straw: Again, the Opposition need to sort out their line.
    Miss Widdecombe: Answer the question.
    Mr. Straw: I am answering it. On Sunday, the right hon. Lady was saying the things that she is saying today; on Friday, she was, unusually, expressing sympathy for me, saying, "This is a horrible decision and not one that I would want to take"—I happen to believe that that view is shared by the country. The right hon. Lady said that she was quoting from the record; in fact, she was quoting only partially. What I said was:
    "Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable."
    That is a very different statement from the one that she has attributed to me, and of course it will not prejudice my determination of those claims.
    Miss Widdecombe: Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine a circumstance in which a judge would say to

    597
    a jury, "Subject to all your deliberations, I expect you to find a guilty verdict"? That is the exact equivalent of what he said.
    May we move to another of the right hon. Gentleman's ploys? [Interruption.] Another ploy. He said over the weekend that he was interested in searching for third countries that might be willing to accept the asylum seekers on the hijacked plane. How many people who sought asylum in the last full year for which statistics are available have been removed from Britain to a third country, other than safe European countries through which they had passed?
    Mr. Straw: I note that the right hon. Lady slid fairly quickly off her first point. She well knows that no Secretary of State is in the same position as a judge and jury—or even magistrates under our Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill.
    On third countries, we are in discussion with a number of such countries as possible destinations for those who have remained in this country. The right hon. Lady asked me about the number of removals to third countries and I shall have to give her details of that in writing. However, I can tell her—and I am delighted to tell my hon. Friends—that the number of people removed from this country following failed asylum applications was 50 per cent. higher last year than during the last year of the Conservative Administration.
    Miss Widdecombe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that when he talks about removals being 50 per cent. higher, what he actually means is that he removed 3,000 asylum seekers in the last full year for which statistics are available—compared with the many tens of thousands of refusals of asylum applications? If not, his figures are wrong, and he should apologise, because that is what he said in a parliamentary answer.
    May I return to my first question, as the right hon. Gentleman seems unwilling to leave it? Can he name any circumstance in which a Home Secretary, acting in a quasi-judicial role, has announced in advance the outcome that he would prefer? Is he not inviting judicial review? Would it not suit him to sound extremely tough and then find that his decisions were overturned by the courts?
    Mr. Straw: I made it quite clear to the House last Thursday—I thought to the general approbation of the House, including the right hon. Lady and her party—that I would consider the asylum applications on their merits, as I always do consider decisions involving a quasi-judicial matter that is before me. What I said remains the case:
    "Subject to compliance with all legal requirements, I would wish to see removed from this country all those on the plane as soon as reasonably practicable."—[Official Report, 10 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 418.]
    I thought that it was important to place that on the record.
    Members of the Conservative Front-Bench team have obviously been taken over by an infection of dodgy figures. I have the figures before me, and they show that the number of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, who were removed in 1999 was 7,650, compared with 4,840 in 1996.

    Witness Protection
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will discuss witness protection arrangements with chief constables. [108244]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): We set up an inter-departmental working group in 1997 on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. Its report "Speaking up for Justice", published in June 1998, made 78 recommendations aimed at improving the way in which vulnerable or intimidated witnesses are treated and providing better access to justice. We have made considerable progress in implementing those recommendations, and Home Office officials regularly meet representatives of the Association of Chief Police Officers as part of the national witness support unit network to ensure that progress is maintained.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend is aware of my concerns about the judgment in the Oyston case and the handling of the McGrath case in Preston. Will he ask the chief constable of Lancashire why it is that Lancashire constabulary refuses to respond to the complaint made by my colleague Mr. Andrew Rosthorne against a north-west business man, of harassment during inquiries that he has been carrying out into the Oyston and McGrath cases? Can we find out whether the Cellnet records have now been checked?
    Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly refer my hon. Friend's comments to the chief constable of Lancashire.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: On the subject of vulnerable witnesses, what arrangements has the Home Office made with the Prime Minister to give political protection to the party's nominee for mayor of London following the successful defenestration of the Prime Minister's nominee as Welsh First Secretary last week—as that London nominee, with increasingly faltering steps, bears witness to the collapse of the new Labour project?
    Mr. Clarke: That was a rather contorted political point—possibly following the hon. Gentleman's failure to land any punches in an Adjournment debate on funding in Lincolnshire last week. I do not think that any of the Labour candidates for mayor of London could be described as vulnerable.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What criteria he has set for the funding of portable CCTV; and if he will make a statement. [108245]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Under the crime reduction programme, portable closed circuit television systems should be directed at specific crime problems with targets for reductions. They should also integrate well with the local crime reduction strategy and include measures to preserve privacy. The general criteria

    599
    that must be met by all bids will be explained in the prospectus for the second round of the CCTV initiative, which is due to be issued shortly.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and I congratulate him on the Government's campaign to reduce crime. However, some areas in my constituency require special attention, as crime is causing fear among many of the people living in those areas. Portable CCTV would be an economical and impressive way of reducing crime and the sources of crime in those areas. I therefore hope that Ministers will give serious consideration to an application that has been submitted for portable CCTV in the West Yorkshire area, which would service my constituency.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I can assure my hon. Friend that we shall indeed give very serious consideration to all applications for portable CCTV. To date, seven proposals solely for mobile systems have received awards totalling £627,000, and 16 others proposals—to the value of £2.3 million—are being deferred for further consideration of bid details. I very much hope that my hon. Friend's application will be considered as part of that initiative.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: When considering both portable CCTV and fixed systems, will the Minister consider very carefully the affordability of those systems to local authorities and to police? We have just been granted CCTV in Dorset, but we are trying to ensure the availability of match funding. Weymouth and Portland borough council—which is a Labour council—has received no additional grant from the Government in the past two years, so it will have to find funding from somewhere. Furthermore, although council tax is being increased by about 10 per cent., our police are being forced to cut back on everything, including uniforms, just so that they can ensure that there are bobbies on the beat. It is most important that we receive match funding.
    Mr. O'Brien: I urge the hon. Gentleman—if he is pressing us to spend more money—to ensure that the Conservative party is also advocating the expenditure of more money. Currently, Conservative Members seem to be describing all extra expenditure as reckless. Nevertheless, this Government have the biggest ever investment programme in CCTV, totalling £170 million, to add to the £250 million in the crime reduction programme. In their four years in office, the last Government spent a total of £38 million on CCTV, which is less than a fifth of what we are spending on it. This Government are showing that we are the Government who are tough on fighting crime. The previous Government totally failed in that.

    Robbery Statistics
    Mr. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on the number of robberies in England and Wales in the year to 30 September 1999. [108246]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): The number of robbery offences, in the year to 30 September 1999, is recorded as 74,843. The figure represents about 1.4 per cent. of all recorded crime.
    Mr. Loughton: In the past three years, in the relatively incident-free town of Shoreham in the heart of my constituency, not only have several banks been robbed in daylight hours, but one building society has been robbed three times. We seem to have taken more than our fair share of the first increases in robberies and violent crime since 1993. To what does the Minister attribute the increases? Is it anything to do with the facts that we have 1,700 fewer policeman or that 16,000 prisoners have received early release—or does he have another explanation for the surge?
    Mr. Clarke: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I know Shoreham because I have relatives there—who, unfortunately, are his constituents. The facts are that, in the Sussex force area, to the year ended September 1999, 911 offences of robbery were recorded, against total recorded crime of 135,000—so the number of robberies as a proportion of all crime in his area was lower than the national average. Generally, I believe that the Sussex force has been extremely effective in fighting robbery and other forms of crime, and that the various initiatives that we are taking, on CCTV and on local government crime and disorder partnerships, are extremely effective in bearing down on that type of crime.
    Mr. David Heath: I understand that the Minister intends to have targets for robbery at basic command unit level. Is he concerned that the local resources may not match the targets and, more important, that the targets will distort the deployment of police resources in a constabulary area so that the cities and high-crime areas continue to act as magnets for police resources, denuding the rural areas and areas with low crime?
    Mr. Clarke: We intend to have targets for violent crime, not only robbery, in all basic command units over time. We have set out our programmes today. Our targets for vehicle crime, burglary and violent crime are reasonable, and most people will welcome them. They will prioritise certain issues in a way that is necessary. They will also draw resources to where they are most needed to fight such crime. I do not accept the suggestion that that will result in some areas being denuded of resources.

    Demonstrations
    Mr. Howard Flight: What guidance he issues to chief constables with regard to protecting property and persons in neighbourhoods which are subject to regular demonstrations; and if he will make a statement. [108247]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): None. The policing of demonstrations is an operational matter for chief officers of police, who are well aware of the need to protect the public and property from harm and who have the necessary powers to do so.
    Mr. Flight: I wrote to the Home Office more than three weeks ago about my constituents living adjacent to Shamrock farm. They have had their windows smashed and have at times been barricaded in their houses for three hours as a result of demonstrations which the police admit are aimed at achieving the closing down of the farm. Will the Home Secretary hold discussions with Sussex police to ensure that their measures to protect citizens meet the criteria of the Public Order Act 1986?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman wrote to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 24 January about the policing of protests at Shamrock farm, and copied his letter to the chief constable of Sussex police. I am advised that a new dedicated team has been established under a chief inspector as an acknowledgement of the growing seriousness of the situation. The police hope that those protesters who have been targeting the owners and work of Shamrock farm will soon end up before the courts. Those are operational matters for the chief constable, but we are in touch with him on them. I acknowledge the seriousness for the hon. Gentleman's constituents of the events that are taking place at Shamrock farm. I assure him that the new dedicated team that his chief constable has established will focus energy on resolving those issues.

    Electoral Reform
    Mr. John Bercow: What representations he has received on the report of the Jenkins Commission on reform of the electoral system. [108248]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): We have received several hundred representations both for and against the proposals made by the Jenkins commission.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Given that our electoral system is used in 62 countries and by no less than 49 per cent. of the world's electors and that there is no evidence of a public demand for change, will the Minister confirm to the House that he will fight, fight and fight again to save the system that works? What better day's work could he do than to slap down Lord Jenkins, the Foreign Secretary
    602
    and the people whom his boss, the Home Secretary, has described as the "scavengers of British politics"—the Liberal Democrats?
    Mr. O'Brien: The straight answer is that setting up the independent commission on the voting system was a way of offering the people of this country an opportunity to vote on a suggested system. It is part of our manifesto commitment, which we intend to honour.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Will my hon. Friend admit that we have seen enough of the failures of the proportional representation system and that the best thing to do with the Jenkins proposals is dump them in the waste bin, where they belong?
    Mr. O'Brien: I suspect that there are many who share that view on this side of the House. [Laughter.] Perhaps I should say on both sides of the House.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Ben Bradshaw: If he will make a statement on progress in relieving the pressure on accommodation for asylum seekers in London and the south East. [108250]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): About 1,000 asylum seekers have been dispersed from London and Kent to other areas of England since the start of the interim dispersal scheme on 6 December 1999.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Will my hon. Friend do what she can to expose and publicise the apparent double standards of some political parties whose representatives in London and the south-east make loud demands for dispersal while those in other parts of the country not only resist dispersal but use the issue to fan the flames of anti-foreigner feeling?
    Mrs. Roche: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, as has been illustrated once again this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) says one thing one day and another thing the next. She goes to Kent and says that something must be done to relieve the burden and the pressures there, and then she supports an amendment tabled in the other place that would delay dispersal—which would help the people of Kent—and cost our hard-pressed taxpayers £500 million a year.

Thames Safety Inquiry
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about river safety.
The House will recall that a little over 10 years ago, on 20 August 1989, on a fine, warm summer evening, 132 people were enjoying a riverboat party on the Thames. Within minutes, their boat, the Marchioness, would be sunk, struck by a dredger, the Bowbelle; 51 young people would lose their lives and many more would be injured. Many questions about the cause of the collision, the reason why so many died, and the handling of the whole affair following the incident have remained unanswered.
The search for the truth was not helped by the failure of the then Government to institute a full public inquiry. On 18 August last year, I announced a wide-ranging public inquiry into safety on the River Thames and the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster. It was chaired by a senior judge, Lord Justice Clarke. It was an open public inquiry. Its scope was broad and its examination detailed, including written and oral evidence. For the first time, all the relevant documentation was gathered in one place and everyone concerned could make their case.
The inquiry reviewed current safety standards on the river and Lord Justice Clarke's report was published quickly, as I requested, on 2 December 1999. Lord Justice Clarke was also asked to advise
"Whether there is a case for a further investigation or inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster and its causes."
His second report, dealing with that issue, is being published today. Copies of both reports are in the Library of the House. I am greatly indebted to Lord Justice Clarke and his team for producing such thorough, well-considered and impressive reports so quickly.
Lord Justice Clarke recognised that the regulation of safety on the Thames is much improved since 1989. This is due in no small part to the efforts of the survivors of the Marchioness tragedy and the relatives of those who died. The Government accept all 44 of Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations; 10 have already been implemented on the Thames, and action is well advanced on implementing the rest.
I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses an action plan on river safety, explaining how my Department, working with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and the Port of London Authority, intends to implement the recommendations. These include a consultation on the consumption of alcohol by people in charge of vessels; funding a formal safety assessment on search-and-rescue facilities on the Thames; and funding the provision of experimental life-saving equipment at locations along the Thames.
Although the inquiry's recommendations are confined to the Thames, our approach will be to pursue the recommendations on a UK-wide basis. Safety is as important on other rivers as it is on the Thames, as I am sure the House will agree.
604
In his second report, Lord Justice Clarke considers the case for a further investigation or inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the Marchioness disaster and its causes. He concludes:
"I have no doubt in my mind that if such a tragedy happened today, there would be a widespread public demand for an inquiry. In my opinion such a demand would be entirely justified."
He goes on to say that the tragedy
"cried out for public scrutiny in order to discover how it was that such a terrible event could occur."
To put matters right, I can announce today that I have ordered a judicial inquiry, under section 268 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, into the collision between the Marchioness and the Bowbelle, and the searchand-rescue operations that followed the collision.
The Lord Chancellor has agreed to appoint Lord Justice Clarke to conduct the inquiry, which will have the power to obtain documents, to issue summons for the attendance of witnesses, to take evidence on oath and to order cross-examination. Lord Justice Clarke considers that the scope of the inquiry will be sufficient and that the public interest does not require a further inquiry into the police investigation, the two inquests or the failure to secure criminal convictions. The Government accept his recommendations on those matters.
I recommend right hon. and hon. Members to read Lord Justice Clarke's searching and thorough review. Lord Justice Clarke also addressed the question of the relationship between inquiries, inquests and criminal and civil proceedings. That can be a cause of great frustration and is an issue which concerns me greatly. It can sometimes lead to delays in inquiries, or in the publication of reports. Those problems can extend far beyond transport.
We therefore need to consider Lord Justice Clarke's proposals carefully, across government. The Government will report to Parliament when we are in a position to do so. However, on one issue, I intend to go beyond what he recommends. The bereaved families have expressed forcefully their great distress at the removal of the hands from the victims for fingerprint identification purposes, without advising the next of kin. Lord Justice Clarke looked at that matter in detail but did not recommend that it be covered by the inquiry. However, in consideration of the anguish that that incident caused, I have set up a non-statutory public inquiry into that specific matter under Lord Justice Clarke to run side by side with the judicial inquiry. The full terms of reference will be published today and have been placed in the Library.
On the matter of costs, I shall look favourably on applications made by the relatives of the victims and the survivors for reasonable legal costs to be met from public funds. Such funds need to be used efficiently so that work is not duplicated and the inquiry's timetable is adhered to. Lord Justice Clarke will ultimately decide on the award of costs at the inquiry.
The Marchioness disaster was the last and worst of a series of collisions on the Thames. It raised concerns about boat design, numbers of crew, the readiness of emergency services and the way people were treated after the incident. The Marchioness families and many others over the last 10 years have made representations to this Government and the last Government. The families have felt strongly that no full public inquiry took place and that they had had limited opportunity to express their

605
concerns. In 1992, I myself condemned the "legal fancy dancing", which caused confusion and stood in the way of a full public inquiry.
The Marchioness families have lived with their grief for 10 years. A new public inquiry cannot bring their loved ones back, but it can, I hope, bring some peace of mind to know that their case can be told and lessons can be learned for the future. Our main purpose is to look to future safety on our rivers. There must never be a repeat of those events of 20 August 1989.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming Lord Justice Clarke's report and looking forward to this new inquiry, which can at last draw a line under an incident that shook the nation at the time and left a legacy of misery and grief with which the Marchioness families have lived ever since.
Mr. Archie Norman: First, I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement to the House and for providing me with an advance copy. We join him in his objective of ensuring that everything possible is done to contribute to transport safety in general and safety on our rivers in particular, and to ensure that there is no repetition of that appalling incident. I also join him in expressing sympathy for the families of the 51 victims, as well as the 80 survivors of that appalling disaster.
The Marchioness action group and the families have fought a longstanding campaign on the issue and we pay tribute to their vigour and resolution in pursuing the matter. We recognise, too, that the accident and its aftermath raised several aspects of deep concern. For instance, it is clear that one of the vessels involved, the Bowbelle, had been involved in half of the 18 collisions on the Thames in the previous 20 years, but no steps were taken after the collision to investigate why that was the case. It is reported that the captain of the Bowbelle was under the influence of drink at the time and yet, to date, there are no restrictions on so-called drink-driving on the river.
In the light of the circumstances surrounding the tragedy, in 1995 a coroner's court decided that the 51 people killed had been unlawfully killed, yet no successful prosecution subsequently proved possible.
The Deputy Prime Minister also mentioned the very worrying specific incident of the removal of the hands of 27 victims—a bizarre episode that has caused understandable further distress to the families and to the bereaved. We welcome the right hon. Gentleman's inclusion of this within the scope of the inquiry.
Despite a series of thorough investigations, there has never been an opportunity for all the issues to be aired in public, and for witnesses and relatives to satisfy themselves that no stone has been left unturned in the pursuit of justice and a proper explanation of the background to the incident.
For all those reasons, particularly in the light of the conclusions of Lord Justice Clarke's report, we welcome the public inquiry and hope that it can be conducted thoroughly and expeditiously to resolve finally the remaining questions surrounding the disaster. It is, however, important that the initiation of the inquiry does not give rise to a general lack of public confidence in river transport. This will not be the first time that the disaster has been investigated, although it will be the first time that it has been investigated in a public inquiry.
606
The Deputy Prime Minister has described the various investigations as "fancy dancing". However, the disaster was substantially investigated at the time, albeit not in public forum.
The day after the accident, for instance, the then Secretary of State for Transport, now Lord Parkinson, announced two measures to improve passenger safety, and they came into force on 12 April 1990. In addition, within two weeks of the accident, an interim report by the marine accidents investigation branch published a series of recommendations to improve river safety. However, in April 1990, the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that the master of the Bowbelle was to be prosecuted. This meant that the report of the chief inspector of marine accidents, due at the same time, could not be published as it was sub judice, but the then Secretary of State for Transport accepted all 27 of its recommendations and made sure that they were published at that time.
A further inquiry carried out by John Hayes, Secretary of the Law Society, which made further proposals in July 1992 for improved safety, was implemented and the then Secretary of State for Transport acted upon the conclusions.
In June 1993, the first annual summary of the progress made on the recommendations following the disaster showed that recommendations had been implemented in all 27 cases.
The House will also recognise that the marine accidents investigation branch was set up specifically with the purpose of providing thorough, prompt and definitive investigations of marine accidents, along parallel lines to the air accidents investigation branch. It is important that the public and the Government recognise the good work undertaken by both organisations since that time.
Since the implementation of the MAIB recommendations, the safety record of the River Thames has been encouraging. In a period of more than 10 years, eight incidents have required investigation, of which only one, very unfortunately, involved a fatality. Therefore, although there are exceptional circumstance surrounding this case, and we accept the understandable and proper demand for an inquiry in which all the issues can be publicly aired, it is important to keep in perspective the fact that the river remains a safe place to travel. That was confirmed by the report of Lord Justice Clarke. The issues were, for the most part, thoroughly investigated at the time, and although that is no reason for complacency, the recommendations published were acted on properly and comprehensively when they were made.
In conclusion, may I ask the Deputy Prime Minister to clarify various aspects of his statement? First, will he take this opportunity to express in full his confidence in the MAIB, its structure and its operations, and to confirm that the decision to instigate a public inquiry in no way reflects poorly on its standard of work and professionalism?
Secondly, how soon will the inquiry begin, and how long does he expect it to take?
Thirdly, will he elaborate on his own serious point about Lord Justice Clarke's recommendations on the relationship between inquiries, inquests, and criminal and civil proceedings? In his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister said that the Government will report to Parliament on that matter when they are in a position to do so. How long will it take them to form their conclusions?

607
Fourthly, why does he feel that further consultation is needed on consumption of alcohol by people in charge of vessels when there is a strong suspicion that that was a determining factor in the Marchioness disaster? The case for introducing legislation on that matter is, on the face of it, clear.
Finally, given that the Deputy Prime Minister promised in 1991 that the
"next Labour Government will grant a public enquiry immediately"
on the Marchioness, why has it taken the Deputy Prime Minister nearly three years to deliver on that commitment?
Hon. Members: Shame. Outrageous.
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman's last comment was, indeed, completely outrageous. I have tried to approach this matter impartially, and I thought that he was right in what he said about safety and in welcoming our inquiry and our investigation into the removal of hands from the bodies for identification. The hon. Gentleman's tone on those matters was absolutely right, and I was grateful for his support.
The hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance that confidence in river safety would not be undermined. That is one of the reasons why I ordered the first part of the inquiry to be into river safety. Indeed, that report was produced in only a few weeks because I was concerned about the increase in river traffic, particularly with the millennium celebrations. Lord Justice Clarke produced an excellent report, and there has been considerable improvement in safety on the river since 1989, partly because of the Hayes report, as the hon. Gentleman said.
The hon. Gentleman is new to his job, and he will find out that the Hayes report was not about the sinking of the Marchioness, but about river safety. Hayes was unable to investigate the Marchioness, and one of the greatest problems with that matter was that relatives were ruled out of giving evidence in various forums, including inquests and public and private inquiries, which caused great dissatisfaction. Many conclusions were not properly drawn, and a lot of the evidence was not even given.
I said in 1991 that I believed that there should be a public inquiry. If we had been elected, I would have hoped to implement that promise, but that was not to be. I said what I said in 1991, but it is a bit much of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it has taken us so long to implement an inquiry that, frankly, should have been carried out immediately. He would do himself a favour by reading Lord Justice Clarke's report. Lord Justice Clarke found it confusing that the Government at the time did not set up an inquiry; he did not understand that. The reason given was that the investigation had been referred to the MAIB. Frankly, the MAIB did not do that job properly and did not conduct a full investigation, which is why we are setting up an inquiry.
When the hon. Gentleman reads Lord Justice Clarke's report, he will find that one of the gravest limitations of the previous inquiry was that it could not take public evidence. It was believed at the time that such inquiries could adopt the same procedures as those used in aircraft investigations, but that did not work out well. It has taken us 10 years to clear up the mess.
608
I am proud to announce that an inquiry will take place. The procedures that I have adopted are correct. First, I asked the Clarke inquiry to investigate the safety of the river. Secondly, Lord Justice Clarke was asked to look into the circumstances surrounding the loss of the Marchioness. His report is detailed and thorough, and I advise the hon. Gentleman to read it before he reaches any conclusions. The investigation process has taken time, but such a thorough approach should have been taken by the previous Administration, who could have prevented a lot of damage and grief among relatives who felt that their concerns were not properly addressed.
We are consulting on alcohol, as is proper. There are differences of opinion, and the Port of London Authority feels that it does not have enough powers in certain circumstances to enforce fines. Several bodies are involved, and it is right that we should consult, as Lord Justice Clarke points out.
As for confidence in the MAIB, I am the Secretary of State at the Department concerned with that body, and I work closely with it. The MAIB has done better since the Marchioness inquiry, and is striving to do better still. However, it would not have been sufficient to order a private inquiry, instead of a public one, into the circumstances relating to the loss of 51 lives on the Thames. It would not be fair to judge the MAIB against that background. It has a job to do—to improve safety; it will continue to do that job and I shall give it the necessary support.
In relation to the conflicts over the various bodies and courts involved, currently there is much controversy about corporate manslaughter—corporate killing as it is now called. The Law Commission has reported on those difficulties and the delays that might result. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is preparing a consultation document, which will be released shortly. We shall then be able to correct that aspect of the law.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that no one who lost someone on that night will ever accept that justice has been done, and has been seen to be done, until their real worries and fears are explored in public and on the record? My right hon. Friend's announcement today will begin a healing process that is long overdue. We hope that, even now, the evidence will show clear examples of the need to improve river safety—perhaps through co-ordination between the emergency services. The whole House, and anyone who was involved, will know that my right hon. Friend's announcement is a long overdue and deeply needed response to the real misery and unhappiness of the families concerned.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her support and for the work of the Transport Sub-Committee, which she chairs—especially the Committee's work on safety. I reassure her that, of the 44 recommendations made by Lord Justice Clarke in his first report, 10 have already been implemented; the rest are to be implemented through an action plan that I have deposited in the Library. Furthermore, over the next two or three years, the Maritime and Coastguard Agency will undergo an audit covering the same matters. We shall report to my hon. Friend's Committee and to the House; people will then be able to make a judgment.

609
I have no doubt that we have the right priorities; we are improving safety. Indeed, since 1989, safety has already improved. I want to improve it even more, especially on the Thames—although, as I said earlier, we are talking about safety not only on the Thames but on all the rivers in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Don Foster: Bearing it in mind that publication of today's report will reinforce the memories of that dreadful incident in 1989, may I reiterate, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, our sympathy to the friends and families of the 51 people who died?
I unreservedly congratulate the Secretary of State not only on having established the initial Thames safety inquiry, but on honouring today his commitment to set up a judicial inquiry. I reject—at least on the part of the Liberal Democrats—the implication of the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), that the Secretary of State has, in some way, taken the deaths of 51 people out of perspective. We do not believe that he has done so.
Mr. Norman: I did not say that.
Mr. Foster: The implication was clearly there.
I welcome the action plan that the Secretary of State announced. Will he confirm that the various measures will apply to estuaries as well as inland waterways?
Although I welcome the action that the Government are now taking, as a result of Lord Justice Clarke's concern about the relationship between inquiries, inquests and criminal and civil proceedings, does the Secretary of State agree that the matter has been on the Home Secretary's desk since he took office? In the light of the Law Commission report, will the Secretary of State initiate discussions between all the political parties to try to find an urgent solution to the problem?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words of support and, especially, for the remarks he made about the relatives of those who died in such terrible circumstances. I also welcome his support for the establishment of the inquiry. It is not the only such inquiry that I have dealt with—the Derbyshire and the Gaul inquiries were also about enabling relatives to find out what happened when those vessels were lost.
The relatives have been experiencing grief for a long time. If the House can make things better for them by instituting an inquiry for the first time—as in the case of the Marchioness—or by reopening earlier inquiries in relation to the Derbyshire and the Gaul, those are important steps that will help people find some peace and will help to reconcile them to the circumstances surrounding the loss of their loved ones.
We are concerned about safety on estuaries and inland waterways. I have asked the Department to study the matter to see how we might cover it in our transport safety review, which is in its final stages. Safety is important, whether on estuaries, inland waterways or rivers. Many vessels ply those waters for pleasure and commercial reasons. We shall deal with that, and I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that in our next stages.
I did raise the issue of inquiries with the hon. Gentleman. I have always been an advocate of that method of dealing with this matter. I am pleased that it
610
was mentioned in the Labour party election manifesto at the most recent general election. We did receive a report from the Law Commission; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is studying that. We are now in the final stages of preparing the draft copy before it goes out for consultation. I hope that we shall then get justice in this area, which has created such a great feeling of injustice.
Joan Ruddock: My right hon. Friend will recall that I was the shadow Minister for Transport in London at the time of this tragic event, and that the contact that I had with the families at that time was one of the most difficult things with which I have ever had to deal. I therefore thank him very much indeed for a personal promise kept. When he said that there would be a public inquiry, we put our faith in him, not knowing just how long it would take, but none the less waiting for this day.
I thank my right hon. Friend further on behalf of all our constituents in London, because on the night of that event and in its aftermath, every family dreaded the idea of any family member taking a pleasure trip on the Thames. For those reasons, I thank my right hon. Friend and urge him to continue with the work that he is undertaking to ensure that we are all safe on our great river at any time.
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for her words. We had to deal with this matter ourselves when we were in the same Front-Bench team on transport, and we felt very strongly about that promise. No one could feel less so, having met the relatives. The fact that we are now delivering on that promise is something that I am especially pleased about—more important, so are the relatives. My hon. Friend played quite a part in ensuring that that came about, and I am grateful for her support.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I invite the Deputy Prime Minister to join me in congratulating the efforts of the Marchioness action group, led by my constituent, Margaret Lockwood-Croft, on the tremendous resilience that they have shown and on their indefatigable determination to ensure that a full public inquiry was brought about? Although there have been various other inquiries, I believe that the only way to resolve the matter finally was to use the mechanism of a full judicial inquiry.
However, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that many changes made under the Conservative Government have led to a safer river, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) made absolutely clear in his remarks?
Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the country why, uniquely, those who are in charge of vessels on our waterways are not subject to the same laws relating to alcohol as those who are in charge of every other form of transport? The country will be slightly concerned to know that the Government are not going to act more swiftly on the matter.
Mr. Prescott: I am finding some difficulty—the question starts pleasantly and ends with a sting. May I just say thank you very much for the remarks that were made about the relatives? There are a number of action groups. I met them before I came here to say that we would be making a statement today, and I believe that

611
they are watching this event on the parliamentary channel. I believe that we would all want to say that we are well aware of the dedication and patience that those groups have shown in attempting to obtain an inquiry into the Marchioness disaster.
Although I readily agree—indeed, I said it in the statement—that improvements in Thames safety have flowed from a number of these inquiries, the reality is that the relatives knew, as the hon. Gentleman will know, that they wanted a full public inquiry. Every year they have asked for it, and every year they have been denied it. I am delighted to have announced such an inquiry.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that alcohol is not treated in the same way on river as it is on land, but that has been pointed out in several reports, published over many years, on which the previous Administration did nothing. I immediately set in hand a consultation process to see how we could correct that anomaly. We published a consultation document. It does not only concern people who are in charge of a vessel; youngsters can buy liquor on these vessels because the laws on ships differ from those on land. We are now trying to correct that difference, and consultation has been going on. I hope to see a conclusion to that. I do not believe that we can be criticised for acting in the first two years of a Government on problems that were known for 20 years, and on which the previous Administration did nothing.
Mr. Chris Pond: My right hon. Friend is right to consider the announcement of the inquiry a matter of pride and to say that all the families and the Marchioness groups should receive a tribute for their determination and courage in ensuring not only that what happened on that fateful night more than 10 years ago is properly investigated, but that such events do not happen again. The fact that the Thames and other rivers are safer now and that we can encourage greater use of them is also partly attributable to their actions.
The House will very much welcome the action plan on safety. However, given Lord Justice Clarke's comments, is there an issue about the role of the Port of London Authority, which has a major control centre in my constituency? We all know that the PLA places the highest priority on issues of river safety and that it is giving them greater priority. However, is there not a conflict of interest, in that the authority has to obtain much of its income from charging river users and, at the same time, to police those users to ensure river safety?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks and words of support and very much endorse what he said about the role of the relatives. I also thank him for giving evidence to Lord Justice Clarke. Along with other Members, he gave evidence on the improvement of Thames safety.
My hon. Friend asked about the role of the PLA and about a possible conflict of interest. The PLA is responsible for navigation on the river and my Department is responsible for the administration of that. Lord Justice Clarke took account of my hon. Friend's remarks and has dealt with that point in his final report. He did not find the conflict of interest that my hon. Friend is concerned about, but I suggest that my hon. Friend
612
reads the report to see what is said about it. There is a difficulty of duplication and Lord Justice Clarke raised the issue of democratic accountability on the river. Consideration of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 raised the question of whether greater responsibility could be handed to the new authority for London. At present, direct responsibility is with my Department, but I ask my hon. Friend to consider what Lord Justice Clarke's report says about the specific issue of a conflict of interest.
Mr. Simon Hughes: First, I join others in thanking the Secretary of State for his commitment and consistency on the issue, his private office for its work and Lord Justice Clarke and his officials. The right hon. Gentleman's commitment has ensured that we have arrived at this day and I thank him on behalf of not just the relatives and survivors whom we both know, but my constituents and Londoners as a whole, who have waited far too long for this day. The right hon. Gentleman's determination to have an inquiry is in marked contrast to the approach of Baroness Thatcher and her transport Ministers, who did not deliver one.
The right hon. Gentleman will receive all-party support if, with his colleagues in the Home Office, he is minded to introduce legislation to deal with alcohol regulation on vessels before the end of the Parliament or in the next parliamentary Session. Such legislation is urgently needed.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to join me and others in finding a way to honour those who helped in the rescue. I single out those who were on the Hurlingham and who risked their lives to save lives on that terrible night 10 years ago last August.
Finally and slightly more controversially, I follow the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond). When the Secretary of State considers the recommendation on who should have responsibility for search and rescue, will he take account of the strong case for making that body publicly accountable? Can we not at least have an open debate about that and ensure that, in future, we do not have the secrecy surrounding such issues that, I am afraid, has been the way of officials and, indeed, the wish of some officials? We must put that behind us in legislation and in practice in the future.
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words of support and for acknowledging the role played by the relatives. I thank him also for his encouragement, because this has not been an easy time. There are people who felt strongly that we should not have a public inquiry and who had genuine doubts. I have arrived at my judgment, and I am grateful for the support that I received from the hon. Gentleman and others in the House. It is always difficult when relatives feel for a long time that they have not had justice, and people do not always get what they want.
I should have said before that the Home Office intends to produce in March a White Paper on licensing matters, which will deal with the differences between licensing laws onshore and on the water.
Great courage was shown by many people on that evening, particularly by those on the other boat, the Hurlingham, in providing assistance in those difficult circumstances. One of the rewarding factors of reviewing such matters, after the heat of the moment, is realising

613
that there are many people who are prepared to do a great deal to help others in such circumstances, whether in a train accident or a boat accident. We should acknowledge the emergency services, whose members play a wonderful part in dealing with those difficulties.
Search-and-rescue matters have been considered and are in the action plan. We shall consider the important issues that the hon. Gentleman raised of democratic accountability and openness, which were missing in this case and caused such grievance, and decide whether they should be dealt with by London's new elected authority. We shall be able to find a satisfactory solution. In the meantime, responsibilities lie with me, and I can delegate them.
Mr. John Cryer: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. I was not a Member of the House when the tragedy occurred, 11 years ago, but I represent a Thameside constituency and many of my constituents work on the Thames and use it daily. My right hon. Friend will be aware that many craft are plying the Thames with no qualified personnel whatever. Will he assure the House that the inquiry will consider that issue?
Mr. Prescott: I thank my hon. Friend for his support. If he looks at the action plan, he will find that the earlier report on the safety of the river dealt with that point and made a number of recommendations for the various bodies involved in qualifications, including not only the Department but the PLA, which has responsibility for navigation. Some recommendations have therefore been made, but the inquiry will consider performance and other factors that contributed to the loss of the Marchioness.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: As one who was the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State on the fateful evening of the accident, I realise that the right hon. Gentleman will have had many difficult meetings with the relatives. I, too, had meetings with relatives, along with Secretaries of State for Transport, Lord Parkinson and Malcolm Rifkind.
One reason why it was decided not to hold a public inquiry was that the marine accidents investigation branch had been set up. It is worth noting that the air accidents investigation branch has long been accepted as an authoritative body, and there has not been a public inquiry into an air accident since 1976, although there have been serious incidents involving great loss of life. Is it the Secretary of State's wish that the MAIB should be held in the same regard and respect as the AAIB, and that he would therefore look to the MAIB to carry out future inquiries?
Is the Secretary of State considering the problems that arise when a public inquiry takes place immediately after an accident, when necessary legal proceedings may also be in the melting pot? That was certainly one of the great impediments to faster progress in this matter.
Mr. Prescott: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's involvement in the matter. There were difficult decisions to make at the time. I was involved in transport matters on the Opposition Benches at the time and I know that there was a hope that the MAIB, the maritime body, could get the same reputation as the aviation body. Unfortunately, the Marchioness was the MAIB's first case
614
and it could hold hearings only in private. Fifty-two people had died. A public inquiry was ordered right away into the loss of the Herald of Free Enterprise. Is it simply the number of deaths that decides whether a public inquiry, or an inquiry by the maritime body, is held? Those are difficult questions. That is why we are looking at the various inquiries and trying to find a consistent approach.
I hope that the MAIB will get the same reputation as the aviation body and develop in such a way that people can have confidence in it to carry out such inquiries, but people want public, open examination. Lord Justice Clarke is absolutely right. It is part of the proposal. If we do it in private, it will be extremely difficult. All the MAIB does is take evidence from people and make a judgment; it is like a court of experts, if you like, that gives its opinion. That is not the proper way in which to do it. In a matter as serious as the Marchioness accident, a mistake was made.
I understand that the number of court cases that was pursued by the Crown Prosecution Service made such action much more difficult. I was critical of that at the time, because it complicates the matter. When a long time passes, people say, "You cannot hold an inquiry now because it is so long after the event." I am doing it 10 years after the event. I think that it is right because the circumstances surrounding whatever investigations took place denied the relatives the opportunity to put their case. That is what made it more difficult.
In the meantime, we have to build on the safety bodies that we have, ensure that they can do a good job, and get proper terms of reference, so that we can decide how inquiries take place. After all, relatives who are watching the debate will have said to themselves after the Paddington rail crash, "A public inquiry has been automatically announced. Why has one not been announced for us?" They will have been right to ask that question. I am answering it today.
Miss Anne McIntosh: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for his statement and for the opportunity to demonstrate to the bereaved that our thoughts continue to be with them. I think that we are all mindful of the fact that, with the dome, there is probably more boat traffic on that stretch than hitherto.
May I make a plea that accidents on any river be treated in the same way as accidents at sea? The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the Herald of Free Enterprise. When that disaster and the Estonia disaster happened, boat design was looked at for a simple reason: to try to keep boats afloat for as long as possible, should a similar disaster occur. I wonder whether the Deputy Prime Minister has had any thoughts on that.
May I make another plea? Rather than concentrating, as I know the Government are under great pressure to do, on the amount of alcohol in the blood of drivers on roads, will he please make some limitation on alcohol on boats on any river a higher priority?
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Member for her remarks of support. She is right that we are not just concerned with the Thames. I know that she is readily informed on matters of the Ouse and the York and vessels that ply them. It is important to do that. That is why we have made it clear that not only the Thames but all rivers will be looked at. It is important for us to take the opportunity to do so.

615
Looking at the design of vessels is important. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), mentioned that the Bowbelle had been involved in about 50 per cent. of such incidents. It was also clear that all those incidents involved vessels that had restricted visibility—namely, the launches that the Bowbelle collided with in one form or another. All investigations showed that there was restricted visibility. It is tragic that, over 20 years, nothing was done about restricted visibility, which contributed to the Marchioness disaster. What happened with the Marchioness has happened a few times over the 20 years, and reports were made under those circumstances. Frankly, nothing was done. It is an important issue and we shall look at it.
With regard to the alcohol issue, we hope that our White Paper will bring together shore and sea. We are looking at the other circumstances surrounding alcohol use by crew members. The matter is raised in some of the recommendations that have already been made and that are under consultation. No doubt the issue will be visited again by the inquiry.

Points of Order
4.14 pm
Sir Brian Mawhinney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because of the significance of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, I slipped out after he had made it, only to be told by the Library that it does not have copies of Lord Justice Clarke's report. I am not accusing the Deputy Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but would you undertake, on behalf of Members on both sides of the House, to look at the arrangements for the delivery of such documents either to the Vote Office or to the Library when statements are made, so that Ministers do not mislead the House and Members have a chance to read the documents?
Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman says, no Minister or Secretary of State has misled the House today. However, in recent times, there have been examples of Ministers saying, in all good faith, that a document is available, only for hon. Members to find that that document is not available.
I hope that all Departments of State will heed my comments today and see to it that those who are responsible for serving Ministers do their job. They must see to it that the documents that should be available are made available, and that the Minister is properly supported. It is rather disappointing to me that, of late, that has not been the case.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise if any discourtesy has been done to the House. I made my statement in good faith, and you can be sure that I sha0ll ask why my instruction was not carried out.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the subject of General Pinochet and what is or is not sub judice as far as the House is concerned.
You will recall that when, during oral questions this afternoon, I questioned the Home Secretary about a letter that his Department had sent to Pinochet's lawyers on 5 November, he said that he was unable to answer because it now formed part of the legal proceedings; however, he made a statement to the House that was derived from the exchange of letters at that time. Given that he made that statement, I should have thought that the Home Secretary must answer hon. Members' questions on the matter. I realise that there is a court case in which a decision is expected imminently. Then, will we be able to question the Home Secretary on the details of that correspondence?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he goes to the Table Office and attempts to table a question, he will be given guidance. I am concerned to ensure that hon. Members are able to ask questions about that issue in respect of the medical evidence and the policy of the Secretary of State. However, I am also concerned to protect our proceedings in respect of the sub judice rule.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that "Erskine May", page 383, makes it clear that there should not be
"reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings"?
The proceedings in the matter we are discussing are continuing: the three High Court judges have deferred judgment until tomorrow or Wednesday. Germane to their deliberations is the question of whether or not the Home Secretary was correct to withhold the findings of the panel of medical specialists whom he appointed. Notwithstanding your letter to me of 10 February about early-day motion 340, in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will you ensure that, on the matter of questions, the staff of the Table Office are extremely careful to make quite certain that no prejudice is caused to proceedings currently in train?
Madam Speaker: The staff of the Table Office are, of course, rightly cautious, but I know that they are very helpful to hon. Members when approached on the tabling of questions. I know, too, that the Home Secretary is concerned about the sub judice rule and about the role he plays in the House. Today, he was certainly in perfect order when answering the questions put to him on that matter.

BILL PRESENTED
  ANALYSIS OF COSTS AND BENEFITS (NAFTA MEMBERSHIP)
  Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report to Parliament on the potential costs and benefits of membership by the United Kingdom of the North American Free Trade Agreement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 67].
Orders of the Day

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
  [1ST ALLOTTED DAY]
  (Clauses 1 to 18 and 95 to 120, Schedules 1, 2 and 11 to 14, and New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Parts I and VII)
  Considered in Committee.
  [SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]
  4.19 pm
  Ordered,
  That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill are to be taken shall be: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 18, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part I, clauses 95 to 103, Schedule 11, Clause 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 111, Schedule 13, Clause 112, Schedule 14, Clauses 113 to 120, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part VII.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

  Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
    Clause 1

      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Robert Walter: I hope that in our deliberations in the Committee of the whole House, the spirit of co-operation that existed in Committee upstairs will persist. As I stated on a number of occasions in that Committee and on Second Reading, the Bill is based on the Neill report, the spirit of which is strongly supported by the Opposition.
      Clearly, if we support the Neill report, we must support the basic tenet of clause 1, which is the establishment of the Electoral Commission. However, we have a number of concerns with regard to clause 1, on which we seek reassurance from the Minister.
      Recommendation 77 in the Neill report states:
      "The Commission should consist of five part-time members".
      However, the clause states that there should be at least five and up to nine commissioners. Therein lies a deviation on the part of the Government from the Neill report.
      At paragraph 11.27, Neill reports:
      "It was suggested to us in evidence that the Election Commission should, among other things, assume the responsibilities of the present Boundary Commissions. This proposal falls outside our terms of reference, and we have neither taken evidence bearing on the point nor considered it in detail. We would only offer the thought that the existing system for the revision of parliamentary boundaries seems to work reasonably well and that to transfer it to the Election Commission might seriously overload that body, whose responsibilities, it seems to us, will be onerous enough as it is. We are not inclined to recommend change."
      Why have the Government felt it necessary to deviate from Neill's inclination not to recommend change?
      The second and more probing question concerns timing. The establishment of the commission seems to be a relatively straightforward procedure. However, a letter sent

      619
      by the Home Office constitutional and community policy directorate on 17 January to the nominating officers of all registered political parties states in paragraph 6:
      "Subject to when Royal Assent is given to the Bill, we aim to have the Electoral Commissioners appointed and Electoral Commission functioning by November 2000. As soon as possible thereafter (and we are tentatively looking at. December 2000)—
      that is key—
      "it is proposed to bring Part II into force so that the transitional arrangements set out in clause 30 can come into play. There will then be a six-week period during which existing registered parties will need to notify the Commission of the name of their registered treasurer and deposit a scheme setting out their financial structure. Following this six-week transitional period (ie. in February or March 2001) the accounting requirements and the controls on donations and on campaign expenditure, set out in Parts III to V, will then come into force."
      The next paragraph is telling. It states:
      "This is a demanding timetable, not only for the Home Office in establishing the Electoral Commission but also for all registered parties, who will need to prepare themselves for these significant changes to the way they operate."
      The Electoral Commission, which clause 1 sets up, will be responsible only a few weeks after its establishment for taking over the register of political parties. I have a copy of the register, which shows that there are approximately 100 political parties in this country. Many of them have fanciful names, ranging from the Alternative Labour List and the Caring party to small groups such as the Hull Independent Labour Group, well-known names such as the Official Monster Raving Loony party, and a couple that appealed to me: the Tax-Avoid for the Self-Employed party and the Walked-Over-Women party.
      Those 100 registered political parties are to be made aware of the Bill's provisions—the commission will have to make them aware—in a short period so that by March 2001 all the procedures will be completed and the scheme will be up and running. What are the timetable's implications for a possible election in spring 2001? I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance on that.
      May is popular with incumbent Prime Ministers. If an election were to take place in May 2001, the commission would have to implement quickly the Bill's provisions not only for a register of political parties, but for their expenditure, donations to them and the specific rules that apply in an election campaign, which are different from the rules that normally apply.
      The commission will be new and fresh and the political parties will be new to the regulations. The major political parties will probably have their systems in place and therefore be reasonably comfortable. However, I fear that chaos might reign among some of the smaller political parties. Some of them are represented in the House, and they may find the timetable onerous. I seek the Minister's guidance about the practicability of implementing clause 1.
      Mr. Eric Forth: This is an exciting moment for those of us who are new to the Bill and have been unable to participate in the proceedings hitherto. The debate gives us an opportunity to turn our attention—in, I hope, a focused way—to the Bill's comprehensive and complex provisions. I am pleased about that, and about the fact that the selection list gives us ample opportunity to probe, examine and analyse the Bill.
      620
      Clause 1 gives us an opportunity to put our discussion in context. On first reading the clause, I thought that it was relatively straightforward. It is a standard clause, which we have come to expect in the sort of measure that we are considering; especially its provision for the commission to consist of electoral commissioners, who should number
      "not less than five, but not more than nine".
      However, I began to worry about that when I read on—as I hope you, Sir Alan, agree one has to in this context—to the commission's general functions and the proposed number of members.
      4.30 pm
      Very much in my mind was the thought that to discharge its functions adequately the commission may have to appoint sub-committees of its members to give proper attention to the various responsibilities given to it by the Bill. I ranged quickly over the general functions, such as preparing and publishing a report after each election and referendum. It must also
      "keep under review, and from time to time submit reports to the Secretary of State on … such matters"—
      that is a very general remit—
      "relating to elections … such matters relating to referendums … the redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections".
      That in itself is an enormous responsibility, but as we know, the block transfer of the boundary commissions' responsibilities to the new commission will take place later and we find that it is to be consulted on changes to electoral law.
      There is another catch-all responsibility in clause 8:
      "The Commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide the body with advice and assistance as respects any matter in which the Commission have skill and experience",
      which, of course, we assume will be very wide indeed. However, I shall not go into detail at this stage. This is simply a broad review.
      Mr. David Maclean: Before my right hon. Friend completes his general introduction to clause stand part—
      Mr. Forth: And to my remarks.
      Mr. Maclean: Indeed. Before my right hon. Friend completes his introductory remarks, I remind him that he has not mentioned the fact that the Bill applies to the whole United Kingdom. The nine commissioners—at most—will have to deal with four separate legislative systems as the Government continue their policy of disintegrating the United Kingdom. How can nine commissioners possibly deal with the Northern Ireland legislative system, Scotland, the Welsh Assembly and what remains of the United Kingdom Parliament?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because he has reinforced the difficulty in which I find myself on being asked whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. In normal circumstances, I confess, I would argue for the membership to be at the lower end of the numbers so as to establish a compact body capable of making good decisions, but quickly. On this occasion, my worry is the reverse, and I wonder whether nine is sufficient.

      621
      My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the commission would face a bewildering array of electoral arrangements—not only our traditional and excellent first-past-the-post system, but a number of different proportional systems will have to be considered; and what may seem, on the face of it, to be the routine responsibility in clause 4(1) to
      "prepare and publish … a report on the administration of the election or referendum",
      which would appear to be a standard process in normal historical circumstances, will take on an altogether new character. The different systems of proportional representation in the different parts of the United Kingdom are in their early stages and it is possible—I think it is a certainty—that the reports that we would expect from the commission on those matters would have to be much more detailed and much more considered than might otherwise be the case.
      I hope that the Committee and the Government do not accept that we have had the last word on whether the proportional systems that have been introduced up and down the United Kingdom are the final versions. The commission may recommend that we return to the first-past-the-post system, and I hope that it will. Even in that seductively simple provision in clause 4 we already see that the commission might have an extremely complex and demanding series of responsibilities, and clause 5 refers to the
      "redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections".
      We are beginning to see the real possibility of the "not more than nine" electoral commissioners having to cover an awful lot of ground. To do so, they may have to constitute themselves into a series of working committees or sub-committees—hon. Members may call them what they will.
      At that point the question arises whether nine commissioners could remotely be sufficient. One could have in one's mind's eye a sub-committee of even three or four members setting out to fulfil the responsibilities put on the commission under any of the clauses that I have mentioned—clause 4, clause 5, which has a number of different requirements, the consultations under clause 6, or the giving of advice under clause 8. Some matters will be continuous, whereas others will be ad hoc and refer to specific events.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell: The right hon. Gentleman has gone through a number of clauses. Has he directed his attention to clause 13, which enables the electoral commissioners to appoint deputy electoral commissioners?
      Mr. Forth: Indeed, I had cast my eye over clause 13. The hon. Gentleman may think that he is solving the problem that I have set out, except that it says in clause 13(3):
      "The functions of a Deputy Electoral Commissioner are limited to serving as a member of any Boundary Committee to which he is appointed."
      I do not think that the deputy electoral commissioners will solve the problem. I concede that they will solve part of the problem. They may take the burden of the responsibilities of the hitherto boundary commission—now boundary committee—but that still leaves all the others. I accept that the hon. Gentleman intervened in a spirit of helpfulness, but he has solved only a small part of the problem.
      622
      We have this peculiar mix of a continuity of responsibility, purpose and process, and the specifics that will arise from each election and referendum, to which the commission will have to turn its attention.
      At this early stage in the proceedings of the Committee on the Floor of the House, I am beginning to wonder how much thought has been given to this matter. I cannot judge that in detail at this early stage—although the opportunity will arise over the following hours to do so. One has to merely glance at clause 1 and out come tumbling all these questions about whether this proposal has any chance of working properly. As it is fundamental to our constitutional and electoral provisions, surely the Government should have given it more thought than they obviously have done.
      The Minister may think that nine commissioners will be able adequately to discharge the responsibilities that the Bill gives them, but I shall take an awful lot of persuading. The Minister will have time to do his persuading at the end of this part of the debate, but he will have to be pretty good to convince me that nine electoral commissioners can do justice to the enormous responsibilities that will be laid on the commission under clause 1 and the following clauses in this part of the Bill.
      I confess that a Bill which I hoped would have general agreement and would be relatively straightforward seems already to be in trouble on clause 1. The Committee has its work cut out to examine these provisions properly and to come to proper conclusions. I say that as a preliminary observation, Sir Alan. You would not want me to go further at this stage. We shall mercifully be able to examine many of these matters in detail.
      I am uneasy about this process. I am not satisfied that the Government have given this legislation proper consideration. I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends whose amendments have been selected, because that will enable us to scrutinise this matter thoroughly. It may be that the Bill should not be rushed on to the statute book in its present state, because if it were, the Committee and the House might be making a serious mistake. I hope that we shall do our job properly and seriously and with due diligence.
      Mr. Stunell: In view of the remarks that have been made, I just wanted to put on record the view of the Liberal Democrats that the Bill is overdue, and that the material it contains is broadly and properly in line with the Neill committee recommendations.
      The first reading of clause 1 by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was more accurate and to the point than his subsequent divertisements on the subject. We should consider the principle that is being established. It commands the support of the Liberal Democrats: we should have an unfettered and independent body that is undertaking careful supervision of one of the most fundamental and precious aspects of our democratic system. The general shape of the Bill and the particular shape of this clause should be supported.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Clause 1 gives effect to the Neill committee's recommendation that an Electoral Commission be established. Indeed, establishment of an independent Electoral Commission

      623
      lies at the Bill's heart. Creation of a commission will represent an important step in the modernisation of our constitution, and in ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our electoral arrangements.
      Many commentators have argued or supported the case for the establishment of a single body with a remit to oversee the United Kingdom's electoral machinery. The Government share the view of those commentators that there is a clear need for a body with a broad role to play in the conduct of elections and of referendums. The role should extend beyond policing the income and expenditure of political parties, to the broader matters of electoral law, increasing voter participation and defining electoral boundaries. The authority of that body should be grounded in its neutrality and independence from both political parties and the Government of the day.
      Subsections (1), (2) and (3) provide for the establishment of an Electoral Commission which will consist of between five and nine electoral commissioners. The Neill committee recommended that the commission should consist of five members. The intention was that the five commissioners should be appointed in the first instance, but that a further four should be appointed when the functions of the various boundary commissions transfer to the Electoral Commission.
      Subsection (4) specifies that the electoral commissioners may be appointed by Her Majesty. The appointment procedure is described in more detail in clause 3. However, the key point is that the commissioners will not be appointed directly by a Minister.
      The Neill committee recommended that the commissioners should be part-time appointments. However, the Bill does not specify whether the commissioners should serve on a part or full-time basis. Until the body is fully established, it is perhaps difficult to be certain about how far the commissioners' work load will merit part or full-time appointments. That point is perhaps partly related to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      The Government would expect initially to appoint a full-time chairman, but the four other commissioners on a part-time basis. However, it seems unnecessary for the Bill to make explicit provision on the point. Some flexibility in meeting future arrangements would seem to be desirable.
      The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) asked various questions. On the boundary commission, we said in the White Paper that the first priority was to put in place controls on donations and campaign expenditure. Accordingly, the commission would not take on the boundary functions until 2002 at the earliest, and perhaps not until 2005, after the fifth general review of parliamentary boundaries has been completed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Neill committee did not examine the matter in any great detail. We see considerable advantage in bringing all electoral matters under one roof. Various efficiency gains would also be realised if the functions of the parliamentary and local government boundary commissions were merged in one body.
      624
      In its comments on the draft Bill, the Neill committee did not raise any objections to vesting the boundary functions in the commission. Indeed, on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who is a member of the Neill committee, welcomed the proposals.
      Mr. Walter: Earlier, I quoted the Neill report, which referred to the boundary commission. The report said that to transfer that work
      "to the Election Commission might seriously overload that body, whose responsibilities, it seems to us, will be onerous enough as it is. We are not inclined to recommend change."
      Mr. O'Brien: The Neill committee took an initial view, and we expressed to it our view that there would be advantage in bringing the work under one roof. As I understand it, the committee broadly accepts the approach that we proposed. Therefore, while the committee may have taken the view that such change would not be helpful, we have described to it the way in which we are proposing to go forward, and it has made no objection to that. We would not want to bring in the boundary commission recommendations immediately, but in the longer term there will be advantages. This is the proper body to bring all the matters together.
      4.45 pm
      The hon. Gentleman also talked about the commission starting in November 2000 and the clause 30 provisions coming into play. He rightly said that the timetable was demanding, but the public demand that political parties get our act together. They are fed up with a flexibility in party funding arrangements that amounts almost to a public scandal. They want the issue sorted out. Many of us want to address the public concern about what the media have called sleaze in politics. There is a lack of proper controls and of systematic ways of dealing with party funding. Passing the Bill would address much of that public concern. That is why we want to ensure that we do so as soon as reasonably possible.
      I do not resile from the views that Home Office officials have expressed about the timetable being demanding, but it is not unrealistic. We can achieve it. The hon. Member for North Dorset fears that chaos may reign among smaller parties. No party is immune from public concern. Some of the smaller political parties may not yet have been the focus of the keen eye of the media or public concern, but without systematic regulation they could have problems if they receive more careful attention.
      We need to ensure that the public concern is addressed as soon as possible. That is part of the process of restoring public confidence and trust in our constitutional and parliamentary system. It is an important task of the Bill. We can debate the details, but there can be no doubt about the urgency of responding to public concerns. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we are able to meet the timetable. We have looked at the issue with great care and have been assured by those who will be carrying out the task that it is possible to get the administrative systems in place. We are going to proceed step by step, trying to ensure that the important areas of public concern are addressed first, then moving on to more administrative—although still important—issues such as parliamentary boundaries. We can create the structures that will enable us to deliver.

      625
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst believes that we need more commissioners and perhaps a body that can provide lots of working parties. I know that he is interested in who gets the commissioner roles. He clearly wants to create lots of opportunities for people to apply for such jobs. Neill did not see the commission as a job-creation scheme for long-winded politicians. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have any interest in that. He can be assured that the Neill committee looked at the matter with a great deal of care and wisdom. When we put the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman against that of the Neill committee in the divine balance, I expect it to come down on the side of the Neill committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 1

      THE ELECTORAL COMMISSION
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 94, line 9, at end insert—
      'Powers
      1A. The Commission may do anything (except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of their functions.'.
      As a body corporate, the Electoral Commission will be able to do anything that is incidental to the carrying out of its functions. That principle has been established by case law dating back to 1880. The issue is not in serious doubt, but we think it sensible to have a clear statement of the position in the Bill. New paragraph 1A has numerous precedents in other legislation establishing bodies corporate.
      Sir George Young: I want to press the Minister a little further. The amendment is extremely wide and might have brought a smile to the lips of King Henry VIII. It gives the commission virtual carte blanche. I note that the Treasury, which never sleeps, managed to get "except borrow money" inserted into the amendment before it was published.
      What will the amendment provide that the commission cannot do under the Bill as drafted? Clause 8 allows it to do certain things but only "at the request of'; clause 3 allows it to do other things "with the agreement of'; clause 5 bans it from doing certain other things; clause 11 adds further parameters; and then along comes the amendment and makes much of the rest of the Bill wholly redundant by allowing it to do virtually anything to facilitate the carrying out of its functions. If such broad provision is required, can it be restricted in some way so as not to conflict with the parameters laid down elsewhere in the Bill?
      Mr. Maclean: I am concerned about the amendment for several reasons, the first of which is its location in the Bill. It is my experience that when such a body is set up, its functions and powers are described in various clauses and then there is a general subsection saying something like, "Notwithstanding any of the above, the Commission can exercise any other powers, duties or functions that are incidental to its purpose", but here we have a free-standing Henry VIII power stuck in a schedule.
      626
      The schedule says:
      "The Commission shall not be regarded—.

      (a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or

      (b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown."

      It continues:
      "The property of the Commission shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of the Crown."
      Why should that be followed by such a broad power as the amendment will bestow? It is rather scary that the Government are taking such a power in a mere schedule.
      There could have been better places to put such a power. Clauses 4 and 5 describe the commission's functions, and clause 7 lists
      "Powers exercisable only on Commission recommendation."
      Other parts of the Bill also describe the commission's proposed powers and functions. It might have been more appropriate to attach a general catch-all.
      At the risk of being rude, I hope that the Minister's explanation will be slightly better than his previous one. It will be not satisfactory for him to say, "The Neill committee said one thing, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said another, and I prefer the opinion of Lord Neill." It is this Chamber that is making the legislation and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the views of all right hon. and hon. Members and not depend on someone else for his judgment.
      The placing of the amendment is odd, wrong and somewhat sinister, but I also find its terms unacceptable. The Minister will doubtless have some precedent before him—unless his officials have gone downhill radically in the past three years, and I doubt that—showing that the Home Office put through some legislation between 1993 and 1997 that contained a clause roughly similar to the amendment. At the time, I may have advanced impeccable arguments to support the case that the inclusion of general powers such as those contained in amendment No. 6, was appropriate—in the appropriate place, of course—in certain legislation. However, I find the phrase
      "which is calculated to facilitate"
      very worrying.
      I am certain that I must have put through legislation that allowed an organisation to do anything that was incidental to, or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions, but the amendment contains that new phrase. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) nor I would have tolerated a word such as "facilitate" in legislation, and indeed the phrase would make the powers of the commission much wider.
      While I can see that certain items might be incidental or conducive to the carrying out of the commission's functions, who will judge whether they are "calculated to facilitate"? If the commissioners came to an irrational decision—about something which they thought was calculated to facilitate their functions—their irrationality would not mean that they would fail a judicial review, provided they could argue that the decision was "calculated to facilitate", no matter how illogical, irrational or off the wall it might have been.
      What is the precedent for the phrase? It is the widest such phraseology that I have seen in legislation and will give an already wide-ranging power an even wider range.

      627
      Will its insertion make it much more difficult for people to win a judicial review against the commissioners, because they could say that something was "calculated to facilitate" even though 99 people out of 100 might disagree? The commissioners' calculation may have been silly, wrong, naive or foolish, but they could still claim that it was "calculated to facilitate". When was the phrase last used and what is the justification for its use? Although I am concerned about the location of the amendment, I would be happy to accept it if the phrase were removed.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Like my right hon. Friends the Members for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean), I am mystified by the amendment. It would give unlimited powers to the commission to carry out the functions as specified in the Bill, but it begs as many questions as it answers. The more one considers the functions and powers of the commission as defined in the Bill, the more of a dog's breakfast it seems.
      5 pm
      Are the powers of the commission purely advisory, as defined in clause 5, so that while the Home Secretary must listen to its advice, he need take no particular account of it? The clause lists the factors that the commission must keep under review, but under clause 7, for example, the powers are more executive in nature. That gives rise to the question: what is the nature of the commission's powers?
      The Bill is extremely muddled about functions and the commission's powers. The best that one can say is that it is permissive. Is the commission to have any part in the wording of a referendum? Is it to have any part in saying how far the Government may become involved, and at what point their involvement should cease, during the run-up to a referendum? Is there to be minimum threshold voting, for example, and, if so, is the commission to be involved in that? The Bill is completely silent on those vital matters, yet the amendment, which purports to be clear, begs more questions than it resolves. I hope that the Minister can explain the purpose of the amendment, other than just to draw our attention to these matters, and tell us what the commission's functions will be. The Bill refers to functions—it is up to the Minister to be much clearer as to what they will be.
      Mr. Forth: The debate is in danger of getting off to a bad start. The Minister must not presume the good will of the Committee; he must not simply stand up and say, "There are precedents for this, so it is all right." Precedent, of course, plays a powerful and important part in our constitutional and judicial arrangements. However, simply to say that something has been done before, so the Committee must accept it, is not proper treatment of the Committee.
      If I may give the Minister a bit of friendly advice, he might find that proceedings would go more quickly if he did the Committee the honour of giving a proper explanation up-front. That might even make a debate otiose sometimes. Who knows? The hon. Gentleman might like to give it a try. If he gave the Committee a full explanation up-front of one or two of the following groups
      628
      of amendments, he might find that matters progress that little bit more quickly. I am trying to be helpful to him, and I am sure that he will, as ever, give the matter some thought.
      Nor should the Minister imagine—and I am trying to be helpful here as well—that it is good enough simply to say to the Committee that as someone called Neill says that this should be the case, it must be accepted. This is the legislative process—this Committee and this House of Commons. Of course, we are entitled—some might say obliged—to take advice from many different sources. However, simply to say that an outside body has said something and that the Committee effectively has no choice but to accept it is not a compelling argument. We must consider what someone called Neill said, but that is all we need do. If the Committee believes that what Neill said is not correct, it must feel free to reject that view—as the Minister seems to do from time to time, when it suits him. So let us not have any of this business about something being pre-ordained, so that the Committee need only skip through this formally and accept it. We surely will have none of that.
      My right hon. and hon. Friends have identified the difficulty in amendment No. 6. My worries are not simply theirs, although I share them, as I share the amusement of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who noted that the commission can do everything except borrow money. That raises some interesting questions about funding, to which we may have to return in a future debate, possible on the schedule as a whole. We must satisfy ourselves that funding is available to the commission so that it can fully discharge its responsibilities—wide and varied though they are—but not by borrowing money, which is what the amendment says. We already have a clue about the Government's attitude, albeit via the Treasury, to the way in which the provision will work.
      The amendment includes the words "may do anything", the type of very wide provision that always sets our nerves a-tingling. Another of the amendment's intriguing phrases is "calculated to facilitate". Calculated by whom? The amendment does not tell us. It may imply that the commission will make the calculation, but it is not impossible that it could be made by the Secretary of State, or by the commission collegiately, or by the chairman, or by individual commissioners. We are not told who will make the important calculation about whether "anything" will "facilitate, or" be
      "incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of their functions."
      The provision is somewhat circular: the more one considers it, the less one understands it, except that it is a catch-all with no limits. We may feel that if the body is to discharge its responsibilities properly, it must be totally untrammelled. That is what the amendment proposes. However, we should do that only with our eyes wide open. We are becoming involved in the very nature of the political process, political parties, electoral provisions and so forth. It is a large step, therefore, to say that the body to which we are giving wide responsibilities should have no limit to its remit, powers and scope.
      Some hon. Members may feel that it would be wiser to draw some boundaries around what the commission can do, at least in its early stages. The Government's approach to these matters worries me because they offer none of

      629
      the pilot studies of which we, in the previous Administration, used to be fond. [Interruption.] Some people may find that approach amusing, but the more I dealt with such schemes, the fonder I grew of them. They enabled one to experiment, analyse and assess matters before determining whether they had worked out as one had hoped that they would.
      The Government often seem to plunge wholeheartedly and experimentally into our electoral and political arrangements without providing any escape clause or any means by which they can be hauled back, except through further primary legislation. Here we go again. We are faced with an entirely new, powerful and influential body, but instead of exercising caution, we are heading for the other extreme. Not only will we trust it totally as we take a leap in the dark, but we will allow it to do anything that it deems fit to allow it to meet the wide responsibilities that we are giving it. I wonder whether that is wise.
      I hope that the Minister will take my helpful advice. On this occasion, he will have to offer an explanation at the end of our short debate—[Interruption.] It is a short debate; by some of our standards, it has hardly begun. We have suggested enough concern and anxiety—
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have something more to say.
      Mr. Forth: I speak only for myself; my hon. Friend need not fear that I seek to curtail debate; he should know me better than that. We are merely clearing our throats at this stage.
      However, so that we can avoid Divisions and suchlike—surely we want to avoid them at this stage, although they may come later—I hope that the Minister may feel it necessary to give us a full explanation rather than the trite and patronising remarks that he made earlier. I have expressed my anxieties, and my hon. Friend is about to express his. I hope that the Minister will satisfy us so that we may make modest progress.
      Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends who have spoken so far in the debate, because the amendment is curious. On Second Reading, we discussed the powers and duties of the commissioner. However, between Second Reading and Committee, the Government had a rethink and decided that perhaps the commissioners did not have enough powers to discharge their functions. The Government decided to insert an amendment.
      I shall come to the words of the amendment later, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) pointed out, it has not been inserted in the most obvious place. One would have expected to find it in the early clauses. Perhaps this is the paranoia of opposition, but why insert such a wide and sweeping power—one that almost rolls up all the other powers of the commission—at the end of the first paragraph of schedule 1?
      As my right hon. Friend correctly pointed out, that paragraph deals with the status of the commission—its relationship to the Crown, its immunity and the question of property. Why do the Government want to include something about powers in that paragraph? It seems an odd place to insert such profound and important powers, especially because, on Second Reading, we discussed a Bill that excluded them.
      630
      As my right hon. Friends the Members for Penrith and The Border and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have pointed out, the amendment states:
      "The Commission may do anything (except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate".
      Our attention has been drawn to that point. I should have been grateful to the Minister if he had begun by explaining why that phrase was deemed appropriate. Is "intended" the word that is meant? Do the Government mean that the commission may do anything—except borrow money—that is "intended to facilitate"? Do we need such a qualifying verb? Should the provision read
      "which facilitates the carrying out of any of its functions"?
      I am being cautious, because I know that such matters are often important in legal terms—for the purposes of judicial review or any other means by which we tackle what we judge to be an unfair decision of the commissioners. However, my right hon. and hon. Friends have opened up that line of questioning, so I have no doubt that the Minister will address those points.
      After 20 years as a Member of this place, I am nervous about conferring on the Government or on any body set up under the authority of Parliament, the powers implied by words such as "incidental or conducive to". I have no idea what the Minister understands by such concepts in the context of the measure.
      The powers of the commission are made formidable by the amendment. It is wrongly placed and not easy to understand—at least on first reading, although I understand the word "conducive"; it means "to be helpful to". Why is the amendment to be inserted in this part of the measure? What is the meaning of the words
      "which is calculated to facilitate"?
      Although the words look simple, what is the meaning of
      "is incidental or conducive to"?
      Why was it necessary—in the short time between Second Reading and the Committee—to introduce such a new and formidable provision?
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: There is nothing frightening, sinister or formidable about this minor—even mundane—little amendment. The incidental powers that it will confer will be powers to enter into contracts; for example, to provide research facilities for the commission or to obtain services, such as secretarial back-up when its secretaries are ill. It is fairly mundane stuff. The provision will enable the commission to dispose of property, perhaps to buy new office space.
      What is important is that the provision does not extend any of the commission's functions. They are circumscribed by the other clauses. The powers conferred by the amendment are limited to the carrying out of the commission's functions as set out in the Bill. It does not extend the commission's functions any further. Therefore, when I describe the amendment as mundane, I really mean that.
      5.15 pm
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) asked where the amendment came from and whether I had been given any precedents for such wording. I quote directly from an Act that he voted for and supported, from which we took the wording. It is a

      631
      provision relating to the Local Government Commission in the Local Government Act 1992. Paragraph 4(1) of schedule 2 of that Act says:
      "Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this paragraph, the Commission shall have power to do anything (whether or not involving the acquisition or disposal of any property or rights) which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions."
      We thought that that essentially meant that the commission shall have the power to do anything which is calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the carrying out of any of its functions, and we used that as a precedent.
      Sir George Young: I appreciate that the Minister is trying to be helpful, but did that precedent have something that specifically excluded the extension of the powers to other matters?
      Mr. O'Brien: It is the case that the words
      "Without prejudice to any powers exercisable apart from this paragraph"
      appear at the start of that paragraph, but—and I am conscious that those who may have to interpret the legislation will read the debate—it is not argued that the amendment will extend any functional role of the commission at all.
      The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border asked whether the amendment was really necessary, whether it was required to extend what the commission could do anyway, and what it extended that to. The answer is that, no, the amendment is not necessary, in the sense that case law dating back to 1880 makes it clear that a public authority such as the Electoral Commission would in any event have the facility to do anything incidental to its functions.
      We considered whether we could be certain how the wording in the amendment would be interpreted and decided to make the provision explicit. When the Local Government Commission—in many ways a very good model—was set up, such explicit provision was included in the legislation.
      The amendment is fairly minor. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked why the provision was to be incorporated in the schedule. My answer is that, essentially, it is fairly minor and does not deserve a prominent place in an early part of the Bill. It is entirely incidental to the broader powers.
      The principles in case law were established way back in 1880, so there is little more that I can say about the amendment. We are merely trying to help those who may, in due course, have to run the commission, by letting them know that they have powers to enter into contracts and to sell and buy buildings, and that they need not go running to the Home Office or another Government Department to do so. The amendment just makes it clear in the schedule that the commission has those incidental powers. It does not extend the functions of the commission in any way. It is no Henry VIII clause, or anything like it. I hope that hon. Members will be reassured by the fact that the record of the debate will be read by those who, in due course, have to interpret the words of the provision.
      Mr. Maclean: I welcome the tone that the Minister has adopted in his response. I appreciate that he can quote
      632
      precedents for the use of such wording, but am I right in saying that when it has been used previously it has always followed a list of things, such as, "The commission may buy office furniture, rent offices, hire staff, bring in a tea lady" and so on? Is there any precedent for its use as a totally free-standing phrase, without any of the preceding list?
      Mr. O'Brien: Just before the provision for incidental powers in the Local Government Act 1992, there is a reference to staff, remuneration, pensions and other things. I am informed that there is a precedent and that other legislation carries similar provisions. I can ask my officials to provide information to the right hon. Gentleman, so that he can examine the legislation in which such minor, mundane and incidental provisions appear. I am conscious in using those words that they will be considered when the provision's meaning is interpreted.
      Mr. Shepherd: I wish to make a simple point in the light of the Minister's remark that such provisions already exist. Have the courts ever interpreted or examined this formula? Has the matter ever come before them?
      Mr. O'Brien: I cannot quote the case law at this point. However, I suspect that the courts have not so much considered whether the law was valid, but merely whether public authorities have the right to enter contracts. Since 1880, case law has established the principle that we are adding to the schedule merely for the sake of clarity. Although I do not know whether there has been interpretation of the 1992 Act, I suspect that a fair amount of case law exists, given the quantity of litigation that goes on in local government. I can ask my officials to find the case law if the hon. Gentleman so wishes. If he still has concerns, he can speak to me about them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Mr. Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 94, line 20, at end insert—
      '(4A) An Electoral Commissioner shall cease to hold office if he accepts nomination for office on any elected public body.'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 2, in page 94, line 20, at end insert—
      '(4B) An Electoral Commissioner shall cease to hold office if he takes up any office of profit under the Crown.'.
      No. 3, in page 95, line 44, at end insert—
      '(g) he has accepted nomination for office on any elected public body
      (h) he takes up any office of profit under the Crown.'.
      No. 22, in clause 3, page 3, line 11, at end add—
      '(7) No serving or former member of the House of Commons, the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the European Parliament shall be eligible for appointment as an Electoral Commissioner.'.
      Mr. Stunell: The three amendments in my name hang together and have a clear intent. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 deal with the qualifications—or, perhaps more accurately, the disqualifications—for being an electoral commissioner and amendment No. 3 deals with the

      633
      disqualifications that would apply to deputy electoral commissioners who can be appointed under the provisions in clause 13.
      In the Standing Committee, we considered the Bill's broad sweep and reminded ourselves that it represented the first fundamental review of our electoral procedures since 1883—117 years ago. The Government's intention—Liberal Democrats support them on this—is that the overhaul should be thorough and enduring. Although, given the speed of legislative change, I have no doubt that our successors will return to the issue long before another 117 years have passed, we must bear in mind that we are putting in place provisions that will have a long life. Indeed, they may have a longer life than any of us in this Parliament or even the current political parties. In the Standing Committee I reminded the Minister that the Labour party did not even exist in 1883, so who can say where we might be in another 117 years?
      Everyone in this Committee is, of course, sane, wise and full of good intentions and good will. It is inconceivable that any Member here today would ever seek to stuff the Electoral Commission with friends, cronies or those with ill will towards the democratic process in their hearts.
      Clause 1 and schedule 1 put in place the first steps to ensure that the Electoral Commission is a buffer or intermediary between the harsh and sometimes fractious realities of party political conflict in the House and outside and the administration of the electoral and democratic process. The aim is to set up an authoritative, neutral and non-partisan body, untainted by outside interests. The Bill goes a long way towards achieving that.
      I add in passing that the House and the British constitutional system are adept at forming such bodies, which in many other democratic systems might be regarded with the utmost suspicion and thought of as unworkable. We already have a good number of such bodies in our system, so the process of setting them up and their operational viability are certain.
      The amendments would go one step further and try to ensure that there will be no circumstances in which there can be the impression or reality of an improper interest or improper influence being brought to bear on the electoral commissioners or the deputy electoral commissioners.
      The amendments are simple and straightforward. The first would prohibit any electoral commissioner from being a person who holds a publicly elected office. That may seem so obvious and simple that it does not need to be stated, but it is appropriate that it should be spelt out in the Bill. We should be clear that the commissioners are without any personal interest in the outcomes of the decisions that they make or may make. It is important also that the public perception is that they are completely without any taint of personal interest in those outcomes.
      Amendment No. 2 would hopefully rule out the possibility that any future Government or Secretary of State would pack the Electoral Commission with place people, by making sure that commissioners cannot simultaneously hold an office of profit under the Crown. That is intended to preserve their independence of thought and action and to prevent any perception that they might come under undue influence from a future Government or any of their agencies.
      Amendment No. 3 would deal with the role of the deputy commissioners, which I mentioned in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Bromley and
      634
      Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). In every practical regard, they will have the same duties and responsibilities as the commissioners, and they will be appointed by the commissioners subsequent to the appointment of the commission. The deputy commissioners will have the same freedom of action within the terms of reference in the Bill and the functions given to the commission to exercise powers on its behalf. It is therefore entirely sensible that they should be subject to precisely the same restrictions on holding elected office and office for profit under the Crown.
      These straightforward amendments are intended to strengthen the hand of the Electoral Commission and to make sure that it is seen to be, and is, completely above suspicion in a future that may stretch through different and difficult political times, when it may be extremely valuable to us all for the commission to have that safeguard of independence and freedom to exercise its own judgment in the face of possible substantial and sustained pressure by a hostile Government.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Walter: I think that the Opposition have always made it clear throughout the deliberations on the Bill in the Standing Committee and, I hope, on the Floor of the House that, in our amendments and comments, we seek to improve the Bill. It will come as no surprise that there were occasions in the Standing Committee when the official Opposition and the Government found themselves on the same side in discussing Liberal Democrat amendments.
      In tabling amendment No. 22, we were trying to ensure that the commission is independent. I know that those were the sentiments that were expressed by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), but I should like to quote what the Neill committee said.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may assist the hon. Gentleman to know, as he develops his argument, that he does not have to convince me of the principle of the amendments. I am not far from him. My only question is whether he considers that councillors should be included in the amendment.
      Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for his intervention, but the point that I wish to make is important. Although I shall not necessarily quote the Neill committee at length to aid my argument, it is worth repeating what it said:
      "An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public large."
      It went on to say in paragraph 11.8:
      "In our view, a number of important consequences follow. The first is that the members of the Commission should not, in the normal course of events, be people who have previously been involved in any substantial way in party politics."
      The substance of amendment No. 22 is that we should exclude from membership of the commission those who are, or have been, Members of Parliament, Members of the National Assembly for Wales, Members of the European Parliament, Members of the Scottish Parliament, or Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
      The Minister asked whether local councillors should be excluded. I should like to look a little more deeply at the implications of amendment No. 1 for local councillors.

      635
      The question is: how local do we want to get in excluding people who might sit on the commission? The hon. Member for Hazel Grove suggests that anyone who has stood for, and been elected to, a public body should be excluded. Does he—the Minister might have some views on it, too—include members of a parish council, or a community council in Wales? Does the hon. Member for Hazel Grove think that we should exclude church wardens, who hold an elected public office?
      The Church of England is an established Church, governed by statutes that were passed in the House, as are members of parochial church councils of the Church of England and those who go on to stand for office—
      Mr. Stunell: Although the hon. Gentleman's questions are legitimate, he is perhaps making slightly heavy weather of it. Clearly, an elected public body includes local councillors and parish and community councillors. It does not include bodies such as the Church of England, as he has indicated.
      Mr. Walter: I hesitate to accept the hon. Gentleman's explanation because I believe that those elected in the Church of England—it is the only Church that is the established Church—are holders of public office. Elected churchwardens are elected by the general electorate of their parish—those who are resident in the parish. Members of parochial church councils are elected by those on an electoral register, to which anyone resident in the parish can seek registration. By implication, those who serve on bodies from the deanery synod to the General Synod of the Church of England can be regarded as having been elected.
      What about parent governors of state schools? They are elected by the parents within a state school; a state school is a public body; therefore, its governing body is a public body. I think that parent governors would fall foul of the definition set out in the Liberal Democrats' amendment.
      More important is amendment No. 2 and the issue of what constitutes an "office of profit". If the amendment were accepted, it would kill a later amendment standing in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends, but that is not the reason why I specifically object to it. Quite simply, the reason is that, in pursuing independence by making the amendment, we would kill off the possibility of several independent office holders joining the commission—people who would otherwise provide a great deal of weight to the Electoral Commission's independence.
      In addition, the provision falls foul of the Government's proposal that the Electoral Commission should absorb the work of the boundaries commissions. The chairmen of the boundaries commissions as constituted are normally High Court judges, who are holders of an office of profit under the Crown. Therefore, the amendment would preclude from appointment to the Electoral Commission people who are already in post in bodies that are likely to be incorporated into the commission.
      In passing, I should point out that if, as the Minister says, the chairmanship of the Electoral Commission is to be a full-time post and if, as I imagine they will, the part-time commissioners are to be paid a salary or form of allowance for their endeavours, they will, by virtue of
      636
      their appointment to the commission, become holders of an office of profit under the Crown and so will, immediately on their appointment, become ineligible to continue to hold the office. Amendment No. 2 is, therefore, somewhat illogical. I shall not dwell on amendment No. 3, as it is consequential on amendments Nos. 1 and 2.
      I am reassured by the Minister's intervention, in which he stated that he leans a long way toward being sympathetic to amendment No. 22. He asked whether local councillors should be included. The spirit of the amendment is to preclude from membership of the commission those who hold significant elected office. It covers Members of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the National Assembly for Wales, of the Northern Ireland Assembly and of the European Parliament, but the Conservatives would be quite content if the Government thought it necessary to extend the principle of the amendment to local councillors.
      Mr. Forth: I am rather uneasy about the direction of the amendments. It seems that an unfortunate pincer movement is being deployed, whether wittingly or unwittingly—who knows, in this day of consensual politics? My right hon. and hon. Friends on the one hand, and the Liberal Democrats on the other, seem to be closing in on the unfortunate commissioners from two directions, and I am not sure that I agree with either of them.
      The wording of amendment No. 1 says that a commissioner
      "shall cease to hold office if he accepts nomination for office on any elected public body."
      We must deal with the important distinction between nomination and election. We must consider whether it is wrong, improper or unacceptable for an electoral commissioner to allow himself even to be nominated, whether or not he is elected.
      In the case of the Liberal Democrats, a mere nomination would rarely cause them to be elected, so that might seem a little hard on them. In the case of Conservatives or Labour party members, election may well follow nomination fairly regularly, so the approach is uneven. Liberal Democrat Members are being unfair on their own colleagues.
      Leaving that issue to one side, I query the principle itself. The interesting contrast between amendments Nos. 1 and 22 is that my colleagues seem to seek to deny the commission the benefit of political experience, whereas the Liberal Democrats seem to wish to deny to the political process previous experience on the commission.
      My argument is that an interplay between the commission and the political process may not be as undesirable as both the Liberal Democrats and my right hon. and hon. Friends suggest: the commission may well benefit from that two-way process. I suspect that we are beginning to see the effect of the bodies that we keep setting up to intervene in the political process, which Ministers keep quoting as the final word on the subject. Any possibility of a causal connection or a connection of membership between the commission and the political process is, the amendments suggest, unacceptable.
      That is an odd argument, unless one starts from the proposition that any interconnection is per se undesirable. I would approach the matter from an entirely different

      637
      direction and say that the commission may benefit from a proper degree of representation of people with political interest, prior political experience, or indeed political aspirations.
      Mr. Stunell: I entirely accept the right hon. Gentleman's point. The purpose of my amendment is to make sure that there is nothing to stop a poacher becoming a gamekeeper, because I can think of nobody better than a poacher to become an effective gamekeeper. However, my amendment seeks to prevent the gamekeeper reverting to being a poacher, and perhaps setting rules as gamekeeper that will benefit him when he once again becomes a poacher. My amendment addresses precisely the right hon. Gentleman's argument.
      Mr. Forth: I doubt whether the amendment would have that effect. If an individual were able to do what the hon. Gentleman suggests, and single-handedly get himself on to the commission or on to a political body, and then single-handedly influence the other commissioners or Members or Parliament, he would probably deserve what he was aiming to achieve, if he were that good. I doubt whether many people can exercise such mesmeric influence. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would.
      Mr. Stunell: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman, who contributes so fluently to these debates, spends less time listening to the contributions of other hon. Members. If he had listened, he would have heard me say that there were two evils to be avoided—one, the real possibility that that might happen, and the other, the public perception that it could happen, which would fatally undermine the credibility of the Electoral Commission.
      Mr. Forth: That gives the game away, and worries me more and more. The idea of the public perception, which is generated almost entirely by the media anyway, is in danger of causing us to have such a lack of confidence in ourselves, our processes and our integrity that we will no longer be capable of making properly independent decisions of the kind that an electorally accountable legislature should make.
      5.45 pm
      I am not going to be frightened or stampeded by talk of public perception. Public perception is important, but it is generated almost entirely by the words and images of the media. I should be surprised if the hon. Gentleman's postbag were stuffed full of letters from irate and outraged constituents, complaining about any interchange between members of the Electoral Commission and elected Members, even at the nomination stage. I have received no such letters, and I should be astonished if the hon. Gentleman had received even one. The hon. Gentleman's paranoia about public perception of the alleged evils of the political process is dangerous and could lead the House, or even the Committee over which you are presiding, Mr. Lord, to be so afraid, and so lacking the self-confidence to use our judgment and make free-standing decisions—accountable as we all are to our electors—that we become the instrument of outside bodies or, even worse, that of purported public perception.
      Mr. Robert Maclennan: I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman's point about public opinion. He may not have received any letters about the Government's proposed action to try to prevent candidates for the mayoralty of London from issuing individual communications for which the public pay, but I have received such letters. That matter might well be tackled by an independent commission.
      Mr. Forth: I do not doubt that, or query the fact that we all want an independent commission. We are discussing whether a former Member of Parliament serving on the commission would prevent it from being independent, or whether the proper political aspirations of a member of the commission would undermine its independence. Neither proposition is self-evident or credible. We must be cautious about putting too many constraints on the political process, in case that reduces or demeans the commission's effectiveness.
      I am surprised at the view that my right hon. and hon. Friends have taken in amendment No. 22, which would provide that serving or former Members of the House of Commons or the other distinguished elected bodies would, having served with distinction, be ineligible to make a contribution to the Electoral Commission. I go further: a proper degree of representation by a former Member of the House of Commons would add enormously to the commission's breadth of vision and practical experience. A commission bereft of such experience might be a lesser body. I must differ totally from my right hon. and hon. Friends and I cannot therefore support amendment No. 22. If the Government agree to it, I cannot support them. I hope that the Minister will give the matter further thought in the short time that our little debate allows him.
      I want to consider amendment No. 1 and the important distinction between nomination and election. Aspiration to political office and the willingness to allow oneself to be nominated is an important process. It makes a statement, but there are a million miles between that and being elected. Are we so nervous and tentative that we claim that even being nominated should debar someone instantly from serving on the commission?
      Mr. Stunell: The very title, "Electoral Commission", suggests that the commission's principal purpose is to deal with matters prior to election. A candidate who has sought nomination is at the heart of the business to which the Electoral Commission is entirely devoted. It is right and appropriate that such a person should be debarred.
      Mr. Forth: That is the hon. Gentleman's judgment. A less harsh and more liberal view, if I may put it that way, and one that I might espouse, is that a member of the commission should step down from its deliberations for the period of his nomination as a candidate. That proposition, which I might have felt more able to support, is not unreasonable, but total disbarment or the need to dismiss a commissioner merely because he has accepted a nomination seems to be overly illiberal. However, we are becoming increasingly used to such proposals from the Liberal Democrats. Perhaps their proximity to government makes them that way.
      I do not want to prolong the debate unduly, but I am alarmed. I had hoped that the Minister would take his usual approach of not accepting any amendments—

      639
      I would have felt cheered by that and he would have had my wholehearted support—but I am horrified to learn that, apparently, he likes them and the Government are minded to accept. I make a plea, although it gives me no joy. I hope that the Minister will not accept even the spirit or substance of amendment No. 22, which was tabled by my hon. Friends, because it strikes me that the commission could be severely weakened in the discharge of its functions and responsibilities if
      "No … former member of the House of Commons"
      were eligible for appointment. That would be a big mistake and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will think again, if he were ever minded to accept that amendment. I certainly do not.
      Mr. David Wilshire: It is always a delight to listen to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), the Opposition parliamentarian of the year, as I am always reminded of how much I have to learn. It therefore pains me greatly to take a slightly different tack and I apologise to him for doing so. The words "Committee of the whole House" always signal great importance and, whether we have been involved in previous stages of a Bill's consideration or not, it is dangerous to leave such matters to the specialist few. Therefore I make no apology for becoming involved in the debate.
      When confronted by a Minister who is prepared, it seems, to make a small concession, it is always tempting to pocket that concession, shut up and go away, but for two reasons we should be careful not to be seduced. The Minister might want an early night, but we should not stop all debate because he is offering us the odd crumb of comfort. First, we are not sure what he is offering and if we do not speak before he makes his offer, the chances are that we shall be not be able to do so afterwards. Secondly, even if he offers us a goody that we like, it is important that the record shows why we are concerned and why we want that concession. At some stage in the unforeseen future, somebody may want to look back at Parliament's intention when it was offered.
      I want first to discuss amendment No. 22. I was surprised by it, not for the reasons given by my right hon. Friend, but because I had assumed that the Bill would say a great deal about the commissioners. However, even though the explanatory notes refer to the commissioners on some 20 pages, they are silent on the skills required and on impartiality, which is crucial. As far as I can make out, the Bill is also silent on that and I am amazed by that silence.
      In principle, amendment No. 22 has my support. Although it pains me to agree with the Liberal Democrats—I promise them that I do not intend to make a habit of it—I was also surprised by amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3 for the same reasons. I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and all I can say is that, despite the reservations of my right hon. Friend, the principles he was driving at are so obviously right that they should have occurred to the Government. It should not be necessary for an Opposition Member—if Liberal Democrats are Opposition Members; for the moment, let us assume that they are—to table amendments that are so evidently necessary and sensible, no matter which party he belongs to.
      640
      History is littered with examples of party hacks seeking unfair advantage for their party, and the Bill offers the commissioners all sorts of opportunities to take advantage for a party that they support. They will be involved in registering parties and overseeing party political broadcasts, which will both offer huge temptations, as well as in the regulation of donations to parties. We need only read the newspaper reports of what has happened in Germany to learn what those temptations could be.
      History is also littered with examples of candidates at elections seeking to bend the rules. Again, we should consider the powers that are being offered to the commissioners, who will be able to determine boundaries. Gerrymandering is an art form in some countries, but I do not want it to become an art form here. On the control of spending at elections, America offers an example of what happens when spending gets out of control. How that spending is regulated can be a partisan matter if people want it to be. The commission's ability to oversee the conduct of polls and make regulations will provide almost limitless scope for taking advantage, should someone be so minded.
      History is further littered with examples of organisers of referendums seeking to distort the result to their own advantage, yet the commissioners will be told that they can determine the permitted participants in a referendum. That represents a wonderful opportunity for someone to cook the books to his own advantage. They will also be involved in deciding how money will be provided and there will be enormous scope for those who want to take advantage of it.
      On amendment No. 22, I would not for a moment suggest that any Member of this honourable House would want to do any of those things, so we can exempt all current Members of the House of Commons from that. However, I would support the amendment for the benefit of future Members who may not be as trustworthy and upright as we are. There is good reason, without criticising ourselves or each other, for going down that track. Whatever else might be said, we all have to admit, "Once a politician, always a politician." People will always worry about what we might be up to if we appear to make our own rules, so the Electoral Commission must be utterly, completely, totally impartial, but that is not enough. It must not only be impartial; it must be seen to be impartial above all doubt.
      Despite the reservations that one might have about what the media will make of things, perception is important on this occasion. These proposals are so central to the way in which a democracy functions that we have to make it clear that political activists are not involved. The Minister asked my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) whether councillors should be included. My reply would have been that, although I had not thought it through thoroughly, I would be tempted to say yes, although there are doubts about parish councillors. The parliamentary draftsman would have to make that distinction. In return, I would have put a question to the Minister along the same lines.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Presumably, councillors would have be to excluded if the argument is that anybody who has been contaminated by party politics at any time has to be excluded, but would not ex-councillors also be excluded? Is not that a reason why my hon. Friend is

      641
      pushing his argument a little further than he might otherwise do in agreeing to exclude former Members of Parliament from the commission?
      Mr. Wilshire: I understand my hon. Friend's argument. If we are not careful, we shall have such a long list of people who cannot serve that it might be difficult to work out who is left to serve. In trying to help the Minister by responding to his query about councillors, I said that I should like to think it through, but my instinct goes in that direction. Former councillors would be caught as well.
      6 pm
      The question that I was about to ask the Minister, in much the same spirit—he may like to ponder it rather than give a definitive answer—was whether someone who belongs to, or has belonged to, one of the registered parties would be seen to be tainted. Perhaps the Minister may care to contemplate that point. That would leave us with even fewer people, but the same arguments apply to party political activity as apply to elected activity.
      The details of all four amendments may not be perfect, but the little morsel that the Government are about to throw to us may not be the right one. The principle behind the amendments—and, I suspect, behind the concession that we are about to be given—is right, and I hope that the Committee supports them.
      Mr. Maclennan: I support the thrust of all four amendments. It is imperative that the commission should be, and should be seen to be, independent. It is impossible for us to legislate for independence. Anyone who is appointed to a job of such importance is likely to have views: political eunuchs are few. However, we can legislate to prevent holders of offices who have declared views and who are not independent—by virtue of their holding of those offices—from holding such office as that of an electoral commissioner.
      It is clear that behind this measure lies the desirability of ensuring that decisions about elections are taken with the maximum objectivity and are as far removed as possible from party interest as we can devise. It cannot be doubted that the decisions that are taken or recommended by commissioners will have major political import—sometimes disadvantageous to particular political parties. The dissatisfaction that flows not infrequently from boundary commissions' decisions demonstrates the point.
      Furthermore, under clause 5(2), the Secretary of State may request a review of the commission. Now we learn that the commission may do anything, except borrow money, which is calculated to facilitate the carrying out of that review. It is an extensive power to take action on behalf of a Minister of the Crown, who will undoubtedly have a view. Although commissioners are not agents of the Crown, as specified in schedule 1, they clearly act under instruction from the Government, in that instance at least.
      We must do all that we can. Mere asseverations of the Government's intention that these roles should be conducted with objectivity and independence of mind are not good enough. If the language of the amendments does not stand up, for some technical reason, I hope that the
      642
      Government will agree to come forward with their own language designed to shore up the independence that we all seek.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: As the debate has shown, the amendments raise important issues concerning the eligibility of certain persons to be appointed as electoral commissioners or deputy electoral commissioners. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 3, in the name of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), would prevent anyone who accepts nomination for office on any elected public body or who holds any office for profit under the Crown from serving on the Electoral Commission. Amendment No. 22 is along similar lines to amendment No. 1, and would prevent any serving or former Member of the House, the European Parliament or a devolved legislature from serving as an electoral commissioner.
      Until I saw the battering that the proposal in amendment No. 22 was given by Conservative Back Benchers, I was disposed to accept the underlying spirit of that amendment and of amendment No. 1. However, interesting and important issues have been raised, so I ask that the Government be allowed time to consider this matter. Some pertinent points have been made that we should weigh in the balance in considering how we move forward.
      I shall set out some broad principles. It is important that the Electoral Commission is scrupulously impartial in the conduct of its business. If it is to be seen to be above the party political fray, appointees to the commission should be politically neutral figures who have not previously been involved in a substantial way in the party political process. Anyone who has in recent years held senior office in a party, been elected or been a major donor to a political party would obviously be seen as partial. It follows that, once appointed, an electoral commissioner or a deputy commissioner should be excluded from such activity.
      I can see an advantage in including at least some of these restrictions in the Bill. It would be impossible to legislate for all possible conflicts of interest. That may be better dealt with in the terms of appointment.
      If the hon. Member for Hazel Grove will agree to withdraw the amendment, I should like to consider introducing a Government amendment that will take on board at least the core principle of amendments Nos. 1 and 22, bearing in mind some of the valid points that have been made.
      Mr. Wilshire: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. O'Brien: Perhaps I could give way when I have completed my argument, because the hon. Gentleman will then see where I am going.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) asked how long someone should be excluded from the nomination process. The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) asked whether any person who is a party member should be regarded as tainted. There must be a willingness to have people with at least some awareness of the political process on such a commission. They need not be elected or have previously held political positions, but they should at least be aware of the political process and have the benefit of being impartial.

      643
      In the past, we have taken the view that certain former Members of the House and some serving Members of the other place provide an element of impartiality, even when they have expressed partial comments. For example, the person who chairs the Metropolitan Police Committee is a former Member of the House. When we wanted to examine the issue of proportional representation, we did not consider a commission headed by someone who had never said a word on the subject. We believed that we should have people with some knowledge of the issues. Likewise, we do not consider that people who formerly served in the House should not act as judges, and that their partiality is so obvious that they should be for ever excluded from such positions.
      However, an appointee who has recently stood for election, or has obvious partiality because of his party political affiliation would undermine the commission's credibility. Striking a balance is important. It cannot be right to tell people that it is their duty as citizens to be politically interested and involved, and then, when they have completed that duty, exclude them from serving on a commission at some point and for all time because they lack the necessary objectivity, integrity and impartiality.
      I should like to consider the point raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, who asked whether exclusion should be for ever. What the public really want is to know that people serving on the commission can reach reasonable and objective judgments and that the commission will not be tainted by past political affiliation. Ensuring that those objectives are achieved will be a matter for those who appoint the commissioners.
      The only reason why I have not yet gone into detail on disbarring is that, as I said, the debate has raised some important issues on various matters. My initial view on disbarring was that we should disbar for a time former Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and Members of devolved legislatures. We should also disbar certainly serving and probably recent unitary, borough and shire councillors. I would be reluctant to go as far as excluding parish councillors. However, as in my area, some parish councillors stand for office on a party political ticket. There is therefore an issue of whether we should be concerned about the impartiality of those who have very recently stood on a party political ticket for a parish council, or who are currently serving as parish councillors after election on that basis.
      Although there is a strong argument for clearly addressing those issues in the Bill, I should like to consider further the detail of amendments Nos. 22 and 1. I accept the principle behind the amendments, and the fact that there should perhaps be relevant provision in the Bill, but I should also like to consider the various other views expressed in the debate.
      Amendment No. 2 presents a rather more difficult problem. I understand the wish of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to avoid conflict of interest. However, it is not self-evident that a conflict of interest automatically arises if an electoral commissioner holds some other public office. With the exception of the chairman, the commission's members may well be part-time appointments. Therefore, we would be unnecessarily
      644
      restricting the field of candidates if we restricted anyone who holds judicial office, for example, as a part-time recorder or as a member of some type of non-departmental public body. Indeed, we may positively welcome such candidates.
      I am not sure whether, if we were to accept the proposed restrictions on candidates, we would also wish to exclude from the commission Lord Neill or members of the Neill committee. Therefore, although we have to think much more about such restrictions, I cannot accept amendment No. 2.
      Eventually, it might make sense and be desirable to have on the commission a commissioner, a deputy commissioner or one or two people who have served on the parliamentary or local government boundary commissions. Some of the amendments, however, would exclude such people from serving on the commission, and I do not think that that would be right or desirable.
      I suspect that the distance on the issue between the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and me is less than that between him and the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. Similarly, the distance on the issue between the Government, the official Opposition and the Liberal Democrats is not too great. We all agree that the Bill should contain some provision to ensure that political partiality is not seen to be obvious in the commission.
      We should, however, constrain such provision a little more carefully to take on board the fact that, although people may hold various offices or be former hon. Members and have some knowledge of the political process, they should not be excluded. We should at least not exclude them from consideration. Perhaps after a given time has elapsed, consideration of their appointment should be allowed.
      On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to withdraw amendment No. 1.
      Mr. Stunell: Although there are still some points of difference between us, I thank the Minister for his very helpful and constructive reply. The debate has been worth while. If it has at least caused the Government to consider what the right level of skills qualification and disqualification should be, and to agree to present further proposals to the Committee, it will certainly have been worth while.
      6.15 pm
      Various points have been made in the debate, and I shall not even attempt to deal with them comprehensively. I should, however, like to deal with one difference between the view that I expressed and the view of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who seemed not to be as concerned as I believe that the Committee should be about the impact of public perception in this sphere of public policy. Surely he has learned from the previous general election that public perception is utterly vital to the integrity of the political process and the public perception of that process. If the Electoral Commission should at any point lose public credibility, the consequent damage would be very serious.
      As I said when moving the amendment, the Neill review is the first fundamental review of the electoral system for 117 years. There may be another review soon,

      645
      but equally, there may not be another one soon. Therefore, our fundamental objective should be to get the grounds rules for the Electoral Commission right.
      In the Standing Committee, when concerns were expressed about other parts of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office—dealing with us very fairly—said, "Don't worry. Our intention is that this is a matter that the Electoral Commission will come back to in due course." It is one of the Minister's favourite phrases.
      The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)indicated assent.
      Mr. Stunell: Revisiting issues is fine, as it will provide a mechanism for keeping electoral processes up to speed—whether those processes involve new technology, new avoidance techniques developed by the political parties, or as yet unforeseen circumstances—but that benefit will be undermined if the Electoral Commission itself has lost public credibility and validity in the eyes of hon. Members. Furthermore, not only the Government of but the Opposition of the day will have, implicitly, to be able to place their trust in the commission and to have confidence that the commission is able credibly to conduct elections.
      In other countries with different political backgrounds, the majority of general elections are won not by campaigns, but by their equivalent of the electoral commissioners and the rules that they operate. That is why it is so very important that the Committee should ensure that we have appropriate rules which command public support and deliver what Parliament wants.
      I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for his very time-limited but specific support for my amendments. I shall not tempt him by saying more than that. Nevertheless, there is one important distinction between my amendments and amendment No. 22, which was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. I ask the Minister, in considering the issues raised in the debate, to consider those differences very carefully. I have characterised the argument as one involving the poacher and the gamekeeper.
      I see absolutely nothing wrong with people with experience of poaching joining the commissioners and showing not only that excesses exist, but how those excesses might be controlled or mitigated. I take the point made by the Under-Secretary, that there should perhaps be a period of purdah, so that one does not go from being Chancellor of the Exchequer to being an electoral commissioner. Such a restriction seems sensible. However, it is also worth bearing in mind the Minister's other point—that pre-existing political experience and knowledge of political culture are important.
      I tell Conservative Members that the truth of that proposition was evident in the Committee's previous consideration of the Bill. Each hon. Member has experience of fighting elections, raising money and taking part in keen political debate, making us perhaps uniquely well-equipped—perhaps too well equipped—to know what we are talking about when debating this subject. So often, a Committee's consideration is perhaps not terribly well informed by practical, first-hand experience. However, in the Committee's consideration of this legislation, everything from the auctioning of Mrs. Thatcher's handbag
      646
      to the most minute detail of electoral law has been explored by people who know what they are speaking about. Let us have some poachers.
      Mr. Forth: Who auctioned the handbag?
      Mr. Stunell: That is for Conservative Front Benchers to explain.
      I hope that the Minister accepts that we should not throw away the idea of having commissioners with political experience. However, we must ensure that there is not the slightest appearance or reality that they are returning to political activity. I accept that some issues are best put into employment contracts and others are best put in job descriptions, but some are best put in the Bill. The Bill should specify that such people should not participate in current political activity.
      I shall not pursue the argument about whether parish councillors should be included. I do not want my practical intention to be sunk by sticking too rigidly to an interpretation that I offered the Committee on the spur of the moment in an intervention. But it would be a shame if we did not take into account, for example, the fact that someone had been the leader of a local authority in a major city for 10 years.
      I understand the Minister's reluctance to accept amendment No. 2, which deals with taking an office of profit under the Crown. A Conservative amendment lists several offices of profit under the Crown from which some candidates for the commission would have to be chosen. I understand those arguments, but I hope that the Minister understands the concern that a less benign future Government—not containing any current Members of Parliament, who are full of good will to all men and women—might seek to use the appointments system to undermine the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission. Hon. Members may think it far-fetched to fear that we could get into a situation such as obtains in some other so-called democracies, where the equivalent of the Electoral Commission is manipulated by the ruling party, but we should not leave that as a feasible option.
      We have had a useful debate and the Minister has made some useful concessions. We shall watch carefully to see the form of those concessions when they reappear. I hope that he will bear our concerns in mind and will treat them not as party political knockabout, but as a genuine desire to ensure that we establish a secure, long-lasting foundation to monitoring our democratic process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Dominic Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 98, line 14, after '17(8)', insert—
      'or by the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of section [Transfer to Commission of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland](8).'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 23, in clause 5, page 4, line 7, after 'however', insert—
      'save with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the case may be)'.

      647
      Amendment No. 24, in page 4, line 26, at end insert—
      '(iv) local government elections in Scotland (with the consent of the Scottish Parliament); and'.
      Amendment No. 28, in clause 8, page 6, line 28, after 'Scotland', insert—
      'unless the Scottish Parliament requests otherwise'.
      Amendment No. 34, in clause 11, page 8, line 14, after 'Scotland', insert—
      'except with the consent of the Scottish Parliament'.
      New clause 3—Transfer to commissions of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland—

      '.—( 1) The Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any one or more functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland (in this section referred to as "the Scottish Commission").

      (2) The Commission shall make arrangements for functions transferred to them by an order under subsection (1) to be exercised by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.

      (3) Where each of the functions of the Scottish Commission is transferred by an order under subsection (1), the Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the abolition of the Scottish Commission.

      (4) An order under subsection (1) or (3) may include provision for the transfer to the Commission.

      (a) of the staff of the Scottish Commission, and

      (b) of any property, rights and liabilities to which the Scottish Commission are entitled or subject;

      and an order which contains provision such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.

      (5) An order under subsection (3) may include provision for the abolition of any duty in compliance with which the Scottish Commission was established or constituted.

      (6) An order under this section may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions amending, repealing or revoking enactments).

      (7) Any power of the Scottish Parliament to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.

      (8) The expenditure of the Commission, so far as attributable to the exercise of any functions transferred by an order under subsection (1), shall be met by the Scottish Parliament.'.

      Mr. Grieve: Amendment No. 35 is perhaps the least important of the amendments in this group, because it is consequential on the others, so the fact that it is the lead amendment might be misleading.
      The amendments concern the possible applicability of the aspects of the Bill relating to the commission to local elections in Scotland. It became apparent in the Standing Committee that, as a consequence of devolution, although the new regime that we are establishing for the funding of political parties will apply to elections to this place and to the Scottish Parliament, it will not apply to local government elections in Scotland, by virtue of the Scotland Act 1998.
      Lord Neill was unequivocal about the desirability of the reforms that he was proposing applying to every part of the United Kingdom. He said:
      "We have considered whether the Election Commission's remit should cover the whole of the United Kingdom for all purposes or whether, in connection with elections and referendums in Scotland,
      648
      Wales and Northern Ireland, there should be separate election commissions for those parts of the country. Our view is that the Election Commission should have UK-wide authority, especially since all aspects of election law (save for local government elections) are to be reserved for the UK Parliament under devolution legislation."
      It is curious that, when the Bill is passed, the regulations on election expenditure and political donations for those standing for the Scottish Parliament will be different from those that apply to candidates in local government elections.
      We respect the decisions of the House as regards the Scotland Act 1998. The decision on whether the anomalies on funding are tolerable or sensible must be a matter for the Scottish Parliament, even if we have our own views on the matter. However, we should consider how far we facilitate any wish of the Scottish Parliament to come within the umbrella of the Bill, which appears to have been welcomed in principle by all parties. That is the aim of the amendments. In each of the clauses relating to the commission, the amendments would enable the Scottish Parliament to invite the commission to take over some of the functions that will otherwise have to be exercised elsewhere. I shall run through them briefly.
      Under clause 5, the commission is required to keep under review and to submit reports on a range of issues, but that requirement does not extend to local government elections in Scotland. We propose in amendment No. 23 to enable the Scottish Parliament to request the commission to provide such information on local government elections in Scotland or elections to the Scottish Parliament.
      Mr. Tipping: I have been following the debate closely. It mirrors a debate that we have had elsewhere. Clause 8(1) says:
      "The Commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide the body with advice and assistance as respects any matter in which the Commission have skill and experience."
      That may deal with the matters about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned.
      Mr. Grieve: That is a half-reassuring comment, but I am not completely convinced. Some clauses specifically provide for the right of the National Assembly for Wales to sign up, but the same has not been done for the Scottish Parliament. I understand that the Scottish Parliament probably can be defined as a relevant body, so it might be possible for other provisions to be implemented, but nothing will be lost by spelling out in the relevant clauses the provisions from which it will be possible for the Scottish Parliament to benefit.
      The Minister's argument about the more general aspect of clause 1 may have some force in relation to amendment No. 23, but it has much less in relation to amendment No. 24, which specifically concerns local government elections and which would allow reviews to be carried out under clause 5, subject to the Scottish Parliament's decision.
      6.30 pm
      Amendment No. 28 relates to clause 8, which is all about allowing the commission, at the request of a relevant body, to provide advice and assistance. As the clause stands, it is specifically provided that a

      649
      "'relevant election' means any election falling within section 19(3) other than a local government election in Scotland."
      If the Minister says that that is covered in clause 1, I will have to express a certain amount of doubt, because if that is so, the two clauses are incompatible and there has been a drafting failure. The Bill has been notoriously difficult to draft, as we will doubtless discover on Report when we see what amendments the Government come back with.
      Amendment No. 28 would in no way fetter the Scottish Parliament—in no way could it be described as a gross intrusion by Westminster—but would provide a straightforward mechanism whereby the commission, if asked, could provide what Conservative Members believe to be an important service, without further legislation being needed.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Has the hon. Gentleman consulted his party colleagues in the Scottish Parliament on the amendments; if so, what is their view?
      Mr. Grieve: Their view, which I believe is shared widely in the Scottish Parliament, is that the Parliament will have to attend to local government election rules in the near future, and that having a separate set of rules which might be regarded as inferior—in clarity and effectiveness in the elimination of corruption—to those that will apply in Westminster might be undesirable. They have no objection to the amendments, which do not fetter the Scottish Parliament. If the Parliament thinks that it can come up with something better, it is free to do so. No one can suggest that we are trying to interfere with prerogatives handed out under the Scotland Act 1998.
      The amendments would allow my colleagues in Scotland, and doubtless other Members of the Scottish Parliament—having read the Neill report and considered the fact that the legislation will apply to Scottish Parliament elections and that similar provision might be beneficial for Scottish local government elections—to sign up if they so wished. If the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) has an objection, I cannot fathom what it is.
      New clause 3 exactly mirrors the provisions in clause 17 in respect of the Welsh Assembly. Clause 17 allows the National Assembly for Wales to
      "make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any one or more of the functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission".
      The Scottish Parliament may decide that it wants to spend a great deal of its block grant on having a completely separate boundary commission, or it may want to take account of the fact that there is likely to be at least one Scottish member of the Electoral Commission, and to take advantage, under the new clause, of the expertise that will be on offer to all our democratic institutions.
      It has often been said that the secret of devolution's success will lie in the ability of the two Parliaments to co-operate creatively without treading on one another's toes. The amendments and the new clause are designed to achieve exactly that. The Minister took the view in Standing Committee that the Scottish Parliament might want to implement specific electoral rules that we set down in amendments, but that we did not need specifically to provide for them. Now we are talking specifically about the commission.
      Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend talks about working creatively without treading on one
      650
      another's toes. Can he assure me that the new clause contains provision to ensure that in future the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly will indeed be able to work creatively but without treading on everyone else's toes?
      Mr. Grieve: One of the consequences of devolution—especially in Scotland—is that considerable autonomy has been granted, and I do not want to interfere with that. It is worth remembering that, even under the Scotland Act 1998, the question of the franchise in local government elections remains a matter for the House, so the matters are inextricably linked. Because they are so linked, the commonsense view in Scotland would not in any way take exception to introducing the possibility of the Scottish Parliament's taking advantage of what the amendments and the new clause would offer. I hope that the Minister will see that it makes sense to allow that to happen, rather than wasting resources on further legislation.
      Mr. Tipping: The amendments and the new clause cover familiar ground, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) acknowledged. I accept the spirit of what he is saying. It may well be possible to find common ground. The amendments may be premature. The meat—the strongest part of the argument—lies in new clause 3, which, as he rightly says, mirrors the provisions in clauses 16 and 17.
      We are actively discussing the way forward with the Scottish Executive, who are considering whether they want such a provision inserted in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman generously acknowledged that we should defer to them, given that local government is a devolved matter. If they conclude that they would like to transfer responsibility for local government boundary reviews to the commission, we will table a suitable new clause at a later stage.
      Such a provision would no doubt look not unlike new clause 3, but for the time being I ask the hon. Gentleman to allow the discussions to proceed. Detailed discussions are being held. The amendment may be the appropriate vehicle to achieve the aims, but at this stage it is not in our gift. The hon. Gentleman should recognise the powers involved, because amendments Nos. 24, 28 and 34 are also the subject of discussions with the Scottish Executive. I cannot promise him that the amendments will be accepted, but he is right to raise the issues.
      Mr. Alasdair Morgan: The Minister has referred to discussions with the Scottish Executive. Have the Executive told him whether they will take the results of those discussions to the Scottish Parliament before they give him their opinion on the amendments?
      Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman tempts me a step too far. He will acknowledge that the issues involved have been devolved and are therefore a matter for colleagues in Scotland, who must be accountable for their own actions. However, I will undertake to draw the attention of the Scottish Executive to the discussion this evening and, in particular, to his remarks, which appeared to be a warning to the Executive.
      Amendments Nos. 23, 24, 28 and 34 tread similar ground. The key issue underlying the amendments is the devolution settlement. This Parliament has devolved

      651
      certain matters to Scotland and Wales, including local government elections in Scotland, the funding of political parties represented in the Scottish Parliament and the conduct of referendums in Scotland and Wales on devolved matters. Having devolved those issues, it would not be appropriate for us to give the Electoral Commission free rein to undertake reviews in respect of such matters. Nor should the commission have free rein to conduct voter education programmes under clause 11 in respect of local government and local government elections in Scotland. That is not to say that the commission should not get involved in such matters if invited to do so by the National Assembly for Wales or the Scottish Parliament or Executive. The important point is that the initiative should come not from the commission but from the devolved administrations. I welcome the fact that amendments Nos. 23, 24, 28 and 34 accept that principle.
      Clause 8(1) already covers some of the territory addressed by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield. It provides that
      "The Commission may, at the request of any relevant body, provide the body with advice and assistance as respects any matter in which the Commission have skill and experience."
      A relevant body is defined in clause 8(6) to include the Scottish Parliament and Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. Given that clause 8 has almost exactly the same effect as the amendments, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reconsider his position. There is little difference in principle, and it must be right that the provisions of the Bill should extend across the United Kingdom.
      I have told the hon. Gentleman that discussions are being held with the Scottish Executive, and I have drawn his attention to new clause 3 and the fact that his drafting may contain some plagiarism. However, I readily acknowledge that if the Scottish Executive, perhaps after discussion with the Scottish Parliament, were minded to accept the provisions, we would table a new clause 3 on Report in terms almost identical to the one he has tabled. Given those assurances and the fact that I foresee the need for further amendment, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can be persuaded to withdraw his amendment.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Grieve: In the face of such courtesy and helpfulness from the Minister, it would be churlish to press the amendment to a vote. I am not sure whether I should look forward to the Report stage, because we will have so much to discuss. The same may apply when the Bill comes back from the other place, although I hope that we will send it there in a satisfactory condition. In view of the Minister's remarks and the fact that we can return to the issue, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Question proposed, That the schedule, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Maclean: I did not trouble the House with detailed amendments that might have delayed matters unduly, but I wish to say a few words about some of my concerns,
      652
      especially about the financial provisions. Paragraph 4 states that an electoral commissioner shall be paid such salary and allowances
      "as may be specified by a resolution of the House of Commons."
      The obligation seems to be placed on the House to decide the salaries and expenses of the electoral commissioners, but when I searched through the schedule, I found little guidance for the House in completing that task.
      Paragraph 10 contains a little guidance about the salaries of the staff of the commission, because it states:
      "In determining the terms and conditions of staff … the Commission shall have regard to the desirability of keeping the remuneration and other terms and conditions of employment of its staff broadly in line with those applying to persons employed in the civil service of the State."
      That seems reasonable, but there is no obligation on the commission. However, the fountain of all knowledge on the matters under the commission's consideration are the excellent staff of the Home Office, and why should they wish to be lured away to the commission unless the terms and conditions are superior?
      The commission will probably have to employ those civil servants who have not been promoted to higher grades, and who will conclude that moving sideways to the commission might give them a good chance of promotion. However, that is not what we want for such an important body, and it will have to recruit some of the cream, the fast-streamers, and those who are currently serving at grade 5 or 3. Indeed, if the commission is to get off the ground, it will need someone at grade 3 level—or perhaps even higher—as the chief executive, several grade 5s and lots of grade 7s and higher and senior executive officers. If we are to get properly qualified people, I suspect that salaries will have to be more generous than the suggestion contained in paragraph 10 that they should be broadly in line with those of the civil service. The Minister and the Government must know that. It is why they have not laid down conditions that the salary, terms and conditions shall be the same as the those of the civil service, merely exhorting that they shall be broadly in line.
      If commission staff are to have civil service-type salaries broadly in line—and, as I suggest, more—than those of the civil service if the commission is to recruit properly qualified staff, what salary shall we in the House of Commons provide for the commissioners, deputy commissioners and assistant commissioners? I assume that we will not pay them less than their own staff. It would not be a good signal if we suggested to the commissioners that the House of Commons thinks that the commission is so important that we will pay them less than their civil servants or their chief executive.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Our staff are paid more than we are.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right: we could set that precedent. Members of Parliament are often paid less than many of the staff of the House, and certainly less than some of the chefs and catering workers. That may give an important signal to our electorate and to others, although for the life of me, I am not sure what it is.
      We must expect that the commissioners will be paid more than the staff. The Government should have a system for ensuring that that pay is appropriate.

      653
      Our salaries in the House are tied to the recommendations of the Top Salaries Review Body, and I believe that Members of Parliament are tied in to a grade 7 in the civil service. Some Members of Parliament may have a view about being paid the same as grade 7 civil servants, excellent though they are. In my first few days at the Home Office, no one as junior as a grade 7 was allowed to come to see me on his or her own. Eventually, when they discovered that I was not as ferocious, nasty or terrible as had been rumoured—
      Sir Patrick Cormack: They were wrong.
      Mr. Maclean: Yes, they were wrong. As I was saying, after that, staff as junior as a grade 7 were allowed to see the Minister on their own. That is what some Departments regard, rightly or wrongly, as the status of Ministers and of grade 7 civil servants.
      Mr. Bercow: Unfortunately, my right hon. Friend has failed to vouchsafe one crucial piece of information in developing his argument. Was he, as a Minister, ever allowed to see a grade 7 on his own?
      Mr. Maclean: That is the case. One day I went walkabout on the fifth floor, unescorted, before my private secretary caught up with me. I made contact with a number of admirable staff, who were equally surprised to see the Minister. But I digress.
      How are we to decide the appropriate salary for the commissioners? The schedule should provide a mechanism linking in the Top Salaries Review Body, or one that allows the House to determine the appropriate amount. Otherwise, the Government will simply move a resolution.
      Clause 2 sets up a Speaker's Committee. For the life of me, I cannot see that it does anything except consider the financial report prepared by the commission—which it will not be entitled to amend or change one iota—and present it to the House. In this Bill, the Speaker's Committee seems no more than a rubber stamp. It does not appear to have the power to determine the salaries of the commissioners. If I have got that wrong, I am happy for the Minister to say so, and tell me that the Speaker's Committee can determine the salaries of the commissioners and then advise the Government and the Leader of the House on the sort of resolution that should be brought before the House to fix their salaries. The mechanism by which the commissioners will be paid and the reasons for determining their salary should be made clear somewhere in the Bill.
      Another little point that struck me when looking at the schedule was that although clause 1 invites us to appoint between five and nine commissioners, we seem to have no control over the number of assistant electoral commissioners who may be appointed. Paragraph 6 of the schedule allows the commission to appoint one or more assistant electoral commissioners. The commission lays down the terms and conditions, and will pay them any salaries and allowance that it thinks fit. Paragraph 7(1) of the schedule provides that the commission may establish any committees that it thinks fit.
      We are giving the commission significant power to appoint any number of assistant electoral commissioners and staff and determine their salaries, yet we will be asked
      654
      to determine the salary of the commissioners once the salary infrastructure has been established. Once the commission has determined, in its independence and wisdom, the salary levels for all its staff and assistant commissioners, how can we have any freedom of choice in determining the commissioners' salaries? Are we not tied by the decisions that they will make for their juniors? It would be perverse for us to determine salary levels for the commissioners at a level that we may think appropriate if those levels are the same as those that they have already determined for their junior staff.
      Mr. Andrew Miller: Does not the right hon. Gentleman believe that the independence created by the provisions in the schedule's final paragraph on the function of the Comptroller and Auditor General answers all his questions? There is an independent mechanism to determine whether the commission is running economically, efficiently and effectively.
      Mr. Maclean: Paragraph 24, the final paragraph of the schedule, refers to delegates, but I see the provisions to which the hon. Gentleman refers. They deal with the accounting officer, the audit and the accounts. Paragraph 15 refers to the Comptroller and Auditor General's annual examination of the commission. The CAG can conclude that the organisation is efficiently run, with reasonable economy and effectiveness, but I see nothing to suggest that he can rule that the salary structure selected is inappropriate. That is not the solution. Surely it is up to us, if we are moving a resolution on salaries, to be clear in our mind what the salaries should be.
      It is totally unacceptable to me, and I hope that it is to the hon. Gentleman, to suggest that we pick a salary figure for the commissioners, then wait for a year until the CAG carries out an audit and says that we have got it wrong. The onus is on the House to get it right in the first place. It is not good enough to have this rather sloppy schedule, which gives the commission significant powers to determine the salaries for its staff and the salaries, terms and conditions of work for assistant electoral commissioners without giving us any mechanism to come to an appropriate determination of their salary or the number of assistant commissioners who will be appointed.
      As I wish to make progress—I wish to unburden myself of other opinions—I will leave it there for the moment. I had a number of concerns regarding other provisions of the schedule, but these were the principal ones. I look forward to the Minister's response.
      Mr. Tipping: I am interested in the right hon. Gentleman's points. I will consider those matters more closely than, I confess, I have to date. He made some strong points. In the debate on a previous group of amendments, were it not for the fact that he is, as it were, in quarantine and could not be a commissioner for a good length of time, I thought that he was making a job application to be a commissioner, or at least the chief executive of the new organisation.
      The right hon. Gentleman has a long history as a marketeer, and of telling us that salaries are set by the market. The market will determine salaries for the commission, and, as he rightly said, there are already several benchmarks. Some Home Office staff may want to transfer to the new commission. Boundary commission and Local Government Commission staff will certainly

      655
      wish to transfer in due course. They will provide a first benchmark, with salaries broadly in parity, although there may be variations.
      7 pm
      Another likely benchmark will be provided in relation to deputy commissioners, who, in a sense, already exist in a different role as commissioners to the boundary commission. I cannot recall what they are paid for that task, but I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman.
      We employ the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Data Protection Registrar, who provide another useful benchmark against which to set the salaries of commissioners. Finally, as the right hon. Gentleman said, the House will have to approve the figures. Decisions have not yet been taken on commissioners' salaries, and he will have an opportunity to express his views, as I am sure he will. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said, the CAG has a supervisory role.
      Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    Clause 2

      THE SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 2, leave out lines 6 to 20 and insert—
      '(2) The Speaker's Committee shall consist of the Speaker of the House of Commons, the Leader of House of Commons, a nominee of the Leader of the Opposition and three other members appointed by the House of Commons, none of whom shall be a Minister of the Crown.'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 18, in schedule 2, page 102, leave out lines 17 to 21.
      No. 19, in page 102, leave out lines 34 to 40 and insert—
      '3.(1) The Speaker of the House of Commons shall be the chairman of the Speaker's Committee.
      (2) The Committee may appoint a member of the Committee to act as Chairman at any meeting of the Committee in the absence of the Speaker.
      (3) In the case of a vote being taken in the Committee and the result being a tie, the Chairman of the Committee for the time being shall have the casting vote.'.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is in extremely conciliatory mood, and I hope that he will respond in the same spirit and with alacrity to these amendments, to which the official Opposition attach enormous importance.
      We heard protestations earlier from the Under-Secretary about the absolute need for the commission to be wholly independent. That theme has been reiterated throughout our debates, and it is regarded as of great importance by hon. Members on both sides of the House. However, that principle does not sit well with the Government's proposed membership of the Speaker's Committee.
      656
      The Neill report makes no call for such a Committee, but we believe that the Government are right to have included it in the Bill. The explanatory notes to the Bill say that
      "the Speaker's Committee will have general oversight of the exercise of the Commission's functions and, in particular, responsibility for approving its budget and five-year corporate plan."
      If ever there were a need for a body—[Interruption.] I had hoped that I might have the support of the Liberal Democrats on this amendment. If ever a body needed to be entirely respected for its impartiality, that body would be the Speaker's Committee. Yet the Government propose a Committee including
      "two Government Ministers, the Home Secretary and the Minister for Local Government. The other members will be the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee"—
      almost inevitably a member of the governing party—
      "and six Members of the House of Commons appointed by the Speaker."
      We may expect those six Members to be selected in a ratio that reflects the majority of the Government of the day. I cast no aspersions on anyone by saying that such a committee would not enjoy respect and support across the House for its total impartiality on electoral matters.
      We propose that the Speaker's Committee should replicate the Commission of the House of Commons. It would consist of the Speaker of the House, the Leader of the House, a nominee of the Leader of the Opposition—probably, though not necessarily, the shadow Leader of the House—and three hon. Members appointed by the House of Commons, none of whom would be a Minister of the Crown. We have recent memories of the House exercising its role in deciding who should be a commissioner—a debate in which the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) took a prominent part. We believe that such a Speaker's Committee would command wide respect for its impartiality.
      I cannot for the life of me see why the Government should not accept the amendment. We do not propose any differentiation of functions. We do not suggest that the committee should do anything other than what the Government have suggested. We suggest, however, that the Speaker's Committee should actually include the Speaker.
      Many precedents exist for the Speaker's participation in committees and commissions with an electoral remit. In 1908, the Speaker played a prominent part in a royal commission on electoral reform. There was a Speaker's conference on electoral reform in 1917, and further Speaker's conferences in 1930, 1943–44, 1965 to 1968, 1972 to 1974 and 1977–78. The Speaker also chairs the House of Commons Commission, the membership of which would be replicated on the Speaker's Committee if our amendment were accepted. The fact that the Speaker takes the chair gives the Commission special authority. In the same way, the new Committee would achieve special authority if the Speaker chaired it.
      The House perhaps takes greater pride in the impartiality of the Speaker than it does in anything else. It matters not in which part of the House we sit that, when a Speaker is elected at the beginning of a new Parliament, that man or woman is invested with the authority of the House and respected for total impartiality. The first thing a new Speaker does is to renounce any previous political allegiance. Madam Speaker used to be a member of the

      657
      Government party; she is no longer. The fact of her former membership causes not the slightest concern on the Opposition side, any more than it did when we were in Government while she was Speaker. She is universally respected—inside and out of the House—as a person of total impartiality, as was her predecessor, who happened to come from the Conservative Benches. So it has been for nearly 200 years, and so, I hope, it will always be.
      The Committee would be invested with extra authority if it were chaired by the Speaker. If any committee deserves chairmanship by a person of total probity and impartiality, it is the Committee that the Bill would establish. I urge the Minister to continue with the admirable mood of conciliation that he has displayed this afternoon, and to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Miller: I respect the hon. Gentleman's grasp of the history of this place—as, I am sure, do all hon. Members. He admirably describes the way in which the Chairmen of Committees emulate the role of the Speaker. In considering the powers vested in those Chairmen, does he not think that subsection (4) is stronger than his proposals? It states that
      "members of the Committee mentioned in subsection (2)(d) shall be appointed to membership of the Committee by the Speaker of the House of Commons."
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Yes, but on what basis are they to be appointed? The convention is that the usual channels play an important part.
      I am not attacking the integrity of any Member of the House. That is the last thing that I would do. For about 16 years, I sat on the Chairmen's Panel. I know that, when a Member of the House chairs a Committee, he or she conducts the proceedings with an impartiality that emulates that shown by the Speaker in the Chair of the House. When we cease to chair a particular Standing Committee, we can take part in the full hurly-burly of debates on the Floor of the House.
      The Opposition believe that the Speaker's Committee is so special that it should have a unique status among the Committees of the House. It should emulate the House of Commons Commission by having the Speaker in the Chair and by including only one Minister—the Leader of the House—and only one member nominated by the Leader of the Opposition. The other members should be elected, after debate, by the House.
      The amendment is modest, but far-reaching. We believe that it will strengthen the new procedures that will be established by the Bill. We believe that it will strengthen the Commission. We hope that the Government will accept it; we can see no valid reason for their not doing so.
      We are not attempting to change the powers, functions or responsibilities of the Committee. We are acknowledging that the Government have gone one step further than Neill by establishing the Committee. Neill referred to monitoring—the Committee is the form that the Government have chosen. The Opposition applaud them for choosing that form, but we want to make it as strong, effective and widely respected as possible. How could we do that better than by selecting a Committee that has the Speaker in the Chair and has the type of membership suggested by the amendment?
      658
      I hope that the Minister will respond by accepting the amendment with alacrity, so that we can move on to the next matter.
      Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) is correct to argue that the Speaker's Committee must be more impartial than is proposed.
      I have tried to work out what the proposed composition of the Committee would mean in relation to party affiliation. Subsection (2)(a) states that the Committee will consist of
      "the Member of the House of Commons who is for the time being the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee".
      That is likely to be a member of the Government party.
      The subsection continues:
      "the Secretary of State for the Home Department … a Member of the House of Commons who is a Minister of the Crown".
      They will certainly be members of the Government party.
      Six members of the Committee will be
      "Members of the House of Commons who are not Ministers."
      If they were chosen in proportion to the composition of the present Parliament, there would presumably be three or four who were members of the Government party.
      Between six and seven members of that "impartial" Speaker's Committee would be members of the governing party. In view of some of the earlier comments that were made about impartiality and about the need to be especially impartial in such a Committee, that causes me some concern. It is a matter of particular concern that Madam Speaker would not be a member of the Committee.
      7.15 pm.
      My reservations about the amendments are that I am not quite clear as to their importance, because I am not sure how important the Committee is under the measure. That is one of the problems with which we shall have to wrestle throughout our deliberations. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the explanatory notes state that the Speakers' s Committee
      "will have general oversight of the exercise of the Commission's functions."
      However, schedule 1, which contains the only serious attempt to define the role of the Committee in relation to the commission, primarily covers financial matters. It provides that there will be a financial plan and compliance with certain administrative arrangements. The measure includes no statement that, for example, the Committee can determine the broad direction of the commission; that the Committee could direct the commission to be involved with general matters to do with referendums—whether Ministers should be involved or what the electoral thresholds should be.
      Those matters are fundamental for the conduct of referendums, but they will not be part of the agenda of the Speaker's Committee. As I understand it—I stand to be corrected by the Minister—the Speaker's Committee will be concerned only with administrative matters. I wholly support my hon. Friend in his argument as to the need for impartiality on the Committee—that is sensible and fair. However, I have reservations because I do not know—until we hear more from the Minister—how fundamental a role the Committee will play.

      659
      I want the Committee to play a fundamental part; it should be wholly impartial—especially in relation to Government and to those important matters in respect of referendums. No other body could offer proper guidance to the Commission.
      I hope that, in pressing that argument, my hon. Friend will consider whether the Speaker's Committee has been given appropriate powers.
      Mr. Stunell: I am certainly sympathetic to the general direction of the amendments, although I cannot give them my unqualified support.
      There is nothing in the Bill to prevent the Speaker from appointing herself to the Committee—the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office might want to refer to that point. Schedule 2 states that the Chair of the Committee is to be appointed from among the members of the Committee.
      However, the Minister is under some obligation to give us the view of Madam Speaker as to the role that she might play in that mechanism. The Committee should take note of that view and reflect it as we deal with this and related amendments.
      There are a couple of matters to weigh on the other side. The Speaker has an exceptionally full and heavy programme. The relevant point has been made that, if the Committee is to be extremely proactive, that would be a good reason for the Speaker to appoint one of the Deputy Speakers, or some other person, in her stead. However, the Minister should tell the Committee of any consultations that have been held with Madam Speaker or her Office on that point.
      The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) drew a parallel between the Committee and the House of Commons Commission. I hope that the Minister will not go too far down that track, because the Braithwaite report may make recommendations that would free the Speaker from some of her responsibilities. Parallels with other bodies or organisations might mislead us.
      The Minister might want to comment on another point that has been raised. How are the Committee's six appointed members from the House to be chosen? There is an assumption that they would be drawn via some proportional system and the usual channels. It would be open to the House to require that the overall composition of that Committee reflect that of the House, including the three Government appointees among the Government's share. That might go some way to reassure people as to its political balance or objectivity.
      The amendments in the group explore some concerns. Although I am not signed up to the amendments in detail, I want to hear from the Minister a positive response to the direction in which they attempt to take the Committee.
      Mr. Tipping: I am grateful for the kind comments by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I will of course reflect on what he said tonight, as we have always tried to reflect on what has been said during our Committee proceedings.
      The hon. Gentleman made many important points. First, I acknowledge his point that the amendments were not intended to change the role of the proposed Speaker's
      660
      Committee. Perhaps I may at this point respond to some comments by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). I am afraid that the Committee's role is fairly limited. It takes a strategic view. It looks at financial matters. As the Bill stands, the Committee will not be involved in the nitty-gritty and will certainly not be involved in the framing of a phrase or a question put at a referendum. The role is fairly tight. In addition to its strategic view, its financial view, its receiving of reports, the Committee will be a point of reference to which the commission, if it faces difficulties, could have recourse.
      Sir Michael Spicer: I just want to ask what the word "strategic" means in this context. The words "plan", "strategy" and so on appear in schedule 1. What does "strategic" mean?
      Mr. Tipping: I think that it means taking a long-term view of the work of the commission, as has been acknowledged during out debates. The Committee will have several competing tasks and will have to take decisions about priorities. One of the issues in which the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest is the notion of referendums. It will be a task of the commission to consider how they work in practice, what the positives and negatives are and what the successes and failures are. That piece of work will have to be fitted into the commission's work programme.
      Sir Michael Spicer: Does that mean that the Speaker's Committee will be able to allocate resources between the competing demands that the commission may have?
      Mr. Tipping: No. The Speaker's Committee is there as a point of reference for the commission to sound out what direction it wishes to take. Obviously many of the day-to-day activities will be the gift of the commission and its staff, and it has been acknowledged that the idea does not come from the Neill report. I believe that there is a view among parliamentarians—a view that was expressed by the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for South Staffordshire—that those of us who are involved in the hurly-burly of the political world have a role to play. It is by the design of the Speaker's Committee that we are able to introduce that notion. However, as I said to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire, the detailed involvement that he has advocated is not set out in our current plans.
      The hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, very precisely and properly, that he wanted the Speaker's Committee to be unique, special and above reproach, which is why he has taken as his model, and the basis of the amendments in the group, the House of Commons Commission. Those who have drafted the Bill and have been involved in this matter share the hon. Gentleman's starting point but have taken a different model—that of the National Audit Office and the work of the Public Accounts Committee. The proposals that we are making to the Committee tonight reflect that model rather than that of the House of Commons Commission.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me to react with alacrity. I shall react perhaps not with alacrity but quickly to one of his suggestions, by saying that I will discuss with the Speaker her views on this matter. The Government are certain that they do not want a Speaker's Committee with the Speaker in the Chair in name only. If the Speaker

      661
      were prepared to be involved in the Committee's work, we would want to reflect on the idea. The hon. Gentleman asked for reassurance; that is the reassurance that I give him on that point.
      As I said, the precedent that we have taken is that of the Public Accounts Committee. It has worked well in the past and I have confidence in it. The hon. Gentleman and other hon. Gentlemen have asked about the appointment of the six members as set out in the Bill, rather than the three appointments proposed in the amendment. I am very keen to say that the inclusion of six members from the House allows a choice not just from, dare I say it, the big three political parties; there would be the potential to involve others in the Speaker's Committee.
      The hon. Gentleman has suggested that the share-out of those six places would depend on the usual precedents—the size of political groups in the House. The Bill does not say that at present. It is entirely a matter for the Speaker to decide how those members are appointed, and I would be very surprised indeed—although it is a matter for the Speaker—if those six places were allocated according to the numbers in the House at any one moment. My hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) made that point.
      Mr. Stunell: The Minister is touching on a point that was central to my speech—that the credibility of the Speaker's Committee depends on its provenance and its membership. He is right to say that these matters are not in the Bill. Would he concede that it might be advantageous if they were made more explicit in the Bill?
      Mr. Tipping: The Bill certainly says that the members will be appointed by the Speaker. It does not say that there will be proportionality, and the Bill as it reads meets the hon. Gentleman's point, but, as I said, I will ensure that there are further discussions with the Speaker on that issue, and in that context I will follow up the point that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) has just made.
      Mr. Miller: Is my hon. Friend distinguishing, as I was doing, between "appointed … by the Speaker", which means precisely what it says, and
      "appointed by the House of Commons",
      as amendment No. 17 suggests, which I think means appointed through the usual channels? Is that the distinction that my hon. Friend is trying to draw?
      Mr. Tipping: The simple point that I am making is that, as the Bill stands, the six members will be appointed by the Speaker, and the Speaker has very strong views on many matters. I have given the hon. Member for South Staffordshire an assurance that I will arrange a discussion with the Speaker on that point.
      The hon. Member for South Staffordshire also asked why the Home Secretary and the Minister for Local Government were involved in the Committee. It is because they and their Departments have expertise in these matters, and each will have something to contribute to the Committee by drawing on the expertise of their Department. Similarly, the Chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee will have experience of leading such discussions. I agree with the hon. Member for West Worcestershire that the post will normally be
      662
      occupied by a Member from the governing party, but, as he knows, that will not necessarily be the case. It is something that we shall have to consider.
      7.30 pm
      The hon. Member for South Staffordshire has used the House of Commons Commission as a precedent and the Government have used the Public Accounts Committee as a precedent. Both are eminent bodies and, at this stage, I am inclined to stick with the model in the Bill—the Public Accounts Committee. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Speaker could be involved in these matters, and I am anxious to ensure that the Speaker is involved on a day-to-day basis as an active working member and does not merely have a ceremonial role. I give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that I intend to arrange further discussions on that point. In those circumstances, I hope that he will reflect on his amendment.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister has responded with the impeccable courtesy for which he is renowned in the House. I do not want anything that I say to be interpreted as in any sense questioning his good faith or integrity. I shall certainly not do that.
      The fact is that there is unease among Conservative Members about the composition of the Committee. The Minister picked up on that unease and, to some degree, reflected it in his words. He said—he was very honest about this—that he was still inclined to stick with what the Government have in the Bill, but we are very disinclined to stick with that.
      We are grateful to the Minister for saying that he will have discussions with Madam Speaker and for saying that he will reflect carefully on the points that have been made, but we would like to reinforce these points in the Division Lobby. I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for the amendment.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 290.

      Division No. 72]

      [7.32 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Cran, James

      Amess, David

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Day, Stephen

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Duncan Smith, lain

      Blunt, Crispin

      Evans, Nigel

      Body, Sir Richard

      Faber, David

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Fallon, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Brazier, Julian

      Flight, Howard

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Fraser, Christopher

      Burns, Simon

      Gale, Roger

      Cash, William

      Garnier, Edward

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Gibb, Nick

      Gill, Christopher

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Colvin, Michael

      Gray, James

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Green, Damian

      Cotter, Brian

      Greenway, John

      663

      Grieve, Dominic

      Paice, James

      Hague, Rt Hon William

      Paterson, Owen

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Pickles, Eric

      Hammond, Philip

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Prior, David

      Hayes, John

      Randall, John

      Heald, Oliver

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frame)

      Rendel, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Robertson, Laurence

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Horam, John

      Ruffley, David

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Hunter, Andrew

      Sanders, Adrian

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Shepherd, Richard

      Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Key, Robert

      Spring, Richard

      King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

      Streeter, Gary

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swayne, Desmond

      Leigh, Edward

      Syms, Robert

      Letwin, Oliver

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Lilley Rt Hon Peter

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Loughton, Tim

      Tredinnick, David

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Trend, Michael

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Tyler, Paul

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Viggers, Peter

      Madel, Sir David

      Walter, Robert

      Malins, Humfrey

      Waterson, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Mates, Michael

      Whittingdale, John

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Wilkinson, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Willetts, David

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wilshire, David

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Yeo, Tim

      Norman, Archie

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Ottaway, Richard

      Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

      Page, Richard

      Mr. Peter Luff.

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Allen, Graham

      Burgon, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ashton, Joe

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Canavan, Dennis

      Austin, John

      Cann, Jamie

      Barron, Kevin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caton, Martin

      Beard, Nigel

      Cawsey, Ian

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Clapham, Michael

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Benton, Joe

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Borrow, David

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Coaker, Vemon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      664

      Cohen, Harry

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coleman, lain

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes, Ms Bevertey (Stretford)

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Corbett, Robin

      Hurst, Alan

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hutton, John

      Crausby, David

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Darvill, Keith

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Denham, John

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Dobbin, Jim

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dowd, Jim

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Drew, David

      Kidney, David

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Edwards, Huw

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Efford, Clive

      Laxton, Bob

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Lepper, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Leslie, Christopher

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Levitt, Tom

      Fisher, Mark

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Fitzsimons, Lorna

      Linton, Martin

      Flint, Caroline

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Flynn, Paul

      Lock, David

      Follett, Barbara

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Macdonald, Calum

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McDonnell, John

      Galloway, George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      McNulty, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      MacShane, Denis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McWalter, Tony

      Godsiff, Roger

      McWilliam, John

      Goggins, Paul

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Mallaber, Judy

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Grocott, Bruce

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Grogan, John

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hanson, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Moffatt, Laura

      Healey, John

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Heppell, John

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mountford, Kali

      Hill, Keith

      Mudie, George

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mullin, Chris

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Hope, Phil

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      665

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Snape, Peter

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Olner, Bill

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Pearson, Ian

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Pendry, Tom

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pike, Peter L

      Stringer, Graham

      Plaskitt, James

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pond, Chris

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor. Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Timms, Stephen

      Purchase, Ken

      Tipping, Paddy

      Quinn,Lawrie

      Todd, Mark

      Radice,Rt Hon Giles

      Touhig, Don

      Rammell,Bill

      Tickett, Jon

      Raynsford, Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Rooney, Terry

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Roy, Frank

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruane, Chns

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Watts, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      White, Brian

      Salter, Martin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sheenman, Barry

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Wise, Audrey

      Singh, Marsha

      Woodward, Shaun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. David Clelland and

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Mike Hall.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      7.45 pm
      Mr. Forth: This is a tantalising clause because nowhere in part I is there any reference to the functions of the Speaker's Committee. One has to dig a little deeper, in schedule 2, to find a reference to what the Committee does. I know, Sir Alan, that you do not want me to delve into schedule 2 at this stage; we shall come to that debate fairly quickly, so I shall defer my remarks on the Committee's functions until then.
      Clause 2 outlines the Committee's membership, and a mere perusal of the clause quickly reveals that it has the potential to be problematic. It includes the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, which is in effect, despite mechanisms and subterfuge, a Government appointment. The Government of the day tend to dominate such key
      666
      appointments, especially if they have a large majority in the House. The Committee also includes the Secretary of State for the Home Department, which is self-evidently a Government appointment, and a Member of the House who is a Minister of the Crown and therefore, by definition, also a member of the Government. Already we can identify three members of the Speaker's Committee who are members of the Government or of the Government party.
      That is all very well, and people might be reassured that subsection (2)(d) requires the Committee's membership to include six Members of the House who are not Ministers of the Crown. My worry is that although subsection (4) states:
      "The members of the Committee mentioned in subsection (2)(d) shall be appointed … by the Speaker of the House"—
      Mr. Miller: On a point of order, Sir Alan. I thought that we had just had the debate on this very point.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): This is a stand part debate. I am of course listening very carefully to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), and although I shall give him a certain amount of leeway, I certainly do not expect him to repeat the previous debate.
      Mr. Forth: I am coming to the gist of my remarks. I just wanted to set the scene so that my remarks are properly in context. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's impatience for me to get to my gist—I know how much he enjoys my gists, so I shall bring my gist forward.
      Although one might be reassured by the fact that the Speaker, no less, would appoint the members of the Committee specified in subsection (2)(d), nowhere in the clause is there a protective mechanism to provide a guarantee that the membership of the Committee will be balanced in terms of the composition of the House or the representation of different Committees. We may want to return to that point in the debate on schedule 2. Even the hon. Gentleman will agree that we have not yet debated that, and I am anxious for us to do so.
      I am flagging up a worry. We have not yet debated the functions of the Speaker's Committee because we are a bit back to front and the functions are in schedule 2, not clause 2. As we discuss schedule 2, we will need to have a mind to the composition and origins of the Committee and the extent to which the Government seem to have a hold on it, without any guarantee that non-Government Members will be included.
      I defer my more detailed remarks to the debate on schedule 2, but I wanted to tell the Committee that when we come to discuss the functions of the Speaker's Committee we should be aware of a potential shortcoming in the membership.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: We have had the debate on the composition of the Committee. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office knows exactly what we think, but he made one interesting comment. He said that the model would be the Public Accounts Committee. That Committee always has an Opposition Member in the Chair. Is it the Government's intention that that should be the case with the Speaker's Committee?
      Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Some of the concerns of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley

      667
      and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) have occurred to me, too. It is obvious from a casual reading of the clause that the mere presence of the Speaker apparently confers a certain—how can I put it?—authority and genuineness. Anyone coming to the thing afresh would say, "If it is the Speaker's Committee, there will be fair play, both explicitly and implicitly." When I went through the clause carefully, I kept waiting for a subsection to say, "And there shall be a mechanism to ensure that the Opposition"—not just the principal Opposition, but minor parties, possibly even as minor as the Liberal Democrats—"play a role," but, remarkably, it is not there.
      Obviously, every holder of the Speaker's office is there because of the high esteem in which that Members hold that person. That has always been our tradition and, I am sure, always will be, but, at the same time, the clause relies entirely on the hope and expectation that it will all work out in the end. If the intention is that the Speaker's Committee, with the authority of the name of the Speaker, should be an authoritative body that commands respect and trust, there should be some mechanism to ensure that there is representation from the principal party of opposition and possibly the minor ones, too. In so far as clause 2 does not have that assurance, it is defective.
      Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) told us that we would return to the question in different forms and ways. I think that we will. If we are not able to resolve the issue in the debate on clause stand part, or on schedule 2, we will return to it on Report.
      I gave the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) an assurance that there would be further discussions with the Speaker on the point. I said that we wanted to ensure that, if the Speaker were minded to be involved—there is a strong case for that—she would have not a ceremonial role, but an active and important one. Having given those undertakings, a range of other possibilities opens up.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked how the six are to be appointed and whether it will be through the usual proportionality. I repeat: as the Bill stands, it is entirely a matter for the Speaker. As always, she will exercise her own judgment on the matter. Having six Members from the House of Commons—six ordinary Members, dare I say—gives the opportunity for broader representation on the Committee than the three main parties.
      There has been some discussion about who should take the chair of the Committee. I inadvertently misled the hon. Member for South Staffordshire when I referred to the Public Accounts Committee. I meant the Public Accounts Commission. I apologise. The precedent works well. His precedent for the Speaker's Committee is one precedent; my preference—the Public Accounts Commission—is another and a different way forward.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst pointed out that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee is normally from the major party. That need not necessarily be the case. It is a matter for the House and the Committee to decide, but concerns have been raised during this debate and in more detail in our previous debate. I gave an undertaking that there would
      668
      be further discussions with the Speaker. I will ensure that that happens. I am confident that that will inform our debate later. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, we will undoubtedly return to the matter in different forms and ways.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Schedule 2

      THE SPEAKER'S COMMITTEE
      Question proposed, That this schedule be the Second schedule to the Bill.
      Mr. Forth: We can now look back reflectively on the matters that we have touched on. Here we have the answer to at least one slight mystery. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I were discussing the Bill earlier and were wondering why the purposes of the Speaker's Committee were buried in such a modest way in schedule 2, instead of being right up there in the early part of the Bill, even before clause 2.
      Be that as it may, schedule 2 says what the Committee will do. At least, that is my guess, because it is the only mention that I can find. That great and august body, containing extraordinarily important and no doubt distinguished people, will, according to the schedule
      "at least once in each year, make to the House of Commons a report on the exercise by the Commission of their functions."
      On the face of it, one might not only think that that is a fairly light work load but dismiss it as not of any great importance. I beg to differ.
      We know that the commission's responsibilities are potentially highly political; they are not just about political matters but they could be very political in the sense that they could bear directly on electoral systems, for example; what the commission is charged with doing is mentioned in some of the substantive clauses that outline its responsibilities. The highly political Committee—it can be no other; it will be composed of politicians—will report on the exercise by the commission of its functions. It is not too fanciful a flight of imagination to suggest that the commission may look to the Committee for guidance on what it does. If the Committee chose to give political guidance on, for example, electoral systems—their desirability or whatever—one could find that it developed in an alarming way.
      One then asks, "What about the membership?" The schedule gives further hints on the questions that we raised on clause 2 stand part. It says:
      "An appointed member shall cease to be a member of the Speaker's Committee if … another person is appointed to be a member of the Committee in his place."
      In other words, a member can be sacked. That is how I read it. It effectively says—in charming parliamentary language, I agree—that it is possible for a member of the Committee to be dismissed by the appointment of another in his place.
      That worries me, too. I would have wanted some reassurance of some independence of the Committee through the security of its membership, but, apparently, we do not have that reassurance. A difficult or

      669
      troublesome member can obviously be removed. That carries with it all sorts of implications that we may want to consider.
      Paragraph 3(1) states:
      "The Speaker's Committee shall elect a chairman from amongst its members".
      We are then given what I guess the Minister will tell us is some reassurance:
      "but the members of the Committee mentioned in section 2(2)(b) and (c) (Home Secretary and Minister for local government) shall not be eligible for election as chairman."
      That still means that the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, for example, will be eligible for election as Chairman. I have already suggested that, in most Parliaments heretofore, that individual has been a member of the governing party. If the Committee is indeed going to be able freely to elect its own Chairman, there is the distinct possibility that it may end up with a member of the Government as that Chairman.
      8 pm
      Now we are getting to the real substance of the schedule. If the Government were serious in their intention to reassure the Committee and the House of the absolute integrity and independence of the Speaker's Committee—let alone the commission—I should have expected there to be in the Bill some sort of mechanism stronger than the one offered. For example, the Bill might have stated that the Chairman shall not be a member of the party that has a majority in the House of Commons, or words to that effect. However, it does not say that, so we are left with the suspicion—I put it no higher than that—that the Speaker's Committee, with its oversight of the work of the commission as set out in paragraph 1(1), might in some circumstances exercise disproportionate influence over the commission when it is discharging its responsibilities of reviewing and making recommendations on electoral procedures and systems.
      All those possibilities are present in schedule 2. Clause 2 provides no reassurance—the Minister has now come clean about the fact that he meant to refer to the Public Accounts Commission, not the Public Accounts Committee, which makes an important difference—and the debate has not reassured us about the independence, integrity or freedom from Government influence of the Speaker's Committee and, by implication, of the Electoral Commission itself.
      I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary can provide far more in the way of reassurance and insight as to the way in which he believes the process will work. For example, he should say more about the chairmanship of the Home Affairs Committee—a crucial matter, given that the Chairman of that Committee might be eligible to be Chairman of the Speaker's Committee. He should say a lot more about how he, representing the Government, expects the Speaker to think about appointments to membership of the Speaker's Committee. I do not suggest that the Minister tries to pre-empt or trammel the Speaker in any way, but it is normal practice for the Minister to be able to give the Committee considering a Bill an insight into his thinking and that of the Government. We need to know more about the expected composition of the Committee and to be given reassurances that there will be no in-built Government influence.
      670
      I make my remarks against the background of recent allegations of cronyism in the context of the reform of the other place. We need to be reassured that there will be an absence of cronyism in respect of the Speaker's Committee and the Electoral Commission. They are bodies that have the potential to shape our future political mechanisms and electoral processes—our constitution, no less. It is the Committee's job to elicit from Ministers reassurances and guarantees that there can be no cronyism, no bias and no undue influence on those bodies. Until those reassurances are provided, I shall be extremely reluctant to support the schedule.
      Mr. Nicholls: My concern is that, although the body is called the Speaker's Committee, it is that in name only. The membership of the Committee is the key, yet the Bill has nothing to say about any obligation, discretion or desire to appoint anyone other than those whom Her Majesty's Government of the day—be they Labour or Conservative—want.
      People in this country who know little about the political process know that certain things are axiomatic. The first is that politicians are frightful and cannot be trusted, and the second is that Her Majesty's Government of the day can be trusted even less. I would not seriously depart from that order of priority: usually, when one asks people whom they hold in less respect than politicians, the answer is Her Majesty's Government pro tern.
      However, the moment the Speaker is mentioned, people are, to a certain extent, lulled into a sense of security: they know that if the Speaker is involved in something, it is bound to be okay. It seems to me that the Committee is the Speaker's in name only. The Speaker has nothing more than a formal role in the making of appointments to the Committee. The Bill places the Committee entirely in the hands of the Executive.
      I expect the Parliamentary Secretary—a persuasive, courteous and genial gentleman—to say that my fears are founded on no more than the paranoia produced by being in opposition after so many years on the Government Benches. If he does, fine, but I would say in return that Ministers come and Ministers go, and sometimes Ministers go very quickly indeed. It may be that the assurances he gives the Committee will barely be archivable before he suddenly finds that a different Minister—one who has a different agenda—has taken his place. We need assurances in the Bill because we cannot rely on the Minister, much though we like him.
      Mr. Tipping: The Committee has touched on these matters once already, it is debating them again now, and I dare say that they will be raised again later in the course of our deliberations. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) have made some interesting points. I am grateful for the words that the hon. Gentleman tried to put in my mouth, but I shall make my own response.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst rightly states that schedule 2 spells out in short shrift the power and role of the Speaker's Committee. I am sure that he has already read the explanatory notes which, on page 9, fill out some of the details of the role of that Committee. As well as having a strategic role of approving a budget and a five-year corporate plan, the

      671
      important feature of the Speaker's Committee is that it will provide a political reference point for the Electoral Commission.
      As has been acknowledged during our debates today, the concept of the Speaker's Committee did not emerge directly from the Neill report. However, there was a view that parliamentarians should have some input into the process; that is the genesis of the Speaker's Committee. At times, the commission will be able to seek soundings and circulate ideas among a group of Members of Parliament.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to say that, under paragraph 2(2)(b), members of the Committee can be appointed in place of other members. A member might resign for any number of reasons: for example, he or she might be promoted, or want to do new and different things. I would not read anything suspicious into that part of the schedule; it is simply a necessary mechanism whereby a new member can be appointed if one resigns.
      Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that, as things stand, the Speaker's Committee might be seen as a creature of the Government? It will be robbed of all validity and all reputation for impartiality if that impression persists. The hon. Gentleman said that he will come back to that issue. Will he ensure that, when he does so, that point will have been properly addressed?
      Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because he reminds me to remind the Committee to check the record. Earlier in our proceedings, I agreed with the hon. Gentleman that the Speaker's Committee has to be unique, responsible and beyond reproach. During our earlier exchanges, I undertook to engage in further discussion on that matter and I shall use his point as the cornerstone of that discussion. He is right to say that the Speaker's Committee must be the product of consent and that it must have respectability.
      Mr. Nicholls: I am grateful to the Minister. I need to make sure that I understand what he is saying. Either he is being helpful, or he intends to be helpful but is not being so.
      I note that paragraph 2(3) states:
      "An appointed member may resign form the Committee",
      and that paragraph 2(2)(b) states that
      "another person is appointed to be a member of the Committee in his place".
      Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the appointment procedure comes into play only if a member resigns?
      As I read the provision, the Government can use their majority to dismiss a member of the Committee. Obviously, there must then be a mechanism to appoint someone else. If the Minister is saying that the appointment procedure only comes into operation following a resignation, that may be reassuring.
      Mr. Tipping: The position on membership is clear. There are to be two Ministers of the Crown, the Chairman
      672
      of the Home Affairs Committee—whom I acknowledged earlier is usually a member of the governing party, but not necessarily so—and six members appointed by the Speaker.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Teignbridge have both asked me how the Speaker will appoint those members. I am not privy to the Speaker's mind on these matters. The Speaker has her own views and will consult her deputies. These are her appointments.
      In an earlier debate, I pointed out to the Committee that it was important that there were six places for Back-Bench Members, rather than three, as that provided the opportunity for members of parties other than the big three to be appointed.
      The hon. Member for Teignbridge chides me that it is a Speaker's Committee in name only. I remind him of the absolute assurance that I gave the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) that there will be further discussions with the Speaker on these matters. What unites us across the Chamber is the need for a Speaker's Committee that works and commands respect. I have heard the points that have been raised, and I have given an undertaking that discussions will be held.
      Mr. Forth: I am, as ever, grateful to the Minister. He has been patient with us. May I press him on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge?
      Can the Minister tell us categorically whether he is saying that only when a member of the Committee resigns will the provisions of paragraph 2(2)(b) come into effect, or whether he is saying that it is possible—he may say that it is unlikely, but it is possible—under paragraph 2(2)(b) for another person to be appointed by the Speaker as a member of the Committee in the place of someone, thus displacing the original member?
      That is an important point. It is one thing to say that a member of the Committee may resign and be replaced; we all understand that. It is a very different thing to say that there is the possibility of someone arbitrarily—no, I withdraw that—after consideration being appointed, and thus displacing someone who does not want to be displaced. Can the Minister clarify that?
      Mr. Tipping: It is absolutely clear that the Speaker holds the reins in the matter. Apart from the Secretary of State for the Home Department and the Minister for Local Government who gain access to the Committee by virtue of their posts, as is the case with the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the other members are appointed by the Speaker. The Speaker will make an appointment only if there is a vacancy. With that clarification, I hope that the schedule will be agreed to.
      Mr. Stunell rose—
      The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman may certainly address the Committee, but the Minister has sat down.
      Mr. Stunell: We are exploring an interesting point. The Minister moved the debate forward when he said that the Speaker would appoint a replacement only when there had been a resignation. That seemed to be the assurance that right hon. and hon. Members sought. Would that be the case, however, in the immediate aftermath of a general

      673
      election? That is what I thought the provision was intended to cover, until the Minister gave his assurance. As far as I can see, the Speaker's Committee is not limited to the life of one Parliament. If that is the case, and if there were a significant change in the membership of the subsequent Parliament, it would clearly be appropriate for the members appointed by the Speaker to reflect more accurately the membership of the new Parliament.
      For the avoidance of doubt, can the Minister satisfy me that, in the event of a general election, there would be an opportunity to restructure the Committee in accordance with the new shape of the House?
      Mr. Tipping: Sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 2 makes it clear that a member of the Committee is a member for the lifetime of the Parliament.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Schedule 2 agreed to.

    Clause 3

      APPOINTMENT OF ELECTORAL COMMISSIONERS AND COMMISSION CHAIRMAN
      8.15 pm
      Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 20, in page 2, line 36, leave out 'chairman of the'.
      Amendment No. 20 is even more important, against the background of the debates of the past hour. We have tried and, sadly, failed to inject a greater element of impartiality into the composition of the Speaker's Committee than is set out in the Bill.
      People can be appointed as commissioners with the agreement of the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee. We established in the previous debate that the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee could be, for example, the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs who, for as long as I can remember, has always been a member of the governing party.
      The amendment would change the wording from
      "with the agreement of the chairman of the Speaker's Committee"
      to
      "with the agreement of the Speaker's Committee".
      As the Bill is drafted, the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee could agree on what was proposed and every other member of the Committee could disagree, but the assent could go forward none the less.
      We must remember that the object of a Speaker's Committee is to create an element of neutrality and impartiality for the electoral commission, so that it comes not under a Government Department, but under a Committee of the House. If that is the objective, it is important that when the Speaker's Committee exercises its functions, it does so in a way that is broad-based, neutral and impartial, rather than as currently set out.
      The powers with which clause 3 deals are set out in clause 1, which states:
      "The Electoral Commission shall be appointed by Her Majesty (in accordance with section 3)"
      and
      "Her Majesty shall (in accordance with section 3) appoint one of the Electoral Commissioners to be the chairman of the Commission."
      674
      Those are important powers, on which the Speaker's Committee rightly has a say. I contend that the objectives of the Speaker's Committee cannot be discharged unless we amend clause 3(2)(a) to secure the agreement not just of the Chairman, but of the Speaker's Committee as a whole. That is the purpose of the amendment.
      I shall not speak at length, as I hope that the Minister will recognise the force of the argument. It would be a bad start to the life of the commission if, for example, there were disagreement within the Speaker's Committee, or a majority in the Speaker's Committee that was opposed to the motion for the address appointing commissioners, and the Chairman none the less gave his assent. The chairman of the commission could be appointed in the same way.
      I was surprised to see the Bill drafted as it is. I hope that the Minister is sympathetic to the argument and will tell us that the amendment has the Government's approval.
      Mr. Maclean: I share my right hon. Friend's view. It seems appropriate that if we are aiming at a semblance of balance in the Speaker's Committee and at impartiality in the entire structure, the Speaker's Committee as a whole should be responsible for making the decision. The agreement of the whole Speaker's Committee, and not just of the Chairman, should be obtained.
      One assumes that the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee, being a right hon. or hon. Member, would not ask for such a motion to be made if the Committee were opposed to it. One assumes that he or she would have a majority in the Committee before proceeding with the motion for such an address. However, the Bill does not provide for that. It would be possible, when members of the Committee were not in agreement, for the Chairman to proceed with the motion for an address. The Government may claim that that is highly far fetched and improbable; if so, why cannot the provision simply read
      "with the agreement of the Speaker's Committee"?
      Such agreement would be signified by the Chairman, but there is no good reason for nominating the Chairman rather than the whole Committee. If the Government accepted the amendment, it would give a further impression that they were inclusive, as they like to claim they are; that the process was impartial; and that all members of the Committee had been consulted before the motion for the address was made.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: The Bill requires the agreement of the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee before a motion is made for an address to appoint electoral commissioners. Amendment No. 20 would require the agreement of the whole Committee.
      The arrangements for which the Bill provides are modelled on equivalent provisions for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. Section 1(1) of the National Audit Act 1983, which was passed under a Conservative Government, requires the agreement of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee before a motion for an address to appoint the Comptroller and Auditor General is made. That system works well and without a great deal of controversy. There is therefore no reason to depart from that approach in the Bill.

      675
      I expect that the Chairman of the Speaker's Committee would wish to consult his colleagues on the Committee before giving his consent to an appointment. In view of all the safeguards that we have incorporated in the measure, including the requirement to consult the leader of each of the main parties, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) stretches a point in insisting that all members of the Speaker's Committee should give their consent. I was not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman wanted to provide for the consent of the majority of the Committee and for the Committee to divide, or for the Committee to try to work towards a consensus and rely on the Chairman's view.
      It would be undesirable for all nine members of the Committee to be able to exercise a veto over an appointment and thereby hold the process to ransom. There should be a broad consensus for each appointment, but demanding total unanimity on every appointment is a recipe for gridlock. The Bill provides for a tried and tested approach, which has worked well for the appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General. There is no reason for it not to work for the electoral commissioners. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Sir George Young: I am grateful to the Minister for providing the genealogy of the form of words in the Bill. However, the circumstances in the Bill are different from those in the Act that the Minister cited. We are considering sensitive appointments in a political arena. The appointment of the Comptroller and Auditor General is not in the same league as that of the chairman of the Electoral Commission. I do not seek unanimity; I do not understand how the Minister read that into the amendment. The amendment would provide simply for
      "the agreement of the Speaker's Committee",
      which means a majority of the Speaker's Committee.
      Under the Bill, there could be unanimity in the Committee against the proposal, but because the Chairman agreed with it, his view would be presented. The Minister rightly pointed out that others will be consulted, but while subsection (2)(b) covers consultation, subsection (2)(a) is the only provision that requires agreement.
      I shall not press the amendment, but I ask the Minister to consider whether the precedent that he cited is appropriate for such an appointment and, on reflection, to accept amendment No. 20 on Report, or to table a form of words that would have the same impact of reducing the importance of one person on the Speaker's Committee.
      Mr. O'Brien: I note the right hon. Gentleman's clarification of his view, and that he does not seek unanimity but wants to ensure that the Committee's view is sought. I am not opposed to that in principle. I shall not give an undertaking to include such a provision in the Bill, but I agree to consider his point.
      Sir George Young: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 21, in page 3, line 11, at end add—
      '(7) At least three members of the Commission (one of whom shall be the Chairman of the Commission appointed under section 1(5)) shall be drawn from the following categories:

      (1) judges or retired judges of the High Court of England and Wales

      (2) judges or retired judges of the Court of Session of Scotland

      (3) judges or retired judges of the High Court of Northern Ireland

      (4) Lords Justices of Appeal of England and Wales

      (5) Lords of Appeals in Ordinary

      (6) the Comptroller and Auditor General

      (7) the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

      (8) the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.'.

      We are now considering the heart of the Electoral Commission: its composition. There is a complete lack of information on that subject in the Bill. Clause 1 simply provides for the number of people who will serve on the commission and clause 3 merely provides for the way in which they will be appointed. It also identifies people—Members of Parliament—who cannot be involved in the appointment process. That does not do justice to Lord Neill's intentions.
      Paragraphs 11.7 and 11.8 of the Neill report go into some detail about the composition of the Electoral Commission:
      "Those who have advocated the establishment of an Election Commission have been emphatic that it should be independent both of the government of the day and of the political parties. We agree. An Election Commission in a democracy like ours could not function properly, or indeed at all, unless it were scrupulously impartial and believed to be so by everyone seriously involved and by the public at large.
      In our view, a number of important consequences follow. The first is that the members of the Commission should not, in the normal course of events, be people who have previously been involved in any substantial way in party politics. The second is that the UK Election Commission, unlike the US Federal Election Commission, should consist of independent persons and not of party representatives. The third is that the method adopted for choosing the members of the Commission should itself be independent of the parties. The fourth is that, nevertheless, the individual members of the Commission should be acceptable to the leaders of the main parties, who should be consulted in the course of their appointment. The fifth is that, once appointed, the members of the Commission should hold office for a considerable period of years and should enjoy a substantial security of tenure."
      That requires Parliament to consider carefully the commission's composition, especially because the Government intend that, a short time after the Bill reaches the statute book, the boundary commissioners will be absorbed in the Electoral Commission. Four of the boundary commissioners will eventually be four of the commission's members.
      8.30 pm
      It is noteworthy that the current vice-chairman of the boundary commissioners is, and has been as a matter of course, a High Court judge, but no such suggestion is reproduced in the Bill. The commission will be powerful and the point has been made—I think that it appears in

      677
      Lord Neill's report—that it is not intended to turn it into a judicial body; but one has only to consider what business it will transact to realise that although it may not be judicial it will certainly come jolly close to being a prosecuting authority, even if it ultimately hands over responsibility for that to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Crown Prosecution Service. The Bill creates 68 criminal offences, some of which mirror previous legislation, but many of which are entirely new. They will require evaluation, and I am certain that no prosecution will be brought without the Electoral Commission having first at least pronounced on what it believes to be irregular practice by individuals or political parties.
      My concern is that, as matters stand, we could end up with a quango of the great and the good. They may not be people who have held political office in the recent past, but having listened to the debate with great interest, it is apparent to me that the Government seem to have it in mind that certain commissioners might have held office or participated in party politics. That may be a possibility, but it raises the threat that the great and the good represent, which is best avoided. The commission will have substantial powers that will have to be exercised with great care and precise understanding of what is possible and just, in relation to the operation of the legislation. Our view is that it is in the interests of all concerned that it should be seen to be an impartial body with expertise in its field of operation.
      Amendment No. 21, which sets out to achieve that, identifies categories of persons, principally High Court judges and above, but also persons likely to be versed in financial and accounting matters and those who have already been involved in parliamentary standards and standards in public life. If they filled three of the nine places—four will go to the boundary commissioners, effectively as of right—two would be left for suitably qualified persons. That would be a step in the right direction.
      Other similar electoral commissions have judicial input and it is extraordinary that we are going down that road without providing for it. The Minister may say, "There will be nothing to prevent those sorts of people from coming on board." I would doubtless welcome that, but it is not good enough. It is perfectly easy in this context to identify the sorts of people who would be of use as Electoral Commissioners and those who would be treated as impartial. That touches on the question of who will chair the Electoral Commission, and I would like to hear the Minister's comments on it. It was suggested earlier that the Government want appointments to the commission to be part time, except for the chairman, but that is not how the Neill committee views the matter. It wants all electoral commissioners to be part time, but says that the day-to-day management of the commission could be left in the hands of a chief executive.
      There is clearly a big difference between what Lord Neill suggests and what the Government propose, so may I put some possibilities to the Minister? If there is to be a chief executive, there seems no reason why the chairman need be full time, but if a judicial figure were to be appointed full time—a judge may become chairman of the Law Commission for a period of years, for example—there might be no problem in envisaging a similar appointment. Those matters require clarification.
      678
      The background to the Bill has always been that the Government want a measure of consensus—and, more than that, that the structures should run like clockwork and there should not be continual questioning of the manner or type of appointment made. I cannot think of anything more calculated to cause discord than the appointment of people previously involved in public life, probably in politics. In the United Kingdom today, people in public life, even if they have not been active in politics, have usually expressed political views at one time or another, unless they have operated under a self-denying ordinance. I accept that people previously involved in political life may sometimes be appointed, but they should be kept in a minority on the commission.
      The commission will operate a judicial system. It may be the Crown Prosecution Service that prosecutes, but ultimately the commission will call the shots, and will make recommendations that may be critical of individuals and political parties. There will be a system of civil penalties, which I assume the commission will enforce: it will not be through any prosecuting authority. If that is not the intention, it would be nice to hear from the Minister what is intended, because our discussions in the Standing Committee strongly suggested that it will be for the Electoral Commission to bring proceedings, with civil penalties, against political parties. It would be difficult to imagine anything worse, in those circumstances, than former political figures being actively involved. It is therefore the duty and responsibility of this Committee to narrow the options.
      I hope that the Minister will view the amendment in the spirit in which it is presented. The Minister may have other ideas. Perhaps other categories should be considered and added to the list. It would be prudent to define who we intend to be on the commission, and to identify—as they can be identified—those who would be suitable to carry out the onerous task of managing our electoral system.
      Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to my hon. Friend, and I cannot see how the Minister could possibly disagree with the arguments that he has advanced. The Bill contains a large number of penalties, and the Electoral Commission's considerable power in exercising its functions will impinge on political parties and individuals. It will take over the functions of the boundary commissions, and it will have considerable authority in imposing those penalties.
      In those circumstances, it is appropriate that, in accordance with natural justice, senior members of the judiciary should be on the commission. We are working on the assumption that there will be a maximum of nine people appointed to the commission. Amendment No. 21 proposes that at least three of them should be drawn from a list including senior members of the judiciary, the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life.
      We want the commission to have a reputation and be respected as an impartial body. Let us face it, it will be ruling on referendums, making reports on the conduct of elections and being responsible for boundary redistribution, all of which will make it susceptible to allegations by politicians of all persuasions that judgments have been made that were partial. Although all of us collectively respect the work of the boundary

      679
      commissions, and none of us suggests that it is partial in any way, when there is a suggestion that a parish should be moved in or out of our constituency, every hon. Member of every party tries to find the most impeccable reasons to argue for or against it, depending on whether they see electoral advantage.
      One of the arguments that we cannot advance is that the decisions made by the boundary commissions'are biased or partial. If we thought that the commissions' membership could in any way be sullied, some hon. Members would certainly argue that, when their seats were redistributed or carved up, the boundary commissions' made erroneous judgments because of political bias or partiality somewhere in the system. Currently, that does not happen.
      I am merely suggesting to the Minister that, if he does not accept the concept of including some of the people suggested in amendment No. 21—such as retired judges, Lords Justices of Appeal-in-Ordinary and the Comptroller and Auditor General—but goes down the route, as suggested earlier, of including retired politicians, however respectable, some people might argue that they are not as impartial as retired judges, or as serving judges performing a tour of duty on the commission before moving on to other things.
      The Opposition are being helpful to the Minister in making the proposal. One wishes senior colleagues who have gone out to grass but who wish to do other things well. Previously, Lord Jenkins of Hilihead, for example, would undoubtedly have been regarded as one of those perfectly suitable appointments to the commission. However, now that he has tried to do some of the Government's initial dirty work in his own report, by arguing for proportional representation, no one could possibly suggest that that member of the great and the good is impartial.
      Undoubtedly, Ministers would say that they could produce other retired political figures, possibly in another place, or possibly outside Parliament, who may be regarded as impartial and who could serve on the commission. Inevitably, however, there will be claims of bias or partiality if retired politicians or other members of the great and the good—regardless of whether they are writers, senior doctors or veterinarians—are appointed. People will have had opinions on politics that they may have expressed in a particular way; or at one time, they may have been a member of a political party.
      Much as I dislike handing over a lot of the regulation of this place and of Parliament to outside members of the judiciary, when we should be operating our own internal controls ourselves—it is water under the bridge, and it is not an argument for today's debate—there is nevertheless a perception outside this place that, if we stick a judge on to a body, it is bound to be neutral and impartial. That is one reason why we have people such as Neill, Nolan and others telling us how to run our affairs. It is also why have we have made the House subservient to them. The perception is that they are impartial, cannot be tainted and will reach properly impartial judgments.
      If hon. Members have decided that it is good enough to have the affairs of the House regulated and controlled by judges and retired judges, surely to goodness the Electoral Commission—which is responsible for ensuring
      680
      the validity of the rules that get us here in the first place—should have serving on it some of the Neills, the Nolans and the other judges of this world.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right that the Minister may say, "There's nothing to stop those people being appointed to the commission." It is true that there is nothing stopping them—but I know the pressures that Ministers are under. One establishes committees and commissions, and one is subsequently flooded with representations in favour of appointing to them members of the great and the good.
      As the Minister has already said today that there is nothing stopping possibly senior, respected and retired politicians from being on the commission, he will inevitably be under pressure from those senior, respected and retired politicians to ensure that he lives up to his promise and appoints some of them. He will also be under pressure not only from senior, respected and serving—or retired—trade unionists, but from other entire ranks of society who think that they could do a good job on the commission.
      8.45 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If positions on the Electoral Commission were open to retired politicians, would those who appointed them be obliged to ensure that their past political affiliation was balanced by the appointment of somebody with a different political background? At least we would then know where they stood. How do we know the political affiliation of the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards or the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life?
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. If the Government appointed one retired politician who had been in my party, they would be under enormous pressure to appoint another from at least one other political party to be seen to give balance. The Liberals would also make a fuss and we would end up with three retired politicians on the committee in an attempt to provide balance. They may give jobs for the retired boys—one day I may be looking for one of those jobs; later rather than sooner, I hope, although some of my hon. Friends may have a different view—but we must have regard to the credibility and respectability of the commission.
      I appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment, which my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield moved so ably. I am merely adding my little bit of extra weight to the arguments. We need to ensure that all those outside this place regard the commission as impartial and impeccable and that there can be no complaints against it. Much as I regret it in some respects, one way to do that is to accept the amendment to include senior members of the judiciary, because they are regarded as neutral in all circumstances.
      Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Committee will be pleased to hear that I intend to speak only briefly, mainly because my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) did not deal fully with my intervention a few moments ago. I asked whether whoever appointed any retired politicians to the commission would be obliged to ensure balance in political appointees so that people outside the political arena could see that there was

      681
      one from a Labour background and another from a Conservative and Unionist background. That would overtly provide the balance that people expect.
      I then asked my right hon. Friend whether he was aware of the political affiliation of the Comptroller and Auditor General. I should like my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) to explain why he has put the Comptroller and Auditor General forward as a suitable candidate for appointment to the commission. The same argument goes for the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. The holder of that office may be well versed in what is right and wrong for the behaviour of Members of Parliament inside and outside the House, but I am not sure what other experience they might have to contribute to the commission. I do not have the same criticism of the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but I would appreciate some explanation of why my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire suggested that person as someone who might be considered for appointment to the commission.
      The commission is very important. Its decisions could well have a fundamental impact on the constitution and future of this country.
      It is vital that the commissioners be individuals of the highest integrity who will do their job completely without bias. I agree with both my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House and my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve)—judges, either in office or retired, are in the main ideal candidates—but I want to know why my hon. Friend considers all the categories listed to be ideally suited.
      I hope that the Minister will give us a little more information about who could be appointed to what I consider a vital constitutional commission that could have an impact on my future and on that of my children and their children.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: Before I go into the detail of the amendment, it may help the Committee if I set out where I believe there is common ground among most of us who have spoken. First and foremost, there is no dispute that the commission must be scrupulously independent and impartial. We do not want to adopt the American model of a commission packed with old political hacks whose conflicting views are balanced in the commission as a whole.
      Instead, we are following Neill's approach. The Neill committee recommended that members of the United Kingdom Electoral Commission should be chosen on a non-partisan basis and by means of a non-partisan procedure. I did not say that we wanted to include old pols in the selection process. That is not our aim. It is one thing not to want to include but another deliberately to exclude for all time.
      Having listened to the Committee with care, I was persuaded by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who apparently disagrees with the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). That is a rare event, but one to be cherished by Government Members. The former thinks that the old pols are to be recommended on some
      682
      occasions and the latter that they are to be avoided on all occasions. There may be merit in both views, and who am I to intrude?
      Mr. Forth: The apparent mystery may be explained if I remind the Minister that I am about nine years older than my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. O'Brien: We want to try to reflect the way in which Neill envisaged the appointment procedures developing. The procedures will be bolstered by selection criteria that will exclude, for example, those who have played a significant role in party politics. We do not want as commissioners those who are regarded as partisan because they have recently stood for election or are so identified with one political point of view that they would not be regarded as able to act impartially in resolving an issue between political parties.
      Beyond ruling out those whose association with political parties or other organisations would clearly give rise to a conflict of interests, we propose to avoid being too prescriptive about who should be allowed to be an electoral commissioner. I remind the Committee that the Neill committee made no recommendation to the effect that one or more commissioners must be a High Court judge or equivalent. I accept that a High Court judge would fully satisfy the requirements of independence, impartiality and integrity, and we certainly would not rule out appointing a retired judge, should one apply. I am not sure that the Lord Chancellor would be disposed—given all the demands these days on High Court and other judges—to supply a judge to sit part-time or full-time on the commission, but we would consider an application from a retired judge, QC or someone else with suitable legal qualifications. It was rightly said that we will require the commission to be properly advised on any legal obligations that it has, and those who it comprises should be able at least to get their minds round legal problems and ensure that they can make a quasi-judicial decision, should that be required.
      Similar considerations apply to the Comptroller and Auditor General, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. In the case of the Comptroller and Auditor General, there would be a conflict of interest, because the Bill appoints him as the Electoral Commission's auditor, so I am not sure that the amendment stands up.
      What sort of person are we looking for? We will apply the Nolan procedures, with an independent assessor, openness, an advertisement and transparent criteria and procedures for selection. We envisage that those making the appointment will not have a slate of people from which to select, but that a single recommendation will emerge from the Nolan procedures for appointment to the commission.
      The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked whether the chairman would be full time. We envisage that the chairman might need to deal with matters at short notice on occasion, and therefore it would be preferable to have a full-time appointment. However, we do not have a closed mind on the issue.
      The hon. Gentleman asked whether it would be possible for someone to have a judicial role, leave that role and serve on the Electoral Commission for a time as chairman,

      683
      and then go on to another job. If someone wished to do that, it would not be a prohibition on them being a member of the commission.
      The hon. Gentleman also made the point that the most important criterion was that all members of the commission should be seen to be above the fray. They must be seen to be impartial by all the political parties about whom they may have to make a decision. We agree that that is the key issue and we want to ensure that both the chairman and the members all have such impartiality.
      I hope that we have been able to reassure the hon. Gentleman that we share his desire to appoint as electoral commissioners only those with a track record of independence and impartiality. While we share his objective, however, we may differ about the means to the end. To insert the new provision into the Bill would be to impose an unnecessary constraint on the field of candidates from which appointments may be made. In those circumstances, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I shall deal briefly with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). I hoped that I had made it clear in my opening remarks that it appeared to me and to those who support the amendment that judicial figures would be the most desirable appointments. However, we were prepared to accept that people in other categories could also be appointed, and we sought to identify those categories.
      9 pm
      The Minister spoke about the Comptroller and Auditor General being the commission's auditor as well, and I accept that there would in those circumstances be a conflict. However, we proposed selecting the CAG because careful examination of the Bill shows that it is a very complex piece of financial legislation. It involves much detail, much auditing and an understanding of people's limitations in slipping up in producing proper accounts. It is clearly desirable to appoint as election commissioners people who understand auditing and the problems facing individuals who often do not have the financial knowledge to make accurate returns.
      The commission's reports will be the initiating process for penalties and/or prosecutions. Doubtless, the Crown Prosecution Service will have its own views, but I am sure that if the Electoral Commission does not identify something, the CPS will never take it up. The commission's considerable powers will be able to wreck political careers and destroy the careers of party treasurers. Those are onerous duties and they will have to be exercised judiciously.
      The amendment would allow the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life to be appointed. I accept that there may be other categories of individual who might also qualify, but the holders of those offices spring to mind as they will have experience of some of the problems faced by individuals in public life. They may be able to bring their views and experience to bear on those matters.
      684
      One of my criticisms of the Bill in general, having spent hours in the Standing Committee, is that, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office admitted, it contains areas in which good intentions and high-minded ideals often seem to be at variance with the reality on the ground. That is a source of anxiety, because if one is divorced from the other, the Bill will prove unworkable. It will create a multiplicity of problems and incur public disrespect, and that is to be avoided at all costs.
      The Minister has gone some way to reassuring me. However, he has not gone as far as I would like. He referred to eminent QCs. Far be it from me to cast doubt on members of my profession who are in a position of eminence. Nevertheless, many of them, by virtue of their work and activities in their profession will undoubtedly be public figures, with known views and preferences that have not yet been rubbed away by a period of judicial office. That, curiously, is a great leveller. If a judge has done his job properly for five or six years, people will accept his impartiality in a way that they would not have done previously, however eminent a silk he may have been.
      I hope that the Minister will bear those points in mind. Even if he does not accept the list proposed in the amendment, there is good sense in having one judicial appointment on the commission. I am not happy with simply leaving a blank sheet of paper. We need more than that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider. We have not sought to fetter the provisions all that much—there is still some leeway—but we must be more precise about the type of person to be appointed to the Electoral Commission, particularly to the chairmanship.
      As the Minister is at least prepared to think about this again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 5

      REVIEWS OF ELECTORAL AND POLITICAL MATTERS
      Mr. Maclean: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 4, line 6, at end insert—
      '( ) Any report submitted to the Secretary of State under subsections (1) and (2) shall be—

      (a) placed in the House of Commons Library on the same day as it is presented to the Secretary of State; and

      (b) debated in the House of Commons within one month of the day it is presented to the Secretary of State.'.

      The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 38, in page 4, line 7, leave out subsection (3).
      Mr. Maclean: Amendment No. 37 requires little explanation. Reports made by the commission are vitally important. Clause 5 states:
      "The Commission shall keep under review, and from time to time submit reports to the Secretary of State, on the following matters, namely—

      (a) such matters relating to elections to which this section applies …

      (b) such matters relating to referendums …

      685

      (c) the redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections;

      (d) if any functions are transferred by an order under section 16(1) …

      (e) the registration of political parties and the regulation of their income …

      (f) political advertising in the broadcast and other electronic media;

      (g) the law relating to the matters mentioned in each of paragraphs (a) to (f)."

      Those are not light matters. The commission will report on matters crucial not only to the House but to the whole democratic process. The commissioners will be paid according to the recommendation of the Speaker's Committee, which is supposed to have general oversight of their work. Yet the commission will report not to the House, but to the Secretary of State.
      Much as I respect the Secretary of State for the Home Department—and his predecessor—I believe that the commissioners should have some regard for the House of Commons. We are passing the Act that will create them, and the Speaker's Committee will have general oversight of their functions. I do not suggest that we should take charge of the commission, or tell it not to report to the Home Secretary. I merely ask that a copy of its report should be placed in the Library of the House of Commons so that we may read and debate it. Is that too much to ask?
      The Minister may say that that will happen anyway. However, it will happen only after the Home Secretary has considered the report, which he will not do on the day on which the commissioners rush it in. Any report to the Home Secretary will be received and carefully scrutinised by his civil servants before a submission is sent to him summarising it, making observations and recommending certain actions, most of which are legal and laid down in statute. It will take time before the Home Secretary reads the report, considers it, meets his civil servants and decides to publish it and place it in the Library.
      My amendment suggests that the independent and totally impartial commission, over which the Home Secretary should have no influence, should simultaneously give the House of Commons a copy of the report. I should be surprised and disappointed if the Minister rejected that.
      Sometimes, there are good reasons why the House should not get its grubby fingers on a report before the Secretary of State does. If the Secretary of State had set up his own committee of inquiry—his own commission, quango or investigation—then of course he should receive the report first. We would hope that he would not leak it or spin it to the media before the House received it, but it would be perfectly legitimate for him to hang on to it until he was ready to publish it.
      However, the commission would not be the Home Secretary's creature. It would not report directly to him. He would not be in charge of it and would not dictate its terms of reference or what it should do. Indeed, clause 2 is supposed to give that responsibility to the Speaker's Committee—although it is a pretty flimsy responsibility. That may be an argument for another place and another time. None the less, the Bill attempts to give the Speaker's Committee a general oversight of the workings of the commission, but the Committee will not have sight of the report until the Home Secretary is ready to pass it on.
      Mr. Lord, I have made the point; I shall not attempt to repeat it or to rephrase it, because you would accuse me of tedious repetition, as you have had occasion to do in
      686
      the past—perhaps on a Friday. I urge the Minister to let the Library receive a copy of the report at the same time as the Home Secretary receives it.
      Furthermore, I suggest that we should debate the report within one month of its receipt. There is nothing magical about the period of one month; I should be happy to accept six weeks or two months. However, I should not be happy for the report to lie on the shelf gathering dust. The House should debate such reports expeditiously, while they are still fresh from the printers and the commission.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Maclean: I happily give way to my hon. Friend; I hope that he will make the point that I anticipate.
      Mr. Winterton: Perhaps I shall go further than my right hon. Friend. If, as he says, those reports are critical to the House, why should they not be delivered to the House, rather than merely placed in the Library? I hope that my right hon. Friend will point out that the House has as much right to see the reports as the Secretary of State.
      Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was trying to be clever, if I may say so. I was moving an amendment that I knew the Minister would have to accept. He would appear to be dishonourable and a bounder if he did not accept my modest amendment. However, if I went as far as my hon. Friend suggests, the Minister might have an excuse—on advice—not to accept it.
      I admit that the amendment is not momentous. It will not change parliamentary history; it is a modest little mouse of an amendment. That is why no Minister could possibly reject it without appearing foolish.
      The point that debate should take place in the House is also important. I mean that the debate should take place in the Chamber. I do not want a commitment from the Minister that the Government would be happy to have the matter debated within a couple of months in some other funny establishment. I do not want it debated in the bongo-bongo parish council chamber above the cafeteria; I want it debated in the proper Chamber of the House of Commons—not in that funny thing across the Corridor. I do not want it debated in that semi-circular Chamber, which is not attended by anyone who has a proper job to do, although it is chaired admirably by senior Members of the House. Such an important report must be debated in the proper Chamber, not in the plastic one. I am sure that the Minister would agree that, if he were minded to accept the amendment, this Chamber would be the proper place for the debate.
      Amendment No. 38 would delete that part of clause 5 that prevents the commission from reporting on the distribution of Short money in the Scottish Parliament, or the holding of referendums by the Scottish Parliament, or by the Welsh or Northern Ireland Assemblies. Given that those functions would involve money allocated by the Treasury, why should the commission be prevented from reporting on them, or the House from debating them? I know that the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly may wish to hold their own debates, but that money comes from the United Kingdom Treasury, and in those

      687
      circumstances surely this Parliament—still a Parliament of the United Kingdom although it may be unbalanced because of the constitutional changes that the Government have made—has the right to debate these matters.
      9.15 pm
      It is vital that the Electoral Commission, with its responsibility to report generally on the conduct of referendums in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland and the conduct of the elections there, is not prohibited from debating the allocation of Short money in those countries of the United Kingdom. I find that prohibition inexplicable. I shall not labour the point—I am about to conclude my remarks—but I should like to know the Government's reasoning.
      It is useless to read the explanatory notes, which simply say that the provision prevents consideration of the Short money. I can figure that out for myself, but I want to know the rationale. What political judgment led the Minister to ask his officials to instruct the parliamentary draftsman to prevent the commission from reporting on the Short money?
      Amendment No. 38 is exploratory and aims to discover the political thinking underlying the Government's phraseology in subsection (3). Amendment No. 37 is a modest little amendment, which would simply give the House sight of reports that the commission that the House is establishing may make. Although I am certain that the Minister will not be able to accept amendment No. 38, I look forward to his acceptance of amendment No. 37 in due course.
      Mr. Grieve: My right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) has done the Committee a good service because it is difficult to imagine how the Minister could resist amendment No. 37. I assumed, perhaps rather blithely, that I might have tabled a similar amendment to the effect that any report to the Secretary of State would immediately be placed in the Library. However, I must accept that, these days, one does not necessarily go with the other. We know from events in the past two weeks alone that the publication of reports to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is delayed for a week until the time is thought to be more opportune for them to be given over to the public—something which, at the time, I found very difficult to accept.
      As I cannot conceive of any grounds for failing to make such a report available to the House immediately, I am sure that the Minister would agree that amendment No. 37 or something very similar should be acceptable. I am afraid that the Minister does not look all that hopeful, but perhaps he will provide me with some reassurance about that in a moment. If not, I believe that the Committee is entitled to know why not, because, if there are no good grounds, it is far better that that should be spelt out than that, at some subsequent date, a Secretary of State—of whichever party—should come up with an ingenious argument as to why that information should not be made available. I am sure that the Minister will also agree that the principle of debating such a report is a good one.
      I found amendment No. 38 far more challenging. I confess that my first reaction on reading it was that it would impinge on devolved matters. However, dare I
      688
      suggest to the Minister that it might be possible to view that amendment as capable of being split into two parts? It appears to me that subsection (3)(a)—
      "the funding of political parties under section 97 of the Scotland Act 1998"—
      is clearly capable of being differentiated from subsection (3)(b), which follows it. Subsection (3)(b) obviously relates to matters that have been devolved and, 1 believe, would create problems concerning the devolution settlement. However, I am bound to tell the Minister that the funding of political parties under section 97 of the Scotland Act 1998 appears to be in a rather grey area. I have a copy of the Scotland Act 1998, section 97 of which says:
      "Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for the Parliamentary corporation to make payments to registered political parties"
      in the Scottish context.
      Where does that provision stand in terms of devolution? It is at least arguable that if, as my right hon. Friend has said, the money comes from here, it must be capable of scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee. Where precisely does the dividing line run? If the matter is not fully devolved but pertains to moneys that have been passed over, it is at least possible to argue that the House should retain control. Whether it follows that the Electoral Commission should be a legitimate subject of inquiry is a matter that I want the Minister to clarify.
      Because the holding of elections, including elections to the Scottish Parliament, will be subject to the Electoral Commission's scrutiny, it is odd that the provision of Short money, which does not come out of the block grant, is not also subject to its scrutiny. If there is an explanation for that, I should be grateful if the Minister would provide it. Otherwise my right hon. Friend's questions on that matter—as opposed to those about clause 5(3)(b)—will have considerable force.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I do not disagree greatly with the spirit at least of the first limb of amendment No. 37. In establishing the Electoral Commission, the Government have consistently stressed their desire to establish a body that is directly accountable to Parliament rather than to the Executive.
      Nevertheless, I question whether the amendment is necessary or even appropriate. There can be no great objection to the proposed requirement that a report submitted to the Secretary of State be deposited on the same date in the House of Commons Library. However, given that the Secretary of State has to form a view on the report, it might help the House to hear his view when it receives a report. That need not take more than a few days, and even that might not be necessary. On a technical matter, the Secretary of State may not need to express a view. Those are the issues that we must consider.
      I tend towards the view that the Electoral Commission should itself determine the extent and means by which its work is made available both to Parliament and to the wider public. In practice, I fully expect the commission to publish any reports that it produces in accordance with clause 5 and to make them freely available, including to the House of Commons Library. That is my approach to the matter.
      Reports from the Electoral Commission may on occasion cause concern and may even concern matters of public controversy. It would not be in the interests of the

      689
      Executive to hold up their publication and, in those circumstances, the Electoral Commission might take the view that a report should be published immediately. We have no problem with that.
      In principle, I do not disagree with the point made in the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). However, given that the nature of the reports may vary, we should leave it to the Electoral Commission to decide when to publish them. On some occasions, it may not want to publish immediately or it may want to send a report to the Secretary of State so that he can form a view. It will then publish it within a prescribed time. On technical matters, it may decide to place a report in the Library of the House of Commons because the number of people who want to read it may be very limited.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the Minister differentiate between the House of Commons Library and the House itself? Any important report should be deposited not only in the Library but in the Vote Office so that it is available to all Members of the House straight away.
      Mr. O'Brien: There is certainly a distinction, as we saw with the report on the Stephen Lawrence case. The Secretary of State had to publish that report to Parliament in order to get it published, and there was a great deal of public interest in it.
      We can, to some extent, leave it to the Electoral Commission to ensure that reports are made available in an appropriate way. If it thinks that a report is extremely important because it has been the subject of public controversy, it will tell the Secretary of State that he can have the report on a certain day and ask him to publish it immediately, in which case it should be available in the Vote Office. Other reports may be so technical in interpreting a particular clause of the electoral procedures that although they would no doubt be of great interest to electoral registration officers they would not be a matter for great debate even by Members of Parliament.
      I have no problem, in principle, with the reports being published immediately, if that accords with the view of the Electoral Commission and its advice to the Secretary of State. However, I have more difficulty with the proposal that each and every one of the reports should be the subject of a debate in the House within one month of its being presented to the Secretary of State.
      It is possible that, once the commission gets into its stride, it will frequently report on various matters. Some of those reports may concern matters that are absolutely central to the workings of this place and the electoral system, but others may, as I have already said, be so technical that the people who would be seriously interested in debating them may be limited to one or two in the country.
      Requiring those reports to be debated by this place—in the Chamber, no less—may be going over the top in seeking accountability for the commission. Some of the reports will be merely administrative and I doubt that many Members, with the exception of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), will want to debate them. I suspect that that right hon. Gentleman can find a great deal to debate about most matters, and is proud of it, too.
      690
      The best approach is that the House should decide on a case-by-case basis, through the usual channels, whether the commission's reports merit a debate. I do not anticipate any need for the House to wait long to debate any of the reports.
      As to amendment No. 38, clause 5(3) places a number of matters outside the commission's remit. I remind the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border that the matters specified in the subsection are devolved, and as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) indicated, it is for the appropriate devolved bodies to keep those matters and the related law under review. It is possible that, in doing so, those authorities may seek advice or guidance from the commission. Clause 8 provides for the commission to respond to a request for such advice, so it may well then take those matters on board at the request of the devolved authority. It would be contrary to the principles governing devolution to place a duty on the commission to keep those matters under review.
      I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about section 97 of the Scotland Act 1998, but the spirit of the Act is that this should be a devolved matter. That point would arguably be moot in legal terms, as he suggests, but where the spirit of the legislation shows that this should properly be regarded as a devolved matter, that should be the case.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Grieve: I was afraid for one moment that the Minister was going to skate over that issue and not to provide an answer, so I am grateful to him for doing so, but it raises a difficult issue, as he may agree. I appreciate the spirit behind the measure, but we are talking about money for which, ultimately, the UK Parliament is responsible.
      Mr. O'Brien: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but part of accepting devolution is accepting that matters need to be decided by the devolved bodies. Although it is true that some of the funding that goes through the devolved bodies and is expended by them comes from the House of Commons, it should be the devolved body, rather than the House, that allocates some of that funding. The spirit behind section 97 is that it was and is regarded as a devolved matter. Although the money comes through this place, it should be dealt with as a devolved matter.
      Mr. Grieve: To make the point clear, we are not suggesting that the UK Parliament should usurp the role and tell the Scottish Parliament how to do it. All we are saying is that the Electoral Commission should be entitled to comment.
      Mr. O'Brien: The Electoral Commission would be entitled to comment should the devolved authority decide to refer the matter to it under clause 8, so there is a provision that would allow the commission to become seized of the issue, report on the matter and then refer it back to here, but what we need to do, particularly as we are in the early stages of devolution and the development of a constitution along those lines, is to have a little respect for the prerogatives of the devolved authorities and to say that, although the House created those authorities, we respect their ability to run their own affairs. We interpret section 97 of the Scotland Act in that spirit.

      691
      I hope that, having heard my points, the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
      Mr. Maclean: I have listened carefully to the Minister, who has been kind and courteous as usual. He will be familiar with the words in Hansard of 11 February, column 568, when he said—I paraphrase: "We have had very helpful interventions, in this case, from the right hon. Members for Bromley and Chislehurst and for Penrith and The Border, which we respond to with gratitude. We are grateful for their assistance and concern." Those words were uttered on Friday; you had left the Chair by that stage, Mr. Lord. I had hoped that the Minister would repeat those words in the debate on my amendments. However, he has come close to doing so.
      I am disappointed with the Minister's response to amendment No. 38. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has made some valid points. We are not seeking to usurp the rights of the Scots or anyone else. All we are seeking to do is to ensure that, when the UK Parliament has made the financial allocation, the Electoral Commission should have the right to comment without the Scots saying, "We will allow you to comment on this one." The Electoral Commission should have that right of itself, without having to seek permission from the body getting the money.
      On amendment No. 37, I accept the point about debating reports in the House. I will happily not pursue that part of the amendment. On the first part of the amendment, I was delighted to hear the Minister say that he accepted the spirit of it and what it sought to achieve. Then he said that his preferred approach would be to leave it to the commission. On some occasions, it may wish to give a report to the Home Secretary. On other occasions, it may wish to give it to Parliament and the Home Secretary, or to publish it. It may think that it is boring technical stuff, so it should be sent to the local government boring technical fellow to deal with.
      I accept that as a principle. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will tell me that he will be back with an amendment to put that in the Bill. As he was speaking, I thought that, in that case, we simply should amend the first lines of clause 5. It says:
      "The Commission shall keep under review, and from time to time submit"—
      Mr. O'Brien: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Maclean: Let me finish my point. I merely suggest that, instead of stating:
      "The Commission shall … submit reports to the Secretary of State",
      the clause should read, "the Commission shall publish as it sees fit" those reports.
      Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Gentleman persuades me that we might do well to table an amendment. I do not think that there is much of a difference between us in principle: he has accepted my argument and I have come half way to meet him. I hope that he will leave the matter with me and allow the Committee to proceed on that basis.
      Mr. Maclean: I am overwhelmed—absolutely overwhelmed. There are some cynics who believe that,
      692
      when my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and I propose amendments, we are trying to damage Government legislation. Yet, on Friday, the Minister accepted the spirit of our amendments and, tonight, he is doing the same. We are all working together in an inclusive Government. I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 6

      COMMISSION TO BE CONSULTED ON CHANGES TO ELECTORAL LAW
      Mr. Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 4, line 30, after 'Commission', insert—
      ', and secure its approval'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 26, in page 5, line 10, after 'Commission', add—
      'and the Commission's approval has been given'.
      Mr. Walter: The amendment deals with the powers and functions of the commission and addresses the question of what constitutes a consultative role, a role of making recommendations and a role of giving approval.
      I refer the Committee's attention to recommendation 72 of the Neill report, which states:
      "The Commission should have a duty to advise the Government on the modernisation and revision of electoral law. The Government should consult the Commission before making or proposing any changes relating to electoral law and administration."
      The thinking behind that recommendation is set out in paragraph 11.5(1), which states of the commission's roles:
      "One will be its monitoring and recommending role. As Dr. David Butler and others have pointed out, we lack at the moment in this country a body charged with monitoring the conduct of elections and referendums and with making recommendations concerning their future conduct, including any necessary changes in the law. In this connection, the new Electoral Commission would play roughly the same role as the existing Law Commission."
      It adds:
      "In our view, the Government should be required to consult the Commission before itself bringing forward any proposals for changes in electoral law and administration."
      Our amendment goes further, stating that, after consulting the commission, the Government should secure its approval, or wait for the commission's approval to be given, before proceeding.
      We do not believe that the Government or the Secretary of State should have the power to consult the commission and then dismiss its views, nor that the Government should be able to listen and then act according to their own whim or view of their duty. During debates on previous amendments, we have stated our belief that there should be a powerful and independent commission. The key is to make the approval of the commission necessary before the Secretary of State lays before the House recommendations of his own. The commission should not be regarded as a purely advisory body.
      The commission is not, in this context, an executive body; although it has executive roles in other respects, it does not in any way supersede the powers of Parliament.

      693
      It is not the Government, nor does it stand above Parliament. However, it should be the commission, through the Secretary of State, that makes recommendations to Parliament. Therefore, we believe it is important to strengthen the role of the commission by amending the Bill as we suggest.
      Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) prays in aid the Neill commission; in fairness to the House, he told us that the Neill commission merely said that we should consult on these matters. The hon. Gentleman rightly told us that the amendment would give the power to get the agreement of the commission.
      There is a distinction between clauses 6 and 7. I direct the Committee's attention to clause 6, which deals with matters on which the commission must be consulted. Under clause 7, a Minister may proceed only on the recommendation of the commission. If the amendment were accepted, there would be little difference between the provisions of the two clauses, and the need to obtain the recommendation or the approval of the commission.
      The matters set out in clause 6(2) are ones on which Ministers should proceed, as a last resort, even without the approval of the commission. For example, subsection (2)(a) covers regulations relating to European parliamentary elections. Clearly, we must have European elections. Some hon. Members may argue strongly against them, but we must have them. It is right that Ministers should consult, but even if there is disagreement with the commission, they should have the power to lay the necessary order.
      There is ample precedent throughout our legislation for a duty to consult. Consultation implies considerable expectations of the Government. If they consult, they are under an obligation to consider the views expressed. Moreover, any order under clause 6 would have to be brought before the House. Once the commission had been consulted, hon. Members would be entitled to ask why Ministers' views were at variance with its views.
      There is an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny, but ultimately the elections will have to take place. It is therefore appropriate for Ministers to consult and to make the order with the advice of the commission. I hope that that explains the difference between clauses 6 and 7, and that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied.
      Mr. Walter: I hear what the Minister says. He suggests that we should be content with the existing wording. He referred to the subsection relating to the European elections in clause 6, but clause 7 also contains a subsection relating to the European elections, with regard to the limitation of expenses.
      I am not entirely convinced by the Minister's arguments about the difference between clauses 6 and 7 in terms of the powers of the commission, but, mindful of the fact that we need to make progress, and that there may be more pressing amendments ahead of us this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 8

      GIVING OF ADVICE AND ASSISTANCE
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 8, page 5, line 35, leave out 'on request'.
      The words "on request" are appropriate in the context of subsection (1), but do not fit the intention behind this provision. As well as enabling the Electoral Commission to provide general advice and assistance—for example on points of law or procedure—to electoral administrators, political parties and others, subsection (3) is the mechanism whereby the commission can promote best practice. To do that, it must be able to give advice on its own initiative, and not be restricted to providing advice only on request. We expect the commission to use the provision to disseminate best practice guidance to the registration and returning officers and to assist them in raising the standards for discharging their functions to the best.
      The commission might be expected to use its powers under the clause to ensure that accounting and political parties' other practices meet the minimum standard that the Bill and subordinate instruments require. The amendment would allow the commission to advocate best practice on its own initiative rather than at the request of others.
      Mr. Walter: I shall not delay our proceedings for long. We are anxious that if the phrase "on request" is removed, and the provision reads:
      "The Commission may also provide advice and assistance to registration officers, returning officers … registered parties, recognised third parties",
      that implies that the commission may intervene. It contains a suggestion of rights of entry and of the commission being a little bossy about the way in which registered parties and recognised third parties conduct their affairs. I should like the Minister to reassure us that the commission's provision of advice and assistance will be limited to best practice.
      Mr. Tipping: The amendment is designed to raise everyone's standards to the best. It is in the interests of political parties to do that. However, if one political party chooses not to take the advice, and my colleagues in the Labour party take it, I say hurrah to that. The amendment is not prescriptive.
      Mr. Walter: As the Minister knows, throughout the Committee proceedings, we have tried to provide for improving standards and reaching a point at which everyone is cognisant of best practice. We are a little anxious about interference. I hope that the Minister will take note of that when he advises the Electoral Commission.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Clause 8, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 9

      BROADCASTERS TO HAVE REGARD TO COMMISSION'S VIEWS ON PARTY POLITICAL BROADCASTS
      Mr. Martin Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 42, leave out from 'broadcasts' to end of line 2 on page 7.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 10, in page 7, line 4, at end insert—

      695
      '(4) Nothing in this section shall be construed as affecting the ultimate responsibility of the ITC, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Radio Authorities or Sianel Pedwar Cymru for their respective services.'.
      Mr. Linton: Amendment No. 11 would leave out four lines of the clause for reasons that might appeal to Opposition Members: we should not include in law matters that best remain unwritten. However, I am moving the amendment at such a late hour—
      Mr. Forth: A late hour?
      Mr. Linton: It is much later than I expected, and I doubt whether the hour appeals to my hon. Friend the Minister.
      We are often told that the best thing about our constitution is that it is unwritten. Hon. Members know that that is not entirely true. The party political broadcast is a good example of the way in which our election law has grown organically and remains partly informal and voluntary. Although the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority have a legal obligation to carry party political broadcasts, the BBC broadcasts them by convention, not by law. That also applies to Sianel Pedwar Cymru.
      That convention was not even imposed on the BBC, but volunteered by Lord Reith who was offered £100 by Churchill to make a broadcast and told him, "You can't pay, but you can have it for free." Ever since, the political parties have made election and party political broadcasts. For 25 years they were run by a shadowy organisation called the Committee on Party Political Broadcasting, which consisted of the broadcasters, the Whips and the usual channels. I refer to it as shadowy because it was known to have met only once in those 25 years, at the prompting of the Alliance in 1983. Matters are now on a much sounder footing, as my hon. Friend the Minister knows, and the broadcasters and the political parties meet regularly to discuss the issues.
      Amendment No. 11 has been tabled essentially to protect the broadcasters against the possibility of judicial review. They are not worried about the parties represented in Parliament, and the arguments almost always concern parties not represented in the House and detailed questions such as the threshold for a party political broadcast, how long it should be, when it should be broadcast and at what time. Were we to go into detail, we should rapidly get out of our depth; my point is that the electoral commissioners and the judges would do the same. These issues are best left as far as possible to the broadcasters and the parties. The broadcasters clearly must "have regard to" the views of the commission, but should be left to make the detailed decisions.
      Amendment No. 10 represents an assurance to broadcasters—it makes it clear that ultimate responsibility would still lie with them—and would provide protection against litigiousness, which might otherwise arise. There could be endless argument about whether a party political broadcast offended the Race Relations Act 1976, which affected a case involving a British National party broadcast, or whether it is defamatory, around which an argument about a Sinn Fein party political revolved. There might also be argument about whether a broadcast was decent and in good taste. A famous ProLife Alliance party political was turned down on that basis.
      696
      The broadcasters and the parties can decide those issues with the minimum legal guidelines. If the length of a broadcast were subject to the law as the Bill proposes, it would be easy for the parties to push for the 30-second killer broadcasts that became notorious in the Bush-Dukakis contest. Party political broadcasts used to be seen as a turn-off—the time when people went into the kitchen to make the coffee—but that view is increasingly out of date. More and more money is spent on slick production, but the main reason why we should protect them is that they are a million times better than the alternative, which is paid television advertising.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Linton: I shall make progress, if I may.
      One has only to cross the Atlantic to see the effect of such advertising. The party political broadcast is a delicate flower that we must protect. It can be killed by too much legislation as well as too little. The amendments defend the traditional, informal approach and I urge the Minister to accept them or to at least reconsider the wording of the Bill.
      Mr. Grieve: The hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) knows from the many hours that we have spent in the Standing Committee that we do not always see eye to eye on these matters, although I pay tribute to his assiduity in identifying key issues for us to consider. In this case, he has a good point.
      There is a certain tentativeness in Lord Neill's consideration of broadcasting. Having reviewed it, he said in paragraph 13.22 of his report:
      "In connection with both the future of party election broadcasts and party political broadcasts … and also their allocation among the parties, we believe there may be a role for our proposed Election Commission. The Commission could express non-binding views on such matters as those raised by the broadcasting authorities' consultative document; and the political parties and the broadcasters might find it mutually advantageous if the Election Commission played an 'honest broker' role in connection with the allocation of the available free air-time."
      That sounds wonderfully bland and high-minded, but I rather fancy that it does not exactly deal with the reality of the situation.
      Party political broadcasts and election broadcasts are highly sensitive, and someone must carry the can if they go wrong. Given that judicial review proceedings have previously been brought against the broadcasters for their failure to meet the requirements of various political parties, is there not a real danger, given the way in which the clause has been formulated, that if it is left as it is the focus of attention will shift from the broadcasters to the Electoral Commission?
      If that is the result of the Bill as it stands, the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea may have some force. Although they clearly require the broadcasters to pay some attention to the Electoral Commission, they would, on the face of it, remove the taint in the clause suggesting that it is the Electoral Commission that should be judicially reviewed.
      Amendment No. 11 would delete the reference to consulting the Electoral Commission on
      "the political parties on whose behalf such broadcasts may be made"—

      697
      a subject that is likely to raise sensitive issues—
      "and … the length and frequency of the broadcasts".
      It may be better to let the broadcasting companies and the BBC face the music from the disenchanted political party, rather than allow the Electoral Commission to be exposed to legal proceedings because it has strayed into an area where it should not have been.
      I should be grateful to the Minister if he would tell the Committee how he views this matter.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), which have considerable practical merit. Party political broadcasts have evolved like Topsy in an informal but constructive way over a long period. I do not believe that an Electoral Commission has the qualifications to determine how to get the balance right. We would do the commission a favour if we did not get it drawn into this area.
      The hon. Member for Battersea raised the alarming spectacle of judicial review, which we have managed to avoid in this context. In Committee, the Minister detailed the proliferation of small political parties that are growing almost by the day in this country, so I do not have to remind him that they would see this as a great opportunity to paralyse the whole process, which could lead who knows where. That is the point.
      The system is not broke, so we should not fix it. There is an established convention, but that does not mean that there are no rows or disagreements. Heaven knows, my party has had many complaints about balance and share, as have other parties in the House and outside. However, there is no evidence to suggest that the existing mechanism does not manage to resolve those problems. The broadcasters recognise that they have a wide audience. Political parties also have influence over the broadcasters, which can be brought to bear in different ways.
      Will the Minister address that point? Does he accept that placing an obligation on the Electoral Commission to be responsible to the political parties for securing balance is to open up the possibility of legal difficulties, which we could all do without?
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I find myself in considerable sympathy with the amendments.
      It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
      Committee report progress.
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
      That, at this day's sitting, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Question agreed to.
      Again considered in Committee.
      Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
      Mr. Winterton: Mr. Lord, I have very little to repeat of what I said before 10 o'clock, except to say that I find myself in very considerable sympathy with amendments Nos. 10 and 11—which were positively and articulately moved by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton)
      698
      and which, interestingly, were supported by the Opposition spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and by the Liberal Democrats' spokesman, the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce). I too believe that if something ain't broke, we should not go about fixing it. The present system does work, and the hon. Member for Battersea has made an excellent point.
      I do not wish to bring a note of political controversy into the debate, but I hope that, in his reply, the Minister will give us his definition of a party political broadcast. I should like to pose a simple question. If a countryside soap—let us call it "The Archers"—were being broadcast during a general election period, and if that programme were similar to an episode of "The Archers" which was broadcast not very long ago and related to the Government's agricultural policies—many of us believe that that episode could certainly have been described as a party political broadcast—might the Electoral Commission have something to say about it? Conversely—as the hon. Member for Battersea rightly said—should we leave it to the Independent Television Commission and to the BBC and the other broadcasters to keep their own house in order?
      As I said, I do not ask that question to be politically controversial or provocative, as the whole tenor and temperature of our debates has been enjoyable and admirable. We simply seek to get Ministers to understand some of the problems in the legislation. It would be most helpful if the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, the very agreeable hon. Member for Sherwood (Mr. Tipping), could direct at least some of his reply to dealing with that point.
      Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for tabling amendments Nos. 10 and 11, which, as hon. Members have said, raise important issues. The Committee has had a chance to debate those issues.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) asked me to define a party political broadcast. My definition is not the same as that used by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea in moving the amendments. He called party political broadcasts "delicate flowers" that must be protected. I am a regular watcher of party political broadcasts, and I would never call them delicate flowers.
      I also had the opportunity to hear the episode of "The Archers" to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield referred. As someone who has a great deal to do with the countryside, I must confess that I raised my eyebrows at the account in the programme of the Prime Minister's speech to the National Farmers Union. The account did not seem to bear much relationship to the content of my right hon. Friend's speech. Of course, that was not a party political broadcast in the sense in which that term is understood.
      The Neill committee's comments on the role of the Electoral Commission on party political broadcasts are set out in paragraph 13.22. The report says:
      "In connection with both the future of party election broadcasts and party political broadcasts … and also their allocation among the parties, we believe that there may be a role for our proposed Election Commission. The Commission could express non-binding views on such matters as those raised by the broadcasting authorities".
      I stress the words "non-binding views". The Electoral Commission has a wide remit and it would not be inappropriate for it to have a role in the formulation of

      699
      the broadcasters' policy on party political broadcasts, but that role should be purely advisory. Clause 9 merely requires the BBC, the Independent Television Commission, S4C and the Radio Authority to have regard to any views expressed by the Electoral Commission, but the ultimate responsibility for party political broadcasts rests entirely with the broadcasters.
      Mr. Grieve: If that is the case, why go into such detail in the clause?
      Mr. Tipping: I shall offer the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea some succour on the matter.
      It might help the Committee if I explained the purpose of subsection (3)(b), which amendment No. 11 would remove. The wording is derived from sections 36 and 107 of the Broadcasting Act 1990, which provide that the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority may determine which political parties qualify for party political broadcasts, and the length and frequency of such broadcasts. By inserting the same formulation in subsection (3) we ensure that there is consistency as between the BBC and the ITC and that there is a focus for the Electoral Commission in offering its views.
      The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea have expressed doubts. On reflection, the words may not be quite right. I am prepared to look at them again, but in this or some other guise they perform an important function. We shall return to the issue.
      I am a little unsure about the aim of amendment No. 10. The commission's role is confined to offering non-binding views. The ultimate responsibility for the content of broadcasts clearly rests with the broadcasters. Any amendment asserting that principle is therefore unnecessary.
      Given the concerns that have been expressed tonight and directly by the BBC about the wording of the clause, we are prepared to take a fresh look. Subject to any necessary drafting changes, the clause reflects the Neill committee's proposals. It is right that the Electoral Commission should have a role, but not one that could bring it before the courts facing judicial review. With those assurances, I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the amendment.
      Mr. Linton: Following that explanation of the intention behind the clause and the promise to examine the wording again, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10

      POLICY DEVELOPMENT GRANTS
      Mr. Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 7, line 16, leave out from 'party' to end of line 20.
      700
      Having achieved almost embarrassing consensus on the previous amendment, with the agreement of all three parties—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton)—I now intend to throw it all away with an amendment that is essentially about Sinn Fein. The amendment would allow any party with at least two Members in the House of Commons to qualify for policy development grants.
      The Bill stipulates that the two Members should have taken the Oath and should not be disqualified from voting or sitting. Of the nine parties with more than two sitting Members, that excludes only Sinn Fein, and I do not think that we have any right to do that. It is one thing to deny House of Commons facilities to a party whose representatives do not attend the House, but quite another to maintain that a party whose members do not take the Oath does not need policy development.
      I speak not from any sympathy with Sinn Fein, but first because Sinn Fein is in great need of policy development, and secondly because we have no right to deny it the grants that will go to the rest of us. We are talking about state funding, even if at a very low level. In Germany, state funding was started in 1959 by Konrad Adenauer, a Christian Democrat. It is a great shame that the Christian Democrats' sister party in this country has taken so long to see the benefits of that courageous decision.
      Political education was funded in Germany in 1959, and research institute funding began in 1962. Soon after, the constitutional court in Karlsruhe found that state funding cannot be restricted to parties in Parliament, as that would be like a conspiracy between those parties to keep the others out, behaving classically like the first pigs at the trough.
      It is widely believed that the Neill report came out against state funding, but it did not, not only because there is state funding in kind in the Neill report—and already extant—and not only because policy development grants were promised, but because the committee said:
      "We can envisage circumstances in which substantially increased state funding of the political parties—including the funding of their general activities—might become imperative. But we do not believe that that time has come yet."
      The committee was saying that policy development grants should be the first step and that it would be for another Parliament to decide whether we should go further.
      We need to ensure from the beginning that any state funding is constitutionally fair to all the parties. The notion that one cannot have a grant if one has not sworn allegiance to the Queen would be laughed out of any court. Would a republican party be denied policy development grants because it did not believe in the monarchy? What about a secessionist party that did not want to swear allegiance to the British Crown?
      Amendment No. 5 would simply increase the upper limit on the grants from £2 million to £10 million. I thank—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are dealing only with amendment No. 4. Amendment No. 5 will be considered in a separate debate.
      Mr. Linton: Thank you, Mr. Lord. I have finished my remarks on amendment No. 4.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: Rather surprisingly, I find myself in agreement with the

      701
      hon. Gentleman, for two reasons. The first is his rather frivolous point that the parties to which the amendment refers, albeit obliquely, are much in need of policy development. The second is more substantive—I do not agree with my Front Benchers on this, and have not done so for years—and concerns the Oath.
      10.15 pm
      I do not myself believe that the Oath in its present form should be used as the defining test for anything. It does not fully or properly reflect the obligations that we as Members of Parliament owe to the House of Commons or to the country. The time is coming when we should reassess the nature of the Oath so that it does fully and properly reflect those obligations. It does not at the moment, and therefore I do not wish to see it used as a precondition for the making available of public moneys.
      Mr. Stunell: The amendment is interesting and it challenges the Committee to consider the deeper issues. We believe that there should be easier and less controversial routes into the House for those who have been legitimately elected by their constituents. However, I am not persuaded that the amendment should be used to prosecute that point of view. The matter should be dealt with by changing the basis of the legislation concerning the entrance of Members to the House.
      The essence of the Neill committee's report on the issue was not about state funding for political parties, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) sought to persuade us, but about support for political parties in the House in their policy development work of testing legislation and bringing forward alternatives. The committee did not propose more widespread support for political parties in general with their policy development. The hon. Gentleman was a little over-generous in his interpretation of the Neill committee's recommendations, and the opportunity he seeks to take to change the basis of qualification for the use of facilities in the House—while I am sympathetic to it in principle—is probably out of place in the Bill. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the amendment, because there is a wider issue to do with the eligibility of elected Members to take their places in the House; but the amendment is not the way to secure change.
      Mr. Tipping: As my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said, amendment No. 4 would allow any party to which two or more Members of the House of Commons belonged to be allocated a policy development grant, irrespective of whether those Members had taken the Oath or were disqualified from sitting. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that the beneficiary of the amendment would be Sinn Fein.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) commented on the wider issue of the Oath, but I am inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that the wider issues should be debated at another time. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend's arguments, but I do not share his view that the Neill committee advocated universal state funding. Some funding will be available under the Bill, but it will be provided for political parties that operate in the House of Commons.
      Mr. Hogg: Why has the Minister fixed the threshold at two Members? As he knows, there is one party that is
      702
      represented by one Member, and while I have been a Member of Parliament there have been several occasions when a party has been represented by a single Member. Perhaps therefore the threshold should be a single Member.
      Mr. Tipping: There is not an awful lot of difference between one Member and two Members. [HoN. MEMBERS: "100 per cent."] They may make up in quality what they lack in quantity. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks why we chose two Members. My recollection is that it was because we use that benchmark for allocating Short money. I do not think that the issue amounts to a great deal.
      What is important is that the Neill committee recommended that policy development funding should be available for parties working in the House of Commons. It took the view that the day-to-day hurly-burly of the political agenda prevented House of Commons parties from developing long-term policies that they could include in their manifesto and put to the voters.
      Mr. Hogg: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm my belief that the Labour party was first represented by a single person in the House?
      Mr. Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman should look at the party's progress since then. I am constantly told that the majority party—the Labour party, in this case—has been extremely generous to the Opposition parties when it comes to Short money. That is a direct result of the efforts of the shadow Leader of the House; he pushed long and hard for that to happen, and achieved a good result.
      If we argue that money should be available for policy development for parties which are mainstream and take part in the House of Commons, it must apply only to those parties that are represented here. That is how we have arrived at our position. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea says about the need for Sinn Fein to develop its policies. In a sense, it is in the hands of Sinn Fein to resolve this matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will reflect on that.
      Mr. Tony Benn: I saw the debate on the television set upstairs, and was drawn down by the arguments that I heard, so I ask the Minister to forgive me. I have two difficulties with his argument. One is that the House should decide the political faith of people who seek to be represented. I am a republican, and I have to tell a lie to sit in Parliament. I greatly resent having to pretend that I am a monarchist in order to vote. Now that proceedings are televised, I have a little video clip of the words that I used. I said, "As a dedicated republican, and under protest, and solely to serve my constituents, I use the words of the Parliamentary Oaths Act 1866", and then I had to repeat the words of the Oath. It is offensive that no Member of Parliament who believes that his electors should have the right to elect a head of state is allowed to sit in Parliament.
      Secondly, the Oath is meaningless. A Privy Councillor takes a worse oath than the Oath of Allegiance. He has to swear to protect the Crown from foreign prelates, potentates and powers. If, by any chance, a Privy Councillor becomes a Commissioner in Brussels, he takes

      703
      another oath that he will take no notice whatever of any national Government. So Privy Councillors who go to Brussels, such as Neil Kinnock, Leon Brittan or Ivor Richard, break their oath in order to sit there.
      There is no oath in Brussels; there is no oath in the Northern Ireland Assembly that was. Nobody said that Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness could not be Ministers there without taking an oath. It is nonsense; it has nothing to do with the wider question of whether they should come here. I have talked to them, and they do not want to come here. They were elected on the basis that they would not. However, they are denied the facilities, and now we are told that other facilities, namely public funding—
      The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman goes too wide of the mark, I remind him that the amendment is specifically about policy development grants.
      Mr. Benn: In addition to being denied salary and expenses, they are denied the facilities, and they are now to be denied the money to develop their policies in a way that is relevant. So the House of Commons determines who is to serve in Parliament. That is wholly undemocratic. I can imagine the central committee of the Communist party saying, "You can stand for the Supreme Soviet, so long as you believe in the class struggle and the dictatorship of the proletariat." If that had happened, we would all have gathered to denounce it.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) is a moderate man who has made a passionate speech, but his passion has been quietened by the Minister's reply, so I cannot go into the Division Lobby on this point.
      Mr. Hogg: You could divide us.
      Mr. Benn: One Member is not enough, as the right hon. Gentleman has just proved.
      If one represents a point of view, and is a member of a party that has a couple of Members of Parliament, why on earth should one not enjoy the same rights as anyone else? It is the same as saying that they should not be allowed free distribution of envelopes in an election because they had not taken the Oath. The principle under discussion is wholly offensive, and I apologise for having come in so late to make that argument.
      Mr. Linton: When I became the Member for Battersea, I never expected to be part of a troika involving my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). If we three are the only ones on the right side of the argument, that does not devalue the argument one bit.
      I shall not press the amendment to a vote, but common sense or the law will eventually find that it is beyond the powers and rights of Parliament to deny money to parties or set preconditions on any political party represented here before it can enjoy the same rights as others. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 8, line 5, leave out '2' and insert '10'.
      The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 39, in page 8, line 7, leave out subsection (9).
      Mr. Linton: I am pushing my luck with this amendment, but I wish to make one further point on policy development grants, which the Neill committee proposed, with a convincing argument about why they should be paid. However, the committee also suggested that the eight parties that would qualify should share a £2 million kitty. I believe that that sum devalues the committee's argument. When it has been divided among that many parties, they will have little money with which to achieve the stated objective.
      The Neill report argued—Members on both sides will agree—that:
      "political parties … concentrate their resources on campaigning … at the expense of long-term policy development … Ministers become preoccupied with current crises and the sheer volume of government business … opposition parties … are also in continuous danger of being deflected from one of their principal tasks, which is to prepare for government in policy terms. The political parties themselves should be one of the major sources of ideas in British politics. They are not always so at present."
      The clarity of Neill's argument is matched by his understatement.
      I have a great interest in long-term policy development. I set up a long-term policy discussion group among new-intake Labour Members in 1997, and we have just produced a book on long-term policies for Labour with chapters by 14 Back Benchers. I am glad that the book is this month's bestseller at Politico's bookshop, which I can mention because I have no financial interest and because it is not a commercial proposition.
      The importance of long-term development is the reason for our putting so much effort into the book. We all know that for most Ministers the medium term is next week and the long term next month. It is difficult for Ministers, or political parties in power, to raise their sights to long-term policy development. However, the national policy forum has been created and is doing a lot of development work.
      Neill's logic breaks down on the sum of money that the report is prepared to give to long-term policy development. The report argues that the parties spent only £1.5 or £2 million on policy development in 1997. However, that was an election year, when one would not expect parties to spend much on policy development. In addition, no one believes that as little money as that was spent. The cost of the national policy forum and other such developments is far higher.
      If Neill really wants parties to spend more on long-term policy development, we should look not at offsetting what is currently spent, but at giving more money, ring-fencing it and forcing the parties to spend it on long-term policy development.
      10.30 pm
      In its evidence to Neill, the Labour party argued strongly that money should be made available for political education and policy development. Through the

      705
      Westminster Foundation for Democracy, the House already votes millions of pounds every year for training and long-term policy development in Ukraine, Uganda and every other country in the world apart from the United Kingdom. My plea is that we should give the same priority to policy development in political parties in this country.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. [Interruption.] Order. I appreciate the help from the Treasury Bench.
      Mr. Tony Benn: The issue is more important than the amount of money that is available and what it is used for. Last summer, my wife and I were in the United States, celebrating our golden wedding in Cincinnati, Ohio. I had breakfast with the World Affairs Council, where I met a retired Democratic governor from Ohio—an old Democrat, as opposed to a new one. He said, "In America, all political parties are bought". That was most significant. He said that big business gave money to both parties and expected returns from whoever won.
      There is a danger that that may happen in this country. Big business—Monsanto and all those others—will pay parties. I do not know whether they pay the Opposition or whether they pay the Labour party, but I should be surprised if they did not do so. It pays businesses to invest in both parties so that they will get a return from the one that wins.
      I have always had grave doubts about state funding, because of the restrictions that could be put on it—a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) when he spoke on the previous amendment. However, if we are to move away from the danger of collective corruption on a huge scale, we must realise that democracy needs funding. If a party wants to spend such funding on policy development, so much the better.
      However, most parties regard policy development as maintaining contact with their members to find out what they want. It is not so much to do with theoretical studies by think tanks—bodies of which I have some suspicion. Once, when the Cabinet was discussing public expenditure, I suggested that we cancel the think tank and think for ourselves. The joke was not considered funny.
      Parties need to maintain contact with their supporters and with everybody else. They need contact with their supporters to work out what should be in their policy statements, and with the public at large to try to persuade them to go along with those policies. If public funding is made available for that, so much the better.
      Given the amount of money involved in parties' public policy development, the idea that one could take a small sum and divide it between eight parties is laughable. The last thing that I want to do is to embarrass my hon. Friend by supporting him, but if he will make such persuasive speeches, he will have to forgive me for being drawn to support him, even though I have a horrible feeling that he is going to withdraw this amendment too.
      Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to break up the troika. I enjoyed its formation during the debate on the previous amendment, but on this occasion, there are at least two objections.
      706
      First, if we followed the advice of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton), we should find ourselves voting more and more money to that purpose. That is a most unpleasing prospect.
      Secondly—more to the point—we would be making money available for a particular political purpose; whether that money is granted to a political party is dependent on the decision of both the Secretary of State and the commission. That is an inherently corrupt way forward.
      I do not see why public money should be made available to political parties for policy development, if the making of such a grant is dependent on the decision of other politicians. That is a bad way forward.
      Mr. Stunell: I am willing to join the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) on this one, even if only as a substitute for the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). We should ask ourselves what lessons may be learned from the variety of evils that confront the political process in this country. The Bill as a whole tries to tackle the perceived evil—in the eyes of many of us, the real evil—of money coming from commercial and overseas interests without let or hindrance and without transparency. The amendment goes some way to providing an alternative legitimate mechanism, not without defects, but with serious and obvious benefits.
      The Liberal Democrats, in their evidence to the Neill committee, advocated a measure of state funding for political parties.
      Mr. Hogg: Is there not a difference between state funding for a political party—I have some sympathy with that—and the quite different proposition of funding for a policy development grant, because the latter depends on one's assessment of the policy?
      Mr. Stunell: We could have a wide-ranging debate on sensible priorities for a political party in the United Kingdom in developing its all-round vision of its strategy. Some of that would undoubtedly focus on developing policies that the party considered to be appropriate to lay before the electorate, and which an Opposition party could use to challenge the Government, or which a party could use to develop its ideas for the future if it was seeking a replacement manifesto. That would seem to be an entirely legitimate role and a legitimate area for support, which is exactly what the Neill committee proposed.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite right that, as reflected in our evidence to the Neill committee, we should have liked something wider. However, we are debating a specific proposal in the Bill and a specific amendment. I am arguing that the original proposition in the Bill is appropriate, and reflects what the Neill committee had to say, but the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Battersea takes it further, in the direction that I prefer.
      Those who do not want policy development grants, or who wish them to be restricted, must face up to what national parties' alternative sources of funding are. Some of them may prefer to retain the existing position, where sources of funding from overseas are not restricted; where sources of donations and funding from inside the United Kingdom are completely unrestricted; and where none of those donations is made transparent to the public. I do not

      707
      believe that that is what a majority of hon. Members want and, judging by the comments of Conservative Members in the Standing Committee, they now do not want that either.
      If one turns off that source and addresses the parallel issue that confronts us in the United Kingdom—reduced voter interest in participating in the democratic process at all levels—one has a triangle with two corners missing: no external funding, reduced participation by the general public in the democratic process and no alternative way of supporting the political parties' policy development and other activities. That is serious.
      This may be a comparatively small-scale amendment to a comparatively small part of the Bill, but if we do not address the overall shape of the funding of political parties in this country, we shall leave a legacy that will have to be revisited time and again.
      Mr. Christopher Gill: I oppose the amendment because I have a deal of sympathy with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who questions the need for policy development grants. If one looks at this from the viewpoint of the people who put us here, the electorate or the taxpayers, they might well think that it is a preposterous proposition that because they elect to Parliament people who have little idea of what they want to do, taxpayers must stump up further money to enable them to develop ideas—as if there was any shortage of ideas in politics anyway. A whole raft of lobbyists outside Parliament continually makes proposals and politicians do not even entertain the idea of considering many of them. Why are such proposals not considered? I submit that it is because we are generating an ever-growing class of professional politicians who are totally devoid of the common sense with which their electorate are imbued. The electorate regard this provision as untoward, unfortunate and unnecessary. We have been elected to the House, and if we do not have ideas from which we can develop policies for our parties, we do not deserve to be here in the first place.
      I return to my original point: it is preposterous for taxpayers, having elected us, to be expected to put their hands in their pockets so that we can develop policies. That is what they thought they had voted us here to do. For that reason, I oppose the amendment.
      Mr. Tipping: The Committee has been asked to judge the straightforward question of whether the figure for policy development grants should be £2 million, as set out in the Bill, or £10 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) suggested. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) did us a service by pointing out that that idea is an important step forward, but the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) have their reservations.
      The figures has been pitched at £2 million in part to reflect the anxiety that taxpayers and electors might have. However, more particularly, it was pitched at that level because that is the figure that the Neill committee recommended. However, what it should be is a matter of judgment.
      Mr. Hogg: I want to be sure that I clearly understand the clause. Am I right in thinking that the commission has
      708
      a discretion as to whether to recommend the making of a policy grant? As far as I can see from the Bill's language, the commission is not under a duty. If that is correct, the commission has a discretion as to whether to support a particular party or a particular policy. That is profoundly undemocratic.
      Mr. Tipping: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. It is important that partisan elements do not enter into the matter. If he examines the clause carefully, he will see that the commission will be asked to draw up a schedule—a scheme for the distribution of moneys.
      Mr. Hogg: It is a discretion.
      Mr. Tipping: It is a discretionary matter for the commission. It will have to draw up a scheme, consult and come forward with proposals.
      Earlier, the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked what would be the role of the Secretary of State. He will receive the report from the commission and lay it before Parliament. It is not our intention that politicians per se should have an influence on decisions about grants. I acknowledge that such decisions should be kept value free and, if possible, totally away from Members of Parliament and political influence.
      Whether the figure of £2 million or £10 million is right is a matter of judgment. I support the Neill committee's recommendation. It is right, because we are able to justify that sum of money. My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea referred to the cost of developing policies, but opposition parties have had the benefit of extra funding and that is important to enable them to draw up and develop policies. That is why I was delighted that the money available through the Short scheme was increased significantly.
      With that, I hope that the Committee will reflect carefully on the amendment and agree that £2 million is the right amount and £10 million is excessive. I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Linton: I am sorry to see this troika break up so soon after it got started. I understood that no discretion is allowed about whether a particular party should have the grant, and I welcome my hon. Friend's assurance.
      I shall not press the case for £10 million, because I doubt that it is in my hon. Friend's gift to come up with another £8 million tonight. However, if we want to turn our back on a situation in which political parties are dependent on millionaires for their funding, this is the road that we should follow, and it starts, as it has in every European country, with grants for research and development or political education. I am glad that we are starting down that road; I only wish that we were doing so more confidently.
      I impress on the Committee the irony of Conservative Members complaining bitterly about the very notion of taxpayers' money going towards policy development when the first politician in this country to benefit from taxpayers' money to develop her policies was the first recipient of Short money—Baroness Thatcher, who always said that she was against state funding. The ideas that we now know as Thatcherism were developed largely with public funds.

      709
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11

      EDUCATION ABOUT ELECTORAL AND DEMOCRATIC SYSTEMS
      Sir George Young: I beg to move amendment No. 29, in page 8, leave out line 10 and insert—
      '(a) the electoral systems in use for the time being in the elections mentioned in section 19(3).'.
      The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 40, in page 8, leave out line 10 and insert—
      '(a) the electoral system to be used for each election held in the United Kingdom;'.
      No. 41, in page 8, leave out line 11 and insert—
      '(b) the - systems of local government and national
      government in operation in the United Kingdom.'.
      No. 33, in page 8, line 11, after second 'government', insert—
      'in use in the United Kingdom'.
      No. 30, in page 8, line 11, leave out from second 'government' to end of line 12.
      No. 42, in page 8, line 12, at end insert—
      '( ) Any promotion of public awareness of electoral systems or systems of government under subsection (1) shall relate only to the electoral system that will be used at a particular election or the system of government to which the election is related, and shall not contain any material relating to alternative electoral systems or systems of government.'.
      No. 31, in page 8, leave out lines 22 to 26.
      No. 32, in page 8, line 28, leave out—
      '(whether by making grants or otherwise)'.
      Sir George Young: I return to an issue that I raised on Second Reading—the duties of the commission to promote. Clause 11 makes it clear that education is not an optional power for the commission, but a duty.
      The Neill committee did not envisage that function for the commission, and the Labour party did not propose that function in its evidence to the committee. Chapter 11 of the Neill report, which recommends the establishment of the commission, identified five roles for it: monitoring and recommending; an executive role registering the parties; an investigative role if something went wrong; an advisory role, mainly for political parties; and a narrow administrative role in the conduct of elections and referendums.
      The role allotted to the commission in this clause was simply not recommended by Neill. Indeed, the report goes further and warns the Government against dumping extra responsibilities on the commission. Paragraph 11.4 of Neill says:
      "We would only make the obvious point that the Election Commission cannot, as some of our witnesses seemed to believe, solve all problems and be a panacea for all ills. It is tempting, but not sensible, to say whenever in difficulty, 'Leave it to the Commission'. That is an approach we have sought to avoid in this report. Government, Parliament and others have to accept their responsibilities."
      710
      The clause is a major departure from the Neill report, and a measure that it warned against.
      Despite all that, in paragraphs 2.17 and 2.18 of their White Paper, Cm 4413, the Government sought to extend the Electoral Commission's remit. Not only did they want the commission to take over the existing work of Government Departments, such as encouraging people to register and reminding them when to apply for postal votes—I have no objection to that—but the draft Bill in the White Paper
      "places the Electoral Commission under a duty to promote public awareness of electoral systems and matters, and of systems of local and national government and of the institutions of the European Union."
      I understand that that is part of the Government's citizenship education proposals, but it is wholly inappropriate to place that duty with the commission. As drafted, the Bill brings the Electoral Commission—a fully independent body, free of any suspicion of political partisanship, to use the Government's own words—right into issues of the fiercest political controversy. That is why I am against clause 11. The public must perceive the body to be totally impartial, but it cannot control, monitor, assess and report at the same time as promoting matters of intense political controversy.
      Let me go through the provisions of clause 11(1). One deals with the promotion of public awareness of electoral systems and matters. Recently, the Jenkins commission report recommended a new electoral system: AV-plus. The Minister might like to tell the Committee what has happened to the commitment to a referendum on first past the post and AV-plus—does it remain a pledge, or is it just an aspiration?
      Is the commission's role to promote public awareness of AV-plus? I do not think that it should be, not least because the commission may be the referee in a referendum on that issue. If it had in advance of that referendum promoted awareness of AV-plus, it would clearly undermine public confidence in its neutrality.
      Is the commission's role to promote public awareness of other types of proportional representation? Is it to get involved in the heated debate about closed or open lists? We are not talking about informing people about the existing system, so that they understand how we are all elected—I personally would not object to that, although it goes beyond the commission's role as envisaged by Neill.
      The clause allows the commission—indeed, it gives it a duty—to promote awareness of electoral systems and matters generally. That invites it into sensitive political areas because some systems advantage some parties and disadvantage others. The job of informing and persuading the public about alternatives to the present voting system is not a matter for impartial public servants who sit on the commission.
      Clause 11(1)(b) refers to
      "systems of local government and national government"
      Is the commission to promote awareness of regional assemblies? Is it part of its remit to roll the pitch for a possible referendum on the establishment of such

      711
      assemblies in certain regions? As the Bill stands, it has a duty to do that. If it did that, how could it be neutral in a subsequent referendum on setting up a regional assembly?
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: It may assist the right hon. Gentleman if I say that, in terms of amendments Nos. 29, 40 and 42, we are not too far from him in principle. We might seek to bring something forward at a later stage.
      Sir George Young: I am enormously grateful to the Minister for indicating a degree of flexibility on the amendments. In the interests of making progress, I will not press the case on clause 11(1)(b) as much as I was going to, but I want to say something about clause 11(1)(c), which is about the European Union.
      The Committee may not be familiar with the Commission's preliminary draft budget for 2000. Nor until last week was I, but the Commission is to spend 45 million euros on general information and communication work concerning the European Union; that is less than half the budget of 103 million euros on information and communication. If one looks at the budget, one will see exactly how it is done. I quote from the European Commission budget document:
      "these measures are designed to be an effective channel of communication and dialogue between the people of the European Union and the Community Institutions. They take account of specific national and regional characteristics, in close co-operation with the Member State authorities."
      The point is simple: if through our taxes we were already paying for the European Commission to do that promotional job, why should it be duplicated through the work of the commission?
      Mr. Hogg: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would like to know that I support him on the matter. Will he also address the matter that is set out in clause 11(3)(b)? He will find that the commission has the power to make grants to other persons or bodies to carry out the purposes that are set out in subsection (1). That being so, the commission would have the power to make a grant to a body articulating a particular European view.
      Sir George Young: Let me deal quickly with the second half of the group of amendments, which deals with grants. I have made clear my belief that the clause is misconceived and I am delighted to hear that the Minister shares my view to some extent.
      Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 address the question of grants. To what sort of organisation is the commission to give money? Is it Charter 88 or the Electoral Reform Society? Both are highly reputable bodies, but neither is entirely neutral on the question of parliamentary election reform. It is difficult to think of any body to promote public awareness in that respect that is not in some way committed to one side of the argument. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) asked, will the commission give grants to pro-euro groups to promote awareness, and, if so, will it also give grants to anti-euro groups?
      The whole issue is a minefield. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts and concede at least some of the amendments.
      Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have already told the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that, on amendments Nos. 29, 40, 41 and 42, the distance between us is very small. Although we want there to be a debate on the Jenkins commission proposals, I want to make it clear that the Government do not intend that it should be for the Electoral Commission to promote public awareness of the relative merits of alternative voting systems.
      The commission must exist to ensure the integrity of our electoral arrangements, to encourage participation and to root out impropriety. In doing so, it must be seen to be impartial. It would be injurious to the perceived neutrality of such a body if it were seen to adopt a position on the question of alternative voting systems. The Government therefore accept in principle the thrust of those amendments. However, we want to reflect further on how the Bill might best be amended so as to clarify the point at issue. In view of the commitment to look at this further, I should be grateful if amendment No. 29 were withdrawn and amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42 not pressed.
      On amendments Nos. 31 and 32, it would be a pity if the Electoral Commission, in carrying out its educational role, were limited to what it could produce by its own efforts and prevented from harnessing the efforts of others. We envisage that the commission might want to make grants available to other organisations, such as the Citizenship Foundation. We acknowledge the fear that grants might go to politically partisan organisations with an axe to grind, but it is certainly not the intention to subsidise polemics. We think that we can rely on the commission's good sense.
      If the Commission's powers are circumscribed along the lines proposed in amendments Nos. 29, 40, 41 and 42, which I have in principle accepted, the scope of the grant-making power would automatically be contracted accordingly. Therefore, it would be outside the powers of the commission to make a grant to an organisation to enable it to promote alternative voting systems. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman is also content not to press amendments Nos. 31 and 32.
      It is important that the scope of the commission's voter education role should extend to explaining the institutions of the European Union to voters. One of the reasons why we have poor turnouts at elections is that people fail to see the relevance of the body being elected. That applies as much to the European Parliament as it does to local councils. Given the turnout at the last European elections, there is clearly much work to be done. I therefore urge the right hon. Gentleman not to press amendments Nos. 30 and 33.
      Mr. Maclean: It has been an extraordinary day: the Government have accepted, in principle, numerous amendments tabled by my right hon. and erudite Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and myself. It was certainly a first when, in a spirit of helpfulness and to ensure that the Committee proceeded at a reasonable pace, I decided not to speak to the amendments standing in my name and to let Ministers consider them as they stood. I have never before heard a Minister accept all my amendments even before I have spoken to them. It would therefore be ungracious of me to speak at any length now—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but I could be persuaded to do so.

      713
      It is kind of the Minister to speak in such glowing terms of amendments Nos. 40, 41 and 42. They are yet another series of amendments that the Government have decided are wise and acceptable to them. Ministers have realised that, without the amendments, we would be faced with a diabolical Bill. I am happy not to press the amendments standing in my name.
      11 pm
      Mr. Stunell: We oppose the amendments. We are sorry that the Government are moving to accept them, although we fully understand the reasoning that has been advanced. On another day and at an earlier time, there may be an opportunity to engage in the debate that we are all skirting around, about the relative merits of various voting systems.
      The shadow Leader of the House remarked that one system would advantage one party and disadvantage another. In the debate about electoral systems and in the philosophy underlying the Electoral Commission and the Bill, the essential element is the need to strike a balance, not just between different political parties but between different political interests in the United Kingdom. We lay great emphasis on the fair treatment and representation of the people of the United Kingdom, even if that sometimes costs parties the power and influence that they would like individually to exercise.
      The real issue to which the clause and the amendments are directed is whether the Electoral Commission can succeed in getting people more involved in and excited by politics. We must face the fact that people are increasingly disenchanted with the existing political process.
      Mr. Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend makes an important point. In the elections in Scotland nine months ago, in which there was a constituency vote and a list vote, electors had considerable difficulty understanding that the list vote did not require them to vote for a different party from that for which they voted in the constituency vote, if they did not wish to do so. People felt that they were obliged to vote for two different parties. It is right and proper that an Electoral Commission should advise people of their full rights of choice.
      Mr. Stunell: I agree with my hon. Friend, who has direct practical experience of the situation in Scotland. We all have direct practical experience of the impact of the European election results last year.
      One of the disadvantages of amendment No. 29 is that if the House were to examine the voting system used in the European elections, which I understand many Opposition Members want us to do, the Electoral Commission, by virtue of amendment No. 29, could not take part in explaining the new system.
      We are in danger of having a reverse section 28 debate which rules out any debate about electoral reform or change, and prevents the major institution established by the Bill from playing a part in that process.
      There are occasions when one knows that the House is not with one in these matters, but it is still necessary to say in the plainest and most direct terms that the draft legislation contained an opportunity which I am sorry to see the Minister withdrawing today.
      Mr. Hogg: The key difference between the views of the Opposition and the clause as formulated is this: we
      714
      have no objection to the commission being able to explain existing institutions, but we object to giving to the commission the power to institute debate about alternative systems.
      It would be churlish of me not to acknowledge that the Minister has said that he will review the matter. If he is prepared to meet the precise point articulated by the Opposition, I fancy that we will be content. If not, I fancy that his decision will be reversed in another place.
      Sir George Young: The Minister has been enormously helpful. He showered me with concessions before I had even reached the relevant part of my speech. I do not want to appear ungrateful, but he made no concessions on amendment No. 30, which he invited me to withdraw. My hon. Friends and I feel strongly about that amendment and, at the appropriate point, we would like to divide the House on it.
      I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Amendment proposed: No. 30, in page 8, line 11, leave out from second 'government' to end of line 12.—[Sir George Young.]
      The Committee divided: Ayes 126, Noes 309.

      Division No. 73]

      [11.5 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Amess, David

      Gray, James

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Green, Damian

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Greenway, John

      Baldry, Tony

      Grieve, Dominic

      Bercow, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Hammond, Philip

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hawkins, Nick

      Boswell, Tim

      Hayes, John

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Brady, Graham

      Horam, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Hunter, Andrew

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Burns, Simon

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Cash, William

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Chope, Christopher

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Clappison, James

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

      Leigh, Edward

      Collins, Tim

      Letwin, Oliver

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Cran, James

      Lidington, David

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Day, Stephen

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Loughton, Tim

      Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Duncan, Alan

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Evans, Nigel

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Faber, David

      Madel, Sir David

      Fabricant, Michael

      Malins, Humfrey

      Fallon, Michael

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Flight, Howard

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Fox, Dr Liam

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fraser, Christopher

      Nicholls, Patrick

      Gale, Roger

      Norman, Archie

      Garnier, Edward

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Gibb, Nick

      Page, Richard

      Gill, Christopher

      Paice, James

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Paterson, Owen

      715

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prior, David

      Townend, John

      Randall, John

      Tredinnick, David

      Redwood, Rt Hon John

      Trend, Michael

      Robertson, Laurence

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

      Viggers, Peter

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Walter, Robert

      Ruffley, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Whittingdale, John

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Wilkinson, John

      Shepherd, Richard

      Willetts, David

      Wilshire, David

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Yeo, Tim

      Spring, Richard

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Streeter, Gary

      Swayne, Desmond

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Syms, Robert

      Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

      Tapsell, Sir Peter

      and

      Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

      Mr. Peter Luff.

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainger, Nick

      Cohen, Harry

      Allan, Richard

      Coteman, Iain

      Allen, Graham

      Colman, Tony

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Connarty, Michael

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Cooper, Yvette

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Corbett, Robin

      Austin, John

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Banks, Tony

      Corston, Jean

      Barnes, Harry

      Cotter, Brian

      Barron, Kevin

      Cox, Tom

      Bayley, Hugh

      Crausby, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Cummings, John

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Benton, Joe

      Darvill, Keith

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      Davidson, Ian

      Belts, Clive

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Borrow, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Denham, John

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dismore, Andrew

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Dobbin, Jim

      Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Burden, Richard

      Doran, Frank

      Burgon, Colin

      Drew, David

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Efford, Clive

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Cann, Jamie

      Ennis, Jeff

      Caplin, Ivor

      Etherington, Bill

      Caton, Martin

      Field, Rt Hon Frank

      Cawsey, Ian

      Fisher, Mark

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Clapham, Michael

      Fitzsimons, Loma

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Flint, Caroline

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Flynn, Paul

      Follett, Barbara

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Fyfe, Maria

      Clelland, David

      Galloway, George

      Coaker, Vernon

      Gapes, Mike

      716

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Macdonald, Calum

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      McDonnell, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNulty, Tony

      Grocott, Bruce

      MacShane, Denis

      Grogan, John

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hain, Peter

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWilliam, John

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Hanson, David

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Healey John

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Meale, Alan

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Merron, Gillian

      Heppell John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Mitchell, Austin

      Hill, Keith

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hinchliffe, David

      Moonie Dr Lews

      Hope, Phil

      Moran, Ms Margaret

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Mudie, George

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Mullin, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hurst, Alan

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Hutton, John

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

      O'Hara Eddie

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Olner, Bill

      Jenkins, Brian

      Öpik, Lembit

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

      Pearson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pendry, Tom

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Pike, Peter L

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Plaskitt, James

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pond, Chris

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pope, Greg

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kidney, David

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Quinn, Lawrie

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Radice, Rt Hon Giles

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Rammell, Bill

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Rapson, Syd

      Laxton, Bob

      Raynsford, Nick

      Lepper, David

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Levitt, Torn

      Rendel, David

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Rooney, Terry

      Linton, Martin

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Roy, Frank

      Lock, David

      Ruane, Chris

      Love, Andrew

      Ruddock, Joan

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      McCabe, Steve

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      717

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Salter, Martin

      Timms, Stephen

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tipping, Paddy

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Todd, Mark

      Sawford, Phil

      Touhig, Don

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Trickett, Jon

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Truswell, Paul

      Sheerman, Barry

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Singh, Marsha

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecombe & Lunesdale)

      Ward, Ms Claire

      Wareing, Robert N

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Watts, David

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      White, Brian

      Snape, Peter

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Spellar, John

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winnick, David

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Wise, Audrey

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Woodward, Shaun

      Stunell, Andrew

      Woolas, Phil

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wright Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Clause 11 ordered stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 12 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
      Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

  Northern Ireland
  11.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I beg to move,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.
  The order appoints 23 May 2000 as the date before which the amnesty period identified in a non-statutory decommissioning scheme must end. The amnesty period is the time during which firearms, ammunition and explosives can be decommissioned in accordance with the scheme, thereby attracting both the amnesty and prohibitions on evidential use and forensic testing of decommissioned items provided by the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997.
  Section 2 of the 1997 Act requires that a scheme must set out the amnesty period, and that it must end before 27 February 1998—which was the first anniversary of the Act's passage—unless the Secretary of State, by order, appoints a later day. When she was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made two such orders. Under the order made last year, the amnesty period will expire at midnight on 23 February 2000.
  The purpose of the order that we are now considering is to extend that period until midnight on 22 May 2000. That date derives from the time frame set out in the Good Friday agreement for the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: Why does the Minister expect paramilitaries to give up their weapons when they are clearly able to achieve a substantial number of their objectives, particularly prisoner releases, without giving up anything at all?
  Mr. Ingram: We are debating a very serious issue, and facile comments of that nature add nothing to an increasingly difficult and sensitive matter. I could, of course, point out that the order that we are debating comes on the back of legislation that was passed by Conservative Members when they were in government. I could point out the significant number of prisoners were released under the Northern Ireland (Remission of Sentences) Act 1995, which was passed by Conservative Members when they were in government and there was no ceasefire, but who, nevertheless, received the support of Labour Members when we were in opposition. A serious and genuine debate on the release of prisoners is possible, but not on the back of silly points such as the hon. Gentleman's.
  Since the first order was made back in 1998, a great deal has happened in Northern Ireland, central to which has been the Good Friday agreement and its implementation. In that period, more political progress has been achieved than many people ever thought possible.
  However, as hon. Members will be well aware, this evening's debate is taking place against the backdrop of a recent setback for the political process in Northern Ireland. On Friday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, faced with the reality that cross-community confidence in the devolved Government could not be sustained, had no

  719
  option but to suspend its operation. He did so after a great deal of very careful consideration and using the powers given to him by the House last week.
  Friday was in many ways a sad day for Northern Ireland, but by acting as he did my right hon. Friend averted a serious crisis by preserving the institutions in order that they may be restored as quickly as possible, as we all hope they will be, and on an even firmer foundation than before.
  The Government understand and share the disappointment felt by many people in Northern Ireland. For many of us, the disappointment is even greater because we have glimpsed the future. We have seen how the elected representatives of Northern Ireland can work together in a devolved Executive, tackling the issues that people care about: health care, jobs, the environment, education and other issues that are equally important to the everyday lives of people in Northern Ireland. We have seen sensible and accountable north-south structures being operated successfully by both sides of the community. We have seen the new British-Irish Council being received with enthusiasm by all the Administrations involved. We have seen what the Good Friday agreement, implemented in full, can deliver. Now that we have seen the future, none of us wants to retreat to the past.
  That is why we must press on to resolve the real difficulties that exist and restore full cross-community confidence in the institutions. My right hon. Friend had meetings today with the Irish Government and with the parties, and will spare no effort in order to find a way forward.
  The way forward is, of course, the implementation of the Good Friday agreement—every aspect of it, in full. There will never be a better agreement. It has the support of the people of Ireland, north and south, and it is now the collective responsibility of the Governments and the parties to deliver.
  The subject of the draft order—decommissioning—is a central element in the process. The absence of progress on decommissioning contributed substantially to the decline in trust and cross-community confidence in Northern Ireland. Clearly, if that confidence is to be restored, progress needs to be made on this aspect of the agreement, just as it has been on every other aspect. People need answers to the legitimate questions posed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon): will decommissioning occur and, if so, when?
  In order for the commitments on decommissioning to be fulfilled in accordance with the terms of the agreement, the Government must also play their part. In the agreement, the two Governments undertook to take all necessary steps to facilitate the decommissioning process, including bringing the relevant schemes into force by the end of June 1998, which we duly did. If we are to fulfil our commitment under the agreement, it is essential that we extend, through this order, the period during which the scheme may declare an amnesty.
  Of course, that will not deter the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland from continuing to use all the powers at their disposal to locate and recover illegally held armaments. I pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary and the Garda Siochana for their continuing efforts to frustrate those wedded to the violence of the past.
  720
  The Government have consistently made it clear to Sinn Fein and to the loyalist parties that decommissioning is an obligation under the agreement and that it must happen.
  Mr. David Wilshire: Will the Minister address more clearly the reasons why the Government have chosen 25 May? He rightly says that it is because of the agreement, but is it a bargaining chip or a genuine final deadline after which there will be no amnesty?
  Mr. Ingram: The order has been before the House on two previous occasions, each time moving the date forward. We have clearly chosen 22 May—not 25 May—because that is set out in the Good Friday agreement. That is consistent and right, and sets decommissioning in its proper context and time scale in relation to the amnesty.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Is there a similar decommissioning scheme in the Republic?
  Mr. Ingram: Yes. As part of the Government's commitment to the full implementation of the agreement, it is essential that we continue to provide the means by which terrorist weapons can be taken out of circulation. That view is shared by people in the Republic of Ireland.
  The order is essential to the arrangements that I have set out.
  Mr. William Ross: What is the terminal date on the Irish Republic's decommissioning scheme?
  Mr. Ingram: I am not answerable for legislation in another jurisdiction. The period there is open ended and is not renewable as in our legislation, because of the different structures in the two jurisdictions. It is for that jurisdiction to decide how best to apply laws to achieve the objectives set out in the Good Friday agreement; but we act in concert and seek to achieve the same objectives.
  That is what the order is designed to achieve. I commend it to the House.
  11.32 pm
  Mr. John M. Taylor: This is not a game; historically, it has been deadly. The order is unexceptionable as far as we are concerned. We must emphasise the absolute imperative of actual decommissioning by all paramilitaries before restoration of the Executive and the other institutions. We urge the Government to stand firm. If they do, they will have our support. It is logical to make the end date of the order coincident with the end date under the Belfast agreement.
  As a general proposition, which must command the widest—and international—recognition, it is simply unthinkable for some participants in a democratic process to have access to arms and for others, obeying the law, to have no such access. That is anathema to democracy. We will support the order.
  11.34 pm
  Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The Minister referred to the political crisis in Northern Ireland. We regret the fact that the various terrorist organisations have not honoured their obligations under the Belfast

  721
  agreement and that there is a fundamental flaw in the process—a flaw that my party argued against during the passage of the legislation—in that the democrats are punished along with those who are in default and the institutions of government in Northern Ireland are brought down purely on the basis of the failure of terrorist organisations to decommission their illegal weapons. I hope that during the period of any review that now follows the Government will address that flaw and deliver on the firm commitment that the Prime Minister gave my right hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) when, on 10 April 1998—the day the agreement was signed—he wrote to my right hon. Friend indicating that if the provisions in the agreement for the exclusion from office of those who had failed to give a firm commitment to exclusively peaceful means were inadequate, the Government would support changes to those provisions to ensure that they were made adequate.
  When one of the parties to the agreement is in default—the republican movement—and when the consequences of that default impact on all the political parties and the people of Northern Ireland, because of the suspension of the institutions, it is clear that the provisions for exclusion are inadequate. I urge the Government to address that issue, so that if the institutions are re-established and power is once again devolved to Northern Ireland, it can no longer be held to ransom by any single organisation. The flaw cannot be allowed to persist.
  The order before the House provides for the extension of an amnesty for those who decommission their illegal weapons. Sadly, to date, only one organisation has engaged in any act of decommissioning—the Loyalist Volunteer Force. None of the other mainstream terrorist organisations have decommissioned so much as a single bullet. The decommissioning body, in its report to our Government and to the Irish Government on 31 January, made it clear that there had been insufficient progress on decommissioning, and the Government moved on Friday to suspend the institutions. However, many people in Northern Ireland find it difficult to understand why those organisations that are in default on decommissioning still continue to benefit from the early release of prisoners, in spite of the fact that one of the criteria in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 provides that the Secretary of State must take into account whether a terrorist organisation benefiting from prisoner releases is fully co-operating with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning. It is clear that none of those organisations are fully co-operating with the commission. As we approach the deadline of 22 May, none of them have started to decommission, bar the Loyalist Volunteer Force. That cannot be sustained indefinitely.
  When there has been no decommissioning by 22 May, will we find that the prisoner release scheme will continue until all the prisoners have been released by the end of July? Will the Government allow that situation to continue? The Government have a lever that they can use with the terrorist organisations, but they are not using it to its full potential. The Government should use that bargaining tool to more effect than they have so far done. We need a carrot and a stick, and at the moment it appears that the stick is not being used for the republicans.
  General de Chastelain, the independent chairman of the commission on decommissioning, has made it clear publicly and in his reports that the decommissioning of
  722
  paramilitary arms requires the destruction of these arms. Those comments were contained in his report to the two Governments last year and have been repeated since.
  Mr. David Maclean: It is not just that General de Chastelain makes it clear in his report that there should be destruction. That is the obligation imposed under section 3 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, which states that there should be destruction by the commission, by the terrorists or by a designated person. There is no other option.
  Mr. Donaldson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention; he is absolutely right. I was going on to refer to the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997. There has been much speculation in the media about other forms of decommissioning. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity tonight to rule out that speculation, and to confirm that the only forms of decommissioning acceptable are those provided for under the legislation passed by Parliament—namely, the 1997 Act, which requires the destruction of weaponry by the various terrorist organisations. That is important, because some people out there seem to think that decommissioning is a flexible thing that can be played around with, and that the law that has been passed by Parliament can be ignored. The order before us reminds us that there are legal implications in the act of decommissioning that cannot be ignored. I therefore trust that the Government will take this opportunity to remind everyone of the legality of decommissioning and the requirements for it, as laid down by Parliament in the 1997 Act.
  The Act also provides for decommissioning schemes. The Minister himself published those schemes, and the criteria set out in them further make it clear that destruction of weapons is required for proper, verifiable decommissioning. I hope that the Minister will confirm that the decommissioning schemes that he signed on 29 June 1998 are still relevant, and will continue to be relevant, in providing for decommissioning of illegal terrorist arms.
  That brings me to the reports of the independent international commission and, in particular, to the report published on 11 February—last Friday. That has been the subject of much comment in recent days, particularly since the suspension of the institutions. The Irish Government claim that the report from General de Chastelain published on 11 February represents a significant breakthrough. Their remarks are endorsed by representatives of Sinn Fein/IRA. Yet the Minister referred to the two questions posed in the House by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon)—namely, will the IRA decommission, and when will it decommission? I do not believe that the report from the independent commission of 11 February answers either of those questions. It does not contain a firm commitment by the IRA to decommission its illegal weapons, nor does it in any sense provide an indication of when the IRA will decommission its illegal weapons.
  Let me be clear: from the perspective of the Ulster Unionist party, without those questions being addressed, and without the commencement of verifiable, substantial decommissioning by the IRA, we will not be sitting in an Executive with its political representatives. That is the view that was taken by the Ulster Unionist council at

  723
  the weekend. I believe that that view is credible, and that it has the support of by far the greater number of people in Northern Ireland who have, in successive opinion polls, shown that they want decommissioning to take place.
  Mr. Frank Field: Would the hon. Gentleman care to amend that statement? It is the view of the whole country, not just of Northern Ireland, that that should take place.
  Mr. Donaldson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely correct. Not only is it the view of the overwhelming majority of people in Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but I believe that it is the view of the people of the Irish Republic as well. Decommissioning is central to establishing a commitment by terrorist organisations, including so-called loyalists, to exclusively peaceful means. That commitment lies at the heart of the process, and it must be addressed if we are to be clear that what we have in Northern Ireland is a genuine peace.
  Real peace is not just the absence of violence, but the absence of a threat of violence. The arms in the possession of terrorist organisations represent a threat to stability. I want the terrorist organisations to decommission. I want political progress in Northern Ireland. I want democratic and accountable institutions to be re-established, but they must be on a firm footing. Many desire the quick re-establishment of those institutions, but the speed of the re-establishment of the Assembly, the Executive and the other bodies will be solely determined by the ability of the terrorist organisations to answer the questions posed by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh and to act on those questions by beginning to decommission their weapons.
  A fudge will not provide a solution; that much is clear. Fudging has brought us to the crisis we face today. We are talking about building trust. If we are to make progress in Northern Ireland, trust is essential. The people whom I represent must know that the men and women who have waged war against them through terror have left that terror behind. If we must suffer the pain of early release of terrorist prisoners and the many other concessions that have been made, we need to know that gain will flow from disarmament by all of the terrorist organisations.
  The 22 May deadline created by the Good Friday agreement ought to be the final deadline. I hope that the Government will not return to the House to report that they must once again extend the provisions of this order because the terrorist organisations have failed to honour their obligations under the agreement. It is time for the Government to stand on the side of the democrats. It is time they insisted that the IRA and other terrorist organisations honour their obligations. When those organisations do that, I and others will welcome it, but they must be held to account.
  11.48 pm
  Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) said about decommissioning meaning the destruction of weapons. I have less sympathy, however, with his view of
  724
  Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom. I sometimes feel that, in his heart, the hon. Gentleman prefers direct rule. I can only tell him that the Northern Ireland that he perceives is changing dramatically. Constitutionally, it will never be the same again because of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998.
  The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) said, I think, that this was an unexceptional order. To a large extent, I agree, as I agree with him about the suspension of the institutions.
  Mr. John M. Taylor: I have consulted my brief, and I believe that I said that the order was unexceptionable as far as we were concerned. In other words, we took no exception to it.
  Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who shows his characteristic courtesy. I thought that I had said that he said that he and his party thought that the order was unexceptional. However, I am glad that he clarified the point for me. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) laughs, but it is a matter of profound concern and regret that on Friday, in the late afternoon, the Secretary of State took the decision that he did.
  I have seen the Assembly at work, as I pointed out in the debate last week. A couple of weeks ago, I spent a whole day in the Assembly. Its workings would immediately be familiar to any Member of the House or of the Scottish Parliament. Ministers and Bank Benchers went about their work, dealing with a huge farmers' lobby—between 2,500 and 3,000 farmers were lobbying the Assembly on the day of my visit.
  I listened to a debate initiated by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). The debate called for greater support for the crisis-ridden farming industry and received wide support from the other parties.
  As the hon. Member for Lagan Valley pointed out, the Assembly was working, and will work, fruitfully on behalf of both communities in Northern Ireland. It is regrettable that the decision was taken to suspend the Executive, the Assembly, the British-Irish Council and the north-south bodies. It may well be that the 22 May deadline will have to be readjusted—although I hope that I am wrong. In that case, we would need a new order.
  Some people in Northern Ireland believe that the suspension may not be of short duration, and that we shall not be able to hold to the 22 May deadline. General de Chastelain's contract ends on that date, so this is a worrying time not only for the people of Northern Ireland, but for those of the Irish Republic and Britain.
  Mr. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman not concede that, to some of those people who made sacrifices to participate in the Executive, decommissioning was an essential component of the arrangement?
  Dr. Godman: I have always argued that genuine, comprehensive decommissioning—as described by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley—is at the heart of the Northern Ireland peace agreement. No one could deny that.
  Unlike the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) and for Lagan Valley, I am only a visitor to Northern Ireland—albeit a frequent one—but everyone I

  725
  speak to in both communities is desperately anxious that the deadline be adhered to. However, there are concerns that anti-agreement politicians want delays, procrastination and prevarication, so that things begin to splinter. That is a dreadful prospect for the people of Northern Ireland.
  I hope that the period of suspension will be short; that the review will be treated urgently; and that it will be conducted jointly by the Secretary of State and Mr. Brian Cowen of the Irish Government. I believe that that is starting to take shape, and that its terms of reference should be narrow. The two Ministers should not allow those terms of reference to be widened by certain interested parties. I am referring to the suspension and the review, because they hinge directly on this order, especially the date of 23 May.
  The period of suspension has started. The deadline for decommissioning, 22 May, is not far away. If that deadline is readjusted, what price this order? The Minister may have to return to the House. I know that he, with his commitment to the peace process and the Good Friday agreement, will hope that the suspension is of short duration. I consider that the review, which I believe has already begun, should have specific terms of reference.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. There is very limited time available for the debate, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, and he really must focus rather more on decommissioning than on the review. I understand the umbilical link between the two, but the order before us tonight is about decommissioning.
  Dr. Godman: I am grateful for your gentle ticking off, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the suspension, the review and decommissioning are inextricably linked. Decommissioning is at the heart of the matter. The review should be concerned almost entirely with decommissioning. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley mentioned General de Chastelain's latest report and what the Taoiseach said in his article in this morning's Irish Times—that the last two paragraphs of General de Chastelain's report were of deep significance for the process of decommissioning. I hope that the review will focus on that and will work very closely with General de Chastelain and his colleagues.
  I sincerely hope that the 22 May deadline and the deadline in the order—23 May—are adhered to, but very many people now have a much more pessimistic view than I have, and believe that there may be readjustments. All I can tell the Minister and his officials is: I certainly hope not, and let us have decommissioning by 22 May.
  11.58 pm
  Mr. Lembit Öpik: As we approach the second anniversary of the Good Friday agreement, it is worth remembering that today is the 10th birthday of the British-Irish Inter-Parliamentary Body, which has sought to build links between Westminster and Dublin. It is not a great birthday present to that body that we are in our present position. However, in the wider picture of things, I think that few who serve on it would have expected us to be this far down the track to achieving a long-term, stable peace.
  While the suspension order is a step back, on the positive side, as the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) reminds us, we must have very clear
  726
  expectations of what will happen in the next three months, and the order makes those expectations even more specific, by extending the amnesty to 23 May and thereby making the decision to decommission arms even more straightforward and clear-cut than it would otherwise have been.
  Earlier today, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland addressed the BIIPB, and the implication of his statement was that the suspension could be pretty short-lived as long as we get some significant movement in the short term on decommissioning. In that context, we need to remember that the amnesty is a tool to get rid of the violence by getting rid of the guns. There is much symbolism involved in that, which we discussed only the other day in the House, but we must recognise that symbolism is important. The order places even more onus on the paramilitaries on both sides to deliver the goods.
  The Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act received Royal Assent on 27 February 1997 and it contained a five-year limit—a backstop—that means that the amnesty cannot be extended beyond February 2002. It is worth remembering that we are discussing the end point to the amnesty, knowing that there is already a timebound maximum period during which it can be re-presented.
  This is not the time for retribution or reopening the debate about whether people should be prosecuted when they hand in guns. That is because we are in the endgame of the whole process. We are asking what the easiest way is to get the paramilitaries to decommission their guns while providing confidence for the community as a whole, including the Unionists, that the paramilitaries are serious about that in the short term. The hon. Member for Lagan Valley underlined quite reasonably the nervousness of many moderate Unionists who think that, to date, little has been done to achieve that result.
  The second report from de Chastelain and the most recent IRA statement are positive and helpful, but they would have been even more helpful if they had been presented a week ago. I am conscious of the warning issued in the first report of the decommissioning commission, which stated:
  "given our understanding of the quantity of arms held by paramilitary groups, and the dispersed nature of their locations, we believe a time will soon be reached beyond which it will be logistically impossible for us to complete our task by 22 May."
  In other words, the IRA and other paramilitary bodies need to get going soon if they are to achieve the 22 May deadline, which is the crucial date for decommissioning. It is imperative that the issue is resolved, but resolved by the paramilitaries in whose power it is to provide the kind of commitment that we now expect. If that analysis is correct—I believe that few in the House would disagree with what I have said—22 May is the key date by which we must achieve decommissioning—and the clock is ticking.
  One point on which I would take issue with the hon. Member for Lagan Valley is his view—it is perfectly reasonable even though I disagree with it—that, at this point, we should link prisoner releases with decommissioning. The time for that is if the paramilitaries fail to decommission by 22 May, and not at this point.

  727
  I am sure that the mechanics are there to achieve that. We have a difference of view, but it is an issue that we have debated widely in the past.
  Mr. Swayne: What does the hon. Gentleman propose we should do if the paramilitaries have not handed in any weapons by 22 May? Does he think that we should extend the amnesty again? What would that do? What possible leverage do we have on this matter?
  Mr. Öpik: Let me repeat what I said, because the speakers are clearly not working at the back of the Chamber. I said that we should not impose any kind of sanction on prisoner releases until 22 May.
  Mr. Michael Howard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Öpik: I will, but let me clarify my point for the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). At this point, we should simply act on the basis of good faith and not try to renegotiate the Good Friday agreement. If on 22 May—the absolute deadline for decommissioning—the paramilitaries have not delivered, all bets are off and we shall have to consider what we do. However, I think that it would be dangerous to link the issues at this stage. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to take a different view, but he should be cautious and he should reread the Good Friday agreement.
  Mr. Howard: First, does the hon. Gentleman accept that stopping the release of prisoners would not involve any renegotiation of the Good Friday agreement? Secondly, has he made any assessment of how many prisoners would remain in custody on 22 May if nothing is done to stop the releases between now and then?
  Mr. Öpik: The second point is rather trivial because there will not be a huge difference—[Interruption.] Hon. Members on the Opposition Benches behind me are laughing—
  Mr. Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman is on the Opposition Benches.
  Mr. Öpik: To be absolutely specific and to avoid implicating my colleagues in that comment, I should say that Conservative Members are laughing. Let me remind them that relatively few prisoners will be released between now and 22 May. My response to the perfectly reasonable question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) is that, for now, we should act in good faith. We should give the paramilitaries absolutely no reason to be able to justify their hesitance about decommissioning at this point by, for example, being hesitant about prisoner releases.
  I also believe that the sanctions on prisoner releases that we could impose now are not significantly different from those that we could impose on 22 May, but the crucial point is that if we wait until 22 May to impose sanctions, no one could possibly say that the Government and the House have not given the paramilitaries every opportunity under the sun to decommission. The right
  728
  hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly entitled to take a different view, but it is for the House to decide who is right.
  Mr. Donaldson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Öpik: I give way for the last time because I am aware that the clock is ticking.
  Mr. Donaldson: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that if on 22 May there has been no decommissioning by the paramilitary organisations, he will support us in urging the Government at that point to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners?
  Mr. Öpik: That would depend on the exact situation. The honest answer is that at that point we would have seriously to consider such action. I do not play games in Northern Ireland debates in the House, and in the spirit of honesty I can say that it is possible that I would agree with the hon. Gentleman in those circumstances. The time for that debate will be 23 May, and I am sure that the Government will be asking the same questions. It would be unwise for us to make policy in a speech in a debate, and I cannot therefore give the hon. Gentleman further reassurance. I see that he accepts that, and I am grateful to him for having listened.
  The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), who often speaks sensibly and rationally about these issues, rightly said that this is not a game. It is important that we do not start playing games now. The sum total of my remarks, and the Liberal Democrat position, is that we must give the paramilitaries every chance to decommission and we must not give them a single opportunity to say that the Government have reneged on their responsibilities on Northern Ireland, on amnesties and on opportunities to decommission.
  Of course the current situation is a setback, but I hope that those in Northern Ireland with the capacity to decommission will view this as a confidence-building measure, because there is scepticism and doubt in the House about whether this is the right action. On balance, I think that it is right. If we pass this order tonight, the message will be simple: the House has done its bit; now it is time for the paramilitaries to do theirs.
  12.8 am
  Mr. David Maclean: We have before us an order setting out a new period for decommissioning which will end at midnight on 22 May. We have to ask ourselves whether that is an appropriate time scale, and whether decommissioning or progress towards it can be achieved in three months and 10 days. I shall stick narrowly in my remarks to the terms of the order.
  If we are to come to any sensible conclusion about whether decommissioning can be achieved or whether the order makes any sense in setting a cut-off point of 22 May, we have to ask ourselves what decommissioning is expected to be achieved in that time scale. I listened with great interest to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), who speaks with deep knowledge of these matters and with the authority of someone who lives in the Province and who is affected, as are his constituents, by decommissioning or the lack of it.

  729
  I took issue with my hon. Friend—prematurely, as I found when he elaborated on his point—when he said that General de Chastelain's report called for proper decommissioning; that is the destruction of weapons. I intervened to say that not only had General de Chastelain called for that, but the law of land dictates that it should happen. The order is made under section 2 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, and section 3 dictates what decommissioning consists of. It says that decommissioning will take place in four ways. Either there will be the
  "transfer to the Commission mentioned in section 7, or to a designated person"
  of firearms, ammunition and explosives for destruction; or those firearms, ammunition and explosives will be deposited
  "for collection and destruction by the Commission or a designated person".
  There is a third option: those arms, explosives and ammunition will be destroyed
  "by persons in unlawful possession"
  —the terrorists and paramilitaries themselves. There is a fourth option: information will be provided
  "for the purpose of collection and destruction by the Commission or a designated person".
  The paramilitaries and terrorists must provide information to the commission on arms, explosives and ammunition, so that the commission itself can collect and destroy them.
  In the four options for decommissioning, which were presented to the House in the 1997 Bill and passed into law, and under which General de Chastelain must operate, rightly, the only alternatives for decommissioning are that the weapons will be transferred to the commission and destroyed; deposited for collection somewhere, collected by the commission and destroyed; destroyed by the terrorists themselves; or the terrorists will give sufficient information to the commission, so that it can get its hands on them and destroy them.
  In every case, we are talking about the destruction of weapons. That is important. I wish to speak on the order only because of all the talk and propaganda emanating from the IRA—it has mainly emanated from Sinn Fein-IRA recently, but perhaps it has come from other terrorist organisations as well—that there is a new form of decommissioning. There is alternative decommissioning, where the weapons are not destroyed, but locked away in a barn, or bunker somewhere; they will be put out of use and not used for the time being. Because the bombs are at arm's length and not being used, there are no hands on the guns that are hidden in a bunker, and only the terrorist organisations know where that is, decommissioning has taken place. What an obscenity that is by any sense of natural justice or morality. It is also illegal under the 1997 Act.
  I am not trivialising the debate, but, by way of example, I wish that I could go to my chief constable and say, "I will not bother renewing my shotgun licence because I have it locked in the cupboard and do not intend to murder anyone in the foreseeable future. I do not need a licence." Is this country no longer a nuclear power because its nuclear weapons are in a bunker and we do not intend to use them because that is our position? Certainly, however, we have not decommissioned those weapons.
  It would be an absolute obscenity if we were to allow ourselves to be fooled by Sinn Fein-IRA, or any other terrorist group or paramilitaries, into accepting a
  730
  definition of decommissioning that did not provide for the destruction of the weapons as the House agreed in the 1997 Act. Therefore, putting them in a bunker, hiding them away out of arm's reach, or, as my ancient ancestors used to do at the time of Culloden, hiding them in the thatch knowing that they would use them again on some future occasion, is not decommissioning.
  If we are to have progress in Northern Ireland, we must have decommissioning as intended by Parliament—by the House and by the other place—when it agreed section 3 of the 1997 Act. The order asks us to extend the deadline to 22 May, so that that form of decommissioning can be carried out.
  It is my contention that we should approve the order tonight, because it is perfectly possible for the paramilitaries, within the proposed time scale, to comply with one of the provisions of section 3. Given all their recent mutterings and propaganda, I suspect that they will not transfer their weapons to the commission within three months and 10 days, nor will they destroy the weapons themselves. However, they might provide sufficient information to the commission for the purposes of collection and destruction by the commission or its designated agents. However, the information provided must lead to the collection and destruction of weapons.
  In the past few days, there has been a massive outpouring of Sinn Fein-IRA propaganda: although General de Chastelain has said that there has been no progress, the IRA insists that there has been. Its representatives think that they can come up with another form of words that we might naively accept, suggesting that progress can be made towards decommissioning by the IRA providing the information that, at some time in the future, it might possibly consider thinking about decommissioning its weapons.
  Mr. Field: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because it will save me making a contribution. He emphasises what Sinn Fein-IRA have been saying during the past few days, of which there has been great coverage, but does he recognise that the country is also concerned about the weapons held by the other side and that, although they may have been silent, we want them to participate fully in the process?
  Mr. Maclean: Absolutely—I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I have spoken of Sinn Fein-IRA in the past few days, but I have mentioned other paramilitaries as well. I have as much contempt for paramilitaries of other persuasions as I have for Sinn Fein-IRA. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to emphasise that point, and honoured that he thinks that any contribution that I can make might save him from making one. I consider that one of the most important things anyone has ever said to me in the House, because I respect his judgment. I shall try not to make him change his mind by going on at length and undermining my case.
  I accept that the whole country wants progress to be made toward decommissioning. We want there to be genuine peace, but there can be no genuine peace in a democracy when people have weapons at their disposal. The only weapons that we in this Chamber, from both sides and of all persuasions, have at our disposal are to argue with the Minister, to use such oratorical skills as

  731
  are available to us and to sign early-day motions. We come here with nothing except the democratic authority of our constituents to argue, to plead, to beg and, occasionally, to try to ambush the Government by outvoting them on some matters, although I doubt whether we shall manage it in this Parliament. We use the weapons of our democracy, of the Chamber and of the House.
  No Member of Parliament who has taken the Oath can bring to the Chamber any other weapon such as threatening the use of violence, bombs or bullets unless we give them their way. It can never be acceptable in any democratic society for politicians in the Government or the House to wield the arguments at their disposal backed up by the democratic will of the people, while others come to the process armed to the teeth with weapons. That is why we must have genuine progress on decommissioning.
  Mr. Ingram: I always like the right hon. Gentleman's contributions. Will he consider section 10 of the 1997 Act, which further defines the meaning of "destruction" as including
  "making permanently inaccessible or permanently unusable"?
  I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman is taking a hurried look at the Act, as I should have thought that he would have read that part of it.
  Mr. Maclean: I have read section 10 and when the Minister referred me to it, I immediately turned to it, as one should. I accept that making something "permanently unusable" is a form of destruction; however, I do not accept the paramilitaries' suggestion that locking their weapons away in a bunker and so putting them out of their reach for the time being constitutes destruction within the meaning of the Act.
  I am happy to accept the proposal to put the weapons out of arm's reach, if that is done by General John de Chastelain. If the paramilitaries hand their weapons over to General de Chastelain and the commission, and he locks them in a bunker—even if he puts them away somewhere and does not physically destroy them or melt them down—I am happy to accept that that would put them permanently out of reach or make them permanently inaccessible within the terms of section 10 defining destruction, as described in section 3.
  Weapons cannot be permanently inaccessible and out of use if the paramilitaries claim to have hidden them away somewhere and seek to assure us that they are permanently out of use and out of arms' reach. That is not plausible; it is not acceptable. That is why there is deep concern in the House and in the country that the Government may be misled by some of the statements made by the paramilitaries in the past few days.
  I say to the Minister that I am happy to accept the extension of the deadline in the order, provided that there is progress towards genuine decommissioning and destruction, as envisaged in section 3 of the 1997 Act and defined in section 10. That must be destruction, not the mealy-mouthed form of words that we have heard from some paramilitaries in the past few days.
  12.21am
  Mr. William Ross: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in the debate. It is not often that two Northern Ireland Members are called in such a short debate. As so many others wish to speak, I shall be as brief as I can.
  The intention behind the order is to extend the amnesty period only until 23 May. The extension could have been for another year, which is the usual procedure. The Minister gave us a rather half-baked explanation of why the order goes only until 23 May. That would have been the cut-off date for decommissioning, anyway, regardless how long the order was extended.
  I am grateful to the Minister for pointing out that the Republic's legislation is open-ended, so the paramilitaries there can hold on to their weapons for another few months and then surrender them, if they so wish.
  The order will keep pressure on the IRA and other terrorist organisations to comply with the requirements of the Belfast agreement. The date serves as a pressure point, and they cannot escape it unless the Minister comes back within the next few weeks with another order to extend the date. He would look extremely foolish if he did.
  By publishing the order and putting it before the House this evening, the Government are saying that 23 May is their deadline. I welcome that. The more pressure we put on those people, the better.
  The Minister knows that I am sometimes concerned about the language used. Sinn Fein-IRA look carefully at every single word that is used. They do not like moving even a comma in one of their statements, in case that will give it a slightly different meaning.
  Far too often, we have heard sloppy words from Ministers. Whenever I hear that, I think that the sloppy words betray fuddled thinking, or perhaps it is deliberate, to create an atmosphere or impression. I am thinking particularly of the term "putting beyond use", to which I hope to return.
  The Government have a duty to tell the House this evening whether they have any intention of extending the deadline of 23 May. I hope that they do not; the process could go on until 2002.
  The order expresses the hope that, if the IRA is serious about handing over its weapons, it must begin doing so soon. In his statement of 31 January, General de Chastelain made that clear when he said that
  "given our understanding of the quantity of arms held by the paramilitary groups, and the dispersed nature of their locations"—
  so he must have some idea where they are—
  "we believe that a time will soon be reached beyond which it will be logistically impossible for us to complete our task by 22 May."
  The right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) dealt with that point clearly.
  It is also clear from the report that members of the commission will not hang around for much longer. The last sentence states:
  "If it becomes clear to us that decommissioning is not to happen, the Commission will recommend to the governments that it be disbanded."
  That tells us that the general and his colleagues are not hopeful, despite the spin that has been put on their comments about what will happen in the near future.

  733
  I can well understand that the commission's patience is running out given that, until now, terrorist organisations, which, with the exception of the UFF, were, according to the commission,
  "further engaged in methods of decommissioning and related support issues"
  have shown no willingness to surrender their weapons.
  The commission also has a time scale. Its report states:
  "We remain prepared to state, at an appropriate date, when we believe decommissioning must start and how it must proceed if our mandate is to be fulfilled within the required period."
  That must be tied to the published schemes, which are very detailed. Neither the general nor anybody else should be allowed to slide away from the published schemes because people are looking for that. The commission went on to say that
  "decommissioning is a voluntary act; any schedule we produce will only be of value if those who have the arms agree to follow it."
  It may be voluntary in one sense, but it is mandatory if the requirements of the agreement are to be fulfilled.
  The reports are somewhat cryptic. For example, the second report states:
  "We also note the IRA assessment that the question of British forces and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland must be addressed
  While the future of British troops is outside our remit, the elimination of the threat posed by loyalist paramilitary arms is clearly within the Commission's remit."
  Whenever the IRA uses that language, it attempts to place Her Majesty's forces and the IRA on an equal footing. We should never, under any circumstances, give way on that point.
  The report continues:
  "We find particularly significant, and view as valuable progress, the assertion made to us by the IRA representative that the IRA will consider how to put arms and explosives beyond use, in the context of full implementation of the Good Friday Agreement, and in the context of the removal of the causes of conflict."
  It goes on to say that "the issue of arms" needs
  "to be dealt with in an acceptable way and that is a necessary objective of a genuine peace process … The representative indicated to us today (Friday) the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use".
  That is IRA-speak. It needs some translation for hon. Members and the citizens of Britain.
  What does the IRA mean by the full context of the agreement? Does it mean sweeping away the RUC, taking all United Kingdom troops out of Northern Ireland, releasing all prisoners and more? Who is to judge when the full context has been fulfilled? I suspect that the answer is the IRA. The
  "context of the removal of the causes of conflict"
  is clearly IRA-speak for Northern Ireland remaining in the United Kingdom. To the IRA, that is the cause of the conflict. It wants that to end and the British people of Northern Ireland to become Irish republicans. I use "republican" in its true sense. We believe in a constitutional monarchy, so there is a great difference between the two systems of government. I favour the system that we have.
  What does the commission understand the IRA to mean by
  "dealt with in an acceptable way"?
  734
  Does that mean security forces' arms and private firearms? What does the phrase cover? I suspect that it covers all weapons that are held in private hands, by the forces of the Crown and by the police.
  What is
  "the context in which the IRA will initiate a comprehensive process to put arms beyond use"?
  The general's language suggested that he had been told what constituted that context. Why have not we been told? That information is vital to a clear understanding of what the IRA is trying to say. The words "put beyond use" could mean a thousand things, if hon. Members want to stretch their imagination, but the vast majority of the people in the island of Ireland and across this island will be satisfied only by the visible public destruction of those weapons. We saw the small quantity of Loyalist Volunteer Force weapons being destroyed and we expect the same for the IRA weapons. Nothing else is of any use.
  12.30 am
  Mr. David Wilshire: The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) rightly said that Northern Ireland is changing rapidly—I think that the context in which he made that remark is that the progress that has been made has achieved a transformation—but Northern Ireland, as I understand it, is changing rapidly in another way and the House must understand it at this precise moment.
  There was a time when the hon. Members for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) and for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) could be thought of as—how can I put this gently?—dissident voices in the Ulster Unionist party. After the referendum, there were those who would produce statistics to show that the Unionist majority did not necessarily agree with them, but the rapid and continuing change, if I can judge correctly, is that their views represent the authentic majority voice of the Unionist people of Northern Ireland. As events unfolded in the past week and as they unfold now, so that voice of Northern Ireland has come to represent a greater Unionist majority than in the past. It is crucial that the House understands that as it considers the order.
  I want to follow up the initial points made by the hon. Member for East Londonderry by discussing the date specified in the order. It may unnerve the Minister to know that I, of all people, agree with the one that he has selected. It is highly significant. I know the reason he gave for selecting it—he heard my earlier question, but was diverted and failed to answer. He could have selected a date a year hence, but, because of the Belfast agreement, chose a date that is not very far away. His response to the debate is crucial and he has to answer my question: why did he choose that date? He could have chosen any date within the framework of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997, so we need to know whether that choice represents a negotiating stance taken by the Government or a deadline beyond which no alternative arrangements will be made. Does the amnesty run out then and that is it, or does he intend to come back to the House to ask us to extend it again?
  In all fairness, I must remind those Members present who do not know the views that I have taken over time that I was one of those who opposed the Good Friday agreement, for a number of reasons. I remain opposed to it. I did not believe, and still do not believe, that

  735
  decommissioning will happen, but if I am wrong I need an answer to my question: if decommissioning is for real, what happens after 22 May? I urge the Minister to answer that important point.
  Having described the views that I have held from the beginning, I must tell the House that I am a realist. We are where we are, whatever views I might hold, and it is important that we ask, "What happens next?" We must remember that, when we faced the dilemma of whether there would be decommissioning last year, the Ulster Unionist party made a leap of faith. Again, I did not think that it should, and I was not alone in that. I was also one of those who believed that it would not possible for it to make that leap of faith, but it did. My clear view is that an Ulster Unionist majority in support of that was achieved only because of the compromise that real decommissioning must begin by February.
  That was a leap of faith. The Ulster Unionists said, "We've jumped, you follow." No one has followed that leap of faith. Hopes were dashed. The leader of the UUP put his political career on the line in the hope that other people would respond to his courage by doing something. We must understand that it is now beyond expectation for the UUP to make the same leap of faith again with some other form of words.
  The route of faith has been tried and it has failed, and there is only one route left, which is the route of action—I say that as a realist rather than an enthusiast. We have now reached the stage at which no form of words will do: something must happen. That is why my question to the Minister is so relevant. If there is no action by 22 May, what happens then?
  I was opposed to the original amnesty—if hon. Members go back into the records, they will see that I spoke against this arrangement—but I am a democrat, which is more than can be said for Sinn Fein-IRA. I accept the will of the House, and the House decided that there should be an amnesty. I accept that the status quo on the amnesty arrangements must continue for the time being, so I do not oppose the order.
  The hon. Members for Lagan Valley and for East Londonderry were arguing that there must be real decommissioning. The amnesty exists, and it needs to remain so that it can happen. The House must put nothing in the way of action. To object to the order would be to change the arrangements that are in place.
  We should keep the amnesty until 22 May, but we should make it clear that that was the original agreement, and it is the extent to which we agreed to turn our backs on what I believe is the correct rule of law and the correct implementation of democracy. For that period and for that period only, we will allow terrorism one last chance. The terrorists must understand that we have now reached a point at which weasel words will no longer do.
  There is no formula of the English language that can be put together to mean whatever the IRA wants it to mean. The hon. Member for East Londonderry translated IRA-speak very well. There is no form of IRA-speak, Ulster Unionist-speak or Alliance-speak—all that matters now is real action and genuine decommissioning. If it does not occur before 22 May, I want to know what will happen, because I have an awful feeling that the Minister will be back here on 23 May.
  12.38 am
  Mr. Ingram: In the short time available we have had a good debate covering a wide range of issues on a crucial and important aspect of what we now have to deal with in Northern Ireland. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) and the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) for their support for the order and for their contributions to the debate. The hon. Member for Spelthome (Mr. Wilshire) also indicated support for the order, and set out a number of points that I shall deal with in due course.
  I first want to deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). I understand that at the weekend he made what was called a conciliatory speech at his council meeting. I have not seen a transcript of it, so perhaps he will pass it to me because I should like to know exactly what he was saying that was conciliatory. If it was conciliatory, that is an improvement on his previous position, and I would welcome it if he is now beginning to understand that there is a way forward. However, if his speech today was consistent with what he said on Saturday, I am not so sure that it was conciliatory, because he got so many matters wrong. I should like to deal with those matters now.
  The hon. Gentleman questioned whether the Government were delivering on the Good Friday agreement. We are delivering on the agreement. However, I think that he was also questioning whether it was wise to do so. I remind him that the overwhelming majority of people in Northern Ireland voted for the agreement. Although he has the right to dissent and to question the people's judgment, I suggest to him that, at all times, he should keep very much in mind the underlying desire of the people of Northern Ireland and of the vast majority of people across the island of Ireland.
  I also advise the hon. Gentleman, if I may, to take the wise counsel of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who has grasped the enormity of the issues at stake and the ways in which the matter has to be dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman realises that it has to be dealt with forcefully—he is certainly direct in his arguments—but he also tries to look for ways in which we can move the whole process forward.
  The hon. Gentleman asked various questions about the way in which the Act would be applied. I suspect that he—I dealt with the subject also in my intervention on the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean)—has not read the Act to which we are referring. He tried to define very specifically the nature of the whole decommissioning process, but his definition was not consistent with the Act.
  Perhaps I should again put on the record the comments of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. On 12 January, he said:
  "The methods of decommissioning are for General de Chastelain to determine, providing that the weapons are destroyed or made permanently inaccessible and that there is independent verification of the destruction or the putting beyond use that has occurred."
  My right hon. Friend went on to say:
  "I have great confidence in General de Chastelain and his colleagues to ensure that that process is properly verified."— [Official Report, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 260.]
  My right hon. Friend made a very clear statement consistent with the laws under which the general and his colleagues have to act, and of which the Government have

  737
  to take full cognisance. I am not so sure that the hon. Member for Lagan Valley really does understand the Act, but I hope that today's debate has helped him on that.
  The hon. Gentleman went on to talk about the early release of prisoners and the grief and the hurt that that brings. We have exchanged views in this Chamber and elsewhere on that subject, and I well understand the specific issue. However, he then referred to "other concessions to terrorists" without defining what those concessions were. Was one of the concessions the Human Rights Act 1998? I do not think that that was a concession to terrorists. Was it the creation of the equality provisions? I do not believe that they were a concession to terrorists.
  Was normalisation of the security profile a concession? I do not believe that that was a concession to terrorists. When the Government move forward on normalising the security profile in Northern Ireland, our actions are consistent with the views of the Chief Constable and the best security advice available. It is not a straightforward political judgment, as we have to take best advice. Moreover, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that trying to normalise society is a concession, I do not know what type of society he wants.
  Is it a concession to review the criminal justice system?
  Mr. Donaldson: Yes.
  Mr. Ingram: Such a view is not what the people of Northern Ireland voted for when they supported the Good Friday agreement. Is it a concession to examine the whole question of the future of policing in Northern Ireland? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Such a view is not what the people of Northern Ireland voted for, and it is not what the Good Friday agreement said.
  I well understand why the hon. Gentlemen respond as they do, saying that those are concessions to terrorists. However, the actions are about trying to create a very specific type of better society in Northern Ireland—a society that was well defined by those who debated and designed the Good Friday agreement, which was then put to a referendum of the people. Although the hon. Gentlemen are entitled to their view, I ask the hon. Member for Lagan Valley to bear in mind the fact that he is out of kilter with the vast majority of his fellow citizens in Northern Ireland.
  I always listen closely to the speeches of the hon. Member for Lagan Valley. However, may I ask him perhaps to get his language right for once? It may help his judgment as we move forward. He genuinely wants a peaceful society in Northern Ireland, but the way in which we achieve it is important.
  It is easy to be a critic and to say that we should stand still or look back to some wonderful period in the past, but that is not the reality for the people of Northern Ireland, and it has not been the policy of the Government or the previous Administration in trying to develop a different environment in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman needs to get his language right to begin to understand the breadth of the debate and to look for a new basis for his judgments. There may be political judgments involved. He may be interested in a future bid for the leadership of his party; I do not know. I am not interested in the internal politics of the Ulster Unionists—I am interested in what is right for all the people of Northern Ireland.
  Mr. Donaldson: My concern is to ensure that there is progress. Everybody agrees that there is not progress
  738
  currently. One reason for that is the problem that I identified when the Good Friday agreement was signed. I said that the provisions on decommissioning were inadequate, would be the Achilles heel of the agreement and would lead to a breakdown. My judgment is not in question because time has proven that it was correct. I want to put that situation right and ensure that we use the opportunity of the review to correct what was wrong and to move forward.
  Mr. Ingram: Judgment requires alternatives. The hon. Gentleman has not given us any. How do we move the process forward? Is it simply by saying that things are going to fail, being a constant critic and trying to undermine what the people have voted for?
  Mr. Donaldson: Link prisoner releases to decommissioning.
  Mr. Ingram: I have always said that that is a difficult part of the process. The previous Administration took it on board when there was no ceasefire. Different circumstances applied and there have been attempts to define what happened differently, but terrorist prisoners were being released early when there was no ceasefire. We now have substantial ceasefires from the main terrorist and paramilitary organisations. If that is not progress, I do not know what is. A look at the statistics for the number of people killed, maimed and injured over the past 30 years shows what progress has been made. The stage that we are at is not enough. It must be improved on, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and others are seeking to achieve that.
  The establishment of the devolved Administration was a huge step forward for the people of Northern Ireland. The Government are determined to ensure that what we achieved on the back of the Good Friday agreement and the establishment of the devolved Administration has substance. That is why my right hon. Friend made his decision last week. We have to move forward on all parts of the agreement. My right hon. Friend made that clear when we debated the legislation on the suspension of the Administration. We hope that the suspension will be shortlived, but that depends on all those involved playing a major role.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) tends to be free with his insults. That is part of the debate in the House. I try not to insult back, but I see the hon. Gentleman as a pedant—so much so that I sometimes lose track of what he is trying to say. He reads out documents and interprets them for everyone. He and the hon. Member for Spelthorne asked whether the date given was the final one. We have established a date. For argument's sake, if we needed one extra day to get all the weapons, are the hon. Gentlemen suggesting that I should not come back to the House and amend the order? I hope not. We may need another day or another month. Judgments have to be made all the time. If we are making progress, we want it to be solid and firm. It is not in our mind to come back and amend the date.
  Mr. Wilshire: I do not have any great objection to the Minister coming back, but if he intends to do that, why not admit it now?
  Mr. Ingram: The date is clearly set out in the Good Friday agreement. It is an objective to which people have

  739
  signed up, and that is why we have set it forth. I made the point for argument's sake, and I hope that I will not have to come back. If I do not, it will mean that substantial progress has been made.
  The hon. Member for East Londonderry did not rise when I made that point, so I presume that if I have to come back with an amended date, he will be supportive.
  We have had a good debate. I commend the order to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 (Amnesty Period) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to European Community documents.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
    COMMON STRATEGY ON UKRAINE
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13523/2/99, the Common Strategy on Ukraine, and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum dated 31st January 2000 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the Presidency's work plan on the implementation of the Common Strategy of the European Union on Ukraine; supports the Government's objectives of developing closer, constructive relations with Ukraine; and agrees that the Common Strategy has the potential to make a significant contribution towards strengthening the EU-Ukraine relationship.

    STATE AID TO THE COAL INDUSTRY 1996–1997
    That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 10948/99, Commission report on the application of the Community rules for State Aid to the coal industry in 1996 and 1997; and supports the Government's actions in pressing the European Commission to interpret the Coal State Aid Code strictly.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
    EDUCATION
    That the draft Foundation Subject (Amendment) (England) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.

    DATA PROTECTION
    That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Social Work) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Health) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    That the draft Data Protection (Subject Access Modification) (Education) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    That the draft Data Protection (Processing of Sensitive Personal Data) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    That the draft Data Protection (Miscellaneous Subject Access Exemptions) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    That the draft Data Protection (Designated Codes of Practice) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.
    That the draft Data Protection (Crown Appointments) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 24th January, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    Question agreed to.

    Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Committees.
    Ordered,

    PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
    That Ms Margaret Moran be discharged from the Select Committee on Public Administration and Dr. George Turner be added to the Committee.
    That Mr. Simon Thomas be added to the Environmental Audit Committee.
    PROCEDURE
    That Mr. Edward Davey be discharged from the Procedure Committee and Mr. A. J. Beith be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Keith Bradley.]
    INFORMATION
    That Ms Sandra Osborne be discharged from the Information Committee and Mr. Gwyn Prosser be added to the Committee.—[Mr. John Mc William, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

    Acute Health Services (East Kent)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
    12.52 am
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I am grateful for the opportunity to hold this debate. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) and to the Minister for being here to debate this matter well into the witching hour.
    It is difficult to exaggerate the scale of concern about the future of acute health services in East Kent, and particularly at Kent and Canterbury hospital. I have received more than 3,000 individually written letters on the subject. It would be out of order for me to refer to the Gallery, but considerable interest is being shown—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite correct. It is out of order, and I would be grateful if he did not do it again, on this or any future occasion.
    Mr. Brazier: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
    Since this subject was last debated, the situation has worsened. The hospital is the most heavily used and cost-efficient of all the hospitals in Kent, and the only one in East Kent with a mixture of regional specialist services. I believe that the plans in the "Moving Forward" document will put at risk health care in the whole of East Kent.
    In December 1998, the then Secretary of State for Health concluded his considerations of East Kent health authority's so-called "better balance" proposals and sent a letter to Members of Parliament on 22 December, with a further letter following at the end of March to the chairmen of the trusts. The first letter said:
    "my decision is to endorse the Health Authority's proposals, subject to a number of conditions."
    By any standard, the conditions were major. The letter went on to say that
    "the proposals to the Kent and Canterbury A&E … are not satisfactory and must be improved."
    The letter said that EKHA must
    "guarantee that onsite consultant and anaesthetic surgical and medical cover will be provided at the Kent and Canterbury during the day and on-call cover in these specialities … out of hours."
    That was even reinforced by the condition that
    "there will be a designated consultant to develop and lead the Canterbury emergency centre … to ensure that a substantial proportion of consultant time is spent at Canterbury",
    including
    "consultant medical cover for the coronary care unit at the hospital"
    and
    "and a physician with an interest in coronary care."
    The Secretary of State also demanded a full review of the provisions for renal medicine.
    742
    In his second letter, the Secretary of State gave a further critical guarantee. He said:
    "it is clear that many of the respondents to consultation were under the misapprehension that the proposal was to move specialist cancer services, rather than simply the management of those services".
    He continues:
    "The retention of specialist cancer services at Kent & Canterbury Hospitals was part of that decision. Specialist cancer services at Canterbury, therefore, have a firm future."
    He also made a firm commitment to at least 232 beds in Canterbury, as against around 390 at the Kent and Canterbury and the Nunnery Fields hospitals together.
    Mr. Michael Howard: Has my hon. Friend seen the recent letter written to the chief executive of the East Kent hospitals NHS trust by Mr. Paul Watkins, chairman of the South East Kent community health council, in which Mr. Watkins asks that the implementation of the proposals in "Tomorrow's Health Care" be deferred until the Secretary of State has devised the national strategy that he has promised on the number of beds to be provided in the NHS? Does my hon. Friend think that that suggestion by Mr. Watkins has some merit?
    Mr. Brazier: I do indeed. Both my right hon. and learned Friend and Mr. Watkins are right on that point. Last year, in reply to a question that I asked in the House, the previous Secretary of State said in relation to the Kent and Canterbury hospital:
    "If it looks as though things are going wrong, I am prepared to step in and ensure that the bed reduction does not proceed as quickly, or as far, as presently agreed".—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 45–6.]
    Even with the commitments that he made, the Secretary of State's decision caused dismay. It will mean the rundown of the full A and E department, which has been in the top third of the major trauma outcome survey for every year since the survey was launched in 1988, and transferring those services to distant units that are still to meet the full standard.
    Furthermore, our area is suffering a winter that has seen the most severe pressure on East Kent hospitals. In recent weeks, two out of three acute hospitals in the area have, on several different occasions, been simultaneously closed to all but blue-light work, with bed use running at well over 100 per cent. of nominal capacity, including trollies pushed into offices and corridors. Flu has been part of the cause, but East Kent has some of the largest and busiest road arteries in Europe. Because the mild winter has brought relatively little ice and snow, the road accident work load has been well below average, but still the hospital system has been stretched to near breaking point.
    A Government with a large majority can do as they wish. Despite all those considerations, when the Secretary of State made his decision, I decided that the best way that I could defend the services was to engage, rather than simply oppose. He did at least leave us with a single trust responsible for health care, and I have welcomed the meetings with Mr. Conrad Blakey and Mr. David Astley, the new chairman and chief executive.
    It was, therefore, with incredulity that I read the "Moving Forward" document, the opening sentence of which reads:
    "On 22 December 1998 the Secretary of State endorsed the Health Authority's proposal".

    743
    That statement was repeated five times in the text without any mention of his lengthy conditions. On those conditions, I shall leave description of the fiasco over renal services to the hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey. As for the rest of the items that 1 have already listed, the Secretary of State's findings on coronary care merit a brief mention on one page, but appear to play no part in the actual plan. Every other pledge has disappeared. The commitment to retain a full cancer centre has been ignored. The commitment to 232 beds has been ignored and no specific bed numbers are mentioned for that site. Consultant cover for emergency work at the Kent and Canterbury hospital has been ignored again.
    This imaginative document, "Moving Forward", involves a degree of creative accounting that I can only describe as remarkable. East Kent health authority has carefully kept the capital investment figure just inside the £50 million mark, so that it does not go back to Ministers. Is the Minister content that a health authority can brush aside pledges by the Secretary of State? Is she content to see £50 million of taxpayers' money, along with substantial further sums hidden in revenue flows, go forward without referring the matter back to the Secretary of State to see that the pledges have been maintained?
    It is very sad to see EKHA restating the same half truths from the old debate. For example, the document states:
    "an economic and social impact study confirmed that the greatest concentration of both the elderly and the socio-economically deprived in East Kent are located in Thanet".
    As independent studies show, there are far more elderly people and a slightly greater number of deprived people in the catchment area for the Kent and Canterbury hospital. I raised that point with Mr. Mark Outhwaite, the chief executive, at a public meeting. He pointed out that the people in Thanet live closer together. He is quite right—technically, the largest concentration of elderly and deprived people is in Thanet. Do the people in rural areas, and in small towns such as Whitstable and Faversham, matter less because they live further apart, even though there are more of them? The population figures are flawed throughout the document. Where EKHA got the fatuous growth figure that was fed into the York study team, I cannot imagine. Has it never heard of Serplan, with its projections for huge population growth?
    Page 11 of the document says that an implementation plan has been agreed. Yet on page 22, in excusing itself for giving no detail on plans for the Canterbury site, the same document says:
    "the detailed site plan will be drafted when a robust medical services model has been developed."
    What sort of medical organisation embarks on £50 million worth of capital spending without a robust medical plan?
    EKHA' s overstretched financial plans—and they are overstretched, because of the sheer scale of the capital spending, which is disguised in revenue—include £600,000 for investment in transport services. There is no mention of continuing spending. Most of East Kent's scattered rural communities, and some small towns, have no public transport access to the other two hospitals. Even if that allocation survives, does anyone really believe that an all-embracing taxi service can be delivered by East Kent's undermanned and overstretched ambulance service?
    744
    One sinister sentence explains how the financial circle is to be squared. It says:
    "the largest single savings will come from bed reductions"
    and from "improved efficiency". Presumably, no one from EKHA saw the trolleys in the corridors and the offices this winter. Yet the whole document hinges on 15 per cent. fewer beds. Vast capital expenditure and a shift from Kent's lowest cost hospital to less efficient sites is to be financed by removing beds. Is that what the Government want for the future of health care in East Kent? Will the Secretary of State require EKHA to resubmit its plans to see that at least those minimum pledges are met, and to take account of the new national findings on bed numbers?
    I should like to end by asking the Minister a few specific questions. Will Canterbury retain the full range of services of a joint cancer centre, as defined under the Calman-Hine guidelines? Will a new linear accelerator be purchased, as promised, or just a second-hand one, which can be readily abandoned? Do the pledges on emergency cover and coronary care at Canterbury stand? Does the pledge of at least 332 beds stand, and does the hon. Lady think that that is adequate for our burgeoning population?
    People all over East Kent, relying on our overstretched service, are waiting for answers—the old, the vulnerable, children, accident victims, doctors, nurses and health care workers. I urge the Secretary of State to call in the plans to see whether the earlier pledges are being maintained and whether they go far enough for the future of acute health care in East Kent.
    1.4 am
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing the debate. My constituency lies to the east of the West Kent health authority area and to the west of the East Kent health authority area. If there were a north Kent authority, we should lie to the north of that, too. In short, we sit right in the middle on this matter. If one lives in Warden Bay or Leysdown, it takes at least an hour and a half to get to the hospitals at Medway or Canterbury. It also requires the use of three or four public transport services—up to two buses and two trains. It simply is not possible to get to hospital at some times.
    In addition, the Isle of Sheppey is not always connected to the mainland. We have specific problems, including having more socially excluded people than anywhere in the south-east of England outside Folkestone. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman represent serious problems for my constituents, who prefer Canterbury because they do not yet trust the new arrangements at Medway Maritime hospital.
    I wish specifically to address problems with renal services in East Kent. There has been a serious change. Margate hospital has been designated for services from spring 2003, but it is unacceptable to my constituents. It is on the far eastern side of Kent, which will cause access difficulties for all patients from my constituency and for staff, particularly those from West Kent.
    As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, renal care requires lifelong associations between patients and doctors and nurses, who provide great care that involves frequent visits to clinics. On average, a patient may have to be admitted for in-patient treatment once or twice a year, and there is an average stay of nine days. It would

    745
    not be possible for relatives to visit patients in Margate. They could not afford it. It is essential in a modern health care service to consider not only patients but their families, whose love and care contribute physically to their well-being. It is a serious matter if families cannot get to hospital to see their loved ones.
    The proposed relocation would increase travel times and travel costs beyond the reach of most of the people on the Isle of Sheppey. Does my hon. Friend really believe that the nursing staff will transfer to Margate? If not, where will nursing staff come from? We all know that there is a shortage of trained nurses for this specialty.
    The relocation of the unit to Margate is opposed by patients, by the head of the renal medicine department at the Kent and Canterbury hospital and by the community health councils for Medway and Swale and for Canterbury and Thanet. Those are reasonable people who have thought the matter through. I ask the Minister to think again about the renal unit and to keep it in Canterbury.
    1.7 am
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Gisela Stuart): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on securing a debate on a matter of great concern to his constituents. He has keenly supported his local hospitals for many years, particularly Kent and Canterbury and Nunnery Fields. His interest bears testimony to his commitment to the needs of local people, who are keen to see a high-quality health service for themselves and their families. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we share their vision.
    The debate on hospital services in the East Kent health authority area has gone on for some time. I should like to spend a few moments outlining the reasons for the change in acute services, but I will address the hon. Gentleman's specific points later. First, I convey my thanks and those of the House to all the people in the national health service who worked over winter to cope with extraordinary pressures arising from the combination of an extended Christmas holiday, the millennium celebrations and the flu.
    I shall outline the context of the changes to acute services in East Kent. They are not primarily driven by money, as has been suggested. I should record the fact that the health authority is receiving an additional cash increase of more than £23 million, which represents real growth of 3.7 per cent. No matter what the funding stream, changes would still be necessary to services in Kent.
    In East Kent, the major issues are not only money, but the supply and training of doctors and the changes in medical technology. NHS services cannot stand still—locally or nationally. Changes in the NHS are complex and, as we all know, contentious. People want to fight for their local services. That is only right.
    However, in East Kent, the process of modernisation has been a long one. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it started back in 1997, after detailed examination and the most exhaustive local consultation ever carried out for the NHS. As he said, the matter was referred to Ministers.
    The then Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), gave careful consideration to the issues that had been raised and to the representations that had been received. He made his decision at the end of 1998. I fully accept that his decision was not universally
    746
    popular, especially in the constituency of the hon. Member for Canterbury. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that such decisions are never taken lightly.
    Ministers need to combine the needs of the local population for access to local services with the requirement to provide top-quality treatment in a safe environment, in facilities that are fit for the 21st century. The decision taken will ensure that high-quality care will be provided on three sites—the Kent and Canterbury, the William Harvey and the Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother hospitals. It will provide the opportunity to develop the scope and capacity of local primary care services. We must not forget what happens in primary care. The decision lays the foundation for acute and specialist care that will be of long-term and sustainable benefit to local people.
    I make it clear again—although it has been made clear on previous occasions—that the decision announced by my right hon. Friend is not negotiable. I reiterate that: we shall not revisit the overall decision. However, it is important to point out that we shall ensure that the framework for that decision is properly implemented on the ground; that the plans are robust; and that the needs of the local population are met. I have, therefore, asked officials from the south-east regional office of the NHS Executive to monitor the progress of implementation to ensure that it takes place in a proper, sensitive and well-managed way.
    The three trusts are merging to become the East Kent Hospitals NHS trust. That is right, because the new trust structure supports the implementation of the changes to hospital services. A single trust is much better placed to achieve that goal. The new trust combines the benefits of strategic oversight of hospital services in East Kent with a commitment to be responsive to local communities and their primary care groups.
    The new trust has moved swiftly with its NHS partners to draw up an implementation plan for the service changes. The hon. Member for Canterbury referred to the document "Moving Forward". That document sets out the strategic development plan for acute services in the area. It builds on the work of clinical specialty groups. It sets out proposals to build new services and estates configurations.
    However, it is important to be clear as to the purpose of the document. Although it addresses a variety of audiences, it has a specific purpose. It is not a consultation document, nor, as the hon. Gentleman implied, is it intended to set out in detail the clinical models for each specialty. Its key purpose is to obtain approval to move through the private finance initiative process to the outline business case stage. It has been referred to the regional office of the NHS Executive—not for the executive to provide the funding, but to ensure that due process is followed.
    The implementation plan has been agreed locally between the trust, health authority, community health council, primary care groups and the regional office. The hon. Gentleman referred to capital spending of £50 million of taxpayers' money. That is not what the plan is about. It is intended that the sources of capital will come from the private sector. If the PFI developments are approved, the plan will be developed over five years. Only when the future models of care have been agreed will there be any redevelopment of the Kent and Canterbury site. Even when the changes are fully implemented, about 85 per cent. of patients who would currently expect to attend the Kent and Canterbury hospital will continue to be treated there.
    Mr. Howard: Will the Minister deal with the issue of bed numbers and the specific suggestion that has been made by the chairman of the community health council? Does she see some merit in that suggestion?
    Ms Stuart: I shall come to the issue of bed numbers about a paragraph from now.
    The health authority has stated that, in accordance with the then Secretary of State's decision, it is committed to ensuring that robust services at alternative sites are in place before any service is transferred from its current location. To assist it in this process—because, as the change occurs, there will be some duplication of services—the authority has applied for special assistance funding to help it during this period. A decision on that is expected shortly.
    I now turn to the specific issues raised by the hon. Member for Canterbury and the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). First, I shall discuss bed numbers. The number of acute beds will increase from the 1,395 that were originally proposed to 1,417. We do of course recognise the public concern about the eventual number of beds in the area and the pressure that they have been under this winter, and we expect the health authority to continue to monitor and review bed numbers closely. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe made reference to the national bed survey, which I assume is what was covered in that letter. Some of those findings will be incorporated, but the overall decision by the Secretary of State stands.
    Mr. Brazier: How does the Minister reconcile what she has just said—about nothing happening immediately and about working in line with that detailed programme—with EKHA' s announcement, out of the blue, that Nunnery Fields hospital, with almost a quarter of Canterbury's beds, is to close this summer?
    Ms Stuart: I was going to discuss the Nunnery Fields hospital situation, especially in relation to the care of the elderly. The hospital provides a rehabilitation service for the elderly. It is an old workhouse. It is no longer suitable for the type of care and rehabilitation that we expect to give to elderly people and which they deserve. We expect that, once the reconfiguration has taken place, the hospital care will take place within the Kent and Canterbury.
    As I have said, we should focus not only on hospitals but on what is happening in primary care and the support services that allow people—especially elderly people—who do not need to stay in hospital to receive care and support at home or at primary care level. We have spent some £2.5 million to develop primary care and community-based services for the elderly, and there will be an additional £5 million further investment in acute services. More than £500,000 will be directed into the development of transport facilities. I know that the hon. Member for Canterbury feels that that may be insufficient, but I think that we should not sneer at what is a significant amount of money.
    I shall now address the issue of the care of the elderly in East Kent, because allegations have often been made that they have been neglected or even marginalised. Nothing could be further from the truth. The health authority is looking after the elderly in East Kent in a very responsive way. For example, community assessment and rehabilitation teams—a joint
    748
    initiative, which is so far being implemented in only one part of the area, although the plan is that there will be four such units—are helping to develop models of care to ensure that elderly patients avoid hospital admissions wherever appropriate, and that patients can be discharged much sooner than they are now.
    Modernisation does not only focus on the care of the elderly. We should also take account of such improvements as the booked admissions pilot system. Since it commenced last year, about 40 per cent. of patients who require day surgery have been able to agree their surgery date at their first out-patient appointment.
    Two areas were specifically mentioned, one of which was cancer services. The collaborative arrangements whereby we develop a tertiary cancer centre to provide services through an umbrella network managed by the Mid Kent trust are being taken forward. The Kent oncology centre appointed its director in 1999 and there is a policy board to develop the standard of services and support. Radiotherapy services provided at the Kent and Canterbury will continue to be an important part of that service.
    I shall deal next with the concerns about renal services that were expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt). On the travel argument, he said that his constituents look first to Medway hospital, but as I said before, even within the reconfiguration, 85 per cent. of the people in his area who are expected to go to the Kent and Canterbury will continue to do so. However, the model agreed for the reconfiguration of renal services looks to East Kent and West Kent health authorities providing four satellite dialysis units at Canterbury, Ashford, Maidstone and Medway to support the main renal unit, when it is established in Margate.
    Once the new arrangements are in place, they will result in an increase in the number of dialysis stations available, and that relates to the concerns raised about families and travel arrangements. There will be more dialysis stations in the county and the number will increase even further over a 10-year period. At the end of that time, we shall have 26 dialysis stations, which will make life easier for renal patients in the county.
    Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister give way?
    Ms Stuart: I shall not, in view of the time.
    Let me conclude with three assurances for the hon. Gentleman. First, we will ensure that the former Secretary of State's decisions are fully implemented. Secondly, patient safety will not be compromised during the implementation process. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about accident and emergency services and I remind him that, so far, no changes have been made to the services provided in the Kent and Canterbury and none will be made until alternative provisions are in place. Thirdly, robust and adequate services will be put in place in relation not just to accident and emergency, but to all the other services, before there are any changes or any services are transferred.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past One o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Corporate IT Strategy
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress has been made towards achieving the target of publishing a Corporate IT Strategy by March. [110300]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  As part of our Modernising Governing commitment to publish a Corporate IT Strategy in March, we have published a draft of the strategy for comment on the Information Age Government website at www.iagchampions.gov.uk and have placed copies in the Libraries of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the names of the individuals involved in undertaking the review of the Parades Commission. [110049]

  Mr. Ingram
  No. This was an internal review carried out by officials of the Northern Ireland Office.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will publish a list of individuals and organisations who(a) have been invited to make submissions, (b) have made written submissions and (c) have made oral submissions to the review of the Parades Commission. [110048]

  Mr. Ingram
  We invited, through a press release, comments from anyone who felt they had a contribution to make. It is not Government practice to publish lists of contributors.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for what reasons he is to conduct a second review of the Parades Commission. [110042]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are no plans to conduct any review of the Parades Commission other than that announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam) on 8 October last year.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will publish the report of the review of the Parades Commission; and if he will make a statement. [110047]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Marjorie Mowlam), the Secretary of State will make an announcement on the outcome of the review. There are no plans to publish the report.
  354W
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if the current review of the Parades Commission will be completed prior to the appointment of new members and a new Chairman to the Commission. [110046]

  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will simultaneously announce the outcome of both the review and the competitions to appoint new members and a new Chairman to the Commission later in the week.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Transport Plans
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the costs incurred by each local authority in England in preparing provisional local transport plans. [109700]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The move to a five-year planning cycle will produce administrative savings for local authorities (by offering greater certainty of future funding and removing the need to prepare plans annually). The wider public participation, more effective partnership working and better monitoring associated with local transport plans will lead to some additional costs, but we have no information on which to base an estimate of their scale.

  Driving Licences
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 278W, on driving licences, if he will state (a) what details, confirmed by the Immigration and Nationality Department are accepted as identification for driving licence application purposes and (b) in what form such confirmation would be acceptable. [108007]

  Mr. Hill
  My officials have recently reached agreement with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) on a scheme under which original documents (passports or birth certificates) held by them will be returned for a limited period on request to those awaiting processing to allow them to make an application to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for a driving licence.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if when an application for a driving licence is made by someone whose papers are awaiting processing by the Immigration Service, DVLA will consider accepting as proof of identity the standard acknowledgement letter issued by the Immigration Service. [108431]

  Mr. Hill
  DVLA was advised by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) in August last year that Standard Acknowledgement Letters are not evidence of identity and should not be accepted in support of an application for a driving licence.
  355W
  DVLA and IND have recently reached agreement on a scheme under which original identity documents held by the Immigration Service will be returned for a limited period to those awaiting processing so that an application for a driving licence can be made to DVLA.

  Workplace Car Parking Charges (West Midlands)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to(a) encourage less frequent use of cars and (b) allow local authorities to levy workplace car parking charges, in the west midlands. [109565]

  Mr. Hill
  Our integrated transport White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone", set out a new approach to meeting local transport needs and reducing dependency on the car by improving alternative modes of transport and providing greater transport choice.

  The Transport Bill currently before Parliament will enable local authorities to levy a charge on workplace parking to tackle traffic congestion as part of a Local Transport Plan. Local authorities in the West Midlands, with the exception of Coventry and Solihull, have joined our Charging Development Partnership and are actively considering a workplace parking levy scheme.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with other EU Ministers about exchanging information on good practice regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions; and if he will make a statement. [110005]

  Mr. Meacher
  EU Environment Ministers regularly discuss the importance of introducing effective national, co-ordinated and Community level policies and measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In October 1999, the Council agreed that it was essential for further common and co-ordinated policies and measures to be implemented rapidly and asked the Commission to put forward a priority list as early as possible in 2000. Discussion on any new measures proposed will be informed by best practice in Member States.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions have taken place within the Council of Ministers regarding meeting the legally-binding targets for greenhouse gas emissions by 2010; and if he will make a statement. [110006]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Council regularly discusses climate change issues and restates its determination to delivering the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions to which the European Community and its Member States are committed under the Kyoto Protocol.

  The revised Council Decision on monitoring emissions of greenhouse gases requires the Commission to prepare annual assessments of the progress of the Community and its Member States towards delivering the Kyoto targets and to report to the Council and the European Parliament. The Commission is due to produce its first report in October, providing an opportunity for further Council discussion.

  Road Haulage Forum
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the names of the members of the Road Haulage Forum with the names of the organisations and regions they represent; and if he will make a statement. [110112]

  Mr. Hill
  The Road Haulage Forum was established in March 1999. Its current membership is:

  Members

  Minister for Transport

  The right hon. Lord Macdonald of Tradeston CBE

  Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, DETR

  Lord Whitty

  Minister of State, DTI

  Patricia Hewitt MP

  Financial Secretary to the Treasury

  Stephen Timms MP

  Freight Transport Association

  Lawrence Christensen CBE (President) David Green (Director General)

  Road Haulage Association

  John Bridge OBE (Chairman)

  Transport and General Workers' Union

  Danny Bryan, Ron Webb (National Secretaries)

  Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders

  Christopher Macgowan (Chief Executive)

  Independent Members

  Stuart Archbold (of Archbold Freightage, Leeds) John Harvey CBE (of Tibbett and Britten, Enfield)

  The Director General of the Road Haulage Association is also a member of the Forum, but this post is currently vacant.

  Euratom
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will publish the consultation document on the regulatory changes required to implement the Basic Safety Standards Directive 96/29/ on Euratom. [110303]

  Mr. Meacher
  After consultation with interested parties last year, I have today published the proposals on the regulatory changes required to implement aspects of the Basic Safety Standards Directive 96/29/Euratom concerned with the control of radioactive waste. The proposals involve the minimum of change to the existing regulatory framework under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 (RSA 93) and fulfil the Government's commitment that implementation of the Directive would not lead to a weakening of existing controls. Copies of the document, entitled "The Proposals for the Radioactive Substances (Basic Safety Standards) (England and Wales) Regulations 2000 and the Radioactive Substances (Basic Safety Standards) (England and Wales) Direction 2000" can now be found in the Library.

  The proposed Regulations made under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 will provide controls on the disposal of certain types of old clocks and watches using radioactive luminising material, which are currently

  357W
  exempt from regulation. The proposed Direction to the Environment Agency made under Section 40 of the Environment Act 1995 will put a number of their existing administrative practices, in discharging their duties under RSA 93, into legally binding obligations.

  Parallel measures are to be taken in Scotland and Northern Ireland, which will be the subject of separate consultations in due course.

  Council Tax Band

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Band A

  437.95

  457.72

  489.43

  541.91

  585.04

  Band B

  510.94

  534.01

  571.00

  632.22

  682.55

  Band C

  583.93

  610.29

  652.57

  722.54

  780.05

  Band D

  656.92

  686.58

  734.14

  812.86

  877.56

  Band E

  802.90

  839.15

  897.28

  993.50

  1,072.57

  Band F

  948.88

  991.73

  1,060.42

  1,174.13

  1,267.59

  Band G

  1,094.87

  1,144.30

  1,223.57

  1,354.77

  1,462.60

  Band H

  1,313.84

  1,373.16

  1,468.28

  1,625.72

  1,755.12

  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the council tax payable in Amber Valley for bands A-H for the last five years. [110077]

  Council Tax Band

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Band A

  437.03

  453.27

  487.78

  539.31

  581.71

  Band B

  509.86

  528.81

  569.08

  629.20

  678.67

  Band C

  582.70

  604.36

  650.37

  719.08

  775.62

  Band D

  655.54

  679.90

  731.67

  808.97

  872.57

  Band E

  801.22

  830.99

  894.26

  988.74

  1,066.47

  Band F

  946.89

  982.08

  1,056.86

  1,168.51

  1,260.38

  Band G

  1,092.57

  1,133.17

  1,219.45

  1,348.28

  1,454.28

  Band H

  1,311.08

  1,359.80

  1,463.34

  1,617.94

  1,745.14

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110187]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The FSC label is accepted by buyers as demonstrating that timber and timber products have come from sustainably managed sources. However, it is not practicable to require that all paper and timber products purchased by the Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council because this might discriminate against any equally valid schemes and therefore be against public procurement rules. It might also result in us failing to meet our full requirements as currently only a tiny percentage of timber products are FSC certified. This is why DETR's Greening Operations policy statement suggests that evidence of sustainability might take the form of a certificate issued under a credible, preferably independent, verification scheme; or other documents which demonstrate the operation of an environmental management system incorporating forest management criteria that conform with internationally recognised principles such as the Helsinki Guidelines.

  Council Tax (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the council tax payable in the area of Derbyshire Dales District Council for bands A-H for the last five years. [110078]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the gross council tax liability on properties in the bands A-H over the last five years.

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The table shows the gross council tax liability on properties in the bands A-H over the last five years.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110186]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Among the key aims of DETR's Greening Operations policy statement are: to conserve resources and minimise waste by reducing our reliance on virgin materials and ensuring that any products derived from wildlife—such as paper and timber—are from sustainable sources and comply with EU and international trading rules such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. The Department's policy statement also requires the purchase of 100 per cent. recycled paper for non-specialist use comprising at least 80 per cent. genuine post consumer waste with any virgin pulp coming from sustainably managed woodlands. It also promotes the purchase of sustainably produced timber and timber products by, for example, requiring buyers to specify in orders and contracts that:"suppliers provide documentary evidence (which has been, or if necessary can be, independently verified) that the timber has been lawfully obtained from forests and plantations which are managed to sustain their biodiversity, productivity and vitality, and to prevent harm to other ecosystems and any indigenous or forest-dependent people".

  More guidance is given to buyers on these and other options in DETR's Green Guide for Buyers which is readily available on the Internet. The Department

  359W
  monitors its performance on these and other aspects of its operations and publishes an annual report showing progress made. It has also set up an inter-departmental buyers' timber group to raise awareness and promote best practice across Government.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for Broxbourne of 19 July, 1 September, 6 October, 3 November, 30 November, 4 January and 8 February relating to Mrs. Antonia Skielharn, a constituent. [109960]

  Mr. Hill
  My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State replied to the hon. Member for Broxbourne's letters on 10 February, expressing his apologies for the delay in so doing.

  Fishing Vessel Accidents
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will issue the Government's response to the consultation paper entitled "Fishing Vessel Accidents and the Recovery of those Lost at Sea", published on 23 July 1998; and if he will make a statement. [109567]

  Mr. Hill
  The analysis of the responses to the consultation paper was published on 9 February 1999. The Government's response to the paper has been delayed because we are awaiting the results of Roger Clarke's investigation into why no search was made for the fishing trawler Gaul, following her disappearance in 1974. Mr. Clarke's investigation examines a number of issues raised in the consultation paper and we wish to take his findings into account before we issue the response.

  Marine Freight Facilities Grant
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list (a) the allocations made under the marine freight facilities grant over the last five years, (b) their amount and (c) to whom the awards were made. [109566]

  Mr. Hill
  Inland Waterway Freight Facilities Grants awarded under section 36 of the Transport Act 1981 and section 140 of the Railways Act 1993 over the past five years are:

  Year

  Grants awarded

  £

  1995

  —

  —

  1996

  Medway Shipping Ltd.

  71,563

  1997

  J. J. Prior (Transport) Ltd.

  105,210

  1998

  RMC (London) Ltd.

  118,500

  Aram Resources plc

  1,057,900

  Bayford & Co.

  223,790

  1999

  K. D. Marine (UK) Ltd.

  126,000

  J. R. Rix & Sons Ltd.

  884,917

  Baldwins Industrial Services Ltd.

  1,500,000

  Pioneer Willment/

  38,828

  Medway Bulk Powders

  46,693

  Waterflow Transport Systems

  9,785

  RMC (London) Ltd.

  1,105,811

  Barking Stone Ltd.

  3,636,316

  Waste Oil Services Ltd./

  20,752

  T. & S. Rix Ltd.

  100,746

  360W
  Interest in grant for inland waterway schemes has historically been low. However, recent publicity drives by my Department have resulted in an increased interest in moving freight by inland waterway.

  We intend to consult on the details of a scheme to extend to freight grants regime to coastal and short sea shipping.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the Highways Agency will publish its annual report and accounts for 1998–99. [110403]

  Mr. Hill
  The Highways Agency annual report and accounts 1998–99 will be published tomorrow by the Stationery Office and copies placed in the Libraries of both Houses. Copies will also be available from the Vote Office for Members.

  Energy-efficient Lighting
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he intends to take to ensure that those non-profit organisations which currently benefit from the Energy Saving Trust's successful lightswitch scheme will be assisted by the proposed climate change levy energy efficiency fund in order that they can install energy efficient lighting. [108720]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have invited comments on the scope of the proposed energy efficiency fund through our document "Consultation on Energy Efficiency Measures Under the Climate Change Levy Package". The consultation period closed on 4 February.

  Following evaluation of the responses, it is anticipated that the Chancellor will make further announcements in the 2000 Budget.

  Air Pollution
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many tonnes of carbon equivalent were released into the environment as a result of the use by the UK industry of (a) kerosene and (b) gas oil in the last year for which figures are available. [108713]

  Mr. Hill
  The last available figures are in the 1997 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. In 1997 the combustion of kerosene in UK industry generated 2,473 kilotonnes of carbon equivalent, while the combustion of gas oil in UK industry generated 10,472 kilotonnes of carbon equivalent. The UK total emission was 684,510 kilotonnes of carbon equivalent.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution to UK emissions of pollutants covered by the air quality strategy by the industrial use of (a) kerosene and (b) gas oil. [108714]
  361W
  Mr. Hill
  The contribution to UK emissions of pollutants covered by the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland from the industrial use of (a) kerosene and (b) gas oil is set out in the table.

  Pollutant

  Kerosene

  Gas oil

  UK total

  Carbon monoxide (thousand tonnes per year)

  0.13

  18.33

  5,090

  Nitrogen oxides (thousand tonnes per year)

  2.22

  50.77

  1,835

  Lead (tonnes per year)

  0.05

  0.64

  1,308

  Particulate matter less than 10 micron diameter (thousand tonnes per year)

  0.01

  1.79

  184

  Sulphur dioxide (thousand tonnes per year)

  0.47

  8.95

  1,660

  Volatile organic compounds1 (thousand tonnes per year)

  0.07

  6.54

  2,130

  Benzene (thousand tonnes per year)

  0.00

  0.13

  38

  1 Volatile organic compounds are not an Air Quality Strategy pollutant, but are precursors of ozone

  No figures are available for emissions of 1,3 butadiene from these sources, but they are expected to be small relative to other sources and in absolute terms.

  The figures are from the 1997 National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory. It can be viewed on the internet at http://www.aeat.co.uk/netcen/airqual

  DVLA
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will write to the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central about the results of his investigation into the supplying by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of drivers' names and addresses to wheel clamping companies. [107304]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The Agency has conducted a review of the circumstances in which vehicle keeper details can be released from the register. This has identified a number of areas where a tighter interpretation might be applied to the regulations providing for the release of information, including certain aspects of car parking enforcement. In view of the sensitivities of the issues further legal advice has been sought. Once this has been considered, I will write to my hon. Friend.

  HFC Emissions
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will take into account the HFC emissions forecasts contained in the 1998 United Nations Environment Programme report in his own forecasts for United Kingdom emissions of HFCs to be included in the Government's revised Climate Change Strategy. [109330]

  Mr. Meacher
  In 1998 the United Nations Environment Programme published a report relevant to HFC use globally and this has been taken into account in developing the UK projections of HFC emissions.

  Tax Discs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he is taking to encourage the DVLA to prosecute drivers who are found to have no tax disc on their cars; and if he will make a statement. [109368]

  Mr. Hill
  Where vehicles are used or kept unlicensed on the public road, the detection is carried out by police and traffic wardens, who pass offence reports to the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) for enforcement action.

  Last year, DVLA took successful action against 475,000 evaders, bringing in £57.9 million in fines and penalties from out of court settlements or prosecution. A further 125,000 evaders or potential evaders relicensed their vehicles as a direct result of this enforcement activity, bringing in a further £15 million which would not otherwise have been paid. There are indications that for the first time the level of VED evasion is starting to fall.

  We have significantly increased the number of joint DVLA/police campaigns against VED evaders. In addition the scheme to wheelclamp and impound unlicensed vehicles is now operating nationwide. A new pilot scheme to use automated number plate readers to detect and deter VED evaders will start this summer.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what restrictions there are on sitting councillors serving on regional development agencies. [109436]

  Ms Armstrong
  Although RDA boards are business led, they also need the effective involvement of local government. To that end, appointments to four of the twelve board positions are made from local councillors in the region. In order to maintain this balance, where the four positions reserved for councillors are already filled, sitting councillors will not normally be appointed to posts reserved for the business sector and other groups active in the region. There are no other restrictions.

  Repetitive Strain Injury
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will (a) list the publicly funded studies into repetitive strain injury published in the last 10 years and (b) place such reports in the Library. [109299]

  Mr. Meacher
  The following studies of upper limb disorders (the preferred term for the group of conditions that includes "repetitive strain injury"), funded by the Health and Safety Executive, have been published in the last 10 years:

  Title/subject

  Publication details

  Work related upper limb pain syndromes: origins and management. Contractor: Birmingham University

  Report (Harrington et al, 1996) has not been formally published, however copies have been available in HSE Information Centres since 1997.

  363W

  Title/subject

  Publication details

  Decision aids for the medical assessment of WRULDs. Contractor: Aberdeen University

  Conference paper published: Sinclair D. T., Graves R. J., Watt M., Ratcliffe B., Doherty S. Feasibility of developing a decision aid for initial medical assessment of ULDs. In S. A. Robertson ed., Contemporary Ergonomics 1997, (Taylor and Francis, London).

  Development and evaluation of aids for initial medical assessment of upper limb disorders. Contractor: Aberdeen University

  Conference paper published: Sinclair D. T., Jamieson D. W., Graves R. J., et al. Evaluation of a decision support aid for upper limb disorders in general practice. In M. A. Hanson, E. J. Lovesy and S. A. Robertson, ed., Contemporary Ergonomics 1999, (Taylor and Francis, London).

  Surveillance case definitions for upper limb pain syndromes. Contractor: Birmingham University

  Paper published: Harrington J. M., Carter J. T., Birrell L., Gompertz D. Surveillance case definitions for work related upper limb pain syndromes. In Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 55(4) 264–271. April 1998.

  Epidemiological and ergonomic study of occupational factors associated with symptoms of upper limb disorders in keyboard operators. Contractor: Institute of Occupational Medicine

  Report published by the Institute of Occupational Medicine, October 1999.

  I am placing copies in the Library.

  In addition, a number of studies were published during the period on musculoskeletal disorders generally, and on display screen equipment work. Those relevant to upper limb disorders include:

  Title/subject

  Publication details

  Musculoskeletal disorders in supermarket cashiers. Contractor: HSE/Health and safety Laboratory

  Report published by HSE Books, 1998

  Display screen equipment health problems. Contractor: Systems Concepts

  Published as HSE Contract Research Report No. 198/1998.

  Musculoskeletal disorders among users of floor cleaning machines. Contractor: Surrey University

  Published as HSE Contract Research Report No. 215/1999.

  R55.053 Evaluating exposure to risk of musculoskeletal disorders: A practical tool. Contractor: Surrey University

  Published as HSE Contract Reserch Report No. 251/1999.

  M4 Corridor Study
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what 364W
  progress has been made on the M4 corridor study; and when he will make an announcement on the outcome of the study. [109688]

  Mr. Hill
  Consultants will be appointed in February 2000, with an announcement on the outcome due in late 2001.

  Council Rents (Wakefield)
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will estimate the impact on council house rental levels in Wakefield of the negative housing subsidy regime. [109768]

  Mr. Mullin
  Wakefield Metropolitan District Council is not affected by negative housing subsidy.

PRIME MINISTER

  Post Offices
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Prime Minister further to his statement on 4 February 2000, that the Government intend to promote the installation of cash machines at rural post offices, how franchises for these will be awarded; and what estimate he has made of the cost per transaction for the use of such machines. [109377]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: Decisions on the installation of cash machines at post offices are an operational and commercial matter for the Post Office. They are currently in the process of assessing all existing post office outlets for the suitability of a cash machine. Cost estimates are a commercial issue for the Post Office in conjunction with its partners and are currently being developed.

  EU Defence
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 5W, for what reason he is not prepared to place a synopsis of Mr. Liddle's speech in the Library. [109511]

  The Prime Minister
  I have nothing further to add to my previous answers.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Smoking Policy
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action he is taking to reduce smoking in his Department. [105795]

  Dr. Reid
  In my Department, smoking is permitted in designated areas. Advice and guidance is available to any staff who wish to give up smoking.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  North-east Regional Investment Fund
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the regional investment fund for the north-east has been temporarily closed for applications; and if he will make a statement. [108506]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The Regional Investment Fund for the north-east has not yet been opened. Preparations are underway for the launch of the fund in March 2000.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if enterprises in (a) the town of Berwick-upon-Tweed, (b) Tweedmouth, and (c) Spittal will be eligible to apply to the regional investment fund for the north-east. [108504]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The north-east regional investment fund has been supported by European funding as part of the region's Objective 2 Programme for 1997–99. As the Berwick-upon-Tweed area did not have Objective 2 status under this programme, enterprises in that part of the region can not qualify for assistance. However, the area will enjoy Objective 2 status under the Programme for 2000–06. It will be for the north-east regional partnership to determine whether a similar project should be included in the new Programme.

  British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) international and (b) national quality assurance standards British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. have received from independent accreditation agencies; when each of these standards was awarded; which plants or processes were awarded these standards; which accreditation agencies awarded the standards; which accreditations have now lapsed; when and at which plants; and under which standards corrective action is currently being implemented. [109334]

  Mrs. Liddell
  These are matters for BNFL. I have asked the Company Secretary of BNFL to write to my hon. Friend with the information he requires and will arrange for a copy of his reply to be placed in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has received a copy of the report by Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance Ltd. on British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.'s MOX demonstration facility; and if he will place a copy of that report in the Library. [109337]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have not received a copy of the report. This is a matter between BNFL and Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what modifications BNFL is planning to make to the MOX Demonstration Facility as a result of recommendations made by Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance Ltd.; what will be the cost of those modifications; and if any of these modifications will also be required in the Sellafield MOX Plant. [109335]
  366W
  Mrs. Liddell
  I understand that BNFL are implementing a programme of remedial action which will be verified by Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance in further visits. The details are a matter between BNFL and Lloyd's Register Quality Assurance.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what reports he has received regarding the falsification and manipulation of fuel quality control data in respect of BNFL MOX fuel supplied to Switzerland; and if he will make a statement. [106711]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 1 February 2000]: I understand from BNFL that, since the falsification of quality control data relating to Japanese fuel was discovered, BNFL have investigated all quality data for MOX fuel supplied to Switzerland. A data anomaly affecting one lot of fuel pellets supplied in February 1997 was identified but a further investigation by BNFL and its customers concluded that the fuel met the required specification.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the national minimum wage in(a) Coventry, South, (b) the west midlands and (c) the United Kingdom. [109553]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We asked the independent Low Pay Commission to report on the impact of the introduction of the minimum wage and the Commission's report, with the Government's response, will be published shortly. Definitive estimates of the number of people who had benefited from the national minimum wage are not yet available. But the latest Office for National Statistics figures indicate that at least 700,000 employees in the United Kingdom, 70,000 of them in the west midlands, had already had their pay raised above the national minimum wage rates in spring last year. However, these data were gathered before the full effect of the new law had been felt (March-May 1999).

  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to review the level of the minimum wage; and if he will make a statement. [109576]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I have made no decision on future changes to the level of the national minimum wage. The Government have always made it clear that there would be no automatic uprating mechanism for the national minimum wage. Any future changes to the national minimum wage rates will be made sensibly, taking account of the prevailing economic circumstances and feedback on the effects of the new law since April 1999. The Low Pay Commission's second report, which the Government will publish shortly, considers its impact in great detail.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many representations he has received in the last 12 months asking him to uprate the minimum wage annually in April. [109687]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  We have received 11 representations in the past year requesting that the national minimum wage be uprated annually in April.

  Gas Industry
  Mr. Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to encourage the regulator to examine the gas industry in the north-west. [109577]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have no plans to do so but, under the terms of the Gas Act 1996, the Director General for Gas Supply may investigate any matter that is drawn to his attention by those with interests in the matter.

  Vibration White Finger
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when a medical test centre for Vibration White Finger will be established to meet the needs of ex-miners in north Staffordshire. [109922]

  Mrs. Liddell
  A Vibration White Finger test centre will be established in Hanley on 1 March 2000.

  Gas-powered Generating Stations
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made, in mega watts and kilowatt hours, of the amount of gas-powered electricity generating capacity which has not been proceeded with as a result of the introduction of the moratorium on the approval of licences for new gas-powered generating stations. [109359]

  Mrs. Liddell
  15 proposals amounting to some 6 GW of new gas-fired capacity have been refused clearance under the stricter consents policy. It is not possible to say for certain how many of these proposals would have proceeded to construction had consent been granted, nor how much electricity would have been generated by them.

  If all the proposals had proceeded to development and expected to reach 80 per cent. load factor, then they would have produced some 42,000 million kilowatt hours per year once they reached full operation. This is about the maximum output these proposals could have produced.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what guidelines have been given to officials regarding the issuing of export licences for defence equipment to Pakistan. [109731]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) on 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 578W.

  Polish Coal
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he has taken to stop the dumping of Polish coal on the UK market; and if he will make a statement. [109020]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The UK coal industry have made representations to the Government about the imports of Polish coal at prices that appear to be below the cost of production.
  368W
  Trade relations with third countries such as Poland fall within the competence of the European Communities. The Government have written to the Commission highlighting the difficulties being experienced by the UK coal industry due to Polish coal imports and urging them to address this problem.

  In this regard the Government are exploring with the European Commission as a matter of urgency whether there is any possibility of resolving this issue through the EU-Poland Europe Agreement.

  In addition to this, Ministers and officials have emphasised to the Polish Administration the importance that we place on having a fair and competitive market for coal in the UK.

  It is the European Commission's responsibility to investigate allegations of unfair dumping or subsidy. The Government are urging the European Commission to investigate any complaints from the UK industry as rapidly as possible.

  Coalfields Enterprise Fund
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the establishment of the Coalfields Enterprise Fund. [108730]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply. The Coalfields Task Force Report "Making the Difference" set out a programme of actions to combat the deprivation now faced by the coalfield communities. One of the recommendations was the creation of a fund to provide loans and equity investment to Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs), with high growth potential in the coalfields.

  On 1 December 1998, at a Coalfields Conference in Peterlee, County Durham, the Deputy Prime Minister agreed to this recommendation and set aside £15 million to invest in the Coalfields Enterprise Fund.

  The development of the Fund, by English Partnerships on behalf of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is well advanced and the target is for the Fund to be operational in the spring.

  Wireless Telegraphy Deregulation
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the economic impact on business associated with(a) the Deregulation (Wireless Telegraphy) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 1864) and (b) the Contracting Out (Functions in Relation to the Management of Crown Lands) Order 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 215). [108807]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: I have been asked to reply in view of my Department's responsibility for the two statutory instruments in question. As I said in reply to my hon. Friend on 27 January 2000, Official Report, columns 301–02W, the 1996 Order was estimated to have saved TV dealers £10,000 a year each. The impact on business in general of the 1998 Order has not been estimated, but will have been negligible; the benefits to Exchequer funding by grant-in-aid is however estimated to be a saving of £7 million per year.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if the CPS will advertise all temporary acting-up posts of more than four weeks duration. [109374]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 31 January 2000 the Employment Tribunal promulgated its decision on the remedy in the case of Bamieh v. Crown Prosecution Service (Case number 2202655/98). The Tribunal recommended that with effect from one month after the promulgation of its decision and for a period of 12 months, all temporary acting-up posts as Prosecution Team Leader of more than four weeks' duration (i.e. not simply covering on holidays) should be advertised by the CPS by notice or circular letter to all staff who might be qualified as candidates. The CPS is considering how this recommendation should be met.

  In the meantime, absences of more than three months will be covered by temporary promotion arrangements in which expressions of interest will be sought from staff in response to details circulated by management. A panel will be convened to decide who should be appointed.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will make a statement on the decision in the case of Bamieh v. Crown Prosecution Service (Case No. 2202655/98) in the Employment Tribunal, on 31 January. [109375]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Tribunal decided that Ms Bamieh was entitled to compensation totalling £38,358.22 for the loss of opportunity for promotion, injury to feelings (including an element of aggravated damages) and interest. Arrangements are in hand for the payment to be made.

  The Tribunal also recommended that with effect from one month after promulgation of this decision and for a period of 12 months, all temporary acting-up posts as Prosecution Team Leader of more than four weeks' duration (i.e. not simply covering on holidays) should be advertised by the CPS by notice or circular letter to all staff who might be qualified as candidates.

  A revised CPS temporary promotion procedure came into effect on 31 January 2000. The CPS is considering how the Tribunal's recommendation can be met and whether further changes to that procedure should be made.

DEFENCE

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what will be the total cost to his Department of redundancy and associated entitlement moneys paid to servicemen from the Non-Regular Permanent Staff of the Territorial Army made redundant under the terms of the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement; [101921]

  (2) how many members of the Non-Regular Permanent Staff of the Territorial Army are due to be made redundant under the terms of the Strategic Defence Review; and if he will make a statement. [101922]
  370W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 13 December 1999]: A total of 449 Non-Regular Permanent Staff (NRPS) posts have been removed from the Territorial Army as a result of the Strategic Defence Review. Some incumbents of these posts will be found other jobs but the sizeable remainder will regrettably be made redundant. As at 1 February, 321 NRPS have been made redundant at a total cost of approximately £8.8 million. The total redundancy bill will only be known when all those affected have left because payments are calculated on an individual basis, depending on length of service and rate of pay on discharge.

  Aircraft
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Nimrod aircraft are(a) serviceable and (b) unserviceable; [107047]

  (2) how many Tornado aircraft are (a) serviceable and (b) unserviceable. [107048]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information requested is set out in the table. This represents a snapshot in time at 8 a.m. on 26 January.

  Tornado

  Tornado F3

  Nimrod MR2

  Number of aircraft allocated to front-line1

  119

  86

  23

  Serviceable2

  94

  79

  16

  Undergoing servicing at 2nd line

  25

  7

  3

  Undergoing servicing at 3rd/4th line

  6

  11

  4

  Undergoing upgrade

  48

  16

  5

  Aircraft on trials

  1

  1

  0

  Fleet size

  174

  114

  28

  1 The allocation to front-line units is made up of all aircraft which are serviceable or are at 1st or 2nd line maintenance (and 3rd and 4th line maintenance for the Nimrod) as this servicing work is undertaken at the station. RAF fleet size is made up by totalling all aircraft.

  2 Includes aircraft that are undergoing 1st line servicing.

  The operational serviceability of front-line aircraft fluctuates each day according to the maintenance that is required. 1st line servicing tasks are those which can generally be rectified in a matter of hours. 2nd line servicing tends to be scheduled servicing and can take a number of weeks. In many cases aircraft can be recovered earlier if required for operations. Some of the aircraft in 3rd/4th line maintenance and undergoing upgrade to improve their overall capability could be made available operationally in the event of a major crisis requiring the deployment of large numbers of aircraft.

  TIALD System
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tornado GR/4's have a fully operational TIALD system; what percentage of the GR/4 fleet this represents; what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the TIALD system; and if he will make a statement. [107546]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the right hon. and learned Member.
  371W
  Letter from John Howe to Mr. Menzies Campbell, dated 11 February 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked how many Tornado GR4s have a fully operational TIALD system; what percentage of the GR4 fleet this represents; and what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of the TIALD system. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  TIALD is a fully operational and very effective system fitted to a proportion of the Tornado GR 1 fleet. Technical problems have delayed completion of the integration of TIALD onto GR4 aircraft but full operational clearance is expected to be achieved in late 2000.

  Imphal Barracks
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the cost of the works for making safe The Keep, Imphal Barracks. [109443]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Keep is currently unoccupied, although some basement rooms are used for storage. It is safe for the light foot traffic that the building is restricted to, and therefore needs no additional work other than routine maintenance. As for the cost of maintaining the building, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) on 7 February 2000,Official Report, column 29W.

  Thiepval Barracks, Lisburn
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish the feasibility study carried out on behalf of his Department for the provision of married quarters at Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn. [110043]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 164W, to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will publish details of the contract awarded to Waldwin Ltd. under the PFI scheme for the provision of married quarters at Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn. [110044]

  Dr. Moonie
  The contract for the provision of married quarters at Lisburn has not yet been signed.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to sell off land within Thiepval Barracks in Lisburn for (a) public and (b) private housing development. [110045]

  Dr. Moonie
  There are no plans to sell off land within Thiepval Barracks for public or private housing development.

  Altcar Rifle Range
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Territorial Army Voluntary Reserve rifle range at Altcar is Crown property. [106450]

  Dr. Moonie
  The West Lancashire Territorial Association purchased Altcar Ranges in July 1912. The Reserve Forces are considered an integral part of MOD, therefore the land owned and occupied by TAVRA and used for military purposes is regarded as Crown land.

  Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which member states, associate member states, associate partner states and observer states of the Western European Union are parties to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. [109760]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

  Computers
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 590W, on computers, what type of classified information was accessed by his Department's staff in each hacking incident; and what grades or type of staff would normally have access to this information. [109458]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: Internal hacking incidents are categorised into eight different types of misuse and the classification of the information involved may not be relevant to the type of incident. During the past two years, none of the internal hacking incidents involved the theft or disclosure of classified information. Access to classified information is determined by the post held by the staff member and also on a need to know basis. The grade of the staff member is not relevant.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 590W, on computers, what action has been taken to reduce the number of internal incursions into computer files containing classified information. [109457]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: My Department is continuously reviewing, and seeking ways to improve, both the procedural and electronic security of its systems. Electronic measures include the identification and authentication of users and audit of user activities. Before any IT system is allowed to operate it must obtain a security approval known as accreditation. All MOD staff are required to read and agree to comply with the Security Operating System for the system that they will use.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 2 February 2000,Official Report, column 590W, on computers, how many of his Department's staff have been disciplined for hacking incidents; and what disciplinary action was taken in each case. [109456]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: The incident recording system in use for the past five years does not carry details of disciplinary action taken. The recording system has however recently been modified to record when disciplinary action has been initiated but not the precise details of that action.

  Accommodation (Royal Navy)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of cost-efficiency comparisons between conventional build and PFI contracts for the planned junior ratings accommodation in HMS Nelson [109475]
  373W
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: I have not yet received advice on any rebuild of junior ratings single living accommodation in HMS Nelson.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact of the standard of accommodation provided for junior ratings and other ranks in Her Majesty's Royal Naval Shore Establishments in the retention of these personnel in the Royal Navy. [109473]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: We are conscious that dissatisfaction with living accommodation may have an effect on retention and so we have in place a programme of improvements to single living accommodation for all service personnel, including naval ratings.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the condition and fitness for purpose of accommodation provided for junior ratings in each of Her Majesty's Royal Naval Shore Establishments. [109500]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: The Strategic Defence Review recognised that the Armed Forces' single living accommodation estate should be improved. As a result, all junior naval ratings single living accommodation has been assessed against a common standard in order to determine what improvements are needed and in what order of priority the improvements should be addressed.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when a new accommodation project for junior ratings at HMS Nelson was first approved; and when contracts for construction, operation and maintenance will be let. [109476]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]The junior ratings single living accommodation forms part of the establishment of HMS Nelson, which incorporates a number of wider functions as a Fleet Accommodation Centre. My Department is currently undertaking a study into the means of delivery of a number of functions in HMS Nelson, including the junior ratings accommodation. The further prospect of a wider PFI within the Naval Base as a whole is also a consideration. I have yet to receive advice on this work and no decisions have been taken.

  South Atlantic
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which warships are currently deployed in the South Atlantic; and what plans he has to replace them at the end of their tour of duty. [109865]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Type 23 Frigate HMS Somerset is currently returning from the South Atlantic via the West African coast. Her replacement as the Falkland Islands Guardship is the Type 42 Destroyer HMS Southampton, which will arrive in Falkland Islands waters shortly.

  The ice patrol ship HMS Endurance and the Offshore Patrol Vessel HMS Dumbarton Castle are currently deployed in the South Atlantic. HMS Endurance will return to the UK at the end of the austral summer, as is normal practice, and will redeploy to the South Atlantic
  374W
  in austral summer 2000–01. HMS Dumbarton Castle is scheduled to remain in the South Atlantic until 2001 when she will be relieved by her sister ship HMS Leeds Castle.

  Naval Manpower (South Atlantic)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of naval manpower is deployed in the South Atlantic. [109863]

  Mr. Spellar
  The proportion of naval manpower currently deployed in the South Atlantic represents less than 1 per cent. of the Naval Service Trained Strength.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the total annual cost is of maintaining and manning the Falkland Islands military base. [109862]

  Mr. Spellar
  The cost to the Ministry of Defence of the Falkland Islands Garrison in financial year 1999–2000 is expected to be approximately £73 million.

  This figure relates to the costs incurred by the Commander British Forces Falkland Islands only. It does not include the costs of the RAF airbridge to the Falkland Islands, nor the cost of naval deployments to the South Atlantic. These costs fall to other budgets and are not separately identified.

  Lloyd's Register
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the impact the new Lloyd's Register rules will have on the readiness and functioning of Royal Navy ships; and if he will make a statement. [109674]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Ministry of Defence has operated Royal Fleet Auxiliary Ships in an appropriate Lloyd's Register Class for many years with no significant impact on the required readiness and functioning of these ships. The new Lloyd's Naval Ship Rules, developed in full consultation with the Ministry of Defence, provide planned and monitored standards for Royal Navy warships that will ensure availability, functionality and sustained readiness. Care has been taken to ensure that Lloyd's Rules are at least as effective as current MOD Naval Standards.

  Nepal
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost was to his Department of participating in the multinational peacekeeping exercise in January 2000 in Nepal; which units took part and for how long; and if he will make a statement. [109800]

  Mr. Spellar
  My Department did not participate directly in Exercise Shanti Prayas, the South Asian multinational peacekeeping exercise held in Nepal from 16 to 30 January 2000.

  However, at the invitation of the Nepalese Army, the Ministry of Defence sent two observers to part of the exercise at an additional cost of around £500.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109874]

  Mr. Hoon
  Since 1995 the following senior-level bilateral meetings were held between representatives of the Ministry of Defence and its Austrian counterpart:

  Year

  Number of meetings

  1995

  2

  1996

  0

  1997

  5

  1998

  3

  1999

  0

  In addition, a number of low-level or informal meetings will have been held but details of such meetings are not held centrally. Discussions will have covered a wide range of issues of defence co-operation.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what level of profit his Department permits contractors to make on non-competitive contracts; and if he will make a statement. [109967]

  Dr. Moonie
  The level of profit included in prices negotiated for non-competitive government contracts is calculated in accordance with the Government Profit Formula. Copies of the Reports on the Annual Reviews and triennial General Reviews of the Government Profit Formula for Non-Competitive Contracts, produced by the Review Board for Government Contracts (a non-departmental public body), are available in the Library of the House. These advise on the appropriate calculation of profit on non-competitive contracts for the year in which the contract is priced.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many non-competitive contracts, to what aggregate value, were let during the last year for which records are available; and if he will make a statement. [109966]

  Dr. Moonie
  The total number of contracts placed by the Ministry of Defence during Financial Year 1998–99 was 55,496, of which 8,616 were non-competitive. The total value of the contracts was £7.09 billion, of which the non-competitive element was worth £2.3 billion. These figures exclude Local Purchase Orders, the average value of which is less than £500.

  Making the best use of competition at prime and sub-contract level, is the MOD's preferred means of supplier selection, for achieving value for money in the delivery of defence capability. Where competition is not practicable, or is dispensed with on value for money grounds, contract placement is normally accompanied by price agreement at the outset.

  Procurement (Capability Working Groups)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the role of capability working groups in the defence procurement system. [109968]
  376W
  Dr. Moonie
  Capability working groups are being established as part of our Smart Procurement reforms. Such groups bring together key stakeholders to develop the broad strategy for the capability area concerned, and to assess options to meet capability gaps. The groups thus inform and support the work of the Defence Procurement Agency teams responsible for managing equipment projects.

  Service Discipline
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list for each country where HM forces are deployed (a) the nature of the deployment, (b) the numbers deployed, by service, and (c) the numbers of civil servants, their dependants and the civilian dependants of service personnel who may be tried under the service discipline Acts. [110009]

  Mr. Spellar
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Declaration of Principles
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the Declaration of Principles he signed with the US Secretary for Defense on 5 February. [109732]

  Mr. Hoon
  A copy of the UK/US Declaration of Principles has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Challenger 2
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money, and over what time scale, he intends to save by purchasing a new track for Challenger 2; and if he will make a statement. [109734]

  Dr. Moonie
  The whole-life costs of all weapons systems are being examined as part of the Department's Smart Procurement initiative. Challenger 2, which only entered service in June 1998, is no exception. It is too early to say with absolute accuracy what savings will be achieved from on-going studies into the running costs of the vehicle.

  TRACER
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what effect the recent changes to the US Army budget plan will have on the TRACER/Future Scout and Cavalry System; and if he will make a statement. [109733]

  Dr. Moonie
  The UK and USA have entered into a joint Project Definition phase for TRACER/FSCS under the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding. This commits both nations to an equal share of the cost of this stage of the project. There is no commitment, by either nation, to proceed beyond the Project Definition phase and, therefore, no agreement to fund any further development beyond this stage. The UK contribution to the cost of the collaborative Project Definition contracts for TRACER is some £90 million. My officials are in close touch with their US counterparts over the TRACER/FSCS programme.

  Armed Forces Legal Branches
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are the official establishments of each of the armed forces legal branches. [110007]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy does not have a legal branch but there are 21 established legal posts. The establishments of the Army and Royal Air Force legal branches are 100 and 37 respectively.

  Royal Military Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what are (a) the official establishment figures for the Royal Military Police, (b) the current manpower and (c) forecast manpower levels for the next three years. [110008]

  Mr. Spellar
  As at 1 February 2000, the RMP currently has 1,961 serving personnel and has a manpower planning target of 2,007. The current manpower planning target is not expected to change significantly in the next three years. That target includes the small number of posts that will be needed to meet the provisions of the Armed Forces Discipline Bill.

  Smart Procurement
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at what stage in the Smart Procurement process the defence industry will become involved; what impact such involvement will have on the policy of competitive procurement; and if he will make a statement. [109690]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Under Smart Procurement, the industry is involved in procurement projects from the outset. However, the nature and level of its involvement will vary according to the stage of the project, from initial studies, procurement, through-life support and disposal. This does not affect MOD policy on competition. Making the best use of competition at prime and sub-contract level remains the MOD's preferred means of supplier selection for defence requirements and achieving value for money. Industry understands this principle.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the President of the Council how many parliamentary questions have been tabled by right hon. and hon. Members, pursuing delays on the part of Government departments in replying to correspondence since May 1997; and if she will indicate how many were tabled by(a) Conservative, (b) Labour and (c) other hon. Members. [110079]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Responsibility for replying to parliamentary questions and correspondence from hon. Members lies with the relevant Minister.

  HEALTH

    Departmental Press Releases
    Mr. Harvey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press releases were issued by his Department in each year since 1995. [105915]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information requested is in the table, which represents all press releases issued by the Department's press office for the period 1995 to 1999. The Department's press office issues press releases on behalf of the Medical Devices Agency, Medicines Control Agency, National Health Service Pensions Agency, National Health Service Estates and some non-departmental public bodies.

    Year

    Total

    1995

    588

    1996

    366

    1997

    406

    1998

    556

    1999

    742

    BCG Vaccination
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000,Official Report, column 143W, how much of the new money for support of health authorities dealing with meningococcal Group C was a transfer of money from under-used resources in the BCG vaccination programme. [105902]

    Yvette Cooper
    The £9 million being made available to health authorities to support the meningococcal Group C immunisation programme referred to in my Answer of 11 January is new money and has not come from the BCG programme. Funding for the meningococcal Group C immunisation programme has come from a separate source to that used to fund the BCG immunisation programme.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 2000, Official Report, column 143W, how the resources allocated to the BCG vaccination programme are being used. [105903]

    Yvette Cooper
    Funding for the central purchase of BCG vaccine remains available for when vaccine supplies are reinstated. The redeployment of the health workers, especially school nurses, involved in delivering BCG vaccine, is a matter for individual health authorities and trusts but we are aware that some of these staff are currently involved in the meningococcal Group C immunisation programme in schools.

    Death Rates
    Mr. Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to reduce the death rate from (a) cancer and (b) coronary heart disease among people aged under 75 years by 2010. [106159]

    Yvette Cooper
    The "Saving Lives-Our Healthier Nation" White Paper was published in July last year and set targets to reduce death rates from cancer by at least a fifth and from coronary heart disease (CHD) and stroke and related diseases by at least two fifths in those under
    379W
    75 by 2010. This requires policies on primary prevention, early detection and treatment and the White Paper recommends a partnership between Government, local players and individuals. Since then the National Priorities Guidance to the National Health Service has identified cancer and heart disease as key priorities, a National Cancer Director has been appointed and the National Service Framework on CHD will be published shortly.

    Sickle Cell and Thalassaemia
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much public money was allocated to research to find a cure for sickle cell and thalassaemia in each of the last 10 years. [106195]

    Yvette Cooper
    Government expenditure on directly commissioned research projects on sickle cell disease and thalassaemia since 1994–95 is as follows:

    1994–95: £550,000

    1995–96: £964,000

    1996–97: £988,000

    1997–98: £930,000

    1998–99: £884,000

    Figures for the total spend in previous years is not available.

    Most of this support has been provided through the Medical Research Council (MRC), which is the main agency through which the Government support research into the causes and treatment of disease. The MRC receives most of its income via grant-in-aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

    Project funding from the Department and the Department for International Development is also included in the figures.

    In addition to directly commissioned projects, the Department of Health supports research in the NHS funded by research councils and charities. It is not possible to estimate exactly how much is spent on sickle cell research, but three London Hospitals alone estimate that they are spending £450,000 per annum of Department funding on research related to sickle cell and thalassaemia. A detailed breakdown for the last 10 years is not available as research spending is devolved for much of the period. Details of projects can be found on the National Research Register which is available in most medical libraries on CD Rom and on the internet: http:/www.doh.gov.uk/nrr.htm. The NRR contains a number of projects relating to sickle cell and thalassaemia.

    We also make considerable investment in genetics and gene therapy research which will inform sickle cell and thalassaemia.

    The MRC has been actively seeking opportunities to strengthen sickle cell research in the United Kingdom.

    MRSA
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to instruct NHS trusts to notify the Public Health Laboratory of cases of MRSA. [106755]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Report on Resistance to Antibiotics by the Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology drew attention, among other things, to 380W
    proposals that National Health Service laboratories should be asked to report causative organisms such as MRSA to the Public Health Laboratory Service. In response, the Government accepted the need to increase the effectiveness of laboratory reporting. This could include the reporting of organisms such as MRSA. An overall Communicable Disease Strategy is now being developed by a working group chaired by the Chief Medical Officer.

    Notifiable Diseases
    Dr. Cable
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria are employed by his Department in designating diseases as notifiable diseases. [106754]

    Yvette Cooper
    The precise term "notifiable disease" is defined in section 10 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 as being one of five specific diseases. Regulation 3 and Schedule 1 of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Regulations 1988 list further diseases "which are required to be notified". The first criterion which determines that a disease is required to be notified is that it is subject to the International Health Regulations. If not in those Regulations, the criteria would depend on expert assessment of the impact of the disease.

    This statutory notification applies to registered medical practitioners and not to diagnostic laboratories, and to diseases rather than to causative organisms.

    Radiation (Sellafield)
    Mr. Livsey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what figures were used to represent concentrations of uranium in air in the calculations of radiation doses from plutonium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, which were supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; [106816]

    (2) what figures were used to represent concentrations of plutonium in air in the calculation of radiation doses from plutonium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, which was supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; [106811]

    (3) what (a) theoretical modelling of plutonium concentrations and (b) post mortem measurements of plutonium were used in the calculation of radiation doses from plutonium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, which was supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; [106815]

    (4) what (a) theoretical modelling of uranium concentrations and (b) post mortem measurements of uranium were used in the calculation of radiation doses from uranium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, which was supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; [106810]
    381W
    (5) what figure was used to represent the mass of the tissue considered to be the target organ in the calculation of radiation doses from plutonium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, which was supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; [106814]

    (6) what air intake particles were used as the basis for the calculation of radiation doses from plutonium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, which was supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment; [106812]

    (7) what figures were used to represent the radioactivity of (a) plutonium, (b) uranium and (c) other man-made isotopes, incorporated within the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of people aged up to 25 years resident in the village of Seascale in Cumbria, in the calculation of doses from plutonium to the tracheo-bronchial lymph nodes of those people which was supplied by the National Radiological Protection Board to the Committee on Medical Aspects of Radiation in the Environment. [106813]

    Yvette Cooper
    I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

    Drugs and Alcohol (Women)
    Laura Moffatt
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what specialist services are available for (a) women with children and (b) other women who are drug and alcohol misusers. [107126]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information requested is not collected centrally. However, lists of agencies offering a range of specialist services for women with children and other women who are drug and alcohol misusers are available in directories published by the Standing Conference On Drug Abuse and Alcohol Concern.

    Haemorrhoid Treatment
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for haemorrhoids in the NHS in 1970, 1980, 1990 and 1998. [107489]

    Mr. Denham
    The information available is set out in the table. It shows the number of cases treated in hospital, either as ordinary admission or day cases. Figures for each year were collected on a slightly different basis and are not therefore directly comparable.

    Year

    Number

    1970

    England and Wales

    24,609

    1980

    England

    20,100

    1990–91

    England

    28,727

    1997–981

    England

    38,133

    1 Figures for 1997–98 are provisional and no adjustments have been made for shortfalls in data

    Sources:

    1970 and 1980 Hospital Inpatient Enquiry

    1990–91 and 1997–98 Hospital Episode statistics

    Cancer Operations
    Mr. Maclean
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS cancer operations have been cancelled since 1 November 1999. [107491]

    Yvette Cooper
    We do not collect data on cancelled operations by specialty. Quarterly reports of figures for all cancelled operations in England, which arise on the day a patient was due to come into hospital, or after they have been admitted, are available in the Library.

    Irish Community
    Mr. McDonnell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to (a) identify and (b) address the specific health needs of the Irish community in Britain. [107585]

    Yvette Cooper
    The 1999 Health Survey for England focused on the health of ethnic minorities (including Irish people) and its report will be published later this year. The 2001 Census includes questions on health and will for the first time ask for and separately classify those people who describe themselves as of Irish ethnic origin. The "Saving lives—Our Healthier Nation" White Paper, published last year has inequalities in health as one of its main themes and will address the needs of all the population including Irish people.

    Credit Ratings
    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how often the credit rating of companies supplying services to his Department is checked. [107746]

    Yvette Cooper
    Where companies supplying services to the Department are awarded contracts as a result of a formal tender exercise, Departmental guidelines require all such companies to be assessed as to their financial viability prior to the award. In some instances this will include a credit rating check. The Department does not, as a matter of routine, carry out financial assessments or credit rating checks either on small value contracts or on its existing suppliers except as part of another tender exercise.

    Mr. Pickles
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if the credit rating of companies seeking to tender for services provided by his Department is checked before the contract is awarded. [107744]

    Yvette Cooper
    Departmental guidelines require short-listed companies, seeking to tender for services provided by the Department, to be assessed for financial viability prior to the award of any contract. In some cases this will include a credit rating check.

    Mouth Cancer
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost to the NHS of treating mouth cancers in each of the past five years; and if he will a statement. [107619]

    Yvette Cooper
    This information is currently unavailable. Work is, however, under way to develop a system for collecting treatment cost data for oncology services, including mouth cancers. It is hoped that these data will become available next year.

    Nurse Vacancies
    Mr. Brake
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacancies for nurses there are (a) in the NHS, (b) St. Helier Hospital and (c) for each national heath trust in the country. [107927]

    Mr. Denham
    The Department's "Recruitment, Retention and vacancies Survey" showed that in National Health Service trusts in England there were 16,190 whole time equivalent (wte) nursing and midwifery posts vacant on 31 March 1999. The St. Helier Trust reported a total of 70 wte vacancies. As St. Helier Hospital is part of this trust, separate figures are not available. Total vacancy figures for all trusts in England have been placed in the Library.

    Cervical Smears
    Mr. Mitchell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 10 January 2000,Official Report, column 54W, on cervical smears (1) if he will take into account the information on the effectiveness of the Neopath/Tripath Autopap system in the USA and Europe in making his decision on introducing it in this country; [108150]

    (2) if, for the testing and introduction of the Neopath/Tripath Autopap machine for cervical screening tests, he will prioritise areas which have particular shortages of trained staff or long delays in their cervical screening programme. [108149]

    Yvette Cooper
    We welcome any new technology that would improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the cervical screening programme. However, before any technology is introduced, we must be sure that it is safe and effective, and that quality standards can be maintained.

    The Advisory Committee on Cervical Screening (ACCS) held preliminary discussions on the Tripath Autopap system (previously Neopath Autopap system) as part of a wider discussion on automated screening procedures at their meeting in June 1999. The ACCS advised that further evaluation was necessary. An evaluation is underway, partly funded by the National Health Service cervical screening programme, and a report is expected later in the year. Information on the effectiveness of the system in the United States of America and Europe will be taken into account. Decisions on the introduction of this new technology will be taken if and when it is proved to be effective.

    Harold Shipman
    Mr. Gardiner
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of patients of Dr. Harold Shipman whose deaths were considered suspicious by the internal investigation conducted by Manchester Health Authority; and how many of these were women. [108298]

    Mr. Denham
    The investigation of alleged crimes is a matter for the police.

    The internal inquiry conducted by West Pennine Health Authority focused on existing monitoring arrangements available to a health authority, and not on the specific circumstances of individual cases.
    384W
    I understand that, at the time that West Pennine undertook its review of monitoring arrangements, the police were investigating the deaths of some 129 people who had been patients of Dr. Shipman, some of which were suspicious. Charges of murder were brought in respect of 15 of these patients, all of whom were women.

    Research Contracts
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 565W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108196]

    Yvette Cooper
    Copies of model contracts for the Department's policy research programme and the National Health Service research and development programme are in the Library.

    The Department actively encourages contractors to publish the findings of research which it has funded.

    In common with most research funders, the Department actively discourages the discussion of research findings with journalists prior to adequate peer review: in many areas-publication in a scientific journal is a key part of the peer review process.

    No restrictions are placed on researchers after publication. Again in common with most other funders, the Department asks researchers to work closely with its press office.

    Influenza
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of intensive care beds have been taken up with influenza and influenza-related illnesses each month for the last 10 years. [108165]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information requested is not available centrally.

    Tuberculosis
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many new cases of tuberculosis have been recorded in the United Kingdom in the last year. [108332]

    Yvette Cooper
    The total number of newly notified cases of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom in 1999 is 6,757. This figure is provisional and uncorrected. Correction usually results in a reduction in the provisional figure.

    Sources:

    1. Public Health Laboratory Service, Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre (CDSC) for England and Wales

    2. CDSC(NI) for Northern Ireland

    3. Scottish Centre for Infection and Environmental Health for Scotland).

    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to prevent an increase of tuberculosis in the United Kingdom. [108331]
    385W
    Yvette Cooper
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) on 19 October 1999,Official Report, columns 468–69W.

    Recycling
    Mr. Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his policy on the recycling of material produced by his Department. [108473]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department fully supports the Green Ministers' target for Government Departments of recovering a minimum of 40 per cent. of total office waste, with at least 25 per cent. coming from recycling or composting, in 2000–01. This target has recently been incorporated into the Department's environmental strategy and a waste audit has recently been commissioned to review our recycling schemes to ensure the target is met.

    Our associate bodies are being asked to support the Department's environmental strategy and adopt the Green Ministers' target.

    In-patient Statistics
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of in-patients are aged over (a) 65, (b) 70, (c) 75 and (d) 80 years. [108161]

    Mr. Denham
    The table shows numbers of admissions by age and are expressed as a proportion of all admissions in NHS hospitals in England for the financial year 1997–98.

    Number of admissions shown by age and expressed as a proportion of all admissions in NHS hospitals, England, 1997–98.

    Age group (years)

    Admissions

    Proportion of all admissions

    Over 65

    3,061,773

    29.3

    Over 70

    2,393,274

    22.9

    Over 75

    1,679,226

    16.0

    Over 80

    1,003,300

    9.6

    All ages

    10,463,971

    100.0

    The information is extracted from the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) system. HES contains details of patients admitted to, and treated in, NHS hospitals in England.

    The HES data shown are the number of admissions to hospital. It is not yet possible to count each individual patient once and once only.

    Figures for 1997–98 are provisional as no adjustments have yet been made for missing records or invalid/unknown diagnoses.

    Patient Records
    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health in (1) what circumstances health authorities may gain access to patient records held by general practitioners without compromising confidentiality; [108611]
    386W
    (2) if he will examine ways of preventing doctors retrospectively changing the computer records of patients. [108612]

    Mr. Denham
    Under their terms of service, general practitioners are currently required to"keep adequate records of the illnesses and treatment of his patients on forms supplied to him for the purpose by the HA"
    and to
    "forward such records to the HA on request as soon as possible".

    It is generally accepted that patients who disclose information to a doctor do so on the understanding that information may be used by the National Health Service to monitor and improve the standards of care through research, clinical audit and the maintaining of registers. We have said that we intend to press ahead with the proposals for mandatory clinical audit in the Chief Medical Officer's consultation paper "Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients", and that clinical governance will apply to all doctors. This will introduce accountability, promote high care standards, and ensure that an individual doctor's pattern of practice is not hidden.

    Medical records are also routinely referred to by designated health authority staff for Post Payment Verification purposes, using a process agreed with Local Medical Committees so as not to contravene patient confidentiality.

    It is essential that computer-based records must have a robust audit trail so that any changes to, or deletions from, the medical record are fully recorded so that it is always possible to re-create the record in the form in which it would originally have appeared.

    The Department has published minimum standards to which general practice computer systems should conform and these include a detailed requirement for such an audit trail. These requirements are periodically reviewed to keep pace with changing technology and the latest version was published in October 1999.

    Hepatitis B
    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce a national immunisation programme for hepatitis B, with particular reference to intravenous drug users. [108610]

    Yvette Cooper
    The Department has had a policy of immunisation against hepatitis B since 1988 for those who are at increased risk of infection. We have made available additional funds for key objectives in its anti-drugs strategy, one of which is to enable health authorities to increase hepatitis B immunisation of drug misusers.

    Waiting Times
    Ms Oona King
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what were the average waiting times for out-patient appointments for East London and the City Health Authority in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [108441]
    387W
    Mr. Denham
    The average waiting times for outpatients' appointments in East London and the City Health Authority for the years requested are shown in the table:

    Year

    Average Outpatient Wait (weeks)

    1997–98

    8.95

    1998–99

    8.72

    Miscarriages
    Audrey Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) miscarriages occurred in pregnancies of at least 13 and less than 24 completed weeks of gestation in England and (b) women (i) who were admitted to hospital and (ii) cared for by a general practitioner without admission to hospital following such miscarriages in each of the last 10 years. [108680]

    Yvette Cooper
    There are no reliable data held by the Department about the number of miscarriages where care was provided by a general practitioner. Information about the number of women requiring hospital treatment for miscarriages is available from the Hospital Episode Statistics but not by period of gestation. The latest information for the number of women diagnosed as receiving hospital care for miscarriage from 1989–90 to 1997–98 are in the table.

    Year

    Number of miscarriages

    1989–90

    48,500

    1990–91

    50,600

    1991–92

    53,100

    1992–93

    52,400

    1993–94

    51,300

    1994–95

    48,700

    1995–96

    43,900

    1996–97

    44,500

    1997–98

    141,800

    1 Provisional

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics

    The information in the table is obtained from the Hospital Episodes Statistics system. The data are ungrossed and therefore have not been adjusted to allow for missing, incomplete or inaccurate records.

    Data extracted were those with the diagnosis code 003 (ICD-10) Spontaneous Abortion.

    Births
    Audrey Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what was the number of births in hospitals in England which were (a) spontaneous, (b) by Caesarean section, (c) by forceps, (d) by vacuum extraction and (e) otherwise, broken down by social class of the babies' fathers for births which were (i) within marriage and (ii) outside marriage and registered jointly by both parents and (iii) outside marriage registered by the mother alone; [108679]

    (2) what was the number of births in hospitals in England which were (a) spontaneous, (b) by Caesarean section, (c) by forceps, (d) by vacuum extraction and
    388W
    (e) otherwise, broken down by social class of the babies' mothers, in the most recent year for which the information is available. [108678]

    Yvette Cooper
    The information requested is not available in the form requested. The numbers of births by type of delivery are collected by the Department on the Hospital Episode Statistics system. The numbers of births by social class of father and mother, and inside/outside marriage including sole registration are collected by the Office for National Statistics through the birth registration system. These two systems are not linked and the information requested cannot be provided.

    The latest statistics on births by social class of father and type of registration (inside/outside marriage) for England and Wales for 1998, published by the Office for National Statistics, is contained in the Series FM1 volumes Birth statistics. Copies are in the Library.

    The latest information on the number of maternities by method of delivery are preliminary estimates for 1997–98 and are in the table.

    Method of delivery

    Percentage

    Number (thousand)

    Spontaneous

    71

    412

    Caesarean

    17

    99

    Forceps

    4

    23

    Vacuum extraction

    6

    35

    Other (including breach)

    2

    12

    Total maternities

    100

    580

    Source:

    Hospital Episode Statistics (Maternity) and the Office for National Statistics

    Audrey Wise
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the number of births of babies born to residents of England weighing (a) under 1,000g, (b) 1,000–1,499g, (c) 1,500–2,499g and (d) 2,500g and over, who have been diagnosed as having cerebral palsy by the age of (i) two years and (ii) five years in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [108677]

    Yvette Cooper
    There are no centrally collected data on the numbers of children in England with cerebral palsy. We are aware however that the risk of cerebral palsy among babies born weighing less than 1,500 grammes is 70 times higher than among babies weighing 2,500 grammes or more at birth.

    New Variant CJD
    Mrs. Mahon
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what help he is giving to those caring for the victims of New Variant CJD; and if he will make a statement. [108751]

    Yvette Cooper
    I refer my hon. Friend to the statements made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Denham), the Minister of State in the adjournment debate on the care of variant CJD (vCJD) patients which took place in Westminster Hall on 1 December 1999,Official Report, columns 109–16WH, in which he set out the measures in place or planned to improve the care provided for new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease patients.

    Fluoridation
    Mr. Gordon Prentice
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to her answer of 20 January 2000,Official Report, column 584W, when he expects the expert scientific review of fluoride and health to be completed. [108988]

    Yvette Cooper
    The review is expected to be complete in the spring.

    Diabetics
    Mr. Robertson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to provide needles for use by diabetics free of charge; and if he will make a statement. [108715]

    Mr. Denham
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 199W.

    Infectious Diseases (Immunisation)
    Mr. Ian Stewart
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when his Department will reprint the booklet, "Immunisation against Infectious Disease"; and if he will ensure that the booklet is made available at clinics to parents who request it. [109030]

    Yvette Cooper
    "Immunisation against Infectious Disease" is published by Her Majesty's Stationery Office (ISBN 011321815X), priced at £6.95. Parents can ask to see a copy of the book at their doctor's surgery. Copies of the current edition are still available to any member of the public wishing to buy one. A new edition is expected within the next year.

    Child Labour
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to propose changes in child labour legislation; and if he will make a statement. [109492]

    Mr. Hutton
    The report on the review of child employment legislation, completed last year, is being considered with ministerial colleagues in all interested Departments. We expect to agree a way forward in the near future.

    Care Leavers
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of children left local authority care at 16 years of age or older with at least one GCSE or GNVQ qualification in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [110080]

    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is not available for the specified years. Figures on the educational qualifications of children aged 16 or over who left local authority care during the year ending 31 March 2000 will be published for the first time in autumn 2000.

    Wheelchairs
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many (a) manual and (b) powered wheelchairs were purchased by the NHS in each of the last four years. [109962]
    390W
    Mr. Hutton
    The information requested is not collected. However, estimates based on the numbers of wheelchairs issued by the National Health Service wheelchair service in the years 1995–96, 1996–97 and 1998–99 have been made, as follows:

    Year

    Manual wheelchair

    Powered wheelchair

    1995–96

    83,632

    5,000

    1996–97

    81,607

    5,068

    1997–98

    75,090

    6,268

    No information is available for 1997–98.

    The figures for 1995–96 and 1996–97 were obtained from information compiled by the Government Statistical Service giving the total number of wheelchairs issued. The figures for 1998–99 were obtained from a NHS Supplies exercise requesting data from trusts regarding wheelchair purchases and issues.

    Nurses
    Mr. Oaten
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department has issued on the purchasing of equipment to nurses employed in the NHS whose salary is paid for by a commercial organisation. [109961]

    Mr. Denham
    The Department expects all staff, when purchasing on behalf of the National Health Service, to adhere to existing guidelines published in January 1993—Standards of business conduct for NHS staff (Health Service Guidance (93)5), copies of which are available in the Library.

    Consultation has recently taken place on updated guidance which we expect to be available shortly.

    Asset Sales
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2000,Official Report, column 332W, on asset sales, if he will list those capital assets valued at more than £1 million that his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies plan to sell in the current financial year. [110004]

    Yvette Cooper
    Information on individual sales of assets disposed of by the Department, its agencies and associated public bodies is not held centrally.

    For the Department's civil estate, the only disposal valued at more than £1 million expected to realise in 1999–2000 is the administrative transfer to the Home Office of the former youth treatment centre at St. Charles, Brentwood.

  EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

    School Leavers (Cambridgeshire and Peterborough)
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of school leavers went into(a) further education and (b) vocational training, and what percentage of each group went on to

    391W
    higher education in (i) Cambridge, (ii) Peterborough and (iii) Cambridgeshire in each of the last 10 years for which figures are available. [109537]

    Mr. Wicks
    We are committed to a step change in participation and attainment rates for all 16 and 17-year-olds. The Learning and Skills Bill sets out reforms in post-16 education and training which we believe will make a significant impact. We have recently announced details of our new coherent and comprehensive advice, guidance, information and support service for all 13 to 19-year-olds, whatever their needs and circumstances—the Connexions Service.

    The table shows for those years for which data are available the proportion of 16-year-olds entering FE in Cambridgeshire LEA, and entering FE and Government Supported vocational training in Greater Peterborough TEC. Data on school leavers destinations for Cambridge and Peterborough, or on the proportion leaving FE or Government Supported vocational training for HE, are not available.

    Participation of 16-year-olds in Further Education and Training in Cambridgeshire LEA and Greater Peterborough TEC

    Percentage of age group

    Education

    Full-time FE

    Part-time education1

    Cambridgeshire LEA

    1988–89

    27

    16

    1989–90

    29

    14

    1990–91

    32

    11

    1991–92

    37

    7

    1992–93

    40

    6

    1993–94

    41

    5

    1994–952 (a)

    39

    6

    1994–952 (b)

    38

    8

    1995–96

    39

    5

    1996–97

    41

    6

    1997–98

    38

    7

    Education and Training

    Full-time FE

    Government supported training

    Part-time education1

    Greater Peterborough

    1994–95

    25

    10

    5

    1995–96

    23

    9

    3

    1996–97

    24

    8

    4

    1997–98

    30

    9

    5

    1 Part-time education is almost entirely in colleges of further education.

    2 Column (a) includes FESR data for November 1994 and column (b) ISR data. 1995–96 onwards includes ISR data.

    Source:

    Statistical Bulletins: Participation in education and training by young people aged 16 and 17 in each local area and region, England, 1988–89 to 1997–98.

    Sure Start
    Judy Mallaber
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when invitations will be issued to submit bids for the next round of Sure Start programmes. [109796]

    Yvette Cooper
    I have been asked to reply.
    392W
    Ministers are hoping to announce the next round of Sure Start in early summer. It is expected that the updated version of the Index of Local Deprivation will be a key tool in informing the selection of areas, and this is due for publication in late spring.

    Student Incomes
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the average income of full-time students in higher education in England in (a) cash terms and (b) real terms for each year since 1979. [109352]

    Mr. Wicks
    The available data from the Student Income and Expenditure Surveys for 1988–89, 1992–93 and 1995–96 are as follows. Income covers both public and private sources and includes grants, loans, parental contributions, earnings and other sources. Survey results for 1998–99 are currently being analysed and will be available later in the year.

    Estimated average income (including loans) for students aged under 26

    £

    Year

    Cash terms

    1988–89 prices1

    1988–89

    3,031

    3,031

    1992–93

    3,464

    2,747

    1995–96

    4,575

    3,347

    1 Adjusted using RPI excluding mortgage interest

    Source:

    C. Callendar and E. Kempson, "Student Finances", PSI, 1996

    Medical School Places
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number of medical school places for doctors in England and Wales for the last five years and the projected numbers for the next five years. [108801]

    Mr. Wicks
    The available information is as follows:

    Medical shool places in England and Wales

    Number

    Actual

    1994–95

    3,778

    1995–96

    3,778

    1996–97

    3,686

    1997–98

    3,784

    1998–99

    3,804

    Projected

    1999–2000

    4,115

    2000–01

    4,425

    2001–02

    4,741

    2002–03

    4,759

    2003–04

    4,787

    The increase in the number of places reflects the recommendation of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee.

    Dental School Places
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the number
    393W
    of dental school places in England and Wales for each of the last five years and the projected number for the next five years. [108800]

    Mr. Wicks
    There have been 660 dental school places in England and Wales since 1994–95. There are no plans to change this number. Information is listed in the following table.

    Dental school places in England and Wales

    Number

    Actual

    1994–95

    660

    1995–96

    660

    1996–97

    660

    1997–98

    660

    1998–99

    660

    Projected

    1999–2000

    660

    2000–01

    660

    2001–02

    660

    2002–03

    660

    2003–04

    660

    University Tuition Fees
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is his estimate of the cost of abolishing university tuition fees in England and Wales, for each of the next 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [108865]

    Average size of classes taught by one teacher by age band in maintained secondary schools1 in the parliamentary constituency of Witney, and England, 1996–99 (position as at January)

    Witney Ages2

    England Ages2

    Mainly under 14s

    Mainly under 14 and 15

    16 or older

    Total

    Mainly under 14s

    Mainly under 14 and 15

    16 or older

    Total

    1999

    Average class size

    25.5

    20.7

    10.2

    21.3

    25.1

    21.7

    10.5

    21.7

    Number of classes

    130

    106

    43

    279

    61,085

    46,891

    18,615

    126,591

    Number of pupils

    3,320

    2,190

    440

    5,950

    1,532,646

    1,016,561

    195,247

    2,744,454

    1998

    Average class size

    25.0

    21.2

    9.9

    21.1

    24.9

    21.6

    10.7

    21.6

    Number of classes

    131

    103

    46

    280

    59,836

    46,936

    18,433

    125,205

    Number of pupils

    3,273

    2,185

    457

    5,915

    1,488,715

    1,013,579

    197,077

    2,699,371

    1997

    Average class size

    24.5

    21.9

    10.3

    21.1

    24.7

    21.6

    10.8

    21.5

    Number of classes

    135

    103

    50

    288

    59,160

    46,784

    18,093

    124,037

    Number of pupils

    3,305

    2,253

    517

    6,075

    1,460,685

    1,011,036

    194,560

    2,666,281

    1 Excludes middle schools

    2 Ages as at the start of the academic year (August 31)

    New Deal
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the (a) New Deal for Lone Parents programme and (b) New Deal for Disabled People programme. [108514]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The New Deal for Lone Parents programme is working well. Since October 1998, 112,570 lone parents have attended an initial
    394W
    Mr. Wicks
    We estimate that the cash cost of abolishing fees would be £110 million in 2001–02. The full economic cost, taking account of lower loan repayments in future years (on a resource accounting and budgeting basis), would be £270 million as the assessed contribution towards students' tuition fees would instead be taken into account in determining the level of student loan a student could apply for. Both costs are in current day prices. Figures beyond the end of the current CSR period would depend on student numbers on which decisions have not yet been made.

    Class Sizes (Witney)
    Mr. Woodward
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the average class sizes were for (a) 11, (b) 10, (c) 9, (d) 8, (e) 7, (f) 12, (g) 13, (h) 14, (i) 15, (j) 16, and (k) 17 year olds in each school in the Witney constituency over the past three years; and what were the national averages in the same period. [109093]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Information on class sizes for individual schools is not normally published. Where individual school information is published, as in the School Performance tables, the information is first checked with the schools concerned.

    The available information on class sizes in the parliamentary constituency of Witney, and in England, is shown in the table. In Witney parliamentary constituency, the large majority of classes in maintained primary schools involve mixed year groups so these have also been shown for completeness.

    interview with a personal adviser and 89 per cent. of those parents have agreed to participate further. At the end of November 1999, 32,710 had found jobs.

    The New Deal for Disabled People is still in the pilot stage and continues to make encouraging progress. Since the pilots began in autumn 1998, 13,539 people on incapacity benefits have attended initial interview or applied for innovative schemes, around two out of three participated further, and as a result 1,911 have found jobs.

    395W
    An interim evaluation report was published in December 1999, a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library. We are actively considering the way forward.

    Educational Qualifications
    Mr. Trickett
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of the residents of (a) Wakefield District and (b) Hemsworth constituency have degree-level educational qualifications. [109055]

    Mr. Wicks
    The available published data from the 1991 Census of Population show that the proportion of people aged 18 and over with higher education qualifications was 13.3 per cent. in Wakefield, and 10.3 per cent. in Hemsworth. A higher education qualification is defined as any academic, professional or vocational qualification above A-level standard. The published census data do not separately identify persons who have degree-level qualifications. Similar data will be available when the results of the 2001 Census are published.

    University Staff
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the numbers of academic staff leaving British universities for posts abroad in each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [109022]

    Mr. Wicks
    The available data are given in the table. There has always been some academic recruitment across national boundaries and the numbers for the most recent years represent only around 5 per cent. of all staff who leave the higher education sector.

    Full-time, wholly institutionally financed academic staff leaving higher education institutions to take up posts abroad

    Staff leaving to take up employment abroad1

    Former UFC2 funded universities in GB Calendar year:

    1989

    3183

    1990

    3192

    1991

    3184

    1992

    3200

    1993

    3183

    All HE institutions in the UK Academic year:

    1994–95

    4170

    1995–96

    4268

    1996–97

    4303

    1997–98

    4290

    1998–99

    4294

    1 Includes employment in HE institutions, research institutes, and other overseas employment.

    2 Universities Funding Council.

    3 Including staff who left for study abroad.

    4 Excluding staff who did not give details of their destination.

    Mature Students
    Mr. Jim Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of mature students (a) entering and (b) graduating from higher education in each of the last five years. [108516]
    396W
    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The latest available data are given in the tables. Mature students are defined as postgraduates aged 25 and over and undergraduates aged 21 and over. 1997 entrant numbers may have been inflated because entrants were influenced by the knowledge that fees would be introduced with effect from 1998. Comparable data for entrants and graduates in 1999–2000 will be published by the Higher Education Statistics Agency in April 2000 and February 2001 respectively.

    Information published by the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS), covering full-time and sandwich undergraduate courses only, shows that the number of applicants (young and mature combined) accepted for entry increased by 1.5 per cent. between autumn 1998 and autumn 1999.

    Entrants1 to higher education institutions in the United Kingdom by age2

    Thousand

    Aged under 25

    25 and over

    Total

    Postgraduates

    1994–95

    54.6

    118.2

    172.8

    1995–96

    57.6

    123.3

    180.9

    1996–97

    56.7

    115.9

    172.7

    1997–98

    56.6

    124.3

    180.9

    1998–99

    59.5

    129.9

    189.4

    Undergraduates

    1994–95

    247.4

    256.7

    504.1

    1995–96

    255.7

    283.0

    538.7

    1996–97

    259.8

    282.1

    541.9

    1997–98

    277.3

    276.4

    553.7

    1998–99

    276.8

    272.7

    549.5

    1 Full-time and part-time

    2 Ages as at 31 August in each academic year

    Graduates1 from higher education institutions in the United Kingdom by age2

    Thousand

    Aged under 25

    25 and over

    Total

    Postgraduates

    1994–95

    26.7

    63.6

    90.3

    1995–96

    29.9

    75.5

    105.5

    1996–97

    30.7

    78.7

    109.3

    1997–98

    32.4

    81.9

    114.3

    1998–99

    32.9

    82.7

    115.6

    Undergraduates

    1994–95

    73.3

    223.7

    297.0

    1995–96

    75.0

    235.8

    310.8

    1996–97

    76.5

    240.9

    317.5

    1997–98

    77.6

    245.0

    322.6

    1998–99

    82.8

    248.5

    331.3

    1 Full-time and part-time

    2 Ages as at August in each academic year

    University Degrees
    Dr. Gibson
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how he monitors the variability in criteria used in awarding degrees in UK universities; and if he will make a statement. [109029]

    Mr. Wicks
    Each institution with degree awarding powers is responsible for the quality and standards of the degrees it awards. The Quality Assurance Agency
    397W
    assesses the quality of provision in its subject reviews and the rigour of the quality mechanisms in the institutions in its institutional reviews.

    The Quality Assurance Agency has published, for consultation, draft subject benchmark statements setting out expectations of student attainment at honours degree level in 22 subject areas. A further 20 such statements will be published by 2001. The Agency is developing the qualifications framework proposed in the Dearing Report, and will publish proposals shortly. These reference points will be used by the Agency in the reviews it carries out.

    Departmental Contracts
    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for the financial year 1998–99 the number and total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisors that have (a) been put out to competitive tender, (b) not been put out to competitive tender and (c) been let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109068]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 8 February 2000]: This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the role of further education colleges in supporting new curriculum developments in vocational education for 14 to 16-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [107971]

    Mr. Wicks
    [holding answer 9 February 2000]: The Schools Standards and Framework Act 1998 allowed Further Education colleges to provide secondary education at key stage 4. In addition, regulations made under section 363 of the Education Act 1996 allow schools to disapply parts of the key stage 4 National Curriculum for certain pupils to enable them to spend more time on work-related learning.

    Many schools are now working in partnership with colleges and taking advantage of this flexibility to deliver work-related learning and vocational courses. For example, we have launched a programme to support local work-related learning projects. There are over 180 projects, and around two-thirds of these include school-college links. Such links can: help pupils acquire the skills and knowledge needed in employment; enable schools to enhance their curriculum with vocational options (G/NVQs and Key Skills); and make Further Education facilities and teaching expertise available to schools. Further measures are being introduced to promote work-related learning through college links with Fresh Start schools.

    The Department has commissioned the National Foundation for Education Research to carry out an evaluation of how the regulations are being used in practice. The evaluators will interview schools, FE colleges and others involved in delivering extended work-related learning and vocational courses. The final evaluation report is due at the end of 2000.

    Higher Education Staff
    Mr. Stephen Twigg
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will make a statement on ethnicity in employment patterns in the higher education sector; [109307]

    (2) what representations he has received concerning employment patterns in the higher education sector in the last 12 months. [109308]

    Mr. Wicks
    Ministers met the Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality in October 1999 to discuss the Commission's report on ethnicity and employment in higher education. Most of the recommendations are for higher education institutions and their representative bodies. Ministers have asked the funding and representative bodies, who co-sponsored the report, to consider what more they can do to encourage institutions to make progress towards greater equality of opportunity for all groups of staff.

    Class Sizes (Key Stages)
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the link between class sizes and overall pupil performance at Key Stages 1 to 4. [109806]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    The evidence, including from Ofsted, indicates that class size is most important at Key Stage 1. That is why we have pledged to reduce the size of infant classes. The pledge will ensure that all children benefit from infant classes of 30 or below, and will help to give young pupils the important start they need.

    Dartford West High School for Boys
    Dr. Stoate
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he will announce his decision on the future of Dartford West High School for Boys; and if he will make a statement. [109552]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    My right hon. Friend expects to make a decision within the next couple of weeks.

    Age Discrimination
    Mr. Coaker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to tackle age discrimination in employment against men between the ages of 60 and 65 years. [109684]

    Ms Hodge
    On 14 June 1999 we published a Code of Practice on Age Diversity in Employment, developed with key partners such as the TUC, CBI and Age Concern. It covers all aspects of employment, for men and women of all ages, including men aged between 60 and 65. It has sections covering recruitment, selection, training, development, redundancy and retirement, and provides detailed guidance and case studies to help employers to tackle age discrimination in their organisations. This is being backed by a publicity campaign and practical help for employers wanting to adopt the principles set out in the Code. The effectiveness of the Code is being evaluated through a large scale research project which looks in detail at employer policies and practices in recruitment
    399W
    and employment and the impact this has on age diversity in their work force. The results of the evaluation will be published early in 2001.

    Teachers' Pay
    Mr. Hesford
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much teachers will be able to earn once they have passed the performance pay threshold. [109681]

    Ms Estelle Morris
    Teachers who are successful at the threshold will receive a salary increase of £2,000, and will be placed on the new upper pay range. Teachers on point 9 of the pay scale and currently earning £23,193 will see their salary rise to £25,959 in September if they pass the threshold—a rise of 11.9 per cent. In future years, teachers who have passed the threshold will have opportunities to gain a further four points on the upper pay range, worth approximately £1,000 each. This could take their salary to over £30,000 for high performance in the classroom. Taking on additional responsibilities could take a teacher's salary to over £37,000.

    A-levels
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of the population in (a) rural and (b) urban areas have at least two A-levels at grade E or above. [109753]

    Mr. Wicks
    Information from the Labour Force Survey indicates that, in 1998, 38.6 per cent. of economically active working age adults in urban areas in England had at least two A-levels at grades E or the equivalent, compared with 40.6 per cent. of economically active working age adults in rural areas.

    Remploy
    Mr. Rooney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employees at Remploy were (a) able-bodied, (b) disabled and factory-based and (c) disabled and on Interwork, in each year since 1980. [109598]

    Ms Hodge
    The table shows the numbers of both disabled and non-disabled employees in both Remploy Factories and Interwork since 1980.

    Year

    Remploy non-disabled employees

    Remploy factory disabled employees

    Interwork disabled employees

    1980–81

    2,465

    8,179

    0

    1981–82

    2,409

    8,448

    0

    1982–83

    2,383

    8,742

    0

    1983–84

    2,397

    8,730

    0

    1984–85

    2,448

    8,915

    0

    1985–86

    2,368

    8,900

    0

    1986–87

    2,073

    8,944

    0

    1987–88

    1,955

    8,992

    0

    1988–89

    1,920

    8,740

    50

    1989–90

    1,952

    8,648

    90

    1990–91

    2,013

    8,423

    207

    1991–92

    1,740

    8,160

    431

    1992–93

    1,655

    7,933

    643

    1993–94

    1,575

    7,671

    983

    1994–95

    1,661

    7,434

    1,472

    1995–96

    1,629

    7,144

    2,190

    400W

    Year

    Remploy non-disabled employees

    Remploy factory disabled employees

    Interwork disabled employees

    1996–97

    1,568

    6,958

    2,704

    1997–98

    1,457

    6,898

    3,123

    1998–99

    1,402

    6,569

    3,563

    1999–2000

    1,264

    6,096

    4,173

    Supported Employment
    Mr. Rooney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what was the total budget for supported employment expressed (a) in cash terms and (b) at December 1999 prices in each year since 1980. [109596]

    Ms Hodge
    [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The information is not available for years prior to 1989. The figures for 1989–90 onwards are as follows:

    Year

    Cash price (£)

    RPI

    December 1999 RPI

    (£)

    1989–90

    101,634,000

    117.4

    167.3

    144,832,779

    1990–91

    112,258,000

    128.7

    167.3

    145,926,678

    1991–92

    122,445,000

    134.8

    167.3

    151,966,235

    1992–93

    140,775,000

    139.1

    167.3

    169,314,576

    1993–94

    140,399,000

    141.5

    167.3

    165,998,252

    1994–95

    150,051,000

    145.3

    167.3

    172,770,353

    1995–96

    154,231,000

    150.1

    167.3

    171,904,372

    1996–97

    154,346,000

    153.7

    167.3

    168,003,161

    1997–98

    155,556,000

    158.8

    167.3

    163,882,360

    1998–99

    155,032,000

    163.8

    167.3

    158,344,650

  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Edwards
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for portable(a) closed circuit and (b) open circuit TV units in the last year; and how many have secured grant aid from his Department. [108251]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Under the first round of the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television Initiative, 45 proposals were solely for portable or mobile CCTV schemes, although many of the 748 outline applications received contained a mobile element. Applications for open circuit systems are outside the scope of the CCTV Initiative.

    So far, we have awarded £627,000 to seven proposals for mobile systems. A further 16 proposals for mobile schemes to a potential value of £2.3 million are currently under further consideration.

    Further bids for mobile systems can be submitted under the next phase of CCTV funding, details of which will be announced in the near future.

    Mr. Crausby
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications he has received for portable CCTV units in the past year; and how many have secured grant aid from the Home Office. [108273]
    401W
    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Under the first round of the Crime Reduction Programme Closed Circuit Television Initiative, 45 proposals were solely for portable or mobile CCTV schemes, although many of the 748 outline applications received contained a mobile element.

    So far, we have awarded £627,000 to seven proposals for mobile systems. A further 16 proposals for mobile schemes to a potential value of £2.3 million are currently under further consideration.

    Further bids for mobile systems can be submitted under the next phase of CCTV funding, details of which will be announced in the near future.

    Crime (Sussex)
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has in respect of fighting crime in Sussex; and if he will make a statement. [108252]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Government issued in November our strategy for reducing crime. One of the key elements in this is ensuring that the local crime and disorder reduction partnerships—in Sussex as elsewhere—perform to their maximum potential.

    Police (Surrey)
    Mr. Hawkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will provide extra resources for Surrey police to reflect increases in crime and in their responsibilities. [108253]

    Mr. Boateng
    Funding for Surrey Police in 2000–01 will increase by 22.7 per cent. to £112.8 million. This large increase takes account of the expansion of the Surrey police area as a result of the boundary changes with the Metropolitan police in April. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced on 9 February the allocation of funding under the Crime Fighting Fund for the recruitment of extra police officers over and above the number that would otherwise have been recruited over three years. Surrey police will receive funding to enable in total 78 extra officers to be recruited.

    Community Beat Officers
    Mr. Jack
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what studies his Department has carried out into the effectiveness of community beat officers in preventing crime. [108254]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    While there has been no Home Office research solely addressing the effectiveness of community beat officers in preventing crime, research has demonstrated the important role that community beat officers can play in fighting crime, whether by identifying and tackling local crime problems, providing intelligence, or combating fear of crime. Further, the contribution of community beat officers will be an important factor in some of the projects being funded under the crime reduction programme.

    Unauthorised Camping
    Mr. Caplin
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in agreeing the operational guidelines with the Association of Chief Constables to deal with unauthorised camping. [108255]
    402W
    Mr. Straw
    Following consultation with the Government, revised operational guidelines on police powers to deal with unauthorised camping were approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers' Council on 28 April 1999 and issued to forces in early May. I have, however, commissioned a review of the joint Home Office/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' guidance on managing unauthorised camping, in order to ensure that problems associated with these encampments are being tackled as effectively as possible.

    Dr. Iddon
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in agreeing the operational guidelines with the Association of Chief Constables to deal with unauthorised camping. [108261]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Following consultation with the Government, revised operational guidelines on police powers to deal with unauthorised camping were approved by the Association of Chief Police Officers' Council on 28 April 1999 and issued to forces in early May. We are, however, commissioning a review of the joint Home Office/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' guidance on managing unauthorised camping, in order to ensure that problems associated with these encampments are being tackled as effectively as possible.

    Clandestine Immigrants
    Mr. Corbett
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lorries have been stopped by the police which contained clandestine immigrants in the last six months. [108257]

    Mrs. Roche
    The police do not keep records of that information. However, I can tell my hon. Friend that the Immigration and Nationality Directorate's records show that 11,500 clandestine illegal entrants to the United Kingdom were identified between July and December 1999.

    Anti-social Behaviour Orders
    Mr. McWalter
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of councils have used their powers to impose anti-social behaviour orders. [108258]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Anti-social behaviour orders are imposed by the courts upon application by either the local authority or the police. Information about the number of orders which have been granted is not held centrally, but we believe that about 20–25 are currently in force, involving about 15 different areas.

    Prisons (School Links)
    Mr. Blizzard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will support initiatives by which prisons develop links with schools. [108259]

    Mr. Boateng
    The new draft National Standards for prisoners under 18-years-old require prisons to develop links with the home education authority.

    The Prison Service is happy to co-operate with targeted crime reduction activities where these are developed with the police and others locally.

    Crime and Disorder
    Mr. MacShane
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Department for Education and Employment about ensuring that schools are fully involved in local partnerships to combat crime and disorder. [108260]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Schools are designated as bodies which must co-operate with partnerships in the development and implementation of local crime and disorder reduction strategies. One of the strands of the Crime Reduction Programme is an investment of £12 million in projects designed to combat truancy and exclusions.

    Prisoners
    Mr. Peter Bottomley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the amount of purposeful activity undertaken by prisoners. [108262]

    Mr. Boateng
    During the period April 1999 to December 1999 the average amount of purposeful activity undertaken by prisoners was 23.0 hours per prisoner per week.

    These data are provisional and subject to validation by prisons.

    Crime Reduction
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contribution neighbourhood watch schemes can make to his objective of crime reduction under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [108263]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Community involvement is essential if we are to achieve our aim of creating a safe, just and tolerant society. Neighbourhood Watch is a successful example of community involvement with around 155,000 schemes covering 5.5 million households. That is why the Government required the crime and disorder reduction partnerships to invite Neighbourhood Watch to participate in their work.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Gordon Marsden
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what minimum arrangements for social, welfare and cultural support he will require from agencies and local authority consortia wishing to place asylum seekers before agreeing to their dispersal. [108264]

    Mrs. Roche
    Contracts with providers for accommodation specify that the provider will facilitate access for asylum seekers to health and education services. The need for wider social and welfare provision to be available will be taken into account in discussion with local authorities about appropriate cluster areas for asylum seekers.

    Voluntary sector bodies funded under Section 111 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 will be required to provide a range of services as part of the one stop services for asylum seekers envisaged under the new asylum support scheme.
    404W
    Miss Kirkbride
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to restrict the number of asylum seekers entering the United Kingdom. [108267]

    Mrs. Roche
    The Government will continue to honour their obligations under the 1951 United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees to consider all applications for asylum made in the United Kingdom or at our ports. But we are taking tough measures to curb abuse of the asylum process. The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 introduces fundamental changes, including measures to discourage unfounded asylum applications, while continuing to provide protection for those who need it.

    Mr. Whittingdale
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received concerning the dispersal of asylum seekers. [108268]

    Mrs. Roche
    I and my officials have received numerous representations concerning the dispersal of asylum seekers, in response to proposals which we published last year as part of our consultation process. Some have been from voluntary bodies and local authorities by way of formal response to the original Asylum Seeker Support document published in March last year and to the consultation document on the regulations for the scheme published last November. Others have been received in the form of letters to Ministers from Members of Parliament, voluntary bodies and local authorities.

    The representations have been concerned with a range of matters including the minimum standards of accommodation to be provided to asylum seekers and access to legal representatives in dispersal areas.

    The National Asylum Support Service has also been in extensive talks with the Local Government Association about the operation of the dispersal scheme.

    Fiona Mactaggart
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the average length of time for applications from asylum seekers(a) with children and (b) without children to be decided in the last month for which figures are available. [108271]

    Mrs. Roche
    Of the total asylum decisions made in December 1999, the average length of time since the application had been made was 13 months. A breakdown for asylum seekers with and without children is not available in this format. Of families with children who applied for asylum in November 1999, most had a decision made on their application within two months.

    Immigration Advisers
    Mr. Love
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in curbing unscrupulous immigration advisers. [108265]

    Mrs. Roche
    Part V of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 makes provision for a scheme to regulate immigration advisers and service providers. Under the scheme the provision of immigration advice or services will be prohibited unless a person is registered with the Immigration Services Commissioner, authorised to practise by a designated professional body or exempt under the terms of the scheme.
    405W
    We are currently in the process of appointing the Immigration Services Commissioner who will lead the body to administer the scheme. Our aim is to have the regulatory body established and ready to receive applications for registration and exemption by 2 October 2000, with a view to full roll-out of the scheme by April 2001.

    Kosovo Refugees
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to help return to their homes those refugees from Kosovo granted exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom during the conflict. [108266]

    Mrs. Roche
    All the evacuees under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Humanitarian Evacuation Programme (HEP) were given 12 months' exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. We have made it clear that there will not be a general extension of leave for those granted exceptional leave under the Kosovan concession.

    Kosovans are expected to make arrangements to return to Kosovo once their current leave to remain expires.

    The voluntary return programme for Kosovans from the United Kingdom began on 26 July 1999 and is open to those who arrived under the HEP and as independent arrivals. The Government are also running an Explore and Prepare (E and P) scheme to enable heads of households and community leaders with exceptional leave here to return to Kosovo to make advance preparations for the permanent return of their families. To date 1,570 Kosovans have returned under these programmes (1,388 permanent returnees {1,092 HEP and 296 non-HEP} and 182 E and P returns {176 HEP and 6 non-HEP}).

    We have provided funds to the Refugee Council to publish a regular newsletter to keep Kosovans informed about the situation in Kosovo and have funded a voluntary returns office to provide help and information.

    Police (Costs)
    Mr. Fraser
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his estimate of the annual cost of employing a police constable; and if he will make a statement. [108269]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    As at 19 March 1999, the annual cost of a police constable serving in a provincial force, based on average salary for the rank, is £35,081, inclusive of Earnings-Related National Insurance Contribution, notional pension costs and housing allowance.

    An officer serving in London will additionally receive London Allowance of £1,011 and London Weighting of £1,662.

    Racism
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment he has made of the efforts made by police forces to stamp out racism. [108270]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    "Race and the Criminal Justice System 1999" published on 9 December 1999 gives a comprehensive picture of how people from minority 406W
    ethnic backgrounds fare under the criminal justice system, including the police service. The key findings for 1998–99 include a substantial increase by 66 per cent. of the number of racist incidents recorded by the police; against a history of under-recording of racist incidents this appears to reflect improved recording practices by the police and the higher priority the service is giving to its response to racist crime. Black people were, on average, six times more likely than white people to be stopped and searched by the police. The Department has set in hand a wide-ranging programme of research to help broaden understanding of these powers and how their use can be improved. The report found under-representation of ethnic minorities in the police service as in other parts of the criminal justice system. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set targets for forces on recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers and has published a 25 point action plan to help forces meet them.

    Her Majesty' s Chief Inspector of Constabulary's report of the inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS), which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary directed should be carried out in response to recommendation 4 of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry, was published on 10 January. The inspectors found significant progress within the MPS in their response to the community and race relations issues raised in the Inquiry's report, and while there were still areas to be addressed there were grounds for confidence that there would be significant improvements when the inspectors return in 12 months' time.

    My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary undertook during the debate on the report of the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry last March that I would publish an annual report on progress of the implementation of the Action Plan I published in response to the Inquiry's report; my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will publish the first such report shortly.

    Crime (London)
    Mr. Casale
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made in developing local partnerships against crime in London. [108272]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Partnerships were set up in all the London boroughs and the City of London, making 33 in all, as part of the work under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 which places a statutory requirement on the boroughs to produce a joint strategy to reduce crime and disorder. The detail of these and the way in which they are being taken forward varies to some extent but they all actively engaged in the work against crime and disorder.

    Police Officer Recruitment
    Mr. Brady
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he is taking to increase the total number of police officers in England and Wales.
    [108274]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon), on 9 February 2000,Official Report, columns 172–74W.

    Trial by Jury
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to limit trial by jury. [108242]

    Mr. Straw
    We have already announced our intention to introduce in this House, as soon as possible, a Bill which will give the courts the power to determine which either-way cases should be tried in the Crown Court.

    Metropolitan Police
    Mr. Burstow
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to increase the numbers of police officers in the Metropolitan police force. [108249]

    Mr. Straw
    It is for the Metropolitan Police Commissioner to determine overall police numbers within the resources available.

    The strength of the Metropolitan Police fell by 2,060 officers between 1992 and 1998 under budgets set by the previous Administration. Numbers fell by a net 209 between March 1998 and September 1999.

    We announced on 9 February that the Metropolitan Police has been allocated funds from the Crime Fighting Fund for 2000–01 which will enable them to recruit and train 1,113 officers over and above the levels planned for financial years 2000–03. This includes 242 officers in the next financial year and the Commissioner tells me that in the light of this, he hopes to maintain police officer numbers at a constant level through 2000–01.

    Proposed five year crime reduction targets

    Percentage change

    Vehicle crime

    Burglary dwelling

    Robbery

    April 1998-March 1999

    October 1998-September 1999

    April 1998-March 1999

    October 1998-September 1999

    April 1998-March 1999

    October 1998-September 1999

    Avon and Somerset

    30

    28

    29

    26

    —

    —

    Bedfordshire

    30

    35

    20

    32

    —

    —

    Cambridgeshire

    29

    28

    29

    28

    —

    —

    Cheshire

    14

    9

    19

    14

    —

    —

    City of London

    10

    13

    18

    -3

    —

    —

    Cleveland

    30

    26

    20

    19

    —

    Cumbria

    41

    36

    22

    23

    —

    —

    Derbyshire

    33

    31

    30

    31

    —

    —

    Devon and Cornwall

    33

    31

    34

    31

    —

    —

    Dorset

    31

    27

    26

    21

    —

    —

    Durham

    35

    29

    20

    16

    —

    —

    Dyfed-Powys

    30

    24

    30

    19

    —

    —

    Essex1

    10

    10

    10

    10

    —

    —

    Gloucestershire

    25

    22

    25

    27

    —

    —

    Greater Manchester

    34

    33

    25

    19

    10

    15

    Gwent

    30

    30

    10

    14

    —

    —

    Hampshire

    27

    23

    17

    10

    —

    —

    Hertfordshire1

    14

    210

    14

    16

    —

    —

    Humberside

    32

    30

    23

    23

    —

    —

    Kent

    27

    16

    32

    26

    —

    —

    Lancashire

    30

    26

    34

    30

    —

    —

    Leicestershire

    34

    30

    30

    24

    —

    —

    Lincolnshire

    18

    17

    37

    40

    —

    —

    Merseyside

    30

    33

    12

    13

    10

    12

    Metropolitan Police1

    31

    35

    310

    310

    3,415

    3,415

    Norfolk

    14

    13

    18

    17

    —

    —

    North Wales

    28

    31

    26

    22

    —

    —

    North Yorkshire

    25

    20

    44

    47

    —

    —

    Northamptonshire

    32

    30

    24

    26

    —

    —

    Northumbria

    34

    29

    39

    33

    —

    —

    Nottinghamshire

    47

    44

    64

    63

    —

    —

    South Wales

    34

    35

    29

    27

    —

    —

    South Yorkshire

    30

    28

    34

    34

    —

    —

    Home Security
    Mr. Healey
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the impact of local initiatives to reduce domestic burglaries and improve home security. [108256]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Reducing Burglary Initiative, a major component of the Crime Reduction Programme, is expected to prevent 15,000 burglaries by 2002 and 25,000 burglaries in the longer term.

    In addition, the scheme to provide improved security to low-income pensioners should prevent 2,500 burglaries and, just as importantly, will reduce the fear of crime.

    Crime Reduction Targets
    Mr. Hope
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what crime reduction targets police authorities will be expected to set over the next five years under the Best Value regime. [110301]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    All police authorities and police forces have been told that statutory guidance under the Best Value regime (Section 5(7) of the Local Government Act 1999) will indicate that specific targets should be set by all police authorities for domestic burglary and for vehicle crime. In addition, five forces are being asked to set a target for robbery.

    The table shows the five-year targets for each force area, based on our latest information. It will be for each police authority to decide what targets should finally be set and published.
    409W

    Proposed five year crime reduction targets

    Percentage change

    Vehicle crime

    Burglary dwelling

    Robbery

    April 1998-March 1999

    October 1998-September 1999

    April 1998-March 1999

    October 1998-September 1999

    April 1998-March 1999

    October 1998-September 1999

    Staffordshire

    35

    33

    35

    29

    —

    —

    Suffolk

    10

    14

    0

    -4

    —

    —

    Surrey1

    14

    15

    11

    10

    —

    —

    Sussex

    20

    22

    37

    34

    —

    —

    Thames Valley

    30

    32

    40

    44

    —

    —

    Warwickshire

    15

    16

    20

    27

    —

    —

    West Mercia

    10

    7

    14

    13

    —

    —

    West Midlands

    30

    34

    23

    23

    34

    45

    West Yorkshire

    37

    34

    42

    40

    22

    23

    Wiltshire

    14

    18

    10

    11

    —

    —

    National figure5

    30

    29

    26

    24

    12

    19

    1 Contains areas affected by boundary changes from 1 April 2000

    2 Subject to verification

    3 Based on projected recorded crime from April 1999-March 2000

    4 Figure refers to street crime

    5 National figures subject to verification against police authorities' Best Value performance plans

    Criminal Records Bureau
    Jackie Ballard
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 28 January 2000, Official Report, column 362W, on the Criminal Records Bureau, if he will name the shortlisted bidders invited to take part in the technical design study for the Criminal Records Bureau. [109441]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Following evaluation of the six bids received, the following three bidders have been shortlisted and invited to take part in a technical design study:

    Capita Business Services

    PriceWaterhouseCoopers

    e.CRES, a consortium led by SERCO.

    Homicide Weapons
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by type the weapons used in homicides in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which records are available. [109327]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The following table gives the information requested in relation to firearms for England and Wales:

    Homicides initially recorded by the police in which a firearm was reported to have been used, by type of weapon, England and Wales, 1994–98

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    Shotgun:

    Long barrelled

    22

    18

    9

    12

    3

    Sawn Off

    14

    10

    8

    4

    7

    Handgun

    25

    39

    30

    39

    28

    Rifle

    5

    2

    —

    3

    4

    Air weapon

    —

    1

    —

    —

    —

    Other (including type not known)

    —

    —

    2

    1

    2

    Total

    66

    70

    49

    59

    44

    Information on other types of weapon used in homicides, such as sharp and blunt instruments, is published in Chapter 4 of Criminal Statistics, England and Wales, a copy of which is in the Library. (Figures on
    410W
    homicides by shooting contained in Chapter 4 will differ from the figures shown mainly because they are based on currently rather than initially recorded homicides).

    Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

    Firearms Offences
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the total number of firearms offences in the UK in each of the last five years for which records are available. [109341]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The following table gives the information requested for England and Wales:

    Notifiable offences recorded by the police in which firearms were reported to have been used, England and Wales 1994–98

    Number

    1994

    13,167

    1995

    13,434

    1996

    13,876

    1997

    12,410

    1998

    113,671

    1 Changes in the counting rules and coverage of recorded crime took place from 1 April 1998, and there may be some discontinuity in this figure

    Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matters for the respective Secretaries of State.

    Murders
    Mr. Quentin Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will set out, on a comparable basis, the number of murders recorded in the United Kingdom in each of the past 30 years. [109364]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The available information relates to initially recorded offences of homicide (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) in England and Wales and is given in the table. Those offences subsequently decided at court to be murder are also shown.
    411W

    Offences of homicide initially recorded by the police and those subsequently decided at court to be murder, England and Wales, 1969–1998

    Initially recorded homicides

    Offences decided at court to be murder

    1969

    395

    69

    1970

    396

    91

    1971

    459

    86

    1972

    480

    88

    1973

    465

    81

    1974

    599

    154

    1975

    508

    97

    1976

    565

    102

    1977

    484

    112

    1978

    535

    123

    1979

    629

    160

    1980

    621

    126

    1981

    556

    148

    1982

    618

    160

    1983

    552

    152

    1984

    619

    165

    1985

    625

    166

    1986

    660

    202

    1987

    686

    195

    1988

    645

    172

    1989

    626

    177

    1990

    662

    174

    1991

    725

    181

    1992

    681

    189

    1993

    675

    209

    1994

    727

    215

    1995

    753

    238

    1996

    680

    216

    1997–98

    748

    1—

    1998–99

    750

    1—

    1 Not applicable

    The initially recorded figure includes all homicides because when an offence is discovered and recorded by the police, it is not generally known whether an offence of murder, manslaughter or infanticide has been committed.

    Figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are matter for the respective Secretaries of State.

    Corporate Liability
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department has made on consideration of the inter-departmental working party report on corporate liability. [109371]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    We are continuing to consider the conclusions of the inter-departmental working group of officials which has been examining the recommendations made in the Law Commission's report no. 237 "Legislating the Criminal Code: Involuntary Manslaughter". The Law Commission's report included a recommendation that there should be a new offence of corporate killing.

    We are consulting our colleagues on how to take the matter forward and expect to publish our conclusions for consultation.

    Freemasons
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers in England and Wales are freemasons. [109440]
    412W
    Mr. Charles Clarke
    There is no requirement for this information to be provided by police officers. Most forces in England and Wales are compiling statistics of freemasonry membership among officers and civilian staff from information provided on a voluntary basis, and the following figures are currently available for 26 forces. Of the 38,875 individuals who made returns, 417 indicated that they were freemasons.

    Security Industry
    Mr. Swayne
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to establish a private security industry authority. [109361]

    Mr. Charles Clarke
    Our White Paper, "The Government's Proposals for Regulation of the Private Security Industry in England and Wales", published last year set out plans to establish an authority to be responsible for maintaining and improving standards within the industry, and for licensing people employed in the industry. We intend to introduce legislation as soon as Parliamentary time permits.

    Interception of Communications
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long, on average, he has taken to scrutinise each warrant issued under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. [110041]

    Mr. Straw
    I consider very carefully each application for a warrant submitted to me under the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The average time taken for this scrutiny, depends on the complexity of the application. An average would not be meaningful. The Interception of Communications Commissioner, currently Lord Nolan, stated in his annual report for 1998 that he had found no case where I had issued or renewed a warrant without adequate justification.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Burns
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive substantive replies to his letters concerning his constituents (a) Mr. A. Camp, written on 2 September 1999, (b) Mr. Sobarten, written on 29 September 1999, (c) Mr. S. Tennant, written on 2 September 1999 and (d) Mr. J. M. Braouli, written on 4 August 1999. [109738]

    Mrs. Roche
    I wrote to the hon. Member about Mr. Camp's case on 11 February 2000. I wrote about Mr. Tennant's case on 10 November 1999 and 14 February 2000, and about Mr. Braouli's case on 14 February 2000. We have no record of correspondence from the hon. Member about Mr. Sobarten. I assume the hon. Member is referring to his letter of 29 December about Mr. Sisawo Jobarteh to which I replied on 14 February 2000. I am extremely sorry for the delays in replying.

    Mr. Paice
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire's letter on behalf of a constituent, Mrs. Anna Newton, which was acknowledged by his Office on 2 November 1999 (Reference 21142/99); and what steps he is taking to improve the timeliness of replies from his Office. [110140]
    413W
    Mrs. Roche
    I replied to the hon. Member on 14 February 2000.

    Every effort is made to provide timely answers to letters sent to Ministers. Unfortunately, as in the present case, delays sometimes occur. I have reminded my officials of the need to ensure that the required priority is given to dealing with ministerial correspondence.

    Somalia
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people from Somalia have entered the United Kingdom in each of the last five years, indicating the number who are (a) asylum seekers, (b) dependants seeking family reunion, and (c) visitors; and of those how many have been (i) accepted, (ii) informed and are appealing and (iii) refused and removed. [109489]

    Mrs. Roche
    The available information is given in the tables.

    Table 1: Admissions and refusals of nationals of Somalia 1995–99

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    19991

    Total admissions2

    5,720

    5,560

    4,490

    4,900

    1,460

    Of which:

    Visitors

    1,820

    1,470

    1,470

    1,780

    870

    Dependants3

    350

    280

    270

    390

    110

    Passengers refused and removed

    63

    76

    99

    190

    99

    1 January to June only.

    2 Persons, including port asylum seekers, given leave to enter. Excludes persons given temporary admission.

    3 Family members coming for settlement.

    Table 2: Asylum applications received in the United Kingdom (excluding dependants), initial decisions1 on applications, appeals and removals and voluntary departures2 of Somalia

    1995

    1996

    1997

    19983

    19993

    Applications received

    3,465

    1,780

    2,730

    4,685

    7,495

    Total decisions

    2,400

    3,835

    2,305

    2,805

    480

    Of which:

    Granted asylum

    10

    15

    985

    2,330

    20

    Not recognized as a refugee but granted ELR

    2,205

    3,580

    1,015

    375

    520

    Refused asylum and ELR

    185

    235

    305

    100

    40

    Appeals sent to the IAA (adjudicators)

    165

    110

    30

    15

    6—

    Removals and voluntary departure2,7

    20

    40

    50

    35

    6—

    1 Excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

    2 Includes voluntary departures up to and including notification of the decision on the asylum application for port applicants. Includes only those voluntary departures taking place after the initiation of enforcement action for in-country applicants.

    3 Provisional data.

    4 January to May only.

    5 Includes 15 cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre-1996 Act asylum backlog.

    6 Not available.

    7 1998 figure is estimated.

    Senator Pinochet
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department to which (a) Ministers, (b) officials,414W
    (c) lawyers and (d) foreign Governments information concerning the medical condition of General Pinochet has been made available. [110117]

    Mr. Straw
    I informed the House on 12 January 2000, Official Report, columns 277–78, of the conclusions of the medical report on Senator Pinochet which I had commissioned. I have passed a copy of the report to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department with responsibility for extradition matters, Lord Bassam, and another copy to my hon and learned Friend, the Solicitor-General. The report has also been copied to the Government's Chief Medical Officer; the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP); a member of the Treasury Solicitor's Department; and the separate sets of officials and Counsel advising the Solicitor-General, the DPP (in his capacity as domestic prosecuting authority) and me on this case. I sent a copy to Senator Pinochet's legal representatives on 11 January. I have not disclosed the report to any foreign Government.

    I have also received medical information, from Senator Pinochet's legal representatives when I was considering the first Authority To Proceed in the case in December 1998, and from the Embassy of Chile in 1999. I have made this material available within the Government on the same basis as the report I commissioned. The material from the Embassy of Chile was passed to me by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and therefore was also seen by officials advising on the case and in some cases by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers.

    Mr. Geraint Davies
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will make a decision in the case of Senator Pinochet. [106936]

    Mr. Straw
    I will do so as soon as possible, but not before the High Court gives judgment in the current judicial review proceedings. I propose to give notice to the parties to the case, on the day before I expect to make my decision, and will notify the parties and this House immediately when the decision has been taken. It also remains my intention to make a full oral statement to the House when I am clear that it is appropriate to do so.

    Terrorism Bill
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with (a) the Scottish Executive, (b) Scottish bodies and (c) the Scottish Parliament regarding the impact of the Terrorism Bill on devolved areas of responsibility. [109563]

    Mr. Straw
    Under Section 30 and Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998, responsibility for the special powers and other special provisions for dealing with terrorism is reserved. Six organisations representing Scottish interests offered responses to the Government consultation paper "Legislation Against Terrorism" and their views, along with those of all other contributors, were taken into account in preparing the Terrorism Bill, Officials from this Department have been in regular contact with officials from the Scottish Executive about the contents of the Terrorism Bill.
    415W
    I am regularly in touch with the First Minister and the Minister for Justice about a wide range of issues, and I greatly value the co-operative spirit in which these discussions take place.

    Race Relations (Amendment) Bill
    Ms Roseanna Cunningham
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the legislation within the competence of the Scottish Parliament which falls to be amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. [109564]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The Race Relations (Amendment) Bill does not contain any provisions which are within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.

    Fire Service College
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what account has been taken of Scottish interests in drawing up the proposal to merge the Moreton and Manstone Fire Service establishments. [108430]

    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    I refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on 20 December 1999,Official Report, columns 370–71W. Scottish fire service interests were fully consulted during the course of the Fire Service College Prior Options Review. We will continue to consult them in reaching decisions on the review's findings, including the further evaluation of the feasibility of the proposal to join up the activities of the Fire Service College at Moreton-in-Marsh and the Ministry of Defence Fire Services Central Training Establishment at Manston.

    Number of escapes

    Number proven assaults

    Prisoners agreeing compact after 14 days

    Mandatory drug testing

    Average daily unlock weekdays

    Purposeful activity

    Training average staff per annum

    1994–95

    Target

    1—

    1—

    90 per cent.

    1—

    12 hours

    24.9

    5.7 days

    Performance

    0

    71

    Not known

    1—

    13.1 hours

    20.0

    1—

    1995–96

    Target

    0

    Less than 80

    98 per cent.

    1—

    12 hours

    25.5

    5.7 days

    Performance

    0

    105

    Not known

    1—

    12.4 hours

    21.8

    1996–97

    Target

    0

    Less than 75

    98 per cent.

    1—

    212 hours

    226.5

    46 hours

    Performance

    1

    76

    Not known

    27.2 per cent.

    212.2 hours

    227.8

    39.5

    1997–98

    Target

    0

    Less than 75

    98 per cent.

    1—

    212 hours

    226.5

    46 hours

    Performance

    0

    47

    Not known

    18.2 per cent.

    212.25 hours

    229.6

    47.1

    1998–99

    Target

    0

    Less than 75

    98 per cent.

    20.0 per cent.

    212 hours

    226.5

    46 hours

    Performance

    0

    56

    Not known

    15.5 per cent

    212.3 hours

    232.5

    51.1

    1 Data not available

    2 Enhanced regime prisoners only

    Afghan Hijacking
    Mr. Gerald Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the cost to date to public funds of the hijacking of the Ariana Airlines aircraft. [109819]

    Mr. Straw
    It is not possible to make an estimate at this stage.

    Mr. Gerald Howarth
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy not to entertain asylum applications from the hijackers of the Ariana Airlines aircraft; and if he will make a statement on the status of applications for asylum by hijackers who arrived in the UK during the last five years. [109818]

    Mr. Straw
    The United Kingdom is bound to entertain asylum applications made here under the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a legally binding international agreement. However, we also have the clearest possible obligations in respect of the prevention and deterrence of hijacking and other international terrorism. We condemn all hijackings unequivocally. The United Nations Convention provides that those convicted of or suspected of being involved in certain criminal acts shall be exempt from its provisions.

    Asylum applications made by the Iraqi hijackers of the Sudanese Airbus in August 1996 remain under consideration.

    HMP Manchester
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how HMP Manchester has performed against its Service Level Agreement and key performance indicators in each year of the Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [109885]

    Mr. Boateng
    The Manchester Service Level Agreement (SLA) commenced on 7 March 1994. The SLA was revised in August 1995 and October 1996. The information set out in the table outlines the target set by the SLA and the performance reached. SLA targets equate to national Key Performance Indicators.
    417W

    Average days of staff sickness

    Employment of women

    Employment of ethnic minorities

    Employment of registered disabled

    Expenditure

    1994–95

    Target

    less than 9

    Increase to 4.5 per cent. of total staff

    Increase to 4.5 per cent. of total staff

    Increase to 4.5 per cent. of total staff

    Lower than SLA price

    Performance

    15.2

    Not known

    Not known

    Not known

    Not known

    1995–96

    Target

    1—

    15 per cent.

    5 per cent.

    2 per cent.

    Lower than SLA price

    Performance

    12.4

    15.7 per cent.

    1.5 per cent.

    0 per cent.

    Not known

    1996–97

    Target

    1—

    10 per cent.

    5 per cent.

    2 per cent.

    Lower than SLA price

    Performance

    12.1

    15 per cent.

    2.1 per cent.

    0.1 per cent.

    Achieved

    1997–98

    Target

    1—

    15 per cent.

    5 per cent.

    2 per cent.

    Lower than SLA price

    Performance

    13.6

    18.3 per cent.

    2.1 per cent.

    0.1 per cent.

    Achieved

    1998–99

    Target

    1—

    20 per cent.

    5 per cent.

    0.5 per cent.

    Lower than SLA price

    Performance

    14.8

    19.5 per cent.

    2.2 per cent.

    0.2 per cent.

    Achieved

    1 Data not available

    2 Enhanced regime prisoners only

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what factors underlay the decision to subject HMP Manchester to market testing; and if he will make a statement. [109886]

    Mr. Boateng
    The purpose of market testing Manchester prison is to drive up standards and obtain maximum value for money from the successful bidder.

    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the timetable for the competition for the operation of HMP Manchester; and if he will make a statement. [109887]

    Mr. Boateng
    The intended timetable for the market test of Manchester prison is for the Invitation To Tender to be issued by 30 March, the receipt of Best and Final Offers by 15 June and the selection of the preferred supplier by October.

    Prison Tenders
    Mr. Simon Hughes
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 19 January 2000,Official Report, columns 456–57W, on prison tenders, what conclusion was reached in respect of the application of the rules governing business appointments to the former Prison Service Director of Security; what advice was given by the Cabinet Office in relation to the former Director of Security; and if he will make a statement. [109888]

    Mr. Boateng
    The matter is still under consideration.

    Royal Parks (Trading Bill)
    Mr. Mackinlay
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers the Metropolitan Police have used in the last 30 years, which are still in force and which replicate the powers contained in the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill in respect of highways and public areas adjacent to St. James's Park; and if he will make a statement. [109392]
    418W
    Mr. Charles Clarke
    The Metropolitan Police Commissioner tells me that the powers under which his officers deal with illegal traders operating in areas adjacent to St. James's Park are those contained in the City of Westminster Act 1999. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has informed me that the Royal Parks (Trading) Bill will provide the Royal Parks Constabulary and the Metropolitan police with similar powers in the Royal Parks.

    Curfews (Drugs Offences)
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department of those prisoners released to date under the home detention curfew scheme, how many convicted of drugs offences were convicted of (a) unlawful supply and (b) possession with intent to supply unlawfully, for each type of controlled drug; and what was the average sentence (i) received and (ii) served in each case. [109592]

    Mr. Boateng
    [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Of those prisoners released up to 7 February 2000 under the Home Detention Curfew scheme, 876 were convicted of drugs supply and 1,138 were convicted of drugs possession with intent to supply. Information is not held centrally about the type of controlled drug in respect of these convictions.

    The average sentence received for drugs supply was 21.7 months, and the average time spent in custody before release on Home Detention Curfew was 9.2 months. The average sentence received for possession with intent was 20.1 months, and the average time spent in custody before release on Home Detention Curfew was 8.4 months.

    Animal Experiments
    Dr. Tonge
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people holding his Department's licences to perform experiments on animals are employed in the NHS. [109519]
    419W
    Mr. Mike O'Brien
    The most recent figures available record 11 National Health Service (NHS) hospitals as holding Certificates of Designation under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 with a total of 307 personal licence holders at these hospitals.

    A further three Certificates of Designation are held by public health laboratories, with a total of 53 personal licence holders at these establishments.

    Our records are not held in a way which allows us to confirm whether these personal licence holders are employed in the NHS. Similarly, they do not show whether personal licence holders, working in other designated establishments, are NHS employees.

    Immigration Rules
    Miss Widdecombe
    To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions since 1 May 420W
    1997 he has used his powers to instruct immigration officers to disapply, and in respect of how many persons (a) any part of the immigration rules, (b) any of the restrictions in paragraph 320 of the immigration rules and (c) the restrictions in sub-paragraph 18 of paragraph 320 of the immigration rules. [107030]

    Mr. Straw
    [holding answer 27 January 2000]: Under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 the power of the Secretary of State to give instructions to Immigration Officers is limited to instructions which are not inconsistent with the Immigration Rules. In addition, the Secretary of State may give advice to Immigration Officers which they would take into account when exercising their power to grant or refuse leave to enter outside the Immigration Rules. No record is kept of the number of occasions on which such instructions or advice are given and this information could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, but I can personally recall only two occasions where I have given a specific instruction under paragraph 1(3).

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Research Contracts
    Dr. Harris
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 349W, what restrictions were placed on contractors carrying out research projects funded by his Department in 1999 in respect of them discussing their findings with journalists (a) before and (b) after publication. [108206]

    Ms Quin
    The Department's approach to the release of research information was set out in the reply to the hon. Member on 6 December 1999,Official Report, column 349W. This approach applies equally to discussion of findings with journalists both before and after publication of results.

    Beef Special Premium Scheme
    Mr. Sawford
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much money was available for the United Kingdom from the European Union for the Beef Special Premium Scheme in each year from 1990. [108481]

    1993

    1994

    1995

    1996

    1997

    1998

    1999

    Anglia (Cambridge)

    154

    147

    142

    168

    163

    55

    120

    Northern (Carlisle)

    228

    62

    81

    144

    158

    108

    96

    East Midlands (Nottingham)

    319

    230

    243

    282

    263

    195

    138

    South East (Reading)

    448

    381

    303

    279

    279

    144

    128

    Wessex (Bristol)

    801

    411

    288

    275

    314

    168

    71

    North Mercia (Crewe)

    242

    205

    322

    530

    343

    222

    102

    South West (Exeter)

    120

    45

    93

    70

    75

    80

    131

    North East (Northallerton)

    370

    321

    359

    245

    296

    245

    168

    South Mercia (Worcester)

    266

    221

    163

    271

    220

    144

    150

    Totals

    2,948

    2,023

    1,994

    2,264

    2,111

    1,361

    1,104

    Baby Foods
    Ms Shipley
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will lower the advised sugar content included in his guidance on packaged baby food. [108584]

    Ms Quin
    MAFF has not issued advice on the sugar content of packaged baby foods as statutory controls are laid down in the Processed Cereal Based Foods and Baby Foods for Infants and Young Children Regulations 1997. These Regulations implement European rules and any amendments would need to be agreed at Community level.

    Farmer Incomes
    Mr. Waterson
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers have sources of income from part-time employment in addition to farming. [108782]

    Ms Quin
    For farmers and spouses on full-time farms in England, it is estimated that around 20 per cent. had income from employment or self-employment outside the farm in 1998–99.
    422W
    Ms Quin
    The Beef Special Premium Scheme was introduced in 1993. Payments are fully funded, but claims are restricted by a UK regional ceiling of 1,419,811 for bulls and first premium payment on steers; there is no ceiling on the second premium payment for steers. The payments made in the UK since the Scheme started are:

    Year

    £

    1993

    100,876,973

    1994

    129,572,732

    1995

    161,402,817

    1996

    179,175,135

    1997

    179,117,456

    1998

    169,699,784

    19991

    153,273,789

    1 Forecast

    Mr. Sawford
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many claims under the Beef Special Premium Scheme were rejected in each year from 1990 broken down by each Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food regional office. [108482]

    Ms Quin
    The present Beef Special Premium Scheme was introduced in 1993. The table shows the information requested.

    Pigmeat
    Mr. Fabricant
    To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has requested meat-purchasing Government agencies to buy British pigmeat or only pigmeat produced to standards of animal welfare equivalent to those of the United Kingdom. [108733]

    Ms Quin
    In respect of pigmeat, we have sought to persuade public authorities that buying to British welfare and other standards (eg meat and bonemeal-free feed regimes) offers good value and meets the needs of their "customers". To back up this message, my right hon. Friend the Minister has written to a number of Government Departments and to local councils and health authorities in England to emphasise the importance of sourcing to British standards.

    Responses received so far (over 100) indicate that those public authorities who do not currently source to British standards are looking to change the specifications in their tendering procedures.

  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    Austria
    Mr. Hopkins
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement
    423W
    on the rise of the Freedom Party in Austria and its implications for Austria's relations with the United Kingdom. [109185]

    Mr. Vaz
    We have made very clear over the last two weeks our deep concern and distaste at the inclusion in the Austrian Government of a far-right party which appeals to xenophobia. We have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government have committed themselves to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, to combating all forms of discrimination, and to dealing constructively with the country's Nazi past, but we will be watching them closely and judging them on whether they fulfil the commitments they have made.

    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under which provisions of the European Treaties the(a) Commission and (b) European Presidency are seeking to influence the composition of the Government of Austria. [109028]

    Mr. Vaz
    The Portuguese Government on behalf of 14 members of the EU have made clear our concern on developments in Austria. The European Commission has also voiced its concern. The measures agreed by the 14 partners were not decided upon and are not being implemented within the framework of the EU or EC treaties, and Austria will continue to participate in EU business. For our part, I have made clear our deep concern and distaste at the inclusion in the Austrian Government of a far-right party which appeals to xenophobia. We will be judging the new Austrian Government carefully on whether they fulfil the commitments they have made in their Declaration to abide by all common obligations and values of EU membership.

    Departmental Staff
    Ms Christine Russell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in the last five years, what proportion of women employees in (i) his Department and (ii) executive agencies under the control of his Department,(a) returned to work after childbirth, (b) returned to work after childbirth before the end of maternity leave, indicating the (i) time-range and (ii) mean time; (c) returned to work after childbirth on reduced working hours, indicating the average hours worked and d) returned to work after childbirth full-time and subsequently reduced their hours. [109238]

    Mr. Hain
    The Department is committed to facilitating the early return to work of staff who take maternity leave. Flexible working arrangements are available for women who do not wish to return to work full-time after giving birth. The detailed information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the effects on the armed forces in Pakistan of the recent suspension of British arms sales to Pakistan. [108905]

    Mr. Hain
    [holding answer 8 February 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 11 February 2000, Official Report, column 336W.

    Kosovo
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many United Kingdom police officers have been deployed(a) in Pristina and (b) throughout Kosovo in the last 12 months. [109713]

    Mr. Hain
    [holding answer 11 February 2000]: In July 1999, five UK police officers transferred from the International Police Task Force in Bosnia to assist the United Nations Interim Administration in Kosovo with the establishment of a Police Headquarters in Pristina. Their mission finished at the end of October 1999.

    52 UK police officers were also members of six successive UK Scenes of Crime Teams, who were gathering forensic evidence from war graves throughout Kosovo over periods of three weeks at a time, from July to October last year.

    Since August 1999, 32 UK police officers have been in Vucitrn at the OSCE Police Training School. This number is shortly to rise to 40 officers.

    In addition, 60 RUC officers were deployed in early November 1999 to the UN International Police in Kosovo. Of these 60, 32 are based in Pristina, and the remaining 28 have been deployed to small towns in the British Sector surrounding Pristina.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Kosovo Albanian prisoners are detained in Serbia. [109717]

    Mr. Vaz
    [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The International Committee of the Red Cross, which is in regular contact with the Belgrade authorities, has visited a total of around 1,570 Kosovo Albanians currently detained in Serbia.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by(a) UNMIK, (b) the EU and (c) the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, to (i) secure the release of the Kosovo Albanian prisoners detained in Serbia and (ii) ameliorate the conditions of their detention. [109718]

    Mr. Vaz
    [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The International Committee of the Red Cross is in regular contact with the authorities in Belgrade about the situation of the Kosovo Albanians held in Serbia. We remain in close touch with the ICRC. Several hundred of those detained last year have been released in recent months. We hope that all those still being held are either released or have their cases processed quickly. It is unacceptable that people should be detained without trial for so long.

    General Pinochet
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the diplomatic messages to(a) Chile, (b) Spain, (c) France, (d) Belgium and (e) Switzerland concerning General Pinochet since 1 October 1998. [110116]

    Mr. Battle
    It is not possible to provide a fully comprehensive list without incurring disproportionate costs. However I assure my hon. Friend that the matter has been frequently raised.
    425W
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list meetings between(a) ministers, (b) embassy staff and (c) officials and representatives of the Governments of (i) Spain, (ii) Chile, (iii) France, (iv) Belgium and (v) Switzerland at which the subject of General Pinochet has been raised, since 1 October 1998. [110115]

    Mr. Battle
    It is not possible to provide a fully comprehensive list of all the meetings at which the subject of Senator Pinochet has been raised since 1 October 1998 without incurring disproportionate costs. The matter has, inevitably, been raised on innumerable occasions.

    Bahrain
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held by Her Majesty's Government's representatives with the Government of Bahrain concerning the restoration of the constitution; and if he will make a statement. [109485]

    Mr. Hain
    Although Bahrain's Parliament is suspended, the constitution remains in place. We take every opportunity to encourage the trend towards greater participation in the government of Bahrain. We welcome the Amirs' National Day statement in which he announced municipal elections with votes for women and expressed hopes that the Shura Council will develop in order to deepen popular participation in decision making.

    Somalia
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions have been taken by United Kingdom representatives at the United Nations to promote a peace process in Somalia. [109486]

    Mr. Hain
    In recent years the UN Secretary-General has regularly reported to the Security Council on Somalia. After the most recent report in August last year, the UK representative repeated our full support for the Secretary-General's efforts to promote peace in Somalia and encouraged him to review the role of the UN in Somalia, including exploration of possible support for civil society as a means of increasing the chances of achieving a comprehensive and lasting settlement. The Security Council imposed a mandatory arms embargo in its Resolution 733 of 23 January 1992. We have consistently called for it to be properly enforced.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the backlog of outstanding cases of entry clearance applications for Somali nationals, broken down by the diplomatic posts which received them. [109490]

    Mr. Vaz
    Detailed information on the nationality of entry clearance applicants is not collated centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department is taking to assist peace processes in Somalia; and if he will make a statement. [109491]

    Mr. Hain
    Together with the rest of the international community, we have supported the efforts of regional and other interested states and regional organisations, including 426W
    the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), the Organisation of African Unity and the Arab League, to facilitate the peace process in Somalia.

    The President of IGAD, Djibouti President Ismael Omar Guelleh, is in the process of putting together new peace proposals. We welcome this initiative and look forward to seeing these proposals in detail, but the ultimate responsibility for achieving national reconciliation and for restoring peace in Somalia rests with the Somali people themselves.

    Iraq
    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Minister of State's oral statement of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 29WH, on Iraq, if he will list the food sold by Iraq to Syria in 1999–2000. [110039]

    Mr. Hain
    We have reliable eyewitness reports from as early as 1998 of Iraqi foodstuffs including dates, honey, rice and cooking oil being exported to and sold in Syria. Some of the goods were clearly labelled as having been donated to Iraq by third countries. The concern of those governments for the well-being of the Iraqi people is not shared by the Iraqi regime.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Minister of State's oral statement of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 30WH, what reports he has received from Christine Gosden about disease in the Basra area. [110087]

    Mr. Hain
    I met Christine Gosden on 26 November 1999 to discuss her findings about disease in northern Iraq, as a result of the murderous attacks on Halabja by Saddam Hussein' s forces. We did not discuss disease in the Basra area.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received since 1 January 1999 from(a) Iran, (b) Jordan, (c) Turkey, (d) Saudi Arabia and (e) the Gulf States about Iraq being a threat to regional peace. [110038]

    Mr. Hain
    The GCC, in the communiqué issued after its twentieth summit last year, renewed its call for the need for Iraq to prove its peaceful intentions in word and deed towards its neighbours. Contacts with other regional states confirm that they too remain concerned about the threat posed by Iraq.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Minister of State's oral statement of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 31WH, on Iraq, what is the location of the vast regional wetland to which he refers. [110040]

    Mr. Hain
    In the early 1970s the southern marshes of Iraq covered 5,200 square km west of the Tigris river. Following concerted efforts by the Iraqi government to drain the wetland, including the construction of an east-west dam and a north-south canal, by 1993 very little standing water remained in the area. I have arranged for photographs of the area in 1972 and 1993 to be placed in the Library of the House.

    Mr. Dalyell
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to the Minister of State's oral statement of 8 February 2000,Official Report,

    427W
    column 29WH, on Iraq, if he will seek an explanation from the Iraqi Government of their reasons for the purchase of bank note counting machines. [110036]

    Mr. Haim
    No. The distribution plan for "oil for food" is drawn up by Iraq and approved by the UN Secretary-General. Iraq's last three distribution plans have included allocations for bank note counting machines. On each occasion the Secretary-General has refused to approve this allocation on the grounds that bank note counting machines are not consistent with the objectives of "oil for food".

    Lebanon
    Dr. Starkey
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make representations to the Israeli Government concerning their recent bombing of power stations in Lebanon. [109963]

    Mr. Hain
    We have raised our concerns about the escalation of violence in Lebanon with the Israeli government. We urge all parties to exercise restraint and respect the April 1996 Understanding. These incidents confirm the urgent need for renewed efforts to achieve a comprehensive peace in the region, including implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 425.

    Angola
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations he has had with oil companies operating in Angola about restricting oil revenues from funding the war and corrupt politicians. [109253]

    Mr. Hain
    I met London representatives of major oil companies active in Angola on 30 November. I made it clear that I was concerned that Angola's oil revenues should be used for the benefit of all the people of Angola. I am particularly concerned that such revenues contribute to enhancing the Angolan skill base and reconstructing her shattered infrastructure.

    I made the same point when I met President Dos Santos of Angola in New York on 24 January. I intend to reinforce it when I visit Angola, I hope in the first half of this year.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made with De Beers to restrict the sale of Angolan diamonds that may be funding the purchase of armaments. [109254]

    Mr. Hain
    I and my officials are in regular touch with De Beers about the problems of the illicit diamond trade funding the UNITA movement in Angola. I welcomed De Beers' statement on 5 October 1999 that they would not buy diamonds from Angola beyond those they were contracted to from the Angolan Government, and I have asked for both their views and those of other diamond traders on how an effective certification scheme could be implemented to stop the sale of diamonds in breach of 428W
    UN sanctions. This statement should send a clear message to UNITA that the international community condemns their return to conflict.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the British Ambassador in Angola about stepping up sanctions against Angola. [109255]

    Mr. Hain
    I and my officials are in regular touch with the Ambassador in Luanda and her staff about all aspects of the current situation in Angola, including the need to ensure rigorous implementation of UN sanctions against the UNITA rebel movement and the identification of individual and corporate sanctions breakers. There are no sanctions targeted against the Government of Angola.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have taken place with the Ukrainian Government about restricting the supply of tanks and other arms to Angola; and what was the outcome. [109256]

    Mr. Hain
    UN Security Council Resolution 864 of 15 September 1993 imposed an embargo on the sale of arms and petroleum products to Angola except through specific entry points named by the Government of Angola. The aim of this was to prevent arms from reaching the UNITA rebel movement. Ukraine has made clear its commitment to increasing the effectiveness of UN sanctions. It is currently a member of the UN Security Council. We have been in regular touch with the Ukrainian authorities, both in London and Kiev, about the problems of equipment of Ukrainian origin reaching the UNITA rebel movement in Angola. Ukrainian Government sales of equipment to the Angolan Government are not covered by the UN sanctions against UNITA. I am sending a team of officials to Kiev between 14 and 17 March for detailed discussions with the Ukrainian authorities on how we can co-operate to prevent this.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what activities are being undertaken by the United Nations to bring about a political solution in Angola. [109257]

    Mr. Hain
    Between 1993 and 1998, the United Nations Security Council adopted a range of targeted sanctions against UNITA to reduce Savimbi's ability to rebuild his military capability and encourage him to return to the negotiating table. To ensure the sanctions are as effective as possible, UNSCR 1237 of 7 May 1999 established two expert panels to investigate reports of violations of the arms and oil embargoes, diamond ban and freeze on UNITA funds. They will submit their findings shortly, including recommendations on tightening implementation of these measures.

    On 15 October 1999 the Security Council adopted Resolution 1268 to establish a UN office in Angola (UNOA) to liaise with the political, military, police and other civilian authorities with a view to exploring effective measures for restoring peace, assisting the Angolan people in the areas of capacity building, humanitarian assistance, the promotion of human rights

    429W
    and co-ordinating other activities. And the Secretary-General has appointed Ibrahim Gambari as his special adviser on African issues, whose responsibilities include Angola. The UN has been working closely with the Government of Angola to agree the Status of Mission Agreement to establish UNOA as mandated by the Resolution. We expect the head of UNOA to be appointed in the near future.

  INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

    Locally Employed Staff (Wages)
    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her policy on paying her Department's employees overseas the British minimum wage. [106331]

    Clare Short
    DFID pays staff appointed in-country overseas according to good employer practice in the conditions prevailing in local labour markets. Pay rates are established by wage surveys among embassies, high commissions and major international companies and organisations. The UK minimum wage was set in relation to UK conditions and has no particular relevance in the overseas context—especially in those economies where inflation may be substantially greater than the low rates prevailing in Britain and where fluctuating exchange rates would make any sterling benchmark figure a continuously variable target.

    Mr. Streeter
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what the salary is for her Department's locally employed staff in(a) Harare, (b) Dhaka, (c) Nairobi and (d) Jura. [106642]

    Clare Short
    The information requested is as follows:

    (a) Harare

    Z dollars

    Grande

    Minimum

    Maximum

    A3

    589,608

    1,075,704

    B1

    388,752

    702,648

    B2

    297,972

    529,572

    C1

    214,080

    412,872

    C2

    132,420

    269,220

    C3

    106,548

    178,872

    (b) Dhaka

    Taka

    Grade

    Minimum

    Maximum

    LE(E)

    555,120

    610,632

    LEII

    417,600

    506,640

    LEIII

    232,440

    310,980

    LEIV

    183,960

    246,600

    LEVb

    154,500

    —

    (c) Nairobi

    K shillings

    Grade

    Minimum

    Maximum

    SPSO

    2,051,424

    3,305,184

    PSO

    1,568,748

    2,446,788

    LEI

    1,049,472

    1,529,712

    430W

    (c) Nairobi

    K shillings

    Grade

    Minimum

    Maximum

    LEII

    715,872

    1,151,352

    LEIII

    407,052

    819,492

    LEIV

    339,792

    606,312

    LEVa

    226,536

    375,936

    LEVb

    195,936

    295,056

    (d) DFID currently has no employees in Juba.

    Mrs. Gillan
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many of her Department's locally employed staff in(a) Harare, (b) Dhaka and (c) Pretoria are paid below the British minimum wage. [106326]

    Clare Short
    My Department pays its staff appointed in country in accordance with good employer practice and the conditions prevailing in local labour markets. The UK minimum wage has no particular relevance in those contexts-especially in those economies where inflation may be substantially greater than the low rates prevailing in the UK. Because of the effect of fluctuating exchange rates, the figure requested cannot be determined in absolute terms. It may be estimated by applying the exchange rate prevailing at any point in time to the following data on annual salary rates and the number of hours worked per week:

    Grade

    Currency

    Minimum

    Maximum

    Number in grade

    Hours per week

    (a) Harare

    A3

    Z dollars

    589,608

    1,075,704

    1

    37.5

    B1

    Z dollars

    388,752

    702,648

    9

    37.5

    B2

    Z dollars

    297,972

    529,572

    12

    37.5

    C1

    Z dollars

    214,080

    412,872

    12

    37.5

    C2

    Z dollars

    132,420

    269,220

    4

    37.5

    C3

    Z dollars

    106,548

    178,872

    3

    38

    (b) Dhaka

    LE(E)

    Take

    555,120

    610,632

    2

    35

    LEI

    Taka

    417,600

    506,640

    3

    35

    LEII

    Taka

    232,440

    310,980

    8

    35

    LEIII

    Taka

    183,960

    246,600

    6

    35

    LEVb

    Taka

    154,500

    —

    2

    35

    (c) Pretoria

    B1

    Rand

    110,460

    171,360

    2

    36.5

    B2

    Rand

    72,590

    122,640

    14

    36.5

    C1

    Rand

    52,500

    81,445

    8

    36.5

    C2

    Rand

    34,500

    61,992

    5

    36.5

    Somalia
    Mr. Corbyn
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects in Somalia supported by her Department as part of (a) multilateral and (b) bilateral projects; and if she will make a statement. [109487]

    Clare Short
    We do not have a bilateral aid programme to Somalia. Humanitarian projects currently funded by DFID are as follows:Action Centre La Faim: "Emergency Nutritional Intervention in Gedo and Bakool Regions" (£96,122)
    AMREF UK: "Luuq District Health Programme" (£288,735)
    World Vision: "Primary Health Care in Juba" (£281,703)
    World Vision: "Agricultural Rehabilitation Programme, Middle Juba" (£198,230)

    431W
    In addition the following Civil Society Fund Projects are funded:
    Action Aid: "Pastoralism and Peace Building" (£440,896)
    Africa Educational Trust: "Educational Incentives—Girls/Young Ex-Militia Men" (£83,411)
    Africa Education Trust: "Organisation/Skills Training in Community Schools" (£51,660).

    There is currently one multilateral project funded by DFID: UNICEF "Supplementary Feeding Programme, Bardera" (£00,000). Britain also supports the work of other multilateral agencies in Somalia including the World Food Programme. In addition we are contributing £4.38 million as our contribution to a Euro 47m EC Rehabilitation Programme.

    We are monitoring the humanitarian situation in Somalia closely and will continue to respond to urgent needs as they arise. Many of the problems facing the Somali people are, directly or indirectly, the result of political instability. We believe the problems of Somalia as a whole must be resolved by the Somalis themselves and we fully support the current initiative of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to promote a peaceful solution.

    Child Employment
    Mr. Burden
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures her Department is taking to help reduce the employment of child workers. [109333]

    Clare Short
    We are strongly committed to the elimination of child labour. We have actively supported the development of the International Labour Organisation's (ILO) new Convention on Worst Forms of Child Labour. We are providing core and project funding to ILO's International Programme for the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC).

    Activities to end child labour need to address the main cause—poverty. Parents do not let their children work in dangerous and exhausting industries by choice. Any sustainable solution will have to include alternative income-earning opportunities for poor families. However, in many places finding alternative forms of income is difficult. The best outcome for many children may be to combine work with education. This may be the first step in breaking the inter-generational cycle of poverty.

    Much of our work is aimed at promoting economic growth, improving access to education and increasing job opportunities. We are also supporting a number of initiatives which focus specifically on child labourers and their families including significant programmes in both India and Pakistan and, through ILO, in Indonesia. We are developing a strategic approach to child labour in Asia which will look at key international, regional and national stakeholders with interests in or influence on child labour. These strategies are looking at not just child worker specific projects but also the need for special efforts in wider education, rural livelihoods and urban-based programmes, to include children who work. We hope through these projects to develop successful approaches
    432W
    which can be replicated elsewhere. However, in the long term it is through a comprehensive process of sustainable development that change will come about.

    Pakistan
    Mr. Chaytor
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will give a breakdown of the humanitarian aid being directed through non-Governmental organisations to Pakistan in 1999–2000, listing for each project (a) the NGO concerned, (b) the recipient organisation, (c) the sum involved and (d) the purpose of the project. [109336]

    Clare Short
    As the information is lengthy, it has been placed in the Library.

    Angola
    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current situation in Angola concerning the need for humanitarian aid and the supply of such aid. [109251]

    Clare Short
    The UN estimate 3.7 million people will require humanitarian assistance in 2000. Two million of these are internally displaced. The conflict has caused large numbers of others to move to neighbouring countries to escape the conflict. The humanitarian status of one third of the population, in inaccessible areas, remains unknown.

    The UK has committed about £7.5 million since the beginning of 1999 to international Non Governmental Organisations and UN Agencies. This includes US$6.2 million (some £3.8 million) for food aid through the World Food Programme. In addition, we contribute through our membership of the European Community.

    The United Kingdom has called on all concerned to help facilitate safe passage for humanitarian personnel and the delivery of emergency assistance in areas under their control.

    Mr. Worthington
    To ask the Secretary of State for International Development to what extent the situation in Angola permits the provision of development aid as well as humanitarian aid; and if she will list the current provision of such aid. [109252]

    Clare Short
    The on-going civil war in Angola is a severe constraint to sustainable development. The quality of public expenditure and corruption are both serious concerns. Britain does not have a bilateral aid relationship with the Government of Angola. However, we provide humanitarian assistance to those in need and are also supporting the Luanda Urban Poverty Programme, which started in 1999, working through international Non Governmental Organisations to tackle the needs and priorities of the urban poor in Luanda.

  SOCIAL SECURITY

    Benefits Agency Doctors
    Mr. Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to ensure that (1) training
    433W
    for Benefits Agency doctors draws attention to the need for sensitivity in their dealings with vulnerable claimants; [109032]

    (2) benefit claimants doctors receive appropriate training in the working of the benefit system. [109033]

    Mr. Bayley
    Training for Benefit Agency doctors is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jim Dobbin, dated 11 February 2000:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about what plans he has to ensure that training for Benefits Agency doctors draws attention to the need for sensitivity in their dealings with vulnerable claimants, and that they receive appropriate training in the working of the benefit system.
    All examining doctors, employed by Sema Group and engaged by Nestor Disability Analysis (NDA), receive training in the Professional Standards of Medical Services. These standards include a requirement for doctors to be accessible, punctual, reliable, presentable, approachable, courteous, and friendly. Other specified standards include the requirement for the doctor to introduce him or herself to the person to be examined; to allow the claimant time to give their history, asking any questions in a non-adversarial manner; to explain the purpose of the examination; and to carry out the examination gently to avoid any unnecessary discomfort to the claimant.
    The Chief Medical Advisor to the Department is responsible for setting the standards which all doctors, undertaking medical examinations, must achieve, and approves all training material.
    The subject of professional standards is discussed during initial training and the standards are listed in full in the guidance notes that are given to each doctor. The training currently in place, ensures that all examining doctors are fully aware of the need for sensitivity whilst carrying out medical assessments on vulnerable claimants with disabilities.
    As part of their training doctors are made aware of how their role fits into the overall benefit process. However, they do not make decisions on benefit claims nor do they offer advice on the technical details of the benefit concerned, these are matters for the Benefits Agency Local Offices.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Fraud
    Mr. Field
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many members of BASIS's Business Development Team are(a) under investigation for suspected fraud and (b) not discharging duties for some other reason. [108960]

    Mr. Rooker
    This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

    Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 11 February 2000:
    The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about how many members of BASIS's Business Development Team are (a) under investigation for suspected fraud and (b) not discharging duties for some other reason.
    The Business Development Team provides a number of support services for the rest of BASIS and currently has 27 staff.
    All allegations and suspicions of fraud on the part of Benefits Agency (BA) staff are properly considered and fully investigated. Whilst some investigations do unearth irregularities on the part of the staff and result in various penalties for those involved, many establish that the individuals have acted with propriety and are not involved in inappropriate activities.
    434W
    It is important that investigations of this kind remain confidential, not only to protect innocent staff, but also to avoid alerting fraudulent staff to the fact that their activities are being examined.
    I hope you will accept therefore that it would be inappropriate to provide you with any details of investigations of suspected fraud by BA staff that may currently be underway. Information on fraud detected on the part of BA staff is available in Her Majesties Treasury Return published in January 2000.
    There are no members of the BASIS's Business Development Team that we would regard as not discharging their duties.
    I hope this is helpful.

    Housing Benefit
    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the 10(a) best and (b) worst performing local authorities in England in terms of (i) average time taken to process a claim for housing benefit and (ii) the number of housing benefit awards reviewed and subsequently found to be incorrect. [108984]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is not available.

    We aim to transform the delivery of Housing Benefit so that local authorities provide their communities with a faster, more accurate service which is more secure against fraud and error, and which provides value for money and takes account of the views and needs of clients. Best value performance indicators will target these key areas from this April. Local authorities will be required to set and meet challenging targets against the indicators and demonstrate that they are achieving continuous improvements in the standards of service they provide.

    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of housing benefit claimants who are(a) tenants of registered social landlords and (b) tenants of private landlords are affected by the four weeks in arrears rule; and what is the average weekly level of housing benefit paid to tenants in both of those groups. [109366]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is in the table.

    Housing Benefit recipients, tenants of registered social landlords and private landlords, Great Britain—May 1998

    Tenants of registered social landlords

    Tenants of private landlords

    All recipients

    840,000

    971,000

    Paid four weeks in arrears

    242,000

    352,000

    Proportion paid four weeks in arrears—percentage

    29

    36

    Average weekly amount of Housing Benefit

    £54.50

    £61.10

    Notes:

    1. Figures are the latest available.

    2. The number of recipients are rounded to the nearest thousand, proportions to the nearest whole per cent. and average amounts of benefit to the nearest ten pence.

    3. Recipients refer to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

    Source:

    Housing Benefit Management Information System, annual 1 per cent. sample inquiries taken on the second Thursday in May 1998.

    Mr. Dobbin
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress has been made in the pilot local authorities taking part in the review of housing benefit procedures; and if he will make a statement. [109034]
    435W
    Angela Eagle
    Local authorities are involved in a number of initiatives aimed at improving the administration and delivery of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, including several pilots. Through initiatives such as the pilot ONE service, local and central government are working together to streamline the operation of the benefit system and help clients move from welfare into work.

    A range of benefits for clients of working age, including Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, are assessed via a single point of contact as part of the ONE service. This offers an opportunity to move away from the duplication and inefficiency of the present system, with customers providing information only once. Clients take part in a work-focused interview where they receive in-depth, individual help from a personal adviser. This puts work, and helping people overcome barriers to work, at the heart of the benefit system.

    Twelve pilots are testing three variants of the ONE service over three years. The first four basic model pilots were launched on 28 June 1999. A further eight pilots, four assessing the use of call centre technology and four led by private and voluntary sector organisations, commenced on 29 November 1999.

    Fifty-six local authorities are working in partnership with the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service to trial this new way of working. Local authority involvement in ONE is important not only because of the authorities' responsibilities for delivery Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, but also because of their expertise in providing a wide range of local services and information. Local authorities have also provided valuable input to the design and development of the ONE service.

    While it is too early to measure the degree of success we have had in helping people move into sustainable employment, the improved level of customer service and the focus on individual needs have been well received by our clients.

    Benefit

    Rate since 1996

    Current rate April 1999

    Value at April 2000 if increased in line with prices since 19961

    IS/JSA Earnings Disregard2:

    Per person

    5

    5

    5.45

    Couple

    10

    10

    10.85

    Lone parent

    15

    15

    16.35

    HB/CTB Earnings Disregard2:

    Single person

    5

    5

    5.45

    Couple

    10

    10

    10.85

    Lone parent

    15

    15

    16.35

    Lone parent

    25

    25

    27.25

    Carer

    15

    15

    16.35

    HB/CTB/FC/DWA 2

    Child care disregard

    60

    70

    65.40

    Income Support Disregard2

    Regular charitable/voluntary payments

    20

    20

    21.80

    Verification Framework
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what systems are in place to scrutinise the effectiveness of verification framework practices; and when the results of that scrutiny will be published. [109367]

    Angela Eagle
    We will use information from a range of sources to monitor the effectiveness of the Verification Framework (VF) in helping local authorities to improve accuracy and reduce fraud and error from entering the Housing Benefit/Council Tax Benefit system. We have monitored the live running of the VF from its launch and have already made several improvements to the VF in the light of operational experience to enable LAs to focus more on the outcomes that we require rather than specifying detailed process requirements.

    The information we will use includes: management information provided by individual local authorities on a quarterly basis; information and reports from representative groups and individuals; inspections made by the BFI and checking compliance with the VF through external auditors at the same time as the normal audit of administration subsidy.

    We have also commissioned an independent research company to conduct in depth research with local authorities to evaluate the implementation and operation of the Verification Framework. We plan to publish the findings in early 2001.

    We will continue to monitor the VF and will consider further improvements when we have analysed information from the range of sources available.

    Disregards
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the capital and income disregards for the benefits for which his Department is responsible indicating(a) the increases in levels of disregard for each year since 1997 and (b) the increases that would have been required to match the rate of inflation since 1996. [108824]

    Mr. Bayley
    The information is in the table.
    437W

    Benefit

    Rate since 1996

    Current rate April 1999

    Value at April 2000 if increased in line with prices since 19961

    Invalid Care Allowance Earnings Limit3

    50

    50

    55.20

    War Pension disregard for Income Related benefits2

    5

    10

    5.45

    10

    10

    10.85

    IS/JSA/HB/CTB 2:

    Income from a boarder

    20

    20

    21.80

    Disregard of income from a sub-tenant plus heating

    13.25

    13.25

    14.50

    Disregard of Training Bonus2

    200

    200

    217.95

    FC/DWA/HB/CTB2

    Income disregard as IS but also Maintenance disregard

    15

    15

    16.35

    Student Loan disregard for Income Related Benefits 2

    Student's Covenanted Income Benefit

    10

    10

    10.85

    Disregard for Income Related Benefits

    5

    5

    5.45

    IS/JSA 2:

    Amount for meals breakfast rate

    1.10

    1.10

    1.25

    Amount for meals other

    1.55

    1.55

    1.75

    IS:

    Personal Expenses for Clmt and partner, Polish Home, Ilford Park2

    17.35

    17.35

    18.95

    For Dependant child aged 18

    15.55

    15.55

    16.95

    JSA (Contribution-based) 2

    Occupational/Personal Pension Disregard

    50

    50

    54.50

    Pneumoconiosis, Byssinosis and Misc. Diseases Scheme Max. Death3

    300

    300

    331.10

    War Pensions Education Allowance2

    120

    120

    130.75

    SF Funeral Payments2 (one-off lump sum)

    1,000

    1,000

    1,089.80

    IS/FC2

    Capital Limits:

    Lower

    3,000

    3,000

    3,269.55

    Upper

    8,000

    8,000

    8,718.80

    Housing Benefit 2

    Capital Limits (Upper)

    16,000

    16,000

    17,437.60

    IS/HB for Residential Care and Nursing Homes 2

    Capital Limits:

    Upper

    16,000

    16,000

    17,437.60

    Lower

    10,000

    10,000

    10,898.55

    Community Charge Benefit/Council Tax Benefit 2

    Capital Limits (Upper)

    16,000

    16,000

    17,437.60

    Disability Working Allowance 2

    Capital Limits (Upper)

    16,000

    16,000

    17,437.60

    Child's Capital Limits2

    3,000

    3,000

    3,269.55

    Social Fund 2

    Capital Limits

    1,000

    1,000

    1,089.80

    1 The figures are rounded to the nearest 5 pence at each uprating date.

    2 For income-related benefits the ROSSI index (Retail Prices Index less rent, local taxes and mortgage interest payments) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

    3 The Retail Prices Index (all items) as published by the Office for National Statistics.

    Simplification Project
    Mr. Cox
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the findings of the Simplification Project. [109365]

    Angela Eagle
    I refer my hon. Friend to my reply to the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 210W.

    Data Protection
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the implications of the Data Protection Act 1986 for his plans to issue combined forecasts of state and private pension entitlements. [109843]

    Mr. Rooker
    In developing our plans for combined pension forecasts we have considered carefully the data
    439W
    protection implications and consulted the Data Protection Registrar.

    We intend to include a measure in the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill which will provide that details of State pension rights can be passed to employers and pension scheme providers unless individuals have indicated that they do not want such information disclosed. This measure will include safeguards to ensure that individual rights are properly protected while minimising the administrative burden on employers and pension providers of providing the new service.

    Stakeholder Pensions
    Mr. Webb
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to prevent sellers of stakeholder pensions from declining to make their products available to certain categories of employees. [109841]

    Mr. Rooker
    Stakeholder pension schemes set up under a trust will be able to restrict membership

    Number of appeals heard by the Independent Tribunal Service/Appeals Service during the period 1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999 and the number of those appeals which decided in the appellant's favour

    Period

    Number of appeals heard and decided

    Decided in appellant"a favour

    Proportion of successful appeals (%)

    1 May 1998 to 30 April 1999

    276,074

    96,450

    34.9

    Source:

    100 per cent. download of the Appeals Service Generic Appeals Processing System (GZPS).

    The limited information available for the period 1 May 1997 to 30 April 1998 is included in the following table.

    Period

    Number of appeals heard and decided

    Decided in appellant"a favour

    Proportion of successful appeals (%)

    1 May 1997 to 30 April 19981

    97,620

    30,985

    31.7

    1 July 1997 to 31 December 19972

    59,044

    18,787

    31.8

    1 Information obtained from GAPS system introduced at the end of 1997. Some cases processed before GAPS became operational, and not recorded on other systems, were input to GAPS.

    2This information has been obtained from clerically maintained quarterly statistical reports of Social Security Appeals Tribunals that were kept until the introduction of the GAPS system.

    Information about the amount of benefit arrears paid following appeals that found in favour of appellants is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

    Correspondence
    Mr. Salmond
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will reply to the letter of 5 November 1999 from the hon. member for Banff and Buchan regarding benefit payments and rural post offices. [110011]

    Mr. Rooker
    A reply was issued to the hon. Member on Friday 11 February.

    Winter Fuel Payments
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when claim forms for the winter fuel payments will be made available. [109821]

    Angela Eagle
    The decision to extend the Winter Fuel Payment scheme to people aged 60 and over will mean that some of those who are newly eligible will need to
    440W
    of a given trade or organisation. However, they will not be able to limit access using financial criteria. Details for alternative governance schemes are currently being developed and we will be making an announcement regarding them shortly.

    Appeals
    Mr. Gale
    To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many appeals were heard by the Independent Tribunal Service and the Appeals Service in(a) May 1997 to April 1998 and (b) May 1998 to April 1999; how many of the appeals in each of the years were successful; what was the total amount paid in benefit arrears arising from those appeals for each of those years; and if he will make a statement. [109820]

    Angela Eagle
    The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

    An enhanced computer system that allows the Appeals Service to record appeals and produce statistical information became operational at the end of 1997.

    claim. It is therefore necessary to devise a claims process to enable these people to make their claims. The Benefits Agency are currently working on this and other operational issues to determine the best way to deliver the payments.

    There is no need for anyone who believes they may now be eligible for a payment to contact the Benefits Agency at present. A further announcement will be made as soon as we are ready to set out how people should claim.

  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Music Library Services (North-West)
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with Manchester City Council on the provision of music library services in the north-west. [109320]
    441W
    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 10 February 2000]: Officials in my Department have been in contact with their opposite numbers at Manchester City Council to discuss their proposed reorganisation of the Central Library and its effect on the Henry Watson Music Library. I understand that no final decisions have been taken by the Council but, under the proposals, the Henry Watson collection would remain intact.

    Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the Funding Agreement between his Department and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council. [110118]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    A copy of the Funding Agreement of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLAC) will be placed in the Library of the House, and will also be published on the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's website when it is concluded and available. Mainstream Funding begins to flow to MLAC in the next financial year.

    Funding Agreements
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the funding agreements between his Department and each of the non-departmental public bodies and national museums and galleries which are sponsored by the Department. [110109]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    Copies of the funding agreements between my Department and its non-departmental public bodies were placed in the Library of the House on 26 May 1999. They are also available on my Department's website—www.culture.gov.uk.

    Departmental Contracts
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what is the number and value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109451]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 10 February 2000]: My Department has let one contract specifically for such services at a value of £3,000 per annum.

    Burma (Olympic Games)
    Mr. Hancock
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make it his policy to support measures to bar Burma from participating in this summer's Olympic Games; and if he will make a statement. [109804]

    Kate Hoey
    It is the responsibility of the International Olympic Committee and the Games organisers to set the rules for participation in the Olympics.

    Millennium Dome
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he last visited the Millennium Dome. [109469]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 10 February 2000]: I attended the Dome Opening Celebration on 31 December 1999.

    New Millennium Experience Company
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the date by which all of the Dome's sponsors will have signed contracts with NMEC. [104432]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 13 January 2000]: Seven contracts were outstanding and reported to the House in my reply to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 14 December 1999, Official Report, column 131W. Four of these contracts have now been signed and three remain to be signed at 10 February—Boots, Mars Confectionary and BSkyB. While NMEC had hoped that they would all have been completed at this stage, one or two matters of detail remain subject to discussion between the representative parties. The company has every confidence that the contracts will be signed.

    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if(a) he and (b) other Millennium Commissioners, were consulted about the appointment of the new Chief Executive of the New Millennium Experience Company. [109471]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 10 February 2000]: This is a matter for the Millennium Commission. I shall write to the hon. Member in my capacity as Chairman of the Commission and place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

    Subtitling
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent figures he has collated on the level of subtitling on(a) BBC1, (b) BBC2, (c) ITV, (d) Channel 4 and (e) Channel 5; and if he will make a statement. [106969]

    Janet Anderson
    It is for the BBC Governors to monitor the levels of subtitling on BBC services and the Independent Television Commission to monitor the levels of subtitling on ITV, GMTV, Channel 4 and Channel 5. The most recent information available from the BBC is that 63 per cent. of BBC1 and 53 per cent. of BBC2 is subtitled. The latest figures available from the ITC, published in the Commission's Annual Report 1998, is that the level of subtitling of programmes in that year was 61 per cent. on ITV; 42 per cent. on GMTV; 60 per cent. on Channel 4; and 27 per cent. on Channel 5.

    Public Service Broadcasting
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent discussions he has had with the EU Commission regarding the definition of public service broadcasting, with special reference to the system of public funding. [109321]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 10 February 2000]: Officials from my Department met officials from the Commission, Competition Directorate General, on 26 January. The purpose of this meeting was primarily to discuss the decision of the Commission on the matter of BBC 24 Hour News.

    Departmental Expenditure Limit
    Jane Griffiths
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if there are proposals to amend his Department's departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 1999–2000. [110379]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class XI, Vote 1, the DCMS Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) for 1999–2000 will be increased by £6,181,000 from £995,858,000 to £1,002,139,000.

    This is to provide for increased expenditure of £8,600,000, partly funded by draw down of £2,761,000 of Departmental Unallocated Provision, for meeting the settlement of final accounts on the completion of the St. Pancras building; a transfer of £2,000,000 from the Department for Education and Employment (Class I, Vote 1) for awards to dance and drama students; a transfer of £592,000 from the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Class III, Vote 1) for the maintenance of Marlborough House; increased expenditure of £400,000 on DCMS gross running costs offset by an increase in refunds of eligible deductible input VAT; and to provide for the receipts of £3,200,000 from the National Lottery operator's licence fees and from the National Lottery Distribution Fund to meet the administrative costs of the National Lottery Commission to be appropriated in aid of the Vote.

    The increases will be offset by transfers, savings or a charge on the DEL Reserve, and will not, therefore, add to the planned total of public expenditure.

    Orchestras
    Mr. Hilary Benn
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the grant-in-aid from public funds for orchestras for each year since 1990 in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms. [109730]

    Mr. Alan Howarth
    Grant-in-aid allocated by the Arts Council of England to the nine subsidised English orchestras is shown in the table.

    £

    Year

    Cash terms

    Real terms

    1990–91

    6,721,000

    8,657,066

    1991–92

    7,721,600

    9,365,191

    1992–93

    9,014,461

    10,583,086

    1993–94

    9,511,500

    10,877,744

    1994–95

    8,869,000

    10,000,112

    1995–96

    8,933,000

    9,789,374

    1996–97

    9,133,000

    9,696,255

    1997–98

    9,133,000

    9,431,020

    1998–99

    9,133,000

    9,133,000

    1999–2000

    9,902,880

    9,684,968

    Media Releases
    Mr. Baker
    To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in the last 12 months. [108892]

    Mr. Chris Smith
    [holding answer 8 February 2000]: DCMS Press Releases are distributed via the Central Office of Information (COI).
    444W
    In 1999 the Department for Culture, Media and Sport issued 315 press releases. The average cost of distributing a press release via the COI was £50.76, including post, fax, packing, copying, and stationery costs.

    DCMS, in common with all other Government Departments, also contribute to the upkeep of the Central Office of Information's electronic news distribution system. In 1999 that contribution, which is a standing charge and is not related to the number of press releases issued by the Department, totalled £15,862.52.

  TREASURY

    Cambridgeshire Statistics
    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the wards in(a) Peterborough and (b) Cambridge ranked by average earnings. [109533]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Kidgell to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated 14 February 2000:
    The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question regarding the average earnings of the wards in Peterborough and Cambridge. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
    The New Earnings Survey (NES) can only provide ward level earnings data based on where people work, rather than where they live. Additionally we can only provide data where we have a sufficiently large sample of employees, and have an acceptable level of accuracy.
    I have provided the only available data in the table below. These are based on the 1999 NES, the latest survey for which data are available.

    New earnings survey, April 1999 (GB)

    All full-time employees

    Average (£)

    Cambridge

    —

    Trumpington

    407.8

    Newnham

    377.4

    Notes:

    Employees on adult rates, whose pay for the survey period was unaffected by absence. Gross weekly earning (including overtime).

    The NES is based on a one per cent sample of employees in the PAYE system and is therefore likely to under-represent relatively low paid staff earning below the tax threshold and in particular those who work part-time.

    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the population in(a) Peterborough and (b) Cambridge are from ethnic minority groups. [109534]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated 14 February 2000:
    The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the percentage of the population in Peterborough and Cambridge who are from ethnic minority groups. I am replying in Dr Holt's absence.
    445W

    The percentages of the resident population in ethnic groups other than 'White', from the 1991 Census are:

    Percentage

    Peterborough district

    7.42

    Cambridge district

    5.89

    These figures were published in Table 5 of the report 1991 Census Key Statistics for Local Authorities laid before Parliament in 1994. This report is available from the House of Commons Library.

    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many job vacancies currently exist in (a) Peterborough and (b) Cambridge. [109536]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated February 2000:
    The Director of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on how many job vacancies currently exist in Peterborough and Cambridge. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
    In December 1999 the number of unfilled vacancies held by Jobcentres, unadjusted for seasonal patterns, was 1,317 in the Peterborough Jobcentre area and 920 in the Cambridge Jobcentre area. Jobcentre vacancies do not represent the total number of vacancies available in the economy. Latest estimates suggest that about a third of all vacancies nationally are notified to Jobcentres.

    Mrs. Brinton
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people in (a) Peterborough and (b) Cambridge have been unemployed for longer than (i) six months, (ii) 12 months and (iii) 24 months. [109535]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated February 2000:
    The Director of the Office for National Statistics has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on the number of people in (a) Peterborough and (b) Cambridge who have been unemployed for longer than six months, twelve months and twenty four months. I am replying in Dr. Holt's absence.
    The ONS publish a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
    The information requested is in the table below.

    Unadjusted claimant count by duration (computerised claims only) 1 December 1999

    PCA Peterborough2

    PCA Cambridge 2

    Over 6 months

    602

    584

    Over 12 months

    317

    330

    Over 24 months

    85

    151

    1 Claimant count flows are available for computerised claims only and do not include claims which are processed clerically, which make up about 1 per cent. of the total Claimant count.

    2 Parliamentary Constituency

    Rural Areas (GDP)
    Mr. Breed
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those of the 10 areas with the lowest gross domestic product per head of population which are rural areas. [109891]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

    Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Colin Breed, dated 14 February 2000:
    The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on which of the 10 areas with the lowest gross domestic product (GDP) per head of population are rural.
    The ONS does not publish estimates of GDP per head specifically for rural areas. The most detailed estimates of GDP per head that ONS publishes are for UK NUTS-31 areas. These are based on local government administrative areas, which may cover both urban and rural communities.
    ONS last published estimates of GDP per head at the NUTS-3 level in October 1998, including estimates for 1996. The NUTS-3 areas with lowest GDP per head for 1996, presented in the form of an index where UK=100, are given in the attached table.
    1 All UK NUTS (Nomenclature of Units for Territorial Statistics) areas were defined in an ONS News Release published in June 1998 (ONS(98)199—European Classification of UK Geographic Areas)

    NUTS-3 Area

    1996 GDP/head (UK=100)

    East Lothian and Midlothian

    56

    Sefton

    63

    Wirral

    63

    Central Valleys

    64

    West and South of Northern Ireland

    66

    Barnsley, Doncaster and Rotherham

    66

    South Nottinghamshire

    67

    East and West Dunbartonshire, Helensburgh and Lomond

    67

    Isle of Anglesey

    68

    Outer London—East and North East1

    69

    Outer Belfast1

    69

    Blackpool1

    69

    1 Ranked joint 10th

    Heavily Indebted Poor Countries
    Ms Drown
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which heavily indebted poor countries have produced poverty reduction strategy papers in partnership with the IMF and World bank; and which countries are in the process of developing such papers. [109528]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs) are to be national strategies, drawn up by the countries themselves, in consultation with civil society and the World Bank and IMF. Interim PRSPs have been produced by the three countries (Uganda, Bolivia and Mauritania) who recently reached decision point under the enhanced HIPC Initiative.

    Work is currently underway to produce PRSPs in the remaining countries currently in the HIPC process. The Department for International Development and NGOs are providing important technical assistance to countries in that regard. Many countries already have some form of poverty reduction strategy and it is clearly important to build on this to ensure the first principle of the new approach to poverty reduction, that of country ownership.

    Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
    Mr. Jim Murphy
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those previously planned meetings and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109900]

    Miss Melanie Johnson
    A joint statement issued by Portugal, the current holder of the EU presidency, on 31 January 2000, stated that Austria's 14 member state partners in the EU"will not promote or accept any bilateral official contacts at political level with an Austrian Government integrating the FPO [Freedom Party]."

    No bilateral ministerial meetings were scheduled between the Chancellor and Austrian Ministers.

    Israel
    Dr. Starkey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what action Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is taking to monitor products imported from Israel into Britain to ensure full compliance with (a) Article 38 and (b) other Articles of the Origin Rules Protocol of the EC Trade Agreement with Israel; [109543]

    (2) what investigations Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has conducted and what conclusions it has reached concerning products wholly or substantially processed in Israeli settlements in occupied territories which have been imported into the Community under the EC Trade Agreement with Israel in violation of (a) Article 38 and (b) other Articles of that Agreement's Origin Rules Protocol. [109541]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Following receipt of information indicating that products wholly or substantially processed in Israeli settlements in occupied territories may have been imported into the United Kingdom in violation of both Article 38 and the provisions of the Protocol on Rules of Origin of the EC Trade Agreement with Israel, Customs and Excise has examined a number of documents presented in the past in support of products entered for customs clearance as of Israeli origin. Scrutiny of those documents has failed to substantiate the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. Customs and Excise is considering further options for checking the validity of such declarations.

    Worked Ivory seizures 1998 (UK)

    Item

    Number of items

    Country of export

    Country of origin

    Commercial or private

    Ivory and wood trinket box.

    1

    India

    India

    Private

    Ivory artefacts

    2

    —

    India

    Private

    Carved ivory

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    Carved ivory

    7

    —

    —

    Private

    Ivory egg

    1

    —

    South Africa

    Private

    Carved ivory

    1

    —

    Thailand

    Private

    Ivory pipes and cigarette holders

    20

    —

    Thailand

    Commercial

    Ivory jewellery

    10

    Ghana

    —

    Private

    Ivory carvings

    3

    —

    —

    Private

    Items of ivory jewellery

    7

    Holland

    —

    Private

    Ivory sculpture

    1

    —

    —

    Commercial

    Ivory statues

    3

    Australia

    —

    Private

    Ivory pieces

    66

    Zambia

    —

    Commercial

    Elephant ivory

    87

    Hong Kong

    —

    Commercial

    448W
    Dr. Starkey
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is taking on violation by Israel of the Origin Rules Protocol of the EC Trade Agreement with Israel in respect of imports to Britain. [109542]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Customs and Excise is participating in a European Commission initiative to establish the true origin of goods which have been exported to the United Kingdom under the provisions of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade related matters between the European Community and the State of Israel.

    Personal Services (Tax Avoidance)
    Mr. Wigley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the Chartered Institute of Taxation and from the Institute of Chartered Accountants, concerning his proposals for countering tax and national insurance contribution avoidance in the provision of personal services; and if he will make a statement. [109557]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Both organisations have played a full part in consultations on the proposals. Recently they have been consulted on draft guidance on the application of the employment status rules in typical consultancy situations. The guidance has now been published and can be found on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ir35

    Ivory
    Angela Smith
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much elephant ivory was seized by HM Customs and Excise in the years (a) 1998, (b) 1999 and (c) 2000 to date; and (i) where each shipment originated, (ii) where each shipment was destined, (iii) which shipments were (1) in transit through the United Kingdom and (2) had the United Kingdom as the final intended destination, and (iv) what indication in each of these was of whether the ivory was less than one year old when seized. [109574]

    Dawn Primarolo
    Customs seized 378 items of ivory in 1998 and 15 items of ivory in the first nine months of 1999. Figures for the latter part of 1999, and the first part of this year are not yet available. The following tables set out the number of individual items of ivory seized in each category for the years in question. Customs do not hold central statistics on the age of the ivory when seized, or the number of ivory items found illegally in transit through the United Kingdom, though items in transit would normally be seized.
    449W

    Worked Ivory seizures 1998 (UK)

    Item

    Number of items

    Country of export

    Country of origin

    Commercial or private

    Ivory jewellery

    3

    Ghana

    —

    Private

    Ivory figures

    2

    Singapore

    —

    Commercial

    Ivory pendants

    3

    Egypt

    —

    Private

    Ivory pendants

    3

    Egypt

    —

    Private

    Carved ivory elephants

    4

    Malawi

    —

    Private

    Carved ivory figure

    1

    Canada

    —

    Private

    Whale bone statue with ivory inserts

    1

    USA

    —

    Private

    Ivory bangle

    1

    India

    —

    Private

    Ivory jewellery

    18

    Mozambique

    —

    Private

    Ivory figures

    2

    USA

    —

    Private

    Ivory necklaces

    2

    India

    —

    Private

    Sitar-instrument containing ivory

    1

    India

    India

    Private

    Ivory elephant figure

    3

    —

    —

    Private

    Ivory figure

    4

    Malawi

    —

    Private

    Carved ivory

    17

    Ivory Coast

    —

    Commercial

    Ivory bracelet

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    Ivory picture

    1

    Ivory Coast

    —

    Private

    Worked ivory

    8

    —

    —

    Private

    Pianos with ivory keys

    24

    —

    —

    Private

    Ivory earrings

    4

    Germany

    —

    Private

    Ivory figures

    2

    Hong kong

    —

    Private

    Ivory ornament

    1

    USA

    —

    Private

    Ivory pendant

    1

    —

    Thailand

    Private

    Worked Ivory seizures 1999 (UK)

    Item:

    Number of items

    Country of export

    Country of origin

    Commercial or private

    Ivory necklace

    1

    Nigeria

    —

    Private

    Carved ivory tusks

    2

    Belgium

    —

    Private

    Knives with ivory inserts

    2

    South Africa

    South Africa

    Private

    Necklace with ivory

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    Carved whalebone statue with ivory inserts

    1

    USA

    —

    Private

    Carved ivory letter opener

    1

    Austria

    —

    Private

    Statues containing ivory

    2

    Jamaica

    —

    Private

    Ornament containing ivory

    1

    Egypt

    —

    Private

    Necklace with ivory beads

    1

    UK

    —

    Private

    Raw Ivory seizures 1998

    Item:

    Number of items

    Country of export

    Country of origin

    Commercial or private

    Ivory tusk

    1

    —

    South Africa

    Private

    Ivory tusk

    1

    —

    South Africa

    Private

    Ivory tusk

    1

    —

    South Africa

    Private

    Elephant ivory tusk

    2

    —

    Kenya

    Private

    Ivory

    2

    South Africa

    —

    Private

    Elephant tusk (loxodonta africana)

    1

    Zimbabwe

    —

    Private

    Ivory tusks

    2

    —

    —

    Private

    Ivory tusks

    3

    Gabon

    —

    Private

    Elephant ivory tusks

    1

    Congo

    —

    Private

    Ivory tusks

    4

    Nigeria

    —

    Private

    Ivory

    1

    Ghana

    —

    Private

    Ivory pieces

    12

    Zambia

    —

    Commercial

    Ivory

    4

    Kenya

    —

    Private

    Elephant tusks

    6

    —

    —

    Commercial

    Ivory pieces

    18

    Kenya

    —

    Private

    Elephant tusk

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    Ivory item

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    Raw Ivory seizures 1999

    Item:

    Number of items

    Country of export

    Country of origin

    Commercial or private

    Elephant tusk

    1

    France

    —

    Private

    Ivory tusk

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    Elephant tusk

    1

    —

    —

    Private

    450W

    Working Families Tax Credit
    Mr. Lilley
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people who have claimed Working Families' Tax Credit received it (a) in the wage earner's wage packet and (b) as a benefit via the Post Office. [109363]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) will become payable to employees by their employer along with their wages or salary from April 2000. Couples applying for WFTC are able to choose which partner applies for and receives their tax credit. From April 2000, if they opt for a partner who is self-employed, or not working, to receive the tax credit, they will be paid direct by the Inland Revenue.

    National Insurance
    Mr. Willetts
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many self-employed people have been unable to make their national insurance contributions due to the operating problems of the NIRS2 computer system. [109447]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The vast majority of 3.3 million self-employed people have been able to pay National Insurance Contributions without difficulty. The periodic collection of self-employed contributions, by monthly direct debit or quarterly billing arrangements, have been in place since March 1999.

    We have experienced some difficulties by new and current customers, under 5,000 people are currently affected and urgent action is being taken to resolve these cases.

    Health Expenditure
    Mr. St. Aubyn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate by how much (a) tax and (b) public sector borrowing would have to rise in order to raise health expenditure to 8 per cent. of GDP on the assumption that no changes are made to other expenditure predictions outlined in the 1999 Budget report. [110111]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Decisions on NHS expenditure will be taken in the spending review.

    Mr. St. Aubyn
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate the Treasury has made of the consequences for inflation of a rise in NHS expenditure over five years to the EU average if funded by additional taxation. [110107]

    Mr. Andrew Smith
    It is the task of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee to set interest rates to ensure the Government's inflation target is met. Decisions on future NHS expenditure will be taken in the forthcoming Spending Review.

    Asset Sales
    Mr. Matthew Taylor
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, pursuant to his answer of 17 January 2000, Official Report, column 353W, on asset sales, if he will list the asset sales planned in (a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and
    (c) 2001–02 by (i) central Government, (ii) local government and (iii) public corporations; and if he will set out the method by which he calculated the estimates in his answer of 17 January. [110012]
    452W
    Mr. Andrew Smith
    Details of individual assets to be sold are not held centrally. The projections of aggregate receipts from asset sales given on 17 January are based on returns made by Departments.

    Training Allowance
    Mr. Colman
    To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will investigate the accuracy of the information given on the Inland Revenue web page on the training allowance for 16 and 17-year-olds. [110226]

    Dawn Primarolo
    The Inland Revenue makes strenuous efforts to ensure that the information on its website is as accurate and up to date as possible.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Legal Aid Board
    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Government have to alter the current system of rewards to Legal Aid Board managers who process claims quickly. [110019]

    Mr. Lock
    The terms and conditions of the Legal Aid Board's staff are determined by the Board, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor and the consent of the Treasury.

    The current system of performance-related pay awards to Legal Aid Board staff is based upon a comprehensive appraisal of overall performance in terms of achievement of targets, standards and personal competency. The Government maintain a general overview of pay structures in non-departmental public bodies. There are no proposals at this time to alter the Board's current performance-related pay system.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what action he plans to take to ensure transparency and public accountability in the workings of Legal Aid Board offices, with particular reference to the Reading Area Office. [110013]

    Mr. Lock
    As a non-departmental public body, the Legal Aid Board is required to comply with Government Accounting standards in its management of public funds. The Board provides information about its activities in its Annual Report and Accounts, which are laid before Parliament and published, and in accordance with the principles in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

    Members of the Board are appointed by the Lord Chancellor, and have responsibility for ensuring high standards of corporate governance, including openness.

    I am prepared to consider carefully and refer to the Board as appropriate any evidence of misconduct or breakdown of these arrangements at the Reading area office.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the ability of the current management of the Legal Aid Board, with particular reference to the Reading Area Office, to implement planned changes to legal services. [110014]
    453W
    Mr. Lock
    I have confidence in the ability of the current management of the Legal Aid Board to deliver the legal aid reforms successfully. My view is supported by the work of Mr. Victor Benjamin, who agreed in December 1998 to act as the Lord Chancellor's Independent Business Adviser on Legal Aid Reform. Mr. Benjamin was asked to form a view of the Board's ability to develop the managerial and strategic systems to implement the new arrangements and monitor them in the future. Mr. Benjamin visited a number of the Board's area offices, including Reading, and has expressed confidence in the ability of the Board to deliver the reformed scheme.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will invite past, present, temporary and permanent staff at the Reading Area Legal Aid Board office to comment anonymously about practices at the centre. [110016]

    Mr. Lock
    I am, of course, willing to listen to any concerns by past, present, temporary and permanent staff about allegations of impropriety at any of the Board's offices. Where such complaints give rise to matters of legitimate concern, I will ensure they are properly investigated within the constraints inherent in anonymous complaints. The Board has in place established procedures for staff to raise concerns regarding any illegal, improper or unethical behaviour within the Board. These procedures provide for concerns to be raised in confidence with the Board's Head of Internal Audit.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the measures in place at Legal Aid Board offices to prevent computer fraud and consequent abuse of public funds. [110018]

    Mr. Lock
    The Chief Executive of the Legal Aid Board, as Accounting Officer, is responsible for ensuring that an adequate control framework is in place to ensure that public funds are suitably protected from fraud and abuse. The Legal Aid Board's Annual Accounts, which are published in its Annual Report, contain a statement by the Accounting Officer giving assurance on the Board's system of internal financial control.

    Access to the Board's computer systems is controlled through the use of passwords, and a detailed auditable trail of all transactions undertaken is provided.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the Legal Aid Board's compliance with section 38 of the Legal Aid Act 1988. [110020]

    Mr. Lock
    Section 38 of the Legal Aid Act prevents disclosure of information concerning an application for legal aid to any unauthorised third party. On the information before me at present, I am satisfied that the Board takes its responsibilities seriously and is careful to comply with section 38.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will investigate the activities of the Reading area office and committee of the Legal Aid Board. [110001]

    Mr. Lock
    My hon. Friend has raised concerns about the operation of the Reading legal aid area office with me and my predecessor. The Board is responding to these concerns. If evidence of impropriety on the part of any 454W
    office of the Board came to light, the Lord Chancellor would, if appropriate, authorise an independent inspection of the Board's systems and activities and seek explanations from the Board where necessary.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what measures he plans to take to ensure the Legal Aid Board prevents double payments and payments to fraudulent and fictional clients. [110017]

    Mr. Lock
    The Board has in place controls to reduce the risk of duplicate or fraudulent payments being made. The Chief Executive's statement on internal financial control, which is informed by the ongoing work of the Board's internal and external auditors and executive managers, has provided assurance to the Government and Parliament that the procedures being operated give an adequate level of control over the Board's financial systems. The Government will remain vigilant to ensure that every reasonable step is taken to prevent double payments and payments to fraudulent and fictional clients.

    Mr. Salter
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will investigate reports that staff at the Reading Area Legal Aid Board office are required to make up missing details on legal aid application forms. [110015]

    Mr. Lock
    The Board's computer system provides a facility for the collection of a great deal of information, not all of which is essential for the purposes of assessing legal aid applications. Where supervisors are otherwise satisfied about the validity of an application or claim, and where the cost of obtaining any missing information could not be justified they may authorise certain information not to be entered. For example, in some cases where the client's date of birth is omitted from a form, staff may be authorised to enter a notional date on the computer, but only where this will not compromise proper control over legal aid expenditure.

    Rail Crash (Paddington)
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has in relation to the Paddington rail crash inquiry, to include coroners' inquest powers in those of the inquiry therein, pursuant to the Access to Justice Act 1999. [109372]

    Jane Kennedy
    Section 71 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 came into force on 1 January. Under the new powers, once identification and pathological evidence have been dealt with, the Lord Chancellor will formally direct the coroner to adjourn the inquest and allow Lord Cullen to start his inquiry into the train crash.

    Conditional Fee Agreements
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he will publish the rules on the extension of conditional fee agreements due to come into effect on 1 April 2000,(a) in draft form and (b) in final form; what plans he has to consult with professional bodies on the rules in draft; and if he will make a statement. [109376]

    Mr. Lock
    The Government have already consulted professional bodies and others. We published our consultation paper "Conditional Fees: Sharing the Risks
    455W
    of Litigation" on 23 September 1999. The paper sought views on the regulations and rules of court required to give effect to its policy on conditional fee agreements. It received 91 responses. These included responses from consumer groups, the Civil Justice Council, the Association of District Judges, the Senior Costs Judge, the legal professional bodies (including those with a specialist interest in conditional fees such as the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers), the trade unions and their legal representatives, individual judges, practitioners and the insurance industry. On 1 February, in the light of responses to that consultation paper, the Government published a report entitled "The Government's Conclusions Following Consultation on Conditional Fees: Sharing the Costs of Litigation". The report announced the principles to be set out in regulations applying to conditional fee agreements. The report also contained recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee concerning the detailed guidance in rules of court governing the recovery of success fees under conditional fee agreements and premiums for after the event insurance policies. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The regulations giving effect to the changes announced in the report will be laid before Parliament in time for them to be approved and come into force on 1 April. The Rule Committee will, before making rules of court, consult such persons as they consider appropriate.

    Indemnity
    Mr. Dismore
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the indemnity principle in the light of the court decision in the case of Geraghty vs Awwad; and if he will make a statement. [109373]

    Mr. Lock
    The issue in Geraghty and Co.vs Awad Awwad was whether an oral agreement between a solicitor and client to charge a reduced fee if the case was lost and the normal charging rate if the case was won, was enforceable. The Court held that the agreement (at the time at which it was made) was unlawful and in breach of the Solicitor's Practice Rules 1990. Geraghty vs Awwad considered the position as it stood in 1993. Since then amendments have been made to the legislation and to the Solicitor's Practice Rules and further amendments will come into force on 1 April 2000 as a result of the commencement of section 27 of the Access to Justice Act. After 1 April 2000 agreements to work for no, or a lesser, fee if unsuccessful and a normal or higher fee if successful will be enforceable, provided they comply with the regulations currently being drafted.

    No consideration of the indemnity principle, relevant to the present position took place in Geraghty vs Awwad. The Government are conscious of the impact the indemnity principle can have on the recovery of costs, and had, prior to Geraghty vs Awwad, included a provision in the Access to Justice Act to amend section 51 of the Supreme Court Act 1991.

    Freemasons
    Mr. Kidney
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many(a) magistrates and (b) judges in England and Wales are freemasons. [109439]
    456W
    Mr. Lock
    The latest provisional figures available for full-time and part-time judges and judicial office-holders and lay magistrates are given in the following table. These figures are subject to revision in the light of further analysis and changes in the composition of the judiciary.

    Professional Judiciary1

    Lay Magistracy2

    Masons

    268

    1,207

    Non-masons

    4,894

    20,308

    Not disclosed

    75

    597

    Not replied/not recorded

    470

    2,852

    Total

    5,707

    324,964

    1 Position for post-holders as at 30 September 1999. These figures include both responses to the voluntary questionnaire sent to serving office-holders in July 1998 and information provided on initial appointment.

    2 Position for post-holders as at 1 October 1998. These figures relate to the voluntary questionnaire.

    3 Excludes Justices of the Peace in the Duchy of Lancaster.

    Departmental Contracts
    Mr. Willis
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what is the (a) number and (b) value of contracts let by his Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109304]

    Mr. Lock
    The information requested is as follows:

    (a) the number of contracts is 10

    (b) the value of the contracts is £1,415,385.

    Mr. Don Foster
    To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for the financial year 1998–99 the number and total value of contracts let by his Department with external consultants and advisers that have (a) been put out to competitive tender, (b) not been put out to competitive tender and (c) been let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109064]

    Mr. Lock
    The information available is broken down in the table. In the time available the Public Records Office has only been able to provide the total number and value of the contracts let in each of the categories concerned.

    Departmental Contracts

    Department

    £

    (a) Contracts that have been competitively tendered: LCD

    Donaldsons

    12,484

    Pricewaterhousecoopers (x2)

    347,835

    Managing Agents

    71,384

    Professor Richard Susskind

    6,345

    CCTA (x2)

    4,673

    Amtec Consulting

    2,504

    Parity Solutions

    2,350

    Management Partners

    24,992

    Syntegra

    108,954

    Myriad

    60,657

    457W

    Departmental Contracts

    Department

    £

    University of Birmingham

    49,500

    NB Selection

    23,612

    RSSM Ltd.

    5,118

    KPMG

    94,599

    16 contracts

    815,007

    Court Service

    Widnells

    29,375

    RADAR

    15,334

    Wheelers

    34,803

    Digital

    4,911

    Myriad (x3)

    70,334

    CCTA

    6,766

    Professor Richard Susskind

    18,942

    PA Consulting

    32,101

    Information Initiatives Ltd. (x5)

    70,167

    CSL Group Ltd.

    577

    Inbucon Ltd.

    2,302

    AMTEC Consulting Ltd.

    9,400

    18 contracts

    295,012

    Land Registry

    Syntegra

    3,388

    Bailey Partnership

    801

    Memorex Telex

    1,064

    Tower Technology

    18,982

    Lewis Productions

    13,561

    Jeremy Coyle Associates

    93,096

    Opinion Research

    7,693

    Development Partnership (x2)

    3,007

    Business Enhancement

    907

    10 contracts

    142,499

    Public Trust Office

    CCTA

    1,973

    Eurotek

    11,171

    G-Cat (x2)

    28,125

    K2

    2,124

    Myriad (x2)

    167,917

    One Zero

    30,400

    Parity (Trident)

    16,296

    Siemens Nixdorf

    2,200

    Workgroup

    950

    11 contracts

    261,156

    Northern Ireland Court Service

    Bird and Bird

    166,000

    Price Waterhouse (x2)

    45,000

    Citex Bucknall Austin

    204,728

    CCTA

    8,249

    5 contracts

    423,977

    Public Records Office

    BDL

    CCTA (x2)

    Crane Davies

    Diane Bailey Associates

    Elan

    Fretwell Downing

    Hedra

    Kite

    Logica

    Magna Consulting

    Marketing Alliance

    MMT

    MR Group

    PC Docs

    PCL

    Security Systems

    17 contracts

    548,409

    458W

    Departmental Contracts

    Department

    £

    (b) Not been put out to competitive tender: LCD

    Demograph

    2,273

    George Willman

    5,525

    Iaonann Management Consultants

    3,513

    Civil Service College

    1,064

    Focus Quality Services

    4,200

    Woodward Lewis Assoc.

    2,186

    Zeldon Health Ltd. (x2)

    6,374

    University of Surrey

    6,000

    Professor Gareth Jones

    14,900

    Mr. Burn

    2,026

    MDA

    3,731

    Website

    5,288

    Lorien plc

    7,365

    Plontikoff & Woolfson

    2,937

    Sir Graham Hart

    5,850

    Liberty

    300

    17 contracts

    73,532

    Court Service

    Hengstler Flexitime Ltd.

    8,459

    Sapphire International Ltd.

    763

    Public Sector Software

    5,816

    Judd Consultancy Services

    7,500

    MLI Ltd.

    16,388

    BMRB International

    24,612

    6 contracts

    63,538

    Land Registry

    Syntegra

    1,673

    Tenet Systems

    118,314

    Dunstan Thomas

    30,017

    IBM UK Ltd.

    11,063

    Scan Optics

    595

    IRC Europe

    29,787

    Law Society Publishing

    12,500

    Plain English Campaign

    1,600

    Tannerton Ltd.

    3,568

    E Quality

    1,600

    Catering Price Index

    21,000

    Saville & Holdsworth

    5,069

    Breckenridge

    22,695

    Claire Lefevre

    4,945

    Jill Totty

    2,000

    Joh Manthorpe

    11,925

    16 contracts

    278,351

    Public Trust Office

    British Telecommunications

    99

    Colt

    750

    Edis

    11,228

    3 contracts

    12,077

    Northern Ireland Court Service

    Helm Corporation

    12,800

    1 contract

    12,800

    Public Records Office

    Crawley Services

    J Geddes

    TFPL

    3 contracts

    28,581

    (c) Non-commercial basis:

    Nil

    —

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

House of Lords Reform
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is their intention to introduce legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on reform of the House of Lords; and, if so, when.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, the Government have welcomed the report of the Royal Commission and made clear that they wish to give proper consideration to all the recommendations. That process is still continuing and, as noble Lords will be aware, we hope to proceed by consensus with other political parties on the next stage of reform. It would be premature to say whether the Government intend to accept any particular recommendations and, therefore, what legislation would be required.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, there is nothing unpredictable in that Answer. Therefore, I cannot bring myself to thank the noble Baroness for it. However, perhaps she will be kind enough at least to understand that what some of us fear most is that either we shall get a pale shadow of the present House of Commons or a body which is merely a convenience for the House of Commons. Either would be very nasty. I wonder whether the time has come when the Government, flushed with their constitutional triumphs to date, will feel encouraged to take them a step further.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I never aim to be unpredictable. Therefore, I am sure that I shall give the noble Lord another predictable answer for which, perhaps, he may be able to summon up some gratitude. I simply report that, as I am sure he is aware, there is an informal understanding between the usual channels in this House that we should have an early opportunity to debate this issue. I look forward very much to the noble Lord's contribution to that debate. I hope he looks forward to mine.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that not all of us share the gloomy view about the future of this House just expressed on the Opposition Benches? Some of us are quite hopeful and optimistic. To that extent, perhaps the Government may feel assured.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am most grateful for my noble friend's support. I hope that he
910
will feel it appropriate to express that support at greater length when we come to debate the issue in, I hope, a very few weeks.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, will the Leader of the House accept that, as expressed in this Question, we do not want legislation to give effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commission, or such of them as are acceptable to the Prime Minister, but legislation which will ensure that we get an effective second Chamber which is accountable properly to the people of this country?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am sure that that is a general aim. As I said in my initial response to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that is why we very much hope to achieve consensus among all the political parties involved on a general approach to the second stage of reform.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, when my noble friend comes to examine the Royal Commission's report, perhaps I may ask that she should not be taken in by the siren calls from the Opposition, who suddenly seem to be taken by the novel constitutional principle that elected governments have no right to get their business through?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, the Opposition's view on both the short and long-term position on reform of your Lordships' House has, shall we say, been variable. In the spirit of genuine consensus which the Government now hope to achieve, I am sure that we shall be able to reach some kind of working arrangement on the way forward.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister prepared to consider that democratic accountability requires consideration of the way in which Members of the House of Commons are chosen by a tiny minority of political parties? Further, is she prepared to consider that the Whip is very strong, that independence is out and that Peers are more independent in this House? Are Her Majesty's Government prepared to consider that independence should exist in this House rather than in the other place?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Lord is aware, the Government made clear in our White Paper, published just over a year ago, in the ensuing debates on what has now become the House of Lords Act and in the initial response to the Royal Commission that we intend that Cross-Bench contribution to this House should continue and that people who do not take a party Whip should be represented substantially in any reformed Chamber.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a Question such as this should be viewed with a degree of suspicion and certainly

911
surprise coming, as it does, from an Opposition who defended the hereditary system for so long and now want to act in haste to make further changes?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, I have decided that in this debate it does not help to be unpredictable and, presumably, it does not help to be suspicious. I believe that it is right to start with a clean slate on the whole issue of reform of the second Chamber and proceed to a proper and full discussion. I agree with my noble friend that anything which is considered to be enacted in haste is unlikely to produce a generally accepted solution. As I have said in response to two supplementary questions, we hope that there will soon be an opportunity for general debate. That may be a more appropriate way to continue these discussions rather than in a Starred Question.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in the light of the answer which the noble Baroness has just given, does she not agree that it was a mistake to appoint PricewaterhouseCoopers to oversee appointments to the new commission? Will the noble Baroness answer the question which I put on the last occasion on which the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, raised this subject? How much are the Government paying PricewaterhouseCoopers to deal with the appointments to the commission and what are the contractual arrangements? Does she not believe that that too should be a matter of consensus?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I have recently answered a Written Question about the fees to PricewaterhouseCoopers for its expert support to the Cabinet Office in relation to the logistics of making appointments to the appointments commission. I believe that it has been published in the Official Report. The details of the terms of reference for PricewaterhouseCoopers are given there, as well as the fees.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to hear my noble friend Lord Peyton asking these Questions. The Government asked the Royal Commission to report in record time. If they want to stop my noble friend asking questions, the best thing that they can do is to give a proper response to the Royal Commission. Can the noble Baroness the Leader of the House tell me when that is likely to occur?
Following on the question of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, does the noble Baroness now regret that she did not come to this House to make a statement about setting up the Prime Ministerial appointments commission? On whose ministerial authority was some £100,000 plus committed to the PricewaterhouseCoopers recruitment campaign? Will she confirm that that same Minister agreed the wording of the advertisement?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, in response to the noble Lord's request for an early opportunity
912
for the Government to state their position, the Government have offered, through the usual channels, days for debate to the Opposition for precisely that purpose. I understand that the first date proposed was not convenient to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, he cannot be particularly concerned about the speed with which we respond.
On the second point, no, we do not regret that we asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist us in the administration of that particular activity. Government departments have had such assistance over many years, as we were reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, when this matter was raised on a previous occasion. As I said in my Answer to the Written Question, Ministers gave general agreement to the appointment of that particular firm. The terms of the advertisement were agreed at very high levels within government.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I am extremely glad that the Government have said that they will give a response to the Royal Commission when we debate the matter. However, the noble Baroness has missed the point of my second question. Does she regret that she did not make a statement to this House about asking PricewaterhouseCoopers to assist with the setting up of the appointments commission? Does she not believe that this House should have a role in deciding what should be the terms and conditions of the appointments commission?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, we have dealt with this point on several occasions. As is customary in many such appointments arrangements, PricewaterhouseCoopers was asked by the Cabinet Office to provide some logistical help in relation to setting out the advertisements, preliminary sifting and so on for that commission. As I said, I have given the exact terms of reference and the scope for that firm in the Written Answer which has appeared in the Official Report.
No, I do not regret that I did not come to explain to this House that rather immediate administrative arrangement made by the Cabinet Office. All the arrangements for the setting up of the appointments commission for the interim House were made clear in some detail in the White Paper published last January by the Government, and extensively discussed—I gave the noble Lord references—during Committee and Report stages of the House of Lords Bill.

British Coal Pension Fund: Surpluses
2.47 p.m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
How much money has accrued to them from their share of the profits of the British Coal pension fund; and whether this should be allocated to coalfield areas as additional funding for the rehabilitation and retraining of former mineworkers.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, as a result of surpluses which have accrued in the two

913
former British Coal pension schemes since 1994, the Government have to date received some £519 million. Her Majesty's Government receive 50 per cent of any scheme surpluses in exchange for underwriting 100 per cent of any downside risk in the event of deficits. Also, since 1994, the Government have paid around £400 million into the schemes in respect of deficiency and additional contribution commitments inherited from British Coal.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. Is he aware that, in addition to the payments made so far, a reserve fund of nearly £4 billion has been built up in the pension fund accounts from which future payments to the Government will be made at not less than £250 million per year for many years ahead? That sum and the payments made so far are vastly in excess of anything that might have been anticipated and, indeed, in excess of any reasonable risk that the Government might run in having to meet future deficiencies in the pension fund.
In those circumstances, and bearing in mind the need for additional assistance in the coalfield areas and also that further pit closures are contemplated, will the Government not consider that, out of that bonanza which has come their way, and which was not expected, further contributions should be made to help former mineworkers and mineworkers likely, shortly, to be out of a job?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, two sums are involved. I refer first to the £1.8 billion held in the investment reserves of the pension schemes, which comprises British Coal's unused share of the pre-1994 valuation surpluses, and which is being paid to the Government over a minimum of 25 years; and, secondly, to that being paid as a result of the 1994 valuation surpluses, which I have mentioned.
As regards the balance of assets and liabilities which will accrue to the Government as a result of the privatisation of British Coal in 1994, we shall not know the amount of such balance for 30 to 40 years as this pension scheme will probably run for 50 to 60 years. To date, the balance has been in favour of the scheme and the Government. However, there is no reason to suppose that in future years it will not go the other way. As governments are to pick up the deficit, the policy of the pension fund trustees can be largely divested in high-risk equities which will benefit the coalminer pensioners. Unless the Government were to pick up the potential deficit, that would not be possible.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that when we sat through the extraordinary treatment of state/industry pension surpluses at the time of privatisation, some of us found the argument which the Minister has repeated totally unconvincing? It is no more convincing today. Is he aware of the negotiations on behalf of the former employees of the National Bus Company about their pension surpluses? Will the decision to make payments from such surpluses, to
914
which the Government are now committed, be applied to pensioners of other former state-owned industries? To make it easy for him, does he not agree that the policy of the former government was a mistake?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the arrangements entered into under the schemes in 1994 were undertaken by the trustees of both schemes. As I understand it, the trustees continue to believe that such schemes are in the best interests of their members. Perhaps I may repeat that Her Majesty's Government have accepted a contingent liability in this case of over £17 billion. The safeguard provides for the trustees to be able aggressively to fund an equity-rich portfolio which would not normally be suitable for a mature pension fund of this sort.
Ministers have also indicated that they will study the document from the Coalfield Communities Campaign carefully. I am sure that the trustees will do the same.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it would take a particularly imaginative actuarial exercise for there to be any prospect of the Government finding money to sustain this fund, not least because of the relatively low life expectancy of most of those who have worked in the mining industry? Does he further agree that given the intensity of economic and social need which continues within the coalfields, it would be appropriate for the Government to allow a little more of that surplus to reach organisations such as the Coalfields Regeneration Trust which is capable of helping those areas to surmount the difficulties, which remain intense?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that it would require an imaginative actuary to suggest that there will be a turn-round. I agree that present circumstances appear to favour the Government. However, given that the fund may last for 50 to 60 years, it is not difficult to think of scenarios where the situation would reverse.
The balance of assets and liabilities in the trust is a separate question from the amount that the Government should appropriately invest in the regeneration of coalfields. As at present, that amount should be properly generous. In December 1998, the Government announced an investment package of £354 million, which was substantial. As I have said, this subject can always be debated but it is independent of the question of what finally turns out to be the balance of assets and liabilities in the particular pension funds.
Lord Dormand of Easington: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I asked a similar Question some months ago? Since that time the fund has continued to accrue many more millions. Given the figures he has quoted, I am not entirely convinced that there is not room to meet the point of the Question. Everybody in the former coalfield areas appreciates the generous help given by the Government. However, is the Minister aware of the large pool of unemployed

915
miners, most of whom are young people? The older miners received fairly generous redundancies. Will the Minister give an assurance that the matter will seriously be considered again?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I have said, Ministers have made it clear, and will continue to do so, that they will listen to concerns raised. They will study the document from the Coalfield Communities Campaign seriously, as, indeed, will the trustees.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the key issue underlying the question of pension schemes is that the workers believe that pension contributions are deferred pay? As a consequence, when employers seem to be taking the lion's share, whether in the coal industry or any other industry, that is seen to be grossly unfair by the workers in such industries?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I understand that this was a defined benefit scheme. Therefore, the liability on both the Coal Board and the Government, who have accepted the responsibility, is properly to fund those benefits, including any bonuses payable because of the upward valuation of the fund. That is a responsibility of the Coal Board of the past and of the government of the future which will be discharged, whatever the circumstances, over the long life of the fund.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, it seems that it would be possible for part of the Government's share of the surpluses to be transferred to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust. As I understand it, £10 million has already been transferred. My contention is that £10 million is paltry in relation to the sums to which we are referring. As there would appear to be a mechanism for such transfers, could not the Government contemplate transferring a little more?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is always possible for the Government to make such a payment in the circumstances referred to by the noble Lord. I agree that there was a payment of £10 million which, in the total sum of all the payments, seems to be de minims. It is always in the power of the Government to make a gift of money to the coalfields campaign or the trust from general government funds.

Health Development Agency
2.57 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen Baroness Massey of Darwen asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the role and responsibilities of the new Health Development Agency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, the Health Development Agency will play an
916
important role in supporting the Government's health strategy. The agency will establish robust evidence on what works in public health and communicate that to the field; advise on developing standards for public health; and support public health agencies and workers in improving public health.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for his useful reply. Perhaps I may ask one or two supplementary questions. The first relates to the recent excellent debate on the National Health Service instigated by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege. It seems to me that, as well as managing illness, we should manage health. Will the Health Development Agency remain a special health authority promoting healthy lifestyles and campaigns for health on such topics as coronary heart disease and smoking?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Health Development Agency will be a special health authority. Its three core functions will be: to ensure that, as regards health promotion, we have the best available research on what works and what does not work; to develop and advise on the setting of standards; and to build capacity in relation to those people in the field who have to develop health promotion programmes. I believe that much emphasis should be given to the latter responsibility. As regards its predecessor, the Health Education Authority, there was a great deal of lack of emphasis and focus in assisting people engaged at local level in those areas.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister will recall that in the last annual report of the Health Education Authority, Yve Buckland, the new chair of the Health Development Authority stated:
"The HDA will be charged with helping to address health inequalities and with mapping the evidence base for public health and health improvement".
Can the Minister confirm that part of that evidence base will be the recent report entitled The Widening Gap which demonstrates that the greatest factor in ill-health is poverty, that the wealth gap is still rising, and that the key way to tackle ill-health is to tackle poverty?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the new Health Development Agency will be charged with obtaining the best available evidence on matters relating to the improvement of public health. The noble Lord is right to draw attention to the inequalities in health in our society. But this Government's policy developments in relation to the New Deal, child benefits and social exclusion are designed to tackle the issues of poverty, which in turn will tackle the issues of poor health.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, bearing in mind the importance of mapping exercises and the exchange of information, can the Minister tell us what the

917
relationship of the agency will be with the health promotion bodies in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, each country in the UK has its own arrangements for health promotion, but it will be important that all agencies work well together. We will ensure that the new Health Development Agency is given every encouragement to promote that relationship and will monitor its performance in that and in other aspects.
Lord Rea: My Lords, can my noble friend say how the Health Development Agency will co-operate with the new Food Standards Agency and how the tasks of each will be allocated?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend raises an important matter. The duties of the Food Standards Agency on matters of nutrition was set out clearly in the White Paper, Food Standards Agency: A Force for Change. The agency will have a major role in nutrition. It will also have to work closely with health departments which continue to lead on wider, public health agenda matters. We will expect both agencies to work well together to ensure that the advice they give is both consistent and effective.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, some years ago we had a Health Education Council which was perceived by the government of the day as being ineffective in performing its role. It was then replaced by a Health Education Authority. Now that authority is to be replaced by an agency. Can the Minister tell us in what way the terms of reference of this agency differ from those of its predecessor and can he give us an assurance that it will be more effective in fulfilling its major role?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord puts his finger on an important consideration; that is, the performance both of the Health Education Council and the Health Education Authority over a good many years. It is my experience that, although the Health Education Authority performed a valuable role in certain areas, it could not be said to have been an unqualified success. The Health Education Authority's campaigning role got in the way of a more considered policy development role. First, in relation to the Health Development Agency, its emphasis on the establishment of robust evidence of what works in health promotion and public health will be crucial. Secondly, we are determined to ensure that the agency gives all the support it can to people engaged in health promotion work. I am afraid that neither the Health Education Council nor the Health Education Authority enjoyed sufficient credibility with those charged with improving health at local level.
Earl Howe: My Lords, will the general public be able to gain direct access to the information that the agency compiles?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Health Development Agency will be able to draw together
918
information which is of value both to agencies and to the public. We expect the public to have access to that information.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether the quality of housing is something in which the new agency will take an interest?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, many factors bear on the state of health of people in this country. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, poverty is one of those factors and lack of housing or poor housing is also relevant. I have no doubt that, if the agency is charged with obtaining robust evidence in relation to those issues, it will be able to do so. However, I stress that the Government decide upon the priorities to be pursued, not the agency. Having said that, the agency will provide as much information as possible in that regard. Of course housing is an important consideration in the attack on poverty and ill health.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the research work of the development agency does not duplicate that of other bodies engaged in the research field?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right that the agency should not duplicate work being done elsewhere. I expect agencies in other UK countries to share work and in some cases decide that one country should concentrate on one area and another country on another. The sharing of information and the avoidance of duplication is extremely important.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, as it is St Valentine's Day, does not the Minister agree with my noble friend that a rose, by any other name, would smell as sweet?

Representation of the People Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): 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 Bassam of Brighton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [New system of electoral registration]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 17, after first ("a") insert ("British citizen or a").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 1 simply states that the words "British citizen" ought to be added to the Bill. I was surprised when I came to read

919
the Bill to find that the legislation setting out the right of a citizen of this country to be on the electoral register did not include the words "British citizen". It says,
"either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
The words, "British citizen" do not appear.
At Second Reading I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, how it came about that those of us who are British citizens managed to get a vote. He said that we were subsumed in the words, "Commonwealth citizen". I do not feel that that is satisfactory. I wager that there are few countries in the world where the voting rights of its citizens do not appear on the face of the legislation which sets up its democratic system and where its citizens are subsumed in a wider definition, such as the definition of "Commonwealth citizen".
That was the first point that struck me as odd. A second point about which I asked the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, was the position in reverse. In other words, if I went to a Commonwealth country, would I be able to register immediately on their electoral roll and therefore have a vote in their elections? The noble Lord kindly wrote to me listing the countries where I would find that I had reciprocal voting rights. It is an interesting list but it hardly includes the major Commonwealth countries.
It seems to be the case that the countries of the Caribbean—Antigua, Barbuda, Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St Kitts and Nevis, St Lucia, St Vincent and the Grenadines—give us those reciprocal rights. Can the Minister say whether they give us those rights on the same basis? In other words, if any of your Lordships were to go to those countries, would we be able to register immediately or would there be some other qualification? For example, in Malawi only after seven years' residence would your Lordships have the right to vote, in contrast to a Malawian citizen coming here who would have immediate rights to vote. I understand that a four-year residence period applies in Namibia.
However, I gather that the system in New Zealand—and I should like the Minister to confirm this—operates on the same basis as our system; in other words, if a noble Lord were to go there, he would be entitled to vote immediately as a Commonwealth citizen and if a New Zealander were to come here he would also be entitled to vote immediately. The position in South Africa is qualified by the words "in certain circumstances", but I am not sure what they may be.
Members of the Committee will notice that I have not mentioned those great Commonwealth countries, Canada, Australia, India and Pakistan, to name just a few, many of whose citizens come to this country. It seems to me that we do not have reciprocal rights. I wonder whether we are continuing with a pretty out-of-date concept in allowing those citizens to come here—that is, people who are not citizens of the United
920
Kingdom—and register immediately. Indeed, are we not being rather foolish in not demanding a quid pro quo?
However, there is more to it than that. Indeed, if that had been all, I probably would not have tabled these amendments. We should think back to the referendum legislation at the beginning of this Parliament when we had great discussions as to who should be eligible to vote in the referendums on setting up the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. Noble Lords will remember that we had quite a heated debate as to whether overseas voters on the British electoral register—in other words, British citizens who live overseas and are registered on the register—would be allowed to vote in those referendums. The Government decided that they should not be allowed to do so and chose to use the local government register for the referendums.
We have two registers. We have the parliamentary register, on which overseas voters are included, and we have the local government register from which they are excluded. It is the same register, but there are "marks in the margin". Of course, noble Lords are allowed to vote only in local government elections and not in parliamentary elections; indeed, noble Lords have a "mark in the margin". One day soon—that is, if the Government can ever pluck up enough courage—we may have a vote on whether or not the United Kingdom should join the euro. It seems to me fairly pertinent to ask: who should be entitled to vote in the referendum as to whether this country joins the euro? I can see the argument that would say that no citizen of the Union who is not a British citizen should be allowed to vote. Why should a citizen of France or Italy (countries which are already members of the euro) who is resident in this country have the right to decide whether we should join the euro?
Should overseas voters—people who live in European countries and have a right to vote in British elections because they are British overseas voters, like my daughter who lives in Italy—have the right to vote for or against the euro? They may actually know more about how the euro works than anyone in Britain. That could be a good thing or it could be bad, depending on their experience of how the euro is working in the European country in which they live. It is a very pertinent question. Moreover, should someone who is a citizen of any one of the Commonwealth countries I have mentioned—India, Pakistan, Australia or New Zealand—have the right to decide whether we give up the pound sterling and join the euro? I submit that they should not. The only people who should have the right to decide whether or not we join the euro are those British citizens who are currently resident in Britain, not the other groups that I mentioned.
When and if we come to a euro referendum, we could only deal with such a situation if there were a clear delineation on the register specifying who is a British citizen, who is a Commonwealth citizen and who is not so much a citizen of the Republic of Ireland but a citizen of the Union. As far as I understand it—at least it was so this morning when I checked the

921
position —the Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union. In fact, I think it is also quite keen on the euro. I certainly do not think that citizens of the Republic of Ireland should have any say as to whether or not the UK joins the euro. After all, by the time we come to vote, the experiences of the Republic may be so dreadful as regards the euro that they will all vote against it. That would seem quite unfair. Indeed, the Liberal Democrats would not like that as a possibility, nor perhaps would the Government. As I said, I am puzzled as to what is the Government's current view on the euro.
It seems sensible that we should have some signal on the register to enable us to see clearly who are British citizens. It is right that the citizens of this country should know why they are on the register: they should not be on the register simply as, "Commonwealth citizens". But, much more importantly, if we have a referendum on the euro, whether the Government like it or not it seems to me that we shall be discussing who should be allowed to vote, just as we did when we discussed the referendums in Scotland and Wales. When we reach that point I shall be advocating, as the Government may wish to, that British citizens currently resident in this country ought to be the only people who can vote. If that is the situation, we need to have a register that identifies that particular group perfectly clearly. Therefore, I suggest that we add to this part of the Bill the words "British citizen". The consequential amendments will then ensure that the register is made up in such a way that one can identify who are the British citizens for that potential euro referendum. I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I would not in any way object to Commonwealth citizens having voting rights within the United Kingdom. I hope that the noble Lord will agree will me that there is a contradiction here when it comes to passport control, especially at Heathrow airport. There is a fast-track entry process for British and European Union passport holders, but Commonwealth citizens—even those with ties to this country, having been born within the UK—are herded through yet another channel, with all the consequent delays.
Lord Goodhart: In our view it is wholly appropriate that anyone who is on the register and entitled to vote and who can, therefore, vote in a parliamentary or local government election should be entitled to vote in a referendum in that part of the United Kingdom where he or she lives. Otherwise, the situation would be seriously discriminatory. I should add that the indication of Commonwealth voters on the register, however well intentioned, is something that could lead to an increased level of racism.
Lord Jopling: There is another issue which my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish did not quite cover. Those of us who have lived a political life in the years since the Second World War can remember occasions when, to put it mildly, the countries of the
922
Commonwealth were not best pleased with the policies of the British Government. Indeed, like many noble Lords, I recall times when it was not an impossible thought that the countries of the Commonwealth might have voted to exclude Britain from the Commonwealth. It is to be hoped that those awkward days are behind us. I certainly hope so. However. if it was not impossible in the past, one is entitled to say that it is not impossible in the future.
Perhaps I may put to the Minister the following possibility. With an election pending, if it were a decision of the nations of the Commonwealth to expel the United Kingdom, it seems to me on reading part of Clause 1 of the Bill that that would at a stroke make it impossible for British citizens to vote in a parliamentary election. I say that because if British citizens were no longer Commonwealth citizens, they would be automatically excluded. Surely it would be wise for us to insert these words into the legislation so that, if such an unthinkable and awful prospect were to arise, a whole lot of changes in the law would not need to be made to ensure that British people could vote in a British election. Can the Committee think of a more absurd situation? However, this seems to me to be an implication which we ought to think about. I hope that the noble Lord will take this point on board and will accept the amendment, or at least tell us that he will think carefully about it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I think that this is something, with respect, that one has to think about. One has to distinguish on the one hand quite clearly between the allegiance of Commonwealth countries—which is sometimes in question—and Commonwealth citizenship. I begin to wonder whether in the context of the purpose of this Bill, Commonwealth citizenship is well conceived as a qualification to register.
Lord Naseby: My noble friend Lord Jopling is right to put his finger on this matter. When I was first in the other place a Motion was, I believe, tabled by Rajiv Gandhi to the effect that Britain should be excluded from the Commonwealth. Sadly, that gentleman—I say this sincerely—is no longer with us. However, it is conceivable that that situation could arise. Therefore, it seems to me that the Minister will need to take the point seriously. I support my noble friend's amendment.
I refer to the sensitive subject of asylum seekers. I travel to Sri Lanka later this week and I am conscious of the number of Sri Lankans who seek asylum at this time. As I understand the Bill, we are moving towards a rolling register. Presumably someone who is in this country seeking asylum would qualify to go on the register almost from the date on which he or she arrived. I imagine that the Minister will be able to reassure us that that is not the case. However, that situation may not have been foreseen.
Lord Biffen: I support my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in the caution that has been expressed with regard to the nomenclature of the Commonwealth embracing the United Kingdom and

923
all other countries within the Commonwealth. We are, after all, talking about a sensitive designation; namely, the electoral roll. It implies an underlying community and shared commitment which is rather strained. The reality of the Commonwealth is of a diverse collection of countries and of historical coincidences largely related to a phase of British imperialism which has now passed away. What is left behind is potentially dangerous if it is invested with a potency and a collective identity that it clearly does not possess. It may be a gesture of good will or of convenience to use the term "Commonwealth" as proposed in the legislation. However, we are perfectly entitled to utter a word of caution in that regard. I welcome the debate.
Lord Stallard: One simple question puzzles me; namely, why we are so keen to advocate representation from Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa when we flatly refuse to introduce reciprocal agreements for Commonwealth pensioners. Any British citizens who live in Commonwealth countries receive only the pension to which they were entitled when they left Britain. The sad fact is that many such pensioners are in dire straits as they have never received the increases in their pensions to which they are entitled. Therefore, I am puzzled as to why the British Government are so keen to spend thousands of pounds on producing leaflets to canvass them on election matters. Will the Minister comment on the possible introduction of a reciprocal agreement for the pensioners I have mentioned?
Lord Dholakia: I am fascinated by this discussion. If I recall correctly—I stand open to correction—the British Nationality Act 1948 conferred certain rights on Commonwealth citizens and British subjects. Those who came to this country after that date are entitled to participate fully in the government of this country. When lain Macleod was colonial secretary, he confirmed that he intended to enable Commonwealth citizens to come to this country and to participate fully in the government of it. I hope that we shall not create two tiers of citizenship which discriminate between those who are here permanently and those who have come here to settle on a permanent basis. There is a residential qualification in this regard. No one flies from Ceylon, India, Pakistan or any other country and automatically goes on the register. They have to satisfy certain residential qualifications in this country to go on the register. Some of the arguments that have been advanced as regards the rights of people who come to this country are far fetched.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a rather more fascinating debate than I thought it would be. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has spoken to his amendments with his customary vigour and entertainment value. I believe that we all enjoy that. However, the debate has strayed rather wider than I thought would be the case. Reference has been made to the euro referendum—I do not think it would be entirely appropriate for me to be drawn into that
924
discussion this afternoon—and to reciprocal arrangements for Commonwealth pensioners. However, we are discussing the Representation of the People Bill. I shall attempt to address my remarks to that Bill.
When I consider some of the amendments that we shall discuss later, and what the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has said, I believe that he takes a rather narrower view of the Bill than he did at Second Reading, and than was taken by his colleagues in another place and, indeed, his party when considering the Bill and the proposals that have emerged from the all-party working party on which there was fairly unanimous agreement on most of those measures. As a consequence, we seem to have rather a large set of amendments before us this afternoon and I believe that the debate will range rather more widely than we had all anticipated.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Perhaps I can help him in this regard. Parliamentary scrutiny means scrutiny. There may be many amendments on the Marshalled List, but many of them are designed to tease out exactly what the Government mean by a measure. The noble Lord will have to get used to that if he is to continue to be a Minister and to present Home Office legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reminder. I have no problems with scrutiny; the Government have no problems with scrutiny. However, I am concerned that some of the matters we are likely to discuss today go rather wider than that point.
The provisions in Clause 1 of the Bill, setting out who is entitled to vote in parliamentary and local government elections, simply replicate the existing rules. However, a necessary change is being made to reflect the fact that, with the introduction of rolling electoral registration, there will no longer be a single annual qualifying date. Among those entitled to vote in both parliamentary and local elections are Commonwealth citizens. Let us be quite clear that that includes British citizens. Indeed, given our key role in the Commonwealth, I do not believe that there could be any doubt on that point.
Amendments Nos. 1, 2, 7, 23, 63, 77, 121 and 122 seek to add the words "British citizen" before all references to Commonwealth citizens. That would imply that British citizens were not citizens of the Commonwealth. Apart from casting doubt on any other enactment, the use of the term "Commonwealth citizen" would also, I suggest, send a negative and unwelcome message to our Commonwealth partners. The term "Commonwealth citizen" has served us well for many years. Indeed, it has found its way into legislation brought before Parliament by both of the major parties in government. I urge the noble Lord to consider that there is no reason to depart from that term today.
Finally, Amendment No. 38 would require all non-British citizens to be identified on the electoral register with a special mark. I simply ask: why? Given that

925
these people have the right to vote, they should be treated in the same way as everyone else. A special mark on the register would serve no purpose except to single them out. Worse, I suspect, certain far Right groups may find considerable use for lists which specifically identify non-British citizens. Do we really want to introduce that? The noble Lord opposite should think long and hard before he presses that particular point.
The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, raised questions about the countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. As he quite rightly acknowledged, I have written to him extensively on that matter. As I set out in some of the correspondence, most of them do not—
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am grateful to the noble Lord. With the utmost respect, the Minister is not addressing his mind to the question. He is saying "as they have the right to vote" but, for the reasons that have been given, it is very much in question whether they should have the right to vote. The Minister referred to the existing rule; is not our function to examine the existing rule? He appears to assume that we have to accept that "what is, shall be".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention.
We take the view that Commonwealth citizens should have that right. Historically, they have always had that right; it has been established before in legislation. I am grateful that noble Lords opposite wish to spell out a difference on this issue. We have reciprocal arrangements with most Commonwealth countries and they work in a similar way. All the countries listed in the correspondence allow voting on much the same basis as we allow Commonwealth citizens to vote.
Although noble Lords opposite may take a different view, we believe that it is right that Commonwealth citizens should exercise the right to vote in the UK. I trust that, in the light of our discussions this afternoon—
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the noble Lord finishes, perhaps he can tell the Committee about those countries I mentioned which are not on the list—Canada, Australia, Pakistan and India—which are, dare I say it, the major players in the Commonwealth. Do we have no reciprocal arrangements at all with them?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I have set out in the correspondence, as far as I understand it, there are no reciprocal arrangements with the countries to which the noble Lord referred. But there is a fairly extensive list of countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. I am happy with that; the Government are happy with that; and the party opposite was happy with those arrangements when it was in government: it
926
did not raise any questions about those reciprocal arrangements. I trust that the noble Lord will now see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Jopling: I am sorry, but, as far as concerns my earlier comments, the Minister's reply is 100 per cent inadequate. I raised a serious point and the Minister gave my comments about as much attention as he did at Second Reading. I insist that he responds to the point I made. If he did not understand it, I shall try to explain it a little more clearly and perhaps a little more slowly.
Let us assume that a meeting of the Commonwealth Heads of Government was to be held during the autumn—such meetings often occur during the autumn—and that that meeting was to take place after Parliament had been prorogued for a general election. I and other noble Lords will know that the period of prorogation for a general election can often be for up to a month. If, during that month period—when Parliament was not in existence—a somewhat unhappy situation arose whereby the Commonwealth Heads of Government, in their wisdom, decided to exclude the United Kingdom from the Commonwealth, that would mean, as I understand it, that, at a stroke, British citizens would cease to be Commonwealth citizens because Britain was no longer a member of the Commonwealth. That would mean, as I understand it, that the law could not be changed to take account of that new situation because Parliament was not sitting and there would be no Parliament. Perhaps I may complete my argument as I am into the flow of it. As I understand it, that would mean that the only people who would be entitled to vote at a general election would be either non-British Commonwealth citizens or citizens of the Irish Republic.
Can the Committee imagine a more absurd situation than a British general election where the only people able to vote are citizens of the Irish Republic or citizens of all the other countries in the Commonwealth except the United Kingdom? I am happy to give way now.
Lord Borrie: I did not want to interrupt after the noble Lord indicated that he did not wish me to. It seems to me that his premise is incorrect. British law and the British courts would follow the British Nationality Act 1948, whereby Commonwealth citizens are so defined as to include all British subjects and all citizens of the United Kingdom. Therefore, even if the Commonwealth Heads of Government did do what the noble Lord suggested, all citizens of the United Kingdom would be entitled to vote under United Kingdom law at the general election posited by the noble Lord.
Lord Jopling: I am intrigued to hear that. It is a somewhat legalistic situation, of which I was not immediately aware because I am not a great expert on British nationality laws. I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. However, I should like to hear it from the Minister, with the authority of a government stamp behind it. It is a serious problem.

927
Although there may be a legal explanation, if the scenario I have mentioned were to occur, there would be the greatest possible consternation in the middle of a general election campaign among the British media and among the average British voters who, like myself, are not experts in nationality laws.
The Minister must apply himself to what is, in my view, a serious question—a question which he totally ignored in his reply.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I entirely support the words of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish in expressing some surprise at the Minister's surprise. We are at Committee stage and, if I may say so, the noble Lord on the Front Bench is not the first to find these procedures something of an ordeal. I know that this is the first time that he has gone through these kinds of exchanges. On the whole, your Lordships' House is an extremely kindly place, given to mercy and pity on all occasions, but if the Minister cannot do better than his opening defence against these amendments, he will be in some difficulty.
When he rose to reply, the Minister said that the debate had been fascinating and had gone much wider than he expected. I cannot understand why he did not anticipate that or, if he did not personally anticipate it, why his advisers did not anticipate it. I hope that when he gets back to his private office he will address some stern words to his advisers and tell them that he found himself in a very embarrassing position in your Lordships' Committee and that in future he requires better advice and better briefs than he has had today. I am assuming that the words spoken by the Minister came from his brief—in which case he suffers from the appalling misfortune of extremely bad advice.
I should like to make another small point. Just because the matter has been accepted since the year dot, it does not mean to say that when a Bill is being read Members of the Committee may not suddenly be seized with a desire to change something. My noble friend Lord Mackay has tabled some simple, easily intelligible amendments, as one would expect. To quarrel with them, or even to appear to quarrel with them on the basis that they attempt to achieve something new and strange which the Minister's advisers did not expect, is rather meagre.
The Minister is fortunate in having the benefit of the advice of the Government Chief Whip so easily available. We all have profound respect for the Government Chief Whip and we have absolutely no reason to doubt the quality of his advice. The only matter on which I can congratulate the Minister this afternoon is his near proximity to the Government Chief Whip. If he would like to have a quiet word with him now—oh, the noble Lord, Lord Carter, looked as if he were going to depart. That would be an act of gross and gratuitous cruelty to his noble friend in his hour of need.
Lord Carter: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I was leaving because of the noble Lord's speech.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am much obliged to the noble Lord for his explanation. Perhaps he will respond to my invitation and give his noble friend advice about the procedures we go through during Committee stage and what Ministers really must accept from Oppositions. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me and not believe that I am being at all rude to him when I say that this Opposition have so far been distinguished by their kindliness and patience in a way that the previous opposition were not. If the position had been reversed and a Minister had confronted the Committee with the kind of reply that we have had so far to the amendments, there would have been an uproar, not only from the Front Bench but from the gathered legions behind them. Today, I can say only that my noble friend has behaved with his characteristic civility and politeness, as have all other speakers from this side of the Committee.
If proceedings continue in that way, the almost legendary patience and tolerance of this side of the Committee will be tried almost to breaking point. I had not previously believed that there was a breaking point.
Lord Biffen: Before the Minister replies, perhaps I may say in a spirit of relaxed charity that one point has risen in the debate on which I should be grateful for elaboration; that is, the talk of Commonwealth membership being the subject of entitlement to vote and the discussion of reciprocity.
New Section 1(1)(c) states that eligibility is conferred upon:
"either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
Does "a Commonwealth citizen" refer unconditionally to Commonwealth citizens, or does it result from reciprocity between this country and some Commonwealth countries?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I got off on the wrong foot earlier on the matter. I shall take the admonishments of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, to heart. I am grateful to him for his advice as to how Ministers should conduct themselves at the Dispatch Box. No doubt I shall learn my lessons quickly and, if I do not, he will come back and remind me for not doing so. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, for his kind words of support. These things always come in spades.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, for being less than full in my response. I have had some researches undertaken since I sat down. My understanding is that, when, for instance, Nigeria and Fiji were suspended from the Commonwealth, their citizens did not lose their rights to vote as Commonwealth citizens. My understanding of the law in relation to the term "Commonwealth" is as my noble friend Lord Borrie ably explained in his intervention. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, that the situation would be fairly absurd if his interpretation were correct. I am grateful to him for his intervention. It has focused our minds neatly on the range of issues that this set of

929
amendments seeks to address. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for the debate. It has been valuable for that reason, if not much more.
However, I have some concern about the amendments. We shall resist them. They would not serve much good purpose, but they would suggest a narrowness on our part. Commonwealth citizens have historically had the right to vote here. Members opposite clearly take a different view, but we hold to that view since the situation has been thus since the post-war settlement. I therefore suggest that it would be right and proper for the amendment to be withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: We have certainly had an interesting little debate. I can remember at the beginning of this Parliament arguing against the concept of referendums. I was told by Ministers that I was being old fashioned and that I had to enter the new world—I gather that "new" is the most commonly used word in Mr Blair's speeches—that referendums were part of the new world; and that I had to accept them. Then came Scottish devolution, in which we were to tear up a constitutional arrangement that had been in existence since 1707. But that was not good enough; it had to be questioned and abandoned. I was told I had to get used to the new world. When the Government turned to your Lordships' House, it had to be changed to as near as they could possibly make it to a "quango House".
When we said that we believed that was perhaps not quite the right way to go about it, we were told that we had to get into the new world. Today the Minister tells us that we must accept what has always been the case in the past. We must not even ask why. We must not say that it is time to change, or anything similar. I must say to the Minister that the convincing arguments for change advanced by his noble friends on previous occasions—largely by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn—were rather more compelling than his defence of the status quo.
His defence was made worse by the fact that he failed totally to address the point I made about a possible euro referendum. That is not theory. The Minister may not have been here in the summer of 1997, but we spent a long time then discussing the question of the legitimate register to use on referendum votes. The Government decided on that occasion that overseas electors should not be allowed to vote. Some of us believed that that was wrong, but that was the Government's position. The Government would not have been able to take that position if those people had not been so marked on the register. Indeed, if Members of your Lordships' House had not been so marked on the register, Members such as myself who live in Scotland might not have been able to vote. It was because the register had marks on it regarding people who were not allowed to vote in parliamentary elections, including overseas voters, that the Government were able to limit the franchise for the referendum.
930
The Minister has failed miserably to explain why I should not be concerned about a referendum on the euro and the possibility that we may want to limit the franchise. We may want to decide that European citizens who have a vote here at local elections should certainly not be allowed to decide whether this country joins the euro. It is an arguable case—I put it no higher than that—that citizens of Commonwealth countries such as Australia or Canada should not be allowed to decide whether we join the euro. They may be absolutely opposed to us joining the euro. When the day comes, the Government may in fact want to knock them out of the register—out of voting—in order to try to ensure they achieve the result they want. It was not good enough for the Minister simply to dismiss a major part of my argument about wanting to make sure that British citizens were included clearly on the register by saying that he did not want to become involved in discussing the euro.
I should have thought that the euro is the most important issue currently before the British people and will be so for some years to come. Whether one is for it or against it, it will be the major issue of the first decade of the 21st century. Who decides will be an important issue for us to address on the day the Government come forward with their referendum Bill on the euro.
We may come back to residential qualifications later. Perhaps I may give the Minister some advance warning. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, says that residential qualifications are necessary. We should like to know what those residential qualifications are. For the moment I shall seek to withdraw the amendment, but I cannot say that I am satisfied with the replies I have had from the Government on the substantive issue of referendums. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 6, leave out (", a citizen of the Republic of Ireland").
The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to delete the words,
"a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
Before the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, gets on to his soap box, this is not me deciding to have a tilt at the Irish. I move the amendment simply because I want to know why the words are any longer necessary. With regard to voting in local government elections, new Section 2(1)(c) refers to,
"a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".
The Republic of Ireland is a member of the European Union. Therefore, I should have thought that, just as citizens of Italy, France or Germany resident in this country are entitled to go on to the register as local government electors, so too are citizens of the Republic of Ireland. Why do we need the words "a citizen of the Republic of Ireland" there and further on? Surely, those words are unnecessary.
If the Minister says, "Oh no, we must not change anything", I ask him this question. Can he tell me who might be likely to qualify as "a citizen of the Republic of Ireland" but not as "a relevant citizen of the Union"? I beg to move.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): I must point out to the Committee that, as Amendment No. 8 is being spoken to with this amendment, there is a misprint in Amendment No. 8 as it appears on the Marshalled List. The word "the" has been missed out. It should read,
"a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I must confess to being somewhat puzzled by Amendments Nos. 3 and 8. As I understand the position, their effect would be to deny citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in our local government elections.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am sorry, but the Minister really must listen to my argument. I asked him this question. Can he name a citizen of the Republic of Ireland who is not a relevant citizen of the Union and therefore entitled to vote as a relevant citizen of the Union? That is what I asked.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. The term "relevant citizen of the Union" may help us. That is defined in Section 202 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and refers to the citizens of all EU member states apart from Britain and Ireland. The right of nationals of other EU member states to vote in the local elections of the country where they reside is enshrined in the Treaty of Maastricht, so this amendment would put us in breach of our treaty obligations. Just as important, there are good historical reasons for the voting rights that Irish citizens enjoy, which I stress are fully reciprocated. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Swinfen: Before the Minister sits down, he says that the voting rights of citizens of the Republic of Ireland are fully reciprocated. I was not aware that subjects of Her Majesty from the United Kingdom had voting rights of any kind in the Republic of Ireland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If, by the deletion of these words, citizens of the Republic of Ireland would be denied the reciprocity which they have enjoyed over the years, I shall withdraw the amendment. But I am still puzzled to know why "relevant citizen of the Union" does not cover a citizen of the Irish Republic. After all, the Irish Republic is a member of the European Union. It is almost as daft as the situation of students from England who go to Scottish universities. This will give the Minister time to find a reply that may satisfy the Committee. Those students have to pay £4,000 when citizens of every other European Union country will be able to defer payment. They will have to pay £2,000 once they graduate. The answer from
932
Mr Brian Wilson to that question was that England as a state is not a member of the European Union. For this legislation, perhaps the Republic of Ireland is not a member of the European Union. However, the Minister may have the answer by this time.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may ask him this question. Whereas Irish citizens now have the right to vote in parliamentary elections, the effect of removing the specific reference to Irish citizens would be that they would only have the same right as other European citizens; namely, to vote in local and European elections.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Lord is trying, as do all noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches, to help the Government. If the noble Lord looks at where we are in the Bill he will see that new Section 2(1) begins:
"A person is entitled to vote as an elector at a local government election in any electoral area if on the date of the poll he … is a Commonwealth citizen, a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union".
We are talking about local government registers, not parliamentary ones.
Lord Goodhart: Yes, but the effect of the noble Lord's amendment would be that the reference to European Union voters would mean two different things in two different parts of the Bill.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is actually the case. That is why at the outset I made the point that if we were to pursue the line taken in the amendment, we could end up denying citizens of the Republic of Ireland the right to vote in local government elections.
The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, asked about reciprocation with Ireland. That is the case. We have reciprocal rights to vote in Ireland's general elections and local elections. That has been the case for a long time. To pursue the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, could have a most confusing effect. On that ground I urge him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Perhaps I am just stupid but I am still totally puzzled by that answer. With regard to voting in parliamentary elections, new Section 1(1)(c) states,
"is either a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland".
They have special rights. Other citizens of other European Union countries do not have the right to vote in our parliamentary elections. That is fine and simple. I think that I have it right at that point. We then come to the next part, which is about local government elections. Under that part, Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote but also—because, as the noble Lord said, of Maastricht—in addition to Commonwealth citizens and citizens of the Republic of Ireland, relevant citizens of the Union are allowed to vote. I do not understand why the Bill needs to mention the citizens of the Republic of Ireland and

933
the relevant citizens of the Union. Unless something has happened in the past hour, Ireland is a member of the European Union.
The noble Lord has failed to explain—perhaps I have misunderstood him—how a citizen of the Irish Republic would not qualify for a local government vote here if he lived here as "a relevant citizen of the Union". If I can have that explanation, I shall be quite happy. If I do not have that explanation, what I might call "the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, mood" will come over me with regard to having unnecessary words in the legislation, words which make me wonder why we have them. It is a simple question. Perhaps I may have a simple answer at the third time of asking.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: "A relevant citizen of the Union" is defined, as I said, as a citizen of one the 13 EU countries apart from Ireland, which is why it is necessary to refer specifically to Irish citizens. That is the explanation.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord for allowing me to intervene. Is it the same argument— because it is, it has to remain? No reason is given. Will the noble Lord make it plain why the reference has to remain?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a question of definition; namely, citizens of the 13 EU states. That is the working definition.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I think the Minister is telling me that the Maastricht Treaty makes the Republic of Ireland different from the other EU member states. I shall take advice on whether that is the case. It seems an odd situation to have got ourselves into at the time, but perhaps there was some good reason for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, although, frankly, once I have checked the Maastricht Treaty I may decide to return to the point.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jopling Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 27, leave out ("Northern Ireland") and insert ("the United Kingdom").
The noble Lord said: I hope that in this debate we shall be able to avoid the unhappy discomfort through which the Minister appears to be going. I hope that these amendments will give him the opportunity to be helpful to the Committee and to accept them.
Before going into detail, perhaps I may repeat the comments I made at Second Reading. I said that we must always remember, when changing the law relating to electoral procedures in order to encourage more people to vote—which I think everyone wants—that it is essential that we do so without significantly opening the door to electoral abuse in one form or another.
New Section 4(2) adds to the Bill a provision dealing with potential abuse in Northern Ireland. The subsection states that people cannot be placed on the register in Northern Ireland until they have been resident for the whole of the three-month period prior to the relevant date. As I understand it, the provision is included to avoid a situation in which people could pop over the border from the Irish Republic in considerable numbers and attempt to register as voters in Northern Ireland and declare either a temporary address or local connection under the guise of being homeless.
I hope that I have got the right end of the stick and that this is the main reason why the Bill includes special rules for Northern Ireland. I hope that, in responding, the noble Lord will tell us why the special provision has been included. Following the remarks of my noble friend Lord Peyton, I imagine that the Minister's brief will contain a full explanation.
Given that background, and assuming that I can start from that point, my amendments are intended to extend the special provision of three months' residence to the whole of the United Kingdom. Surely there is merit in that. It is right to attempt to treat the whole United Kingdom as one. My amendment seeks to apply the provision to new registrations within the United Kingdom. It applies only to people who have never previously been on the electoral register.
There are a good many reasons for tabling the amendments. First, while providing for those who tend to wander from one place to another, possibly sleeping rough or occupying squatter properties, the extension of the register to homeless people clearly gives rise to potential opportunities for abuse, and electoral abuse in particular. The second reason is that, in recent times, as the Government know only too well, there has been a huge increase in those coming to this country seeking political asylum. Therefore, the possibility of potential abuse arises.
I began by saying that I hoped the Minister would be able to accept these amendments. Since the Bill was printed and, indeed, since it came to this House from another place, two events have occurred which should make the noble Lord considerably keener to see my amendments incorporated. The first is the experience of the past few days; namely, the emergence of hijacking as a means of seeking political asylum. We must be aware, having followed the events of the past week, that there is a real danger of the United Kingdom becoming a target for considerable numbers of asylum seekers—economic and political refugees coming to this country, using the newly found device of hijacking aircraft as a means of doing so. My amendment attempts to go some way to delay those entering the United Kingdom illegally in that way from obtaining the right to vote without at least a three-month pause.
I make this point following the Minister's attack last week in response to my noble friend Lord Rotherwick. I have still heard no explanation from the Minister or any justification for the attack on my noble friend, saying that his points were fictitious. I hope that the

935
Minister today will give a full explanation. It seemed to a good many Members of this place that my noble friend had used official figures. If he did not, we ought to be told. I hope that the Minister has considered his remarks and that he has become a good deal more conscious of the real trouble that we are in in this country given the dramatic rise in the numbers of asylum seekers already here waiting to have their applications considered.
Now that the Minister has had time better to understand the problem, I would have thought that the Government would welcome the extension of the provisions relating to Northern Ireland to the whole of the United Kingdom and insist that somebody cannot register unless he has been resident in the United Kingdom during the whole period of three months ending on the relevant date, provided only that it is a new registration within the United Kingdom. I beg to move.
Lord Naseby: I support my noble friend. I ask the Minister to reflect on what happened at Great Yarmouth during the Millennium. As one who lives in the eastern part of the country, to the best of my knowledge well over 1,000 New Age travelers—or whatever terminology is used to describe them—remained in Great Yarmouth for about two and a half weeks, not just a few days. One may have a situation—it is not entirely hypothetical—in which a by-election is pending in a marginal seat and, for one reason or another, the government of the day decide to delay it. Over the years, Great Yarmouth has been a marginal seat. The situation may arise in which a flood of homeless people decide to stay, register and vote. That seems to me to be a weakness. In their wisdom the Government have, rightly, decided that for a part of the United Kingdom a period of three months should apply. My noble friend makes a very powerful case that the arrangement should be extended to the whole of the United Kingdom.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Biffen: I too support the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Jopling. It is fascinating that in this particular instance legislation, which on the whole is designed to widen access to voting, imposes a restriction. One is entitled to ask what lies behind the bald print of this part of Clause 1. What is it about the situation in Northern Ireland which persuades the Minister to make this provision? Where do the dangers arise, and to what extent are they organised or spontaneous? One can elaborate this matter to a considerable extent to realise that the whole approach of more open electoral registration is one which, although in many ways commendable, carries dangers. These amendments give the Committee an opportunity to examine the dangers and, above all, an idea of what may develop in other circumstances over a longer period throughout the United Kingdom, as my noble friend suggests.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As expected, in putting his points to the Minister, my noble friend
936
Lord Jopling made his case clearly. I hope that we can look forward to a reasonable reply. My noble friend Lord Biffen raises the interesting question: if for Northern Ireland, why not for the United Kingdom? I can hazard a guess why it has been done for Northern Ireland. I suggest to the Minister that, given increased mobility, the problems in Northern Ireland which brought about the need for the three-month period may also migrate to the United Kingdom.
One of the problems of my noble friend's amendment is that, for example, UK citizens who returned to this country from abroad, perhaps having worked in the European Commission or for British companies around the world, would have to wait three months before they could vote. If they had registered as overseas voters there would not be a gap between registration and the right to vote; if not, they would have to wait for three months. We must bear in mind that point when considering my noble friend's amendment. The same is true for somebody from Northern Ireland who had gone abroad to work. Many companies in Northern Ireland send people abroad to work. Currently, if they go home to Northern Ireland they will have to wait three months before they can register, which seems to be rather unfair to them. I look forward to the Minister's reply to my noble friend's points.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Committee must consider these amendments in the context of the whole Bill. Although the Bill is a long one, a good part of it makes no change to existing law, and the matters on which these amendments touch are a case in point. The noble Lord, Lord Jopling, made an interesting case in relation to asylum seekers. We shall turn to that matter in later amendments. I hope that he will take some comfort from what I say later when the Committee debates the amendments which are relevant to that issue. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, spoke about the possibility of migrating electors. We shall turn to that matter in later amendments. The noble Lord may find some satisfaction in what I say later when the Committee deals with those amendments.
As the law currently stands, those who wish to register as electors in Northern Ireland are required to have been resident there for a minimum of three months. There is no corresponding requirement for the rest of the UK, and the Bill makes no change in that regard. I believe most Members of the Committee accept that there are good reasons for the application of special conditions to Northern Ireland, which are widely supported by the political parties in that part of the UK.
The Home Office has carried out some research and detected no evidence that abuse of the kind that the extra conditions are designed to prevent takes place on the mainland. As far as I am aware, there is no real clamour among mainland political parties for similar extra conditions to be imposed there. Certainly, the Working Party on Electoral Procedures made no such recommendation when it looked at these matters. The working party had time to consider these issues at length and to make new proposals if it wished.

937
If these amendments were accepted, people who registered for the first time, or who changed their registration, would face an additional hurdle in trying to vote. With the best will in the world, sometimes it is difficult enough for people to understand the registration process and become involved. Given that we want to encourage more people to register and vote—after all, that is what the legislation is about—the amendments place another hurdle in their way, and we believe that that would be unwise. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, made the point for me when he spoke about those who returned from abroad. Students and those returning after working abroad would find it particularly difficult to register. For those very good reasons, I do not believe that these amendments should be accepted. I see no reason why we should seek to place additional obstacles in front of people who return from working abroad having performed good service there.
I also do not believe that, as a matter of principle, we should treat those who register by means of a declaration of local connection any worse than those who register in the normal way. I see no justification for Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 35. There is already a perfectly satisfactory mechanism whereby people who believe that a name should not be included on the electoral register can appeal against it. That seems to me to be a much better avenue than to put in place unnecessary obstacles that make it harder for people in Britain to register. In view of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Lord Jopling: One should put the gap between registration and coming on to the register in its proper context. The amendments which I have tabled mean that people from overseas who had not previously been registered would have to wait three months to get on to the register. However, at the moment people still have to wait three months, so there is no change. As my noble friend Lord Mackay said, it is open to individuals who have been registered previously in the United Kingdom to register when they are abroad. A rule of this kind would encourage them to register as overseas voters.
I am not convinced by the arguments. I wish to consider the issue and perhaps return to it on Report. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 5 to 8 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 44, at end insert—
("(ii) compliance with any prescribed requirements; and").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move government Amendment No. 9 and speak to Amendments Nos. 53, 59, 67, 80, 128 and 130. I make clear that the Government believe that none of these amendments makes any substantive change to the Bill. They are—although I hesitate to use the word, I do so—"technical" in nature.
Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that in order to be registered a person needs to comply with the appropriate regulations. Amendments Nos. 53 and 59 are drafting amendments which ensure that decisions on the alteration of registers are taken in accordance with regulations.
Amendments Nos. 67 and 80 are technical. They remove the requirement that regulations should cover the time at which a register is published since that is already dealt with in the Bill.
Amendment No. 128 is a drafting amendment to include a definition of local government area. Amendment No. 130 is also a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These are fairly technical amendments which change some of the words. I am intrigued to know the difference between a registration officer determining something and a registration officer becoming satisfied about it. I wonder why the change is made in legislation which has already passed through the other place requiring the registration officer simply to be satisfied. I do not know whether the Minister can help me or whether I shall have to go to the dictionary.
Lord Bach: We think that it is a better choice of word. I commend the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 3, line 2, at end insert—
("() The date on which any application made for registration shall be entered against his name in the register; and until the date given in the entry he shall not by virtue of that entry be treated as an elector for any purposes other than those of an election the date of the poll for which is the date so given or date thereafter.").
The noble Lord said: We are moving to a new concept of electoral register: a rolling register. There will be additions to the register by way of an update. I imagine that some kind of document will be produced every month for 10 months—it may be nine months—adding to and deleting names from the electoral register. As at present, a wholesale review of the register will be made in the autumn. However, it will not be published at the beginning of the next year, as at present, but on 1st December. The register will become a rolling register. At present a correction register is published in December in which those names which have been added to or deleted from the register are indicated. People can check the register to see whether their names have been added. Political parties can check, as they do, to see which names have been taken off and which added. They can ensure that the names of their supporters—I was going to say "electors" but in reality I do not believe that the parties check all the electors but only the names of their supporters—are on the electoral register. That may sound awful to the Government but I believe it to be the reality. If anyone tells me that the Labour Party does not do the same, I shall not believe him.
With rolling addendums a different situation will apply. It will be clear month by month which names have been added to or taken off the register. But I understand that the changes made to the register published in the autumn will not be marked. Of course, the names taken off the register cannot be marked; but those added to the register will not be marked either. In the past, people have been able to check new additions to the register to ensure that they are correct and legitimate. The position will be more difficult with rolling registers. It will not be so easy to challenge entries and that is part and parcel of getting the register correct. If one says to the register officer, "Our information is that Mr and Mrs Bloggs do not live at that address. You have that wrong", he can do something about it.
On the major review of the register published on 1st December, there should be an indication as to when a person comes on to the register. We do so already with the dates of birth of 18 year-olds. No one seems to have a problem with that. One's date of birth is known. Eighteen year-olds are like Members of this House: they can never hide their age. I suspect that 18 year-olds are prouder to be their age than some of us are to be our age. Some of us may prefer to draw a veil over our age until, I gather from my mother, one reaches a great old age when one is happy to boast about it.
There is no problem about putting dates of birth alongside names on the register. There would seem to be no problem about entering a mark or a date beside new entrants so that those who check the register can concentrate on the new entrants without having to check the entire register for additions and deletions. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Initially I was somewhat baffled by the amendment. However, having heard the noble Lord's argument, I am a little wiser.
If I explain how the new electoral registration scheme will work, perhaps the noble Lord will feel satisfied with what we seek to do. There will still be an annual canvass conducted in the autumn but, in addition, people will be able to apply to be added to the electoral register throughout the year. This will, of course, be of particular benefit to those who move during the course of a year. That is the principle underlying a rolling register.
Once an electoral registration officer receives an application for registration he will need to consider it and decide whether it meets the prescribed requirements. If it does, he will include the name of the person concerned in the monthly list which he publishes on the 1st of every month (other than the months when the annual canvass is taking place) giving details of the additions to and deletions from his register. At the same time he will add the name of the person concerned to the register.
So the position is quite clear. There will be a monthly list. Names added and deleted will be published in that monthly list. On that basis, it should be clear to everyone how the register is working and
940
how it will apply. Therefore I cannot envisage that the mischief the noble Lord hoped to deal with by the amendment will arise. I should have thought that the publication of the monthly list with additions and deletions would satisfy most of those concerned with and interested in the new register. With that assurance, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Naseby: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask him to clarify one point. At the moment the ANC list appears, if I am correct, at the February date after the October registration. I understand that there will be, in effect, a monthly ANC list. However, is there still to be a summary at the end of the year? Otherwise, I suspect that unless everybody is fully computerised, which a number of smaller, local charities will not be, they will have to go through the whole 12 months and work off the end-year register, whereas at the moment all they have to do is take the summary form in either October or February. I cannot remember when the summary is issued.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not quite sure that I can help the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, this afternoon on that point. My understanding is that the draft register is currently produced in December and the full register is produced in February. What we will have in December, of course, is a full register with the new system, and then additions and deletions thereto. Addressing the point that the noble Lord has raised, my belief is that the new arrangements will probably be more helpful than the current ones to those who have a concerted interest in the register, because the period to which it applies is continuous, rolling and updated, so that all the information will be there at some point during the course of the 12 months.
Lord Naseby: The question that I am asking is whether there will at any point in the year be a summary of all changes in the register, as there now is, or whether the public have to work from 12 individual returns.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that there will not be a summary. They will have to work from the published register in December and then the updated supplementaries to it. That should provide almost up-to-the-minute accuracy. As I have said, I believe that that will be more helpful than the current arrangements.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to my noble friend of intervening. He has spared me the effort of looking in the Bill for something else that I shall not be able to find. The Minister will no doubt be able to help me. My understanding is that a list will be published on the 1st of each month, clearly with the exception of 1st December, because that is the day on which a full list will be published. However, am I not right in thinking that that will apply also to 1st November? My recollection was that only 10 of

941
those lists would go out. I am not sure either about 1st October or 1st January. I had understood that no addendum would be issued on 1st January and 1st November.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My understanding is that apart from the month when the annual canvass takes place and the publication of the register in its December form, there will be monthly updates and supplements to the register.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not disputing the logic of it. I am simply trying to work out which months we are talking about. The canvass is in October, but my recollection is that there is not one on 1st November, nor 'would I expect there to be, quite frankly, because at that stage the main register is being redone. What I cannot remember is whether it is simply 1st November, with the publication of the full register on 1st December, or whether it is 1st October and 1st January, one or other, as well. I can see the logic of 1st October.
However, that is not quite the point that I want to make. The point is that during the months of January, February, March, April, May, June, when we know that there will be a monthly published list of additions and subtractions, it will be easy for people to see who has been put on and who has been taken off. The problem will occur in October and November, when in the 1st December register it will not be easy at all, because there will be no indication. If it is right that there should be a dear indication for nine or 10 months of the year, it would seem sensible that there should be some indication on the 1st December register of who has been added. It is not a state secret. We shall know who has been added in the rolling register as the months of January, February, March and April proceed. Therefore, it would be convenient on 1st December. If the Minister can help my memory with regard to the months when the rolling additions will be published, I will then withdraw the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: There certainly will not be a monthly update in October, and I can advise the noble Lord that neither will there be one in November. If it will help, I shall take on board the point made by the noble Lord in his argument and give it further thought between now and Report stage. I should not like to be held to that, but I shall try to be as helpful as possible.
Lord MacKay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the Minister and I am pleased to hear his assurance that he will look at this. He takes the point, as I am sure all your Lordships do, about new entrants on to the register. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Disfranchisement of offenders detained in mental hospitals]:
Lord Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 11 :
Page 4, line 12, leave out ("or 71").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I also speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 20. These are technical amendments, I hope short ones, to clarify to which categories of persons under Sections 70 and 71 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 the new Sections 3A (Clause 2) and 7A (Clause 5) of this Bill apply.
Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 ensure that under the new Section 3A (Clause 2) a disfranchisement of offenders detained in hospitals in Scotland under Section 71 of the 1984 Act applies to persons serving a prison sentence who have been removed to hospital on mental health grounds.
Amendment No. 20 ensures that the provisions in the new Section 7A about residence of persons remanded in custody apply to those persons awaiting trial who have been transferred from prison to hospital under Section 70 of the 1984 Act and to those persons who are transferred under Section 71 of the 1984 Act from prison, where they are detained under the Immigration Act 1971, to a hospital on mental health grounds. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 4, line 13, after ("1984") insert ("or section 71 of that Act (being a person to whom that section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(a) of that section)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Jopling: May I be allowed one query on Clause 2? I cannot understand the wording on page 4, lines 12 and 13, which, as far as I can understand it, appears to go into the Welsh language. I wonder whether the Minister can help me with this. I shall not attempt to put it in the Welsh language. It refers to the "Mental y yn Health (Scotland) Act 1984". Could we have an explanation of what this is about?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has made a perfectly respectable joke! It is undoubtedly a typographical error. I do not believe that I have ever known "Mental y yn Health". We apologise for this and we will make sure that it is accurate in the next print.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Residence for purposes of registration: general]:
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 5, line 7, after ("purpose") insert (", lawfulness").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 13, I shall speak to a number of related amendments. They are all concerned with the

943
residence for purposes of registration. Members of the Committee will notice that every time that is referred to in the Bill, I have insisted that the lawfulness of the registration be marked as the test. My amendments are designed to ensure that only a lawful residence is a qualification for the purposes of registration. That would greatly help to reduce the risk of fraudulent registration, a problem experienced more in urban areas.
We have no problem with the principle that homeless people should be able to register. Special provision has been made and I shall deal with that later. However, understandably, we want to be sure that that special provision is tight because we want to ensure that there is no abuse of the right.
That change in the law has highlighted the point in Clause 3 to which I want to draw the Committee's attention. What is the position as regards squatters? If someone is squatting at an address, they are not legally supposed to be there. Therefore, they are doing something illegal at that address. Are they then classed as homeless or are they recognised as squatters? Do they come under the residence test or under the later clause relating to homelessness? We must get the position clear. It seems to some of us that if people are staying at an address illegally, they should not be able to register at that address as electors. If we allowed them to do so, we should be encouraging a contravention of the law.
I hope that we shall see much less of homelessness, but it is interesting that after two-and-a-half years of rhetoric all we have seen is an increase. It is not obvious to me, as I go about the streets of London or Glasgow, that there has been any great reduction in homelessness. Therefore, I am not surprised that the Government have decided to give such people a vote. I thought that they were going to remove homeless people from our streets, but trying to give them a vote suggests that they reckon they will fail in meeting that commitment.
Giving homeless people a vote is one thing, but giving people who are squatting illegally a vote on a residency qualification is entirely different. Perhaps the Minister will explain the present position. Do people in a squat have the right to be registered at that address to vote? If so, should that right continue? If they do not, should they be given that right? My amendments would ensure that squatters who are illegally resident in a house would not be able to use that residence as the basis on which they could vote. It is a simple and straightforward issue. I beg to move.
2.47 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I have a problem with the way in which the amendment is framed. I understand that no one wants fraudulent registration, but many squatters have been on the register for many years. In a recent case in Lambeth, it took the High Court many years to determine whether the person was legally at an address.
944
I am particularly worried because the amendment proposes that a person who it is alleged is illegally in the premises should be unable to register or have his or her registration removed. I am not a lawyer and know little about the law, but I believe that squatting is a civil offence and I am worried that we are moving into forbidden realms.
Furthermore, I recall that, in relation to a number of people who were squatting at Greenham Common, the courts decided that they were legally entitled to register at that squat. Therefore, that is another complication which needs examining before we go down this road.
I am worried about the proposal that people who might be legally registered would be removed under the amendment. If they were found to be illegal, surely they would be evicted. The whole problem would then go away because they would no longer be living in the premises and would, unfortunately, come under the homeless category which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, believes is acceptable.
I also have a problem with Amendment No. 93. I cannot believe that anyone in our democracy is suggesting that the police should knock on doors to check whether the residents should be registered there. We would soon have cases, and quite rightly, of police harassment. I wonder whether, in tabling the amendment, the noble Lord has thought through its consequences. I am sure that he would soon be complaining that the police were not doing enough about crime because they were too busy going from door to door checking whether people should be on the electoral register. I hope that he will reconsider both amendments. Certainly, there is a case for ensuring that there is no fraud, but the amendments as they stand are not acceptable legally as well as morally, and I hope that he will withdraw them.
Lord Jopling: I very much hope that my noble friend will not reconsider the amendments because they carry with them a great deal of sense. I fully support them. I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said; that many people illegally occupying squats are already registered. I am indifferent to whether they are or are not, but all we are proposing in the amendments is that they ought not to be.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. Is he saying that it should not be proven that they are illegal before the registration is removed, or that he takes it for granted that they are squatting and that therefore registration should be removed?
Lord Jopling: The noble Baroness took the next words out of my mouth and I am grateful for her prompt. I draw her attention to my Amendment No. 34, which states:
"A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if the lawful owner of the premises at the required address can show that the declarant is occupying that address unlawfully".

945
He would have to show that to the registration officer. In my experience, most registration officers are local council officials and lawyers. They have access to legal advice within local authorities and it would be for the local council to satisfy itself that the owner of the property had shown that there was an illegal occupation. I imagine that it would then be open to the person illegally occupying the premises to appeal to the court. However, it is important that the owners of properties which are illegally occupied, having discovered that the occupants have registered on the electoral roll, should have the opportunity of going to the registration officer and saying, "Look, these people are occupying my property illegally. Here are the deeds which demonstrate that I am the owner. Come round with me and I shall show you the people who are occupying my property and show that I can't get rid of them. What else need I do to show you that my property is being occupied unlawfully?".
I hope that my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish will not mind my saying this, but I believe that my amendment is one of the most important in this group. I hope that the noble Baroness feels that this particular amendment provides a satisfactory way of demonstrating to a registration officer, through the legal advice which is at his disposal, that this situation occurs, that it ought not to occur, and that such registration should be removed.
Lord Goodhart: We on these Benches regard this group of amendments as mean-spirited and, indeed, frankly absurd. As we know, squatting is a trespass but not a crime, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, quite rightly said. Of course, this amendment applies not only to squatters. It applies, for example, to people who have taken possession of property perfectly lawfully, or people whose tenancies have been terminated but who remain in occupation because that gives them a better chance of being rehoused. We all know that that is a very common practice. Until the court makes a possession order and they leave, they are occupying that property unlawfully. Therefore, they, too, will be disfranchised.
However, the main point is that we should not, without good cause, deprive people of their civil rights, including the right to vote, which is one of the most important of those rights. Detention in prison after conviction is plainly a good cause. But why should squatters be deprived of their vote? They have not committed a breach of the criminal law. They are simply trespassing on someone else's property, and that seems to me to fall far short of anything that would justify depriving them of the right to vote.
How does one prove that someone is an unlawful squatter? Of course, many squats now are lawful because they are licensed. Where they are not, there are fast-track powers for removal by court order. With all respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said about Amendment No. 34, I believe that most owners will be much too busy getting the squatters out of their property to bother to look at the electoral register and to go to the registration officer to make sure that the
946
squatters do not get a vote. That is not what the owners are interested in; they are interested in getting back their property.
Finally, and worst of all, Amendment No. 93 proposes that everyone who applies for a vote on the basis of a declaration of local connection will be checked by the police. That does not apply to people who register not by virtue of a declaration of local connection but because they are squatters who register as residents. Amendment No. 93 does not apply to them. However, the police will have to check everyone who is homeless and makes a declaration of local connection. What a waste of valuable and short police time. Coming from the party which always claims to be particularly strong on law and order, I must say that I find that completely ridiculous.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: In my view, these amendments confuse two important issues: on the one hand, the unlawful occupation of property; on the other, the right to register and to vote. I believe that those two issues should be kept separate. I have read the amendments and given the matter some thought over the weekend. I have also read some press reports on the issue of squatters and voters. One would imagine that the Government are about to introduce a law which gives squatters the right to vote. It is clear, and has been apparent for a long time, that squatters have always had the right to vote. This amendment seeks simply to take away that right.
However, this is a broader issue. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made the case perfectly well. These amendments are in danger of leading us into an oppressive situation. Frankly, I believe that noble Lords opposite are in danger of being accused of wasting police time: sending police officers round in the middle of the night to check whether someone is bona fide for electoral purposes seems to me to be somewhat heavy-handed.
Who is to say ultimately whether or not someone occupies property lawfully? In circumstances where someone is licensed to occupy premises, there may be some uncertainty. It may well be the case that someone's tenancy has come to a conclusion and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, they are attempting to exercise their rights as a homeless person and seek accommodation from a local authority. Therefore, I believe that these are heavy-handed amendments and, for the reasons which I have given, I believe that they should be rejected.
It is clear that the party opposite is, again, trying to narrow access and the civil right to the franchise. I cannot believe that that is right and proper. In general with this legislation, we are trying to make it easier for people to vote and to exercise their civil rights. That is the system which we have always had. We are trying to open up access and to create a more inclusive society. That is the purpose of this legislation: to bolster, and to give greater confidence to, our electoral system. It seems to me that, in these amendments, Conservative Members are trying to close that down. That cannot be right and it cannot be good for local democracy. We should be encouraging

947
people to register and to exercise their right to vote. Whether they are lawful or unlawful occupants of a property is neither here nor there. That is a separate issue to be tackled. The noble Lord was a member of the government who did just that. In the past, Labour governments have attempted to close down opportunities for the illegal occupation of property. However, as I say, that is a separate issue.
I believe that in principle we should give people the right to vote and that we should try to extend that wherever possible. This legislation attempts to do that. I believe that noble Lords opposite are trying to create a kind of "squatter shock horror" story where it does not exist. I believe that they should consider most carefully before they move amendments, particularly those such as Amendment No. 93. I suggest to noble Lords opposite that they should reconsider their position and withdraw the amendments.
The Earl of Onslow: I suspect that the noble Lord may be able to help us more than most members of the Government Front Bench on this particular issue. When one receives one's voting paper to fill in, in squatter households how is the head of the household described?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is for those who live in that household to determine that issue. I have never had to fill in a form and it is a long time since I have been in that position. However, I believe that we are discussing the important issue of someone's right to vote, and that is the issue on which we should concentrate. I believe that noble Lords opposite are trying to narrow that right and access to it. That is regrettable.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The real issue here is that the clause is headed "Residence … general". It refers to residence for the purposes of registration. It seems to me perfectly pertinent to ask whether the residence is legal or illegal. In an impassioned defence of the Government's position, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that, from the point of view of registration, it did not matter if someone trespassed on someone else's property. However, it is precisely because they are trespassing on that property that they are asking for registration to vote. It is not unrelated to the fact that they are there illegally. They are saying, "Here I am. I want the right to vote from here".
Therefore, I do not believe that we have received an entirely satisfactory response. I believe that it is a little exaggerated to conjure up pictures of police being sent round in the middle of the night. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said that it is difficult to evict squatters. That, indeed, seems to be the case, particularly people who are squatters for political reasons as, for example, is the case at Faslane nuclear base in Scotland. It seems amazing that it should be suggested that they are legally entitled to a vote if they are in a squat of that nature.
5 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Does the noble
948
Lord not accept that it was a court of law which allowed the Greenham women in a similar situation to register and vote?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: It may well have been, but I do not agree with that decision any more than I agree with the recent decision at Greenock sheriff court which said that three women who had vandalised property of the British Government at Faslane nuclear base were guilty of no offence at all. That was an amazing decision. I presume that the Government whom the noble Baroness supports have also decided that it is an amazing decision because they have decided to appeal against that decision. Sheriffs are not infallible and can make wrong decisions as, indeed, I think the Government would agree the sheriff at Greenock has done.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Does the noble Lord accept that if we were to deprive people of the right to vote in the way in which his amendment suggests, we might also begin to fall foul of the European Convention on Human Rights? Does he not believe that that is an important consideration in these matters?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The Government should not tempt me down the road of the European Convention on Human Rights because, for the third time in just about as many months, the Government are about to be found wanting in Scotland for having legislation which infringes that convention. Frankly, we shall have severe difficulty with those decisions if they stand up in the appeal courts.
That was not a good point to make on a day when I gather that the whole system of children's panels in Scotland, which we have heard being lauded on many occasions, may be found, to my mind in a quite crazy way, to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. It will be amazing if that convention becomes the tool by which that excellent method of dealing with young juveniles who have committed crimes must be changed adversely because of that decision.
I digress principally because the noble Lord invited me to be careful of the convention on human rights. I suggest that he should take that warning back to his friends in government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 5, line 10, leave out ("for example.").
The noble Lord said: My amendment seeks to leave out the words "for example". Much as I have searched, I do not believe that I have ever found before in legislation the words "for example". I have asked a fair number of my noble friends and they too are fairly puzzled. I suggest that it is an extremely bad example

949
to set. I suggest that the Government should accept my amendment and delete those words so that the clause reads without the words "for example". I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the reasoning behind the amendment. I hope that I can reassure him.
It is a long-standing principle that electoral registration officers determine who is resident in their area and, therefore, who may be entered on their electoral register. In the overwhelming majority of cases, that is a straightforward exercise. It is quite a simple matter of fact whether or not a person is living at a particular address.
But there is also a grey area. There are cases, perhaps involving people who are only temporarily in residence, which are less clear cut. In such cases, registration officers must reach a judgment. They must decide whether they are satisfied that a name should appear on the register. To make that decision, they must take account of knowledge of the circumstances, common sense and, indeed, the considerable volume of case law which now exists on this question.
Registration officers must also take account of whatever guidance the relevant legislation gives and the words of new Section 5(2) of the 1983 Act are to be inserted by Clause 3 and appear at line 10 on page 5. They are there to help them. But—this is the crucial point—the words in the Bill are not the only factor which must be taken into account. If local knowledge leads the registration officer to believe strongly that there should be a different decision, he should clearly do what he thinks right. Equally, if a court decision were to suggest that a different decision should be reached, we should expect that to be followed.
The words in the Bill are simply one of the factors which must be taken into account. That is why they are qualified by "for example". I trust that with that explanation, the noble Lord will see fit to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am puzzled by this. What do the words "for example" do? With respect, I do not believe that the Minister has explained that. It really had not crossed my mind, until my noble friend was speaking, that "for example" is rat her unusual in statute law. If my noble friend is quite wrong about that, I am sure that the Minister will correct him immediately and say that "for example" appears frequently in many Bills and Acts of Parliament.
I have the impression that that is not the case. I do not quite know what a court of law would make of those words when it came to interpreting the will of Parliament. It would be a very odd idea if, in legislating, the government of the day were to illustrate what is meant by examples in the wording of the Bill. The Minister would be well advised to take this back to his legal advisers and ask them what they mean by it and what is its value.
Lord Borrie: I do not know whether it will help the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, but I recall that in the
950
Consumer Credit Act 1974, there is a whole schedule—if not more than one schedule—in which, deliberately, the draftsman has given examples of factual situations to which certain basic provisions of the Act apply. Most people looking at that legislation have found it extremely helpful.
I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that it is an unusual situation. But being unusual is one thing; being unhelpful is another. As I say, most people thought that that example was extremely helpful.
I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, has tabled further amendments which I have not yet noticed, but if the words "for example'. are omitted, it does not make sense because the words following the words "for example" are simply an example of the words which precede them. I should have thought that that was helpful rather than otherwise, even if unusual.
Lord Naseby: In his answer, the Minister did not differentiate between primary and secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is right that it is not unusual to find "for example" in a schedule. But as one who in another place was responsible for five years for secondary legislation, I am mystified as to why the Law Officers have recommended that there should be a "for example" in this primary legislation.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Surely a schedule is part of primary legislation. It is part of the Bill.
Lord Naseby: It may be, but this is not in a schedule. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time that we have seen it in a clause of a Bill. My noble friend on the Front Bench is asking why this has appeared in primary legislation in a clause. Is it on advice from the Law Officers that that is to be the way forward now in the new age, or is it that it has just appeared as an example? It will be incredibly difficult for the courts to interpret those matters. I suggest that the Minister should either tell the Committee that the Law Officers are recommending that it should be done in primary rather than secondary legislation for reasons given; or that they are not. Perhaps if we had an answer to that, we should accept it.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am very glad to have provoked the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, to his feet because I am always interested to hear his contributions. But on this occasion he did rather invalidate the point he was making by quoting a schedule. I was asking whether there is a section of an Act of Parliament which uses those words "for example". If that is the case, I shall be very interested and I shall have had an educative day, which I do not always have. I am sure that my noble friend is correct to say that it is highly unusual to use these words in a clause. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Lord will say so and I shall then be happy to withdraw my argument. However, if my noble friend is right, I believe that the Minister ought to look again at the advisability of using such a form of words here.

951
Given the huge volume of legislation that churns its way through Parliament, drafting is not usually famous for being immaculate. Indeed, it can be rather uneven and spotty.
The Earl of Onslow: I regret that the reply given by the Minister rather missed the point made by my noble friend. Either this is a new departure in legislation—and if it is a new departure, then why has it been done?—or the words have been put in only because someone thought they ought to put them in just for fun. We all know that such mistakes can happen. All we are asking for here is clarity and precedent. If precedent is to be broken, it should be broken for a reason. The Minister's response did not even attempt to respond to that point.
Will the Minister please answer the following two questions? First, is my noble friend right when he says that this form of words is unprecedented? Secondly, if he is right, why has it been put into the Bill? If the Minister does not know the answers to those questions, could he take them away and find out?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am puzzled by most of the Minister's reply. I thought that I had attempted to delete lines 10 to 14. However, it appears that I have not done so and that they would remain in the Bill. Indeed, they are qualified by the beginning of subsection (2) where it states,
"Regard shall be had, in particular".
When I was a Government Minister I recall that I had to make the point constantly that I was reluctant to give examples because it then would be assumed that anything else would not be an example and would not fall within the scope of the legislation. For that reason, I find the use of the words "for example" most odd. Removing the words would not change the meaning of the following subsection; indeed, nothing would be changed.
When, nearly two hours ago, I suggested that certain unnecessary words should be removed from the Bill, the Minister persuaded me that I should not attempt to do it because of the Maastricht Treaty. I have now had an opportunity to look at the first Maastricht Treaty and it appears, so far as concerns the first treaty, that the position as the Minister explained it would not be the case. However, it may well be the case as regards the second Maastricht Treaty.
I do not believe that we should return to this matter, but I think that it is an important point. Why put in the words "for example" when there is no indication that they have been used elsewhere in primary legislation? They add nothing to the meaning of this part of the Bill. For that reason, I shall seek the opinion of the Committee.
5.13 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 14) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 134.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aldington, L.

Jopling, L.

Alexander of Weedon, L.

Luke, L.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Lyell, L.

Astor of Hever,L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Biffen, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Blatch,B.

Monson, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Montrose, D.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bumham, L. [Teller]

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Buscombe, B.

Naseby, L.

Byford,B.

Northesk, E.

Caithness, E.

O'Cathain, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Onslow, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Palmer, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Courtown, E.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Rawlings, B.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Rees. L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rees-Mogg, L.

Elliott of Morpeth,L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Ferrers,E.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Fookes, B.

Seccombe, B.

Gardner of Partes,B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Geddes,L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Glentoran, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hanham, B

Stewartby, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Swinfen, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Tenby, V.

Hogg, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hooper, B.

Vivian, L.

Howe, E.

Weatherill, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Dholakia, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Diamond, L.

Amos, B.

Dixon, L.

Archer of Sand well, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Dubs, L.

Bach, L.

Eatwell, L.

Barnett, L.

Elder, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Blackstone, B.

Falkland, V.

Blease, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Borrie, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Filkin, L.

Bragg, L.

Gale,B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gavron, L.

Brookman, L.

Geraint, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Burlison, L.

Goodhart, L.

Carlile of Berriew, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Goudie, B.

Christopher, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Gregson, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Hardy of Wath,L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Crawley, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Currie of Marylebone, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

David, B.

Harrison, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Hayman, B.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Desai, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

953

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Howells of St Davids, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Howie of Troon, L.

Rea,L.

Hoyle, L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Rennard, L

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Richard, L.

Islwyn, L.

Russell, E.

Jeger, B,

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Sandberg, L

King of West Bromwich, L.

Sawyer, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Levy, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Lipsey, L.

Shepherd, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L

Simon, V.

Longford, E.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill,B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

[Teller]

Stone of Blackheath, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, E>.

Strabolgi, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

McNally, L.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Maddock, B.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mallalieu, B

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Thornton, B

Tomlinson,L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tope, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Tordoff,L.

Methuen, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Uddin, B.

Mishcon, L.

Varley, L.

Molloy. L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Whitty,L.

Orme, L.

Wilkins, B.

Paul, L.

Williams of Elvel,L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.22 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 5, line 32, at end insert—
("() Subsection (3) above shall apply in relation to a person's absence by reason of his attendance on a course provided by an educational institution as it applies in relation to a person's absence in the performance of any duty such as is mentioned in that subsection.").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 17 and 120 and part of Amendment No. 140 are designed to rectify an anomaly. Students now routinely obtain absent votes, even though, strictly speaking, the law does not include attendance at an educational establishment as one of the grounds on which an absent vote may be granted.
We should be doing everything we can to enable this group of electors, particularly young electors, to vote. Allowing students who are studying at an establishment some distance from their parental home to vote by proxy is one way of doing so. I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that this is something which they should continue to be able to do.
The amendments, therefore, simply allow for attendance at an educational establishment to be included as ground for obtaining a proxy vote. Postal votes will, of course, in future be available to all.
Amendments Nos. 131, 137, 138, 139, 142 and the rest of Amendment No. 140 are purely technical. They are consequential on the decision of the Scottish Parliament that provisions on absent voting in Scottish local elections should be included in the Bill. That is a matter with which we shall deal in more depth when we reach Amendments Nos. 118 and 119. A consequence of this is that references to local government elections in Sections 5 to 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1985 can be repealed as they will apply only to Northern Ireland but not to local elections. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Residence: patients in mental hospitals who are not detained offenders or on remand]:
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, leave out lines 3 to 9 and insert—
("(3) A person registered in a register of electors in pursuance of an application for registration made by virtue of subsection (2) above is entitled to remain so registered until—

(a) the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or

(b) another entry made in respect of him in any register of electors takes effect (whether or not in pursuance of an application made by virtue of subsection (2)),

whichever first occurs.
(3A) Where the entitlement of such a person to remain so registered terminates by virtue of subsection (3) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered in pursuance of a further application made by virtue of subsection (2).").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 18, tabled in the name of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 37, 62 and 73.
The amendments are technical in nature. It is hoped that they will serve purposes which will be appreciated by the Committee. They either make matters explicit on the face of the Bill rather than leave them to be settled in secondary legislation or simplify the drafting of the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 bring Clauses 4 and 5, which provide for the registration of mental patients and remand prisoners, into line with the new Section 7C, which is inserted by Clause 6 of the Bill. The effect of the amendments is to make entitlement to be registered for a 12-month period explicit on the face of the Bill as opposed to being included in regulations.
Amendments Nos. 37, 62 and 73 simplify the drafting. They relate to registration by means of a declaration of local connection by service voters (Amendment No. 62, to Schedule 1) and overseas voters (Amendment No. 73, to Schedule 2). I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 [Residence: persons remanded in custody etc.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 6, leave out lines 41 to 47 and insert—
("(3) A person registered in a register of electors in pursuance of an application for registration made by virtue of subsection (2) above is entitled to remain so registered until—

(a) the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the date when the entry in the register first takes effect, or

(b) another entry made in respect of him in any register of electors takes effect (whether or not in pursuance of an application made by virtue of subsection (2)),

whichever first occurs.
(3A) Where the entitlement of such a person to remain so registered terminates by virtue of subsection (3) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register, unless he is entitled to remain registered in pursuance of a further application made by virtue of subsection (2).").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 15, leave out from ("order") to end of line 16 and insert ("under section 70 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or a transfer direction under section 71 of that Act made in respect of a person to whom that section applies by virtue of subsection (2)(c) of that section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 21:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—

REGISTRATION AND VOTING RIGHTS OF ASYLUM SEEKERS
(". After section 7A of the 1983 Act (as inserted by section 5 above) there shall be inserted—
"Registration and voting rights of asylum seekers.
7AA. A person who claims political asylum in the United Kingdom but has not been given leave to remain shall not be entitled to register to vote, or vote, until and unless he is granted such leave."").
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 21, tabled in my name, seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to try to clarify the position with regard to asylum seekers and whether or not they have the right to vote in this country. Indeed, in some ways this relates back to the first group of amendments debated today. Asylum seekers can be divided into two groups: those from a non-Commonwealth country and those from a Commonwealth country.
I have little doubt that those coming from a non-Commonwealth country do not have the right to vote in this country, nor will any provision in the Bill give them the right so to vote. However, I should like confirmation of that.
I am not so certain of the position as regards asylum seekers from Commonwealth countries. If one refers back to the first debate we had this afternoon, one must assume that such people will have the right to
956
vote while they are here claiming asylum and before their cases are decided. As Members of the Committee will know, that can sometimes take a long time.
I imagine that when legislation began on rights to vote, this was not much of a problem. Indeed, in 1983 and 1985 when changes were made to the Representation of the People Acts it was probably not much of a problem either. But the position has worsened, if by that one means the number of people who arrive here asking for asylum and the length of time they wait until that decision is made. The Committee will know from previous exchanges in this Chamber that the position is now much worse than it has probably ever been. My figures date only from 1994, and the situation is certainly worse than it has been in the past decade or so.
The last government, thanks to some measures I piloted through your Lordships' Chamber, got the figures down to 29,640 applicants in 1996 and during the course of 1997 they went up to 32,500. That is probably not terribly significant, but they then went to 46,000 in 1998 and, as we know, in 1999 the figures exceeded 71,000. Many of those people have to stay in this country for a considerable time before a final decision is made on their application, one of the problems being that the appeals procedure is extraordinarily lengthy.
I had experience of the procedure as a Minister and find it hard to believe that Mr Jack Straw will be able to deal expeditiously with the Afghan asylum applicants who arrived at Stansted. While the Home Office may deal with them swiftly—a change from the way it deals with the usual applicant—if they get into the legal system of appeals and counter appeals it will take a considerable time before a final decision is taken. In fact, I wager that most of those people will be here for so long that they will eventually be granted exceptional leave to remain.
But that is beside the point. The number of asylum seekers who come to this country—a measure of the way Britain is perceived thanks to what this Government have said—is a problem. Of course, the Afghan asylum seekers are not eligible to vote while they are asylum seekers. They would be eligible to vote only if they were granted asylum. I am not sure what happens if they are given exceptional leave to remain and perhaps the Minister can help. Is someone from a non-Commonwealth country who is granted exceptional leave to remain allowed to register and vote in this country?
The important point is what happens when asylum seekers come into this country from Commonwealth countries. Are they allowed to vote while they remain asylum seekers? If so, we are literally facing two different ways. We have not come to a conclusion whether they should be allowed to stay in this country, yet we allow them to vote in this country. We must try to bring some logic—I believe it is called "joined-up government"—between one piece of legislation and another.
The other problem is, if asylum seekers are allowed to vote, does it mean that there will be a concentration of them voting, for example, in a constituency like

957
Dover, which has been badly hit by the number of asylum seekers who end up there? I cannot quite understand how they get there without going through another member state of the European Union, but we can leave that to one side.
The question is that, if it had not been an Afghan plane at Stansted, but instead, for instance, the Indian hijacked plane of a few weeks ago which ended up on the tarmac at Stansted, and people on that plane had applied for asylum and been removed to Moreton-in-the-Marsh, would they have been allowed to register to vote as Common wealth citizens? I have to be clear about this and at the risk of being accused by the Liberal Democrats of being hard-hearted, I do not feel that asylum seekers should have the right to vote in this country. That right should come to those who are eventually granted asylum. I am open to argument in relation to exceptional leave to remain and will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in that regard.
This Bill gives us an opportunity to clarify the situation with regard to the legal positions on the right to register and vote in this country, and if we feel like tidying them up, there is nothing wrong with doing that; after all, the Government will claim—and rightly in the case of the clause on people in mental institutions, on remand prisoners and on the homeless— that that is exactly what they are doing. We are entitled to look at other issues surrounding the right to vote and to ask the questions I have just asked. I look forward to clarification from the Minister, and on that basis, I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be a little surprised that I believe he raises an important issue which certainly needs clarification. I have a good deal of sympathy with what he says.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We will no doubt be in a happy condition after this discussion. This will be a rarity, if not an unknown situation.
It seems only fair to answer the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, for starters. In relation to asylum seekers, the situation is pretty much as he said. Non-Commonwealth asylum seekers do not have the right to vote and this Bill will not confer any such rights—let us be absolutely clear about that. With regard to those granted exceptional leave to remain, they will not be able to vote unless and until they are granted citizenship. So the answer is clear on that issue also.
I can be brief in responding to the further points made by the noble Lord. I shall not go into endless reams of statistics on the asylum issue; that is not a debate for today, though it would, I am sure, be interesting. We have already discussed the Commonwealth citizens in this country and the fact that they are allowed to vote in our elections. That is just as it should be and we have no plans to change the situation. I accept that the position of people whose
958
status is uncertain is rather different and I clarified the two points there. Accordingly, I should like to explore the possibility of drafting an amendment to the Bill which will achieve the same effect as Amendment No. 21 and explore with electoral administrators whether or not it will be enforceable in practice. That is an important question and we will need to consult with them as to how the effect of the amendment may be best achieved.
We have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It is going in the right direction and I hope that, with my undertaking, all corners of the Chamber will be satisfied and the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment this afternoon.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am not sure that this is going to do my reputation any good at all. Not only is the Minister saying he has sympathy with the proposal, but also the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has some sympathy. One must accept these things with good grace, and I do. I am pleased to hear the Minister's assurance that he will look at this and I am sure he accepts that it is an unusual amalgam No doubt 20 or 30 years ago nobody bothered too much about it because it was not an issue. But I am grateful to him for saying that he will take it away and look at it, and I look forward to hearing from him either by letter or by an amendment at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Notional residence: declarations of local connection]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 7, line 39, after ("not") insert (", for the purposes of section 4 above,").
The noble Lord said: This group contains technical amendments and I shall endeavour to provide a brief explanation of them and not detain the Committee too long.
Amendments Nos. 22 and 23 clarify the point that residence needs to be construed in accordance with Section 4. Amendment No. 39 reflects the fact that under rolling legislation an electoral register lasts indefinitely rather than for a year, as is presently the case, which means that removal of names from the register becomes necessary. Amendment No. 40 excludes prisoners on remand who are detained other than at a penal institution or mental hospital from the need to conduct a canvass.
Amendment No. 42 is a drafting amendment designed to give greater emphasis to the point that the power to alter the electoral register derives from the new Section 10A.
I turn now to Amendment No. 44, which is tabled under two names on the Marshalled List. That combination may have raised some eyebrows during noble Lords' deliberations. As we have demonstrated this afternoon, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and I are perhaps something of an "odd couple". I suspect that our motives in seeking to remove the words on page 19 of the Bill may be a little different. I should like

959
to explain why the Government seek to do so, before explaining why what I believe to be the noble Lord's reasons for so doing are wrong.
Our reason for wanting to delete the power in new Section 10(7) of the 1983 Act is that the power reappears as new subsection (7) of new Section 10A, which is to be inserted by Amendment No. 46. The power of removal will appear as new Section 10A(6), and new Section 10A(7) qualifies that power. I hope that noble Lords managed to follow that explanation. The power in question is the one to make regulations enabling registration officers to keep names on the electoral register for a year in cases where the electoral registration form has not been returned.
It is an unfortunate fact that every year a large number of households fail to return their electoral registration form. As we know, electoral registration officers are assiduous creatures who chase missing forms, often paying several visits to the properties concerned. But, even then, there are some properties from which no information is forthcoming. A practice has evolved in such circumstances of keeping existing names on the register for a year, and sometimes longer, in the absence of any evidence that the people concerned have moved away.
We believe that that is right. In cases of uncertainty, the decision should always be to keep people on the register rather than disfranchising them. We believe that to be an important democratic principle. The Bill will simply put existing practice on a statutory footing and, at the same time, make it clear that names should be kept on the register for only a single year. I am sorry that the Opposition want to remove this provision, as to do so could result in denying people the right to vote.
Amendment No. 45 allows for someone who has changed address in the same area, and who is not on the register in respect of his or her new address, to be added to the register in respect of that address, as a result of the annual canvass.
Amendment No. 46 adds a new subsection to Section 10A, which concerns preparation of electoral registers. New subsection (5) makes provision as to the time at which an entitlement to be registered ceases. New subsection (6) requires the registration officer to remove a person falling within subsection (5). New subsection (7) qualifies that power. New subsection (8) disapplies these provisions in respect of those whose entitlement to be registered lasts for only 12 months. Amendment No. 48 is consequential on Amendment No. 46.
Amendment No. 51 simplifies new Section 13A(1)(a) because Amendment No. 46 defines the word "determines" as,
"determines in accordance with regulations".
Amendment No. 52 combines paragraphs (b) and (c) of new Section 13A(1) to deal with removal of names from the register generally. This will cover not only removal under new Section 10A(6), but also removal when a 12-month period of entitlement expires.
Amendments Nos. 64 and 141 reflect the fact that under new Section 1(1)(a) entitlement to vote depends on being registered in the constituency concerned. Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 are consequential on those amendments. Amendment No. 72 provides for the evidential effect of a registration officer's certificate that a person was—or was not—registered at a particular time. Amendment No. 74 is necessary because provisions relating to the registration of overseas electors are now contained solely in the 1985 Act. Amendments No. 75 and 76 are consequential on Amendment No. 64. They remove provisions relating to the effect of Section 49 from new Sections 2 and 3 of the 1985 Act. Amendment No. 79 applies Amendment No. 72 for the purposes of local elections in Northern Ireland.
I am sorry to have spoken at such length, but this group contains a large number of amendments. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I suppose that, initially, some Members of the Committee thought that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, and I were absolutely on the same wave-length when they noticed our names attached to the same amendment. However, as the noble Lord very fairly pointed out, we are probably approaching the matter from entirely different directions. Indeed, we have probably ended up in quite different places. The noble Lord seeks to remove subsection (7) and to replace it with some alternative words; I have also sought to remove that subsection, but do not propose to replace it with any alternative words.
We are in a new situation with regard to the register. It is now not just a once-a-year exercise; it is a rolling register, which means that the electoral position will not be frozen for a whole year—indeed, for more than a year, as is really the case—but will roll on month to month. There will be a bit of a freeze in October and November, but that is all. Therefore, the question of removing names from the register becomes even more important. Moreover, it is also important if one is to judge the success of all the changes that we are now considering.
To put it simply, if an electoral register contains 100 names and 60 people vote, it is very obvious that a 60 per cent turn-out has been achieved. However, if 10 of those 100 names could not vote even if they wanted to—perhaps because they were dead or because they had moved away—but, nevertheless, remained on the register, the turn-out would look a staggering 66.66 per cent, which, on the face of it, might be claimed by the Government to be a great success as regards some other experiment being conducted. In fact, it would not be anything of the kind; it would simply be a reflection that we should not determine turn-out based just on the electoral register because it is not wholly accurate.

961
It may seem odd if I pray in aid some words of the party opposite, the Liberal Democrat Party and the Scottish National Party over the 20 years after 1979. Those noble Lords who remember these events will recall that there was a hurdle in the Welsh and Scottish referendums in 1979 (imposed by a Labour MP in the other place) of 40 per cent of those registered to vote. There was much argument beforehand, much argument at the time and there has been much argument since about the unfairness involved because, many people on the register on which that 40 per cent was based were either dead or had moved away to such an extent that they could not possibly vote there.
Therefore, the number on the register—the denominator—is a very important factor, not just for ensuring that everyone who can vote is on the register; but also for ensuring that everyone who can no longer vote is removed from the register at the first available opportunity.
Although my next piece of information is fairly "old hat", I do not believe that the situation will have changed. In fact, I suspect that it may possibly have got worse because the mobility of population, and so on, has actually increased over the past 20 years, or so, since the House of Commons Select Committee on Home Affairs inquired into the Representation of the People Act in 1982 and 1983. At that time, the annual survey of the methods of compiling the electoral register carried out by the Office of Population Censuses & Surveys included data to the extent on which EROs (electoral registration officers) carry forward names from one register to the next.
The 1990 survey showed that 6 per cent of all EROs do not carry forward at all; 50 per cent carry forward only if there is good supporting evidence—and, of those, 7 per cent believe that "carried forward with good evidence" is, in effect, a policy of not carrying forward at all; 18 per cent carry forward for one year only; 6 per cent carry forward for two years only; and 20 per cent carry forward for three years or more. That really means that 44 per cent of all EROs carry forward most or all of the names in the absence of any good supporting evidence to the contrary. That is a fairly staggering number of names being carried forward. It is now time to ask whether that is sensible. Later in the Committee stage I shall propose that the electoral registration officer uses some of the tools that I believe are to hand in order to make sure that the register is up to date. I shall speak about those proposals when we reach them.
The point at issue here is that the Government, in seeking to remove subsection (7) that we have discussed and reinstating it in another form, are not dealing with the problem of carrying names forward when there is no justification for that. If we want the register to be an accurate, rolling reflection of who is entitled to vote, we must take all possible steps to ensure that people's names are not carried forward year after year when they have made no attempt—perhaps because they are no longer able to make such an attempt—to fill in the form and send it back. They may simply not be there any more. It is slipshod to allow that situation to continue in the future when our
962
objective is to try to make the register as accurate as possible to ensure that as many people as possible vote and to ensure that we know exactly what the turn-out is. It should not be measured against a register which may be in part fictional, but should be measured against a register which is as accurate as possible.
While, initially, I was pleased to note that the noble Lord had added his name to my amendment. I rapidly detected that he was not going as far as I would have wished. I regret that the Government have not taken more vigorous steps in this regard. However. I shall reserve most of my fire for later when I shall make some helpful suggestions as to how they may be able to improve the clearing of the register.
Baroness Hanham: I support the comments of my noble friend on this matter. I live in a central London borough. Many London boroughs have an annual population turnover of about 33 to 34 per cent. In some wards in my borough the figure is as high as 40 per cent. It is therefore extremely important that those who have left are taken off the register as soon as possible; otherwise, the register is meaningless. I support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We are certainly an odd couple. However, I am warming to this odd couple. It is a relationship that could go far.
I return to the subject in hand. On balance we have tried to recognise in part the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. It cannot be right that names remain on the register year after year after year. We believe that there is a balance to be struck here. We believe that a period of a year is about right. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, makes a good point in this regard. She will probably recall that I was the leader of Brighton and Hove Council. As in the noble Baroness's own good borough, we have wards in Brighton and Hove which have phenomenal population turnovers in the course of a year. I believe that one of those wards had a turnover of 60 per cent. In those circumstances it is hard to keep track of people's movements. Often they shift simply to the flat next door or to another street.
However, I believe that it is right to enable registration officers to keep names on the list for a further year. That is in part what our amendments seek to achieve. I believe that by clarifying the matter and providing a cut-off—a cap, if you like—we have struck the right balance. However, I understand the point that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, have made. Although our opinions may diverge with regard to what should happen to the amendment that stands in both our names, we share a concern to make the register accurate. In his usual entertaining manner the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, made some good points on the need for an accurate register. However, I trust that with those comments he will feel happy with what we are trying to do.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 23 not moved.]
Lord Jopling Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 8, line 23, at end insert—
("( ) the nature of previous registration and the address at which he was previously registered").
The noble Lord said: This amendment is an example of my desire to find ways to extend the opportunity for people to register and to vote, but at the same time to try to avoid as far as possible unnecessary abuses. That is what Amendments Nos. 24, 32 and 33, which stand in my name, are designed to achieve.
Clause 6 deals with the thorny matter of local connection. As my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, he has no objection to extending the opportunity to vote to homeless people. I do not object to the concept of local connection. However, it is an important new feature of our electoral law which we ought to consider extremely carefully as the creation of this concept of local connection gives rise to wide opportunities for abuse. I am sorry that the Minister has not been a little more understanding about the anxieties that I and others have had with regard to the danger of abuse in this area. When he replies to the amendment I hope that he will recognise that there are opportunities for abuse in this area. I hope that he will agree with me that it is essential to do everything possible to try to avoid that.
One can imagine that it is not impossible that people could appear apparently from nowhere and register multiple local connections in marginal constituencies at the time of by-elections or general elections. That is certainly what I am afraid of and what we need to safeguard against. I have drafted these amendments with a view to meeting that situation. I hope that the amendments achieve a variety of constructive objectives with regard to reducing the temptation to abuse the system.
I turn to Amendment No. 33. In my view, a potential elector should declare a local connection personally at the registration officer's office. The applicant should be required at that stage to produce proof of his identity. I am most anxious to be fair to potential voters. I have asked myself whether it is unreasonable to insist on that condition of personal appearance at the registration officer's office and proof of identity. However, I do not honestly believe that it is. I do not think that it should prove to be a problem. One of the conditions of a homeless person registering a local connection is to give an undertaking that he will be able to go to that office to pick up electoral documents. Therefore a homeless person who declares a local connection may well have to go to that office in the circumstances of an election. If he is prepared to collect that correspondence from that office—he has to say so—I do not think it is unreasonable that he should be invited to go there to register.
Nor, I believe, can it be unreasonable to suggest that homeless people, or anyone else trying to produce a local connection, should be asked to produce some form of identification. I cannot believe that people
964
who wanted to vote could not provide some kind of identification, whether it be a pension book, unemployment document or something of that nature. I do not think that that is unreasonable.
In cases where they cannot identify themselves at all as to who they are and what their names are, it is difficult to understand why they should be allowed to register to vote. It is difficult to justify cases where people who are unable to identify themselves should be allowed to vote; clearly that would be a potential source of electoral abuse.
Turning to Amendment No. 24, I believe that potential voters declaring a local connection should say when they register where and when they were previously registered. That would help. I shall come on to this point shortly when I move to my next group of amendments. It may be that a homeless person seeking to establish a local connection would say "I was never previously registered". While that should not be a bar to people going on the register, they should be asked where and when they were previously registered. If they say that they have never been registered, I am not for a moment saying that they should not be put on the register, but at least the registration officer would be making some effort to find out the background of potential voters to ensure that there were not multiple applications. That would be some guard against abuses.
Amendment No. 32 seeks to require that at the point of registration persons wishing to establish a local connection should, when they go to register, be given a certificate by the registration officer. Such a certificate would verify their registration. Potential voters would be required to prescribe their signatures on the certificate in order that it could be presented at a polling station to verify that the person claiming the local connection was properly who he said he was.
I know that this lays conditions additional to those in the Bill on people seeking to establish a local connection. As I said earlier, I have asked myself repeatedly whether they are unreasonable conditions. I do not think that they are. There are justifiable suspicions that abuses of the electoral system could arise. That a person seeking to establish a local connection should be asked to identify himself or herself with a certificate from the registration officer, which is signed by himself or herself, would be a safeguard against some such abuses.
I hope that the Government are able to accept the amendments. I believe that they are helpful; they are not onerous; and they would give confidence to those who look at the electoral system that it is not easy to skirt around and to cheat. I beg to move.
Lord Rennard: I have sympathy with my noble friend's amendments; there is a potential for abuse.
I am particularly keen on the availability of the new declaration of local connections in order to ensure the right to vote of homeless people. It seems to hit the right balance between how we prevent abuse and how we allow homeless people the right to vote. However, I have concerns with these specific amendments, in

965
particular with the one in regard to obliging people to say where they came from previously. I am concerned, for example, about the problems that this would cause battered wives. They may have become homeless as a result of being battered wives, and it would be a considerable problem for them if they had to declare their previous registration in this process. We must be concerned about that.
I sympathise particularly with the amendment in regard to parliamentary by-elections. There may be a considerable period of time between a parliamentary by-election becoming known and the date by which one may wish to be registered. That is a sensible consideration.
My main concern is about the necessary proof of identity for those who do not have a red-and-white striped badge. It is difficult for homeless people to prove their identity beyond doubt. Satisfactory evidence of identity to the registration officer would be a sensible provision.
Earl Russell: I support what my noble friend Lord Rennard said about proof of identity. A similar provision to the one envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, was introduced in relation to benefits in the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997. It is causing considerable problems. The House to some extent foresaw this, but not in sufficient numbers to prevent the measure going through.
To take my noble friend's example, if it is applied to battered wives, very often they have perhaps had to leave the house in the middle of the night, in their night-dress, as fast as they could possibly go. They do not have time in that situation to pick up their passports, credit cards and all the other identification documents. The same applies to people who have to leave their houses because of fire, which continues to happen even in the most well ordered society.
In its report Still Running, the Children's Society has drawn attention to the difficulties encountered by 15 and 16 year-olds who have been thrown out by their parents in being able to produce proofs of identity. They cannot go back to ask the parents who threw them out for their birth certificates. If we all lived such well-ordered lives as the amendment envisages, it would be a reasonable and perhaps a necessary provision. But as it is, it may do a good deal of harm.
I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, about the accuracy of the register, but people are in such a continual state of flux that it is inevitable that any register is going to be inaccurate. The question is whether one would rather have it inaccurate by including people who should not have been included or by excluding people who should not have been excluded. We have a simple choice: not of getting it right but of which mistake we would rather make.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The amendments of my noble friend Lord Jopling are very interesting. Amendment No. 47, which stands in my name, is grouped with them.
966
I listened to the noble Earl with care, as I always do, and I am little puzzled by the example he gave of the battered wife. All that my noble friend's Amendment No. 24 seeks is that the lady, when she asks for a registration at a new address, tells the electoral registration officer where was her previous address and where she was previously registered. Unless I am misreading my noble friend's amendment, I do not see necessarily that that information will get out. It will not be news to the husband if the lady's name is removed from the electoral register; after all, she has left him and he knows that. The question is how he would get to know where she now was simply by her telling the ERO that she had come from another address. Perhaps the noble Earl can help me.
Earl Russell: There are cases where the name has got out from even such an elementary thing as the local police station being informed. Some such cases have ended in murder. There is a need for care.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I accept that point, but I find it hard to understand how the ERO could possibly release information about the wife to the pursuing husband—if I may call him that. I see the problem, but I would have to be persuaded that it was a real one in respect of telling the ERO the whereabouts of the woman's last address. My noble friend has a general and fairly good point in suggesting that people should say, when applying for a new registration, whether or not they have had a registration previously and, if so, where it was. I actually believe that everyone should be asked to do so, but those in this group in particular should be because obviously it is not as easy to register them as someone with a residence. I have great sympathy with that aspect of my noble friend's amendment.
I should like also to say a few words about Amendment No. 33. My noble friend suggests that the person concerned should go to the registration officer's office to make the application. I shall come to the phrase,
"accompanied by proof of identity",
in a moment. Perhaps the Minister will help us by telling us how the Government envisage that such a person may make an application. It is quite different from the current arrangement where once per year canvassing forms come in through our front doors which we fill in and return. People who move address are among the people whom the ERO must identify when they ask to be registered at their new address. That is done through a form. I wonder how the individual is going to accomplish his registration. I do not believe that going to the registration officer's office is a particularly onerous thing to do. I notice that in new Section 7B(3)(a)(ii) one of the options given to such a homeless person is,
"that he is willing to collect such correspondence periodically from the registration officer's office".
The Government themselves therefore envisage that at least some homeless people will make their point of contact the registration officer's office, although I accept that some others may make it the

967
homeless hostel where they tend to reside or the hostel with which they have the greatest amount of contact. I understand that point, but it does not seem any great problem to make the registration officer's office the important point of contact.
As to proof of identity, I am more inclined to listen to my noble friend than to the noble Earl, although I appreciate his point about fire, flood and fleeing in the night. The fact is that anyone going through fire, flood and fleeing in the night will have to obtain some form of identification rather quickly. I was about to say that for most of us that might be a bank account or something of that nature, but we are talking about homeless people. For a homeless person it might well be the social security documents which entitle him to continue to claim social security. I suspect that a battered wife in the situation described earlier would be looking for social security documents. There will be some documents around that the registration office could check. My amendment is perhaps more acceptable to the Government—dare I say, having had a small success a little while ago—in that I do not specify what it should be. All I say is that the registration officer should have the responsibility to take whatever measures he deems necessary and reasonable to verify a declaration of local connection.
In addition to my support for my noble friend's amendment, I suggest that my amendment would make it clear that the ERO has the power and the responsibility to make checks. If the Minister tells me that he already has such powers and that he would make checks, I shall be quite content. I suggest that my amendment would go at least some way to relieve the concerns of my noble friend Lord Jopling without perhaps getting into the difficult territory of the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been a useful discussion. I want us to try to concentrate our minds a little on the benefits of the Bill and why it is drafted in this way. The whole purpose behind the Bill is surely to make it easier for the homeless, remand prisoners and mental health patients to be registered as electors. That is what we are trying to achieve. We are trying to be more inclusive and to encourage people to participate in democracy. While I understand the desire of the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, to ensure that we root out any abuse and fraudulent intent within the system, we stick to that fundamental principle. Trying to achieve greater participation is one of the purposes behind the legislation. The electoral system in this country bears comparison with all others. Our system is remarkably free from corruption and abuse. I believe that most of us would subscribe to that point of view.
In general, the provisions have been welcomed by all parties and that is as it should be. But having decided that those categories of people—the homeless, remand prisoners and mental health patients—should be allowed to register, it would be quite wrong if we were then to try to treat their registrations as different from
968
everyone else's. Yet that is what these amendments seek to do: to discriminate between one set of electors and another.
Ordinary electors do not have to be issued with identification certificates or have to produce such documents when seeking to vote, so why should we place an additional requirement on those who register by means of a declaration of local connection? I shall try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Mackay. A person who wants to register by means of a declaration of local connection will need to complete a form. He will have to do some form-filling in the same way as everyone else; such as a person who registers normally and wants to change his registration mid-year. A person may fill in the form and return it directly, or by post. That is how the procedure will work.
Although I imagine that most homeless people will go to the town hall in person to register—which seems a logical consequence and a sensible way to behave—there is no reason to require them to do so when a similar requirement is not imposed on anyone else. I therefore cannot invite the Committee to accept Amendments Nos. 32 and 33.
In that context, while the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is phrased in perhaps slightly friendlier and looser terms, I cannot invite the Committee to support it either. Imagine for a moment what happens in the case of those who register in the normal way. If the annual canvass form comes back with an extra name of a person who was not registered the previous year, or if an extra person applies to be registered during the course of the year, the registration officer takes that on trust. He does not call round to check that the new person really lives at the address in question. There is no justification for treating in a different way those who wish to register by means of a declaration of local connection. There is no reason to believe that such people are more prone to fraud or dishonesty, although I should point out that paragraph 17 of Schedule 1 to the Bill makes it quite clear that submitting a fraudulent declaration of local connection is an offence.
Whenever any name appears on the electoral register, whether in the normal way or through a declaration of local connection, there is a proper procedure for objecting to it. Another safeguard is therefore built in. That seems a much better approach than singling out those registering by means of a declaration of local connection and imposing an additional and heavy burden on already busy registration officers.
Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 24, about which I can perhaps be a little kinder. A feature of rolling electoral registration is that people will be able to change their registration during the course of the year. They will be able to register in respect of their new address and be removed from the register in respect of their old address. For that system to work, the registration form will need to ask them for details of their previous registration. Exactly the same question will need to appear on the form for registering by means of a declaration of local connection. The Bill as drafted will allow for that to happen.

969
Before I sit down, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, for his contribution. He made a valuable point about domestic violence. We too want to ensure that the system we are putting in place protects those who are victims of aggression in any shape or form; in particular, those who are victims of racist attacks. There would be some equally telling vulnerability if we were to adopt the course recommended in the amendments.
In the light of what I have said, and bearing in mind the reasonable points made by some of our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, I hope that the noble Lord will decide that at this stage the amendments are not worth pursuing, although, as I said earlier, I recognise that we must be vigilant in tackling fraud and ensuring that there is no abuse of the system.
Lord Jopling: I have listened carefully to the Minister's reply. I repeat what I said in my earlier remarks. I remain unsure about whether the Government are being sufficiently prudent in dealing with the dangers of abuse in the registration and voting of the electorate. We may be able to discuss that further as time goes on.
However, leaving the Minister's comments aside, I have to say that I was somewhat amused by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. He quoted the example of the battered wife who escapes in her nightdress in the middle of the night on to the frozen winter streets. The thought that he left in my mind was that the first thought of an unfortunate lady in that situation would be to ensure that she had registered her vote by demonstrating a local connection—no thought of going first to the hospital, if that was necessary; no thought of trying to find somewhere to live temporarily; no thought of trying to find some clothing; and no thought of trying to get assistance from the social services! He seemed to imply that that was the first thing, or very nearly the first thing, the lady would do. The noble Earl shakes his head. I am perhaps saying this rather flippantly and I do not want to be taken too seriously.
I was heartened by what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said. At Second Reading I had the enormous pleasure of congratulating him on his maiden speech. I detected a good deal more sympathy in his remarks than I detected in the remarks of the noble Earl. It occurs to me that there are the seeds of co-operation between the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and myself over this matter. Whether that would compare with the new relationship across the Front Benches about which we heard, I am not entirely sure. In the course of the next few days perhaps I may have a discussion with the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, to see whether there is any way in which we can find a compromise amendment. I see that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, wishes to intervene. if once worked for the noble Lord many years ago. I am not sure what words he is breathing into the ear of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
Lord McNally: I am advising my noble friend Lord Rennard that when mixing with a former Chief Whip he should take a good lawyer with him.
Lord Jopling: On that happy note, hoping that a warmer co-operation may emerge, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 25 to 27 not moved.]
Lord Jopling Lord Jopling moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9. leave out lines 12 and 13.
The noble Lord said: I shall not delay the Committee for very long with this amendment. In new Section 7B(7)(b), it is enough to say that if a person makes more than one declaration of local connection, the declaration or declarations shall be void. I do not see the need for the words in lines 12 and 13. I do not want to argue in favour of my Amendment No. 30. which seeks to take out the words "or declarations". That is not necessary. But would it not make more sense if subsection (7)(b) stated merely that if a person makes more than one declaration of local connection, that declaration shall be void? I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My noble friend Lord Jopling has a good point. I can understand the Government not being keen to accept more than one declaration stating different addresses on the same day. However, if I read the provision correctly, someone could make a declaration on one day for one place and then make another declaration the next day for another place, in an adjacent ward or constituency. There should be some limit on the number of declarations someone can make. Therefore, I believe that my noble friend's amendment bears careful study by the Government.
I accept that someone may make a declaration today and that in three or four months' time he may have moved sufficiently far away to want to make another declaration, but he should not be able to run two declarations at the same time. That brings us back to the protection offered by my noble friend's previous amendment—if someone makes a declaration, he should be asked (as I think we should all be asked) whether he has made a previous declaration and whether he is voting anywhere else using a declaration. That may be a way to get round the problem.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is a long-established principle that a person may appear on the electoral register more than once. People who have two residences are entitled to be registered in respect of both of them. That is a facility of which many Members of another place take advantage and, for all I know, the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, may have been registered in both London and Cumbria during his distinguished service there. The Bill does nothing to change that position.
However, the Bill does introduce the new concept of a declaration of local connection. It will be used by mental patients, remand prisoners and the homeless

971
who would have difficulty in establishing residence in the normal way. Given that such declarations will be used by those who are unable to register in the normal way, it would be quite wrong, as the noble Lord said in moving the amendment, if such people were allowed to register more than once. A person who has difficulty establishing a single residence can hardly claim two residences.
It was for precisely that reason that the Government brought forward an amendment in another place to ensure that nobody who is registered by means of a declaration of local connection may appear on the electoral register more than once. If Members of the Committee care to look at new Section 7C(2)(c), which appears towards the bottom of page 9 of the Bill, they will see that as soon as another entry appears in the register—whether an entry in the normal way or by means of a declaration of local connection—the person's existing entitlement to registration is deemed to have lapsed. The effect of that is exactly as I set out. It means that no one who is registered by means of a declaration of local connection can be registered twice.
I believe that that takes care of the problem which the noble Lord highlighted. With that assurance, I trust that that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Jopling: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that explanation. For the record, I was for many years registered in three places, but of course I never voted in more than one. The noble Lord has gone some way to explain the background to this matter. It is a complicated business. We shall have to get used to the concept of local connections. I shall digest the words which the noble Lord was kind enough to utter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 29 and 30 not moved.]
6.30 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 9. line 20, at end insert—
("( ) A declaration of local connection shall be of no effect if that declaration states an address within a constituency which is not represented by a Member of Parliament at the time when that declaration is received by the registration officer.").
The noble Lord said: I am concerned about people moving into a constituency when they know that a by-election is pending. The difference between by-elections and general elections is that the Prime Minister normally gives four or five weeks' notice that a general election will be held and the matter is tightly controlled. A by-election is different. A Member may resign or, unfortunately, from time to time, a Member may die, and the by-election is possibly not held for three months after that event. Between the time when the by-election is first announced and the time when it takes place, three different dates might pass when the rolling register could be updated.
A good example is the by-election for the Scottish Parliament which is to take place in the borough of Ayr. It will be held on 16th March, if memory serves me correctly. It has come about in rather mysterious circumstances: the sitting Member resigned in December—basically, so far as I can see, because he was not given a job by the First Minister, Mr Dewar. If that were a basis for resignation, quite a lot of Members of the other place would resign every so often!
Knowing that the by-election will occur, people could roll on to that register on 1st January, 1st February and 1st March. People who have a house somewhere else are unlikely to move to Ayr deliberately to vote in the by-election—although, given the size of the majority, I imagine that the political parties are looking carefully at who is registering. Indeed, given the narrowness of the majority—a mere 25—the MSP's decision to resign the seat looks even more peculiar.
It is the local connection problem that causes me the greatest concern. Ayr is not far from Glasgow, and people could move there in an attempt to bring enough votes to bear to make a major difference in the seat. Earlier, I mentioned those who are resident at the so-called "peace camp" at Faslane, in the Gareloch, who have a bee in their bonnets about nuclear weapons and who are protesting today. They might all decide to decamp to Ayr, register their local connection and try to influence the by-election. Their problem nowadays, of course, is that they cannot even go there to vote for the Labour Party, as Labour no longer believes in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament—although it is interesting that some Labour MSPs and MPs still do. I am pleased to say that my noble friend Lady Thatcher led us to victory in that general battle in the 1980s and the issue has by and large gone from the political debate.
The point is that people could move during the three-month period. If it were the right three-month period, they could possibly obtain three updates. That cannot be right. The amendment seeks to ensure that the moment a constituency becomes vacant and a by-election is to take place, no more declarations of local connection will be taken.
If I have read his previous replies correctly, I suspect that the Minister will say that we must treat the homeless vote in the same way as the resident vote. I understand the logic in that, but it might well lead us to say that in regard to a by-election the register should be frozen at the date of the Member's resignation or death. I should not like to go that far because people have genuine reasons for moving. However, we should watch out for those who might abuse the electoral system in a marginal constituency and migrate for the purposes of voting in what can often be a key by-election for the political parties—as the by-election at Ayr will be for the Labour Party and the Scottish Executive. I beg to move.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be surprised to learn that I have some sympathy with his amendment.

973
At Second Reading, I said that in this regard I felt that it was possible for there to be tactical voting in a very real sense, and that we needed to examine the provision carefully. I am convinced that this is the one area of the Bill—probably the only one—under which registration could be abused. In a by-election such as the one that will take place at Ayr, where there is narrowness in the voting and the seat is keenly fought, people become terribly excited. I can see why they might want to move into the area to vote in the by-election.
I have discussed the matter with electoral registration officers who believe that our concern is somewhat over-exaggerated. Nevertheless, it remains. The Minister, Mike O'Brien, said in the Commons that he would look again at the matter. My question to my noble friend is: have the Government looked again, and what is their conclusion?
Lord Bach: The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, may be doubly surprised after I have finished my brief remarks on his amendment. We can offer the noble Lord some comfort on this matter. The Government feel that the fears that he outlined may be exaggerated. We do not believe that the homeless have either the means or the inclination to travel around the country trying to influence the results of by-elections. However, real concern has been expressed both in this Chamber and in another place.
The Committee will not be surprised to hear that, right from the start of the Bill's passage through Parliament, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said that he was willing to listen to the views of other parties to see whether it could be improved. So I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied when I say that we shall bring forward an amendment or amendments on Report, no doubt based on his amendment as drafted, to achieve the same purpose. In those circumstances, I ask the noble Lord to consider withdrawing the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. I knew that I was probably on to a reasonable thing when I was backed by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who knows a thing or two, or 10, about elections. Indeed, we agree on some other matters. If my memory serves me rightly, the noble Baroness was a member of the commission that looked into referendums. I have quoted its recommendations extensively and approvingly, and shall probably do so again in relation to the next Bill on electoral matters to come before this House.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. I am glad that we both agree. Although this may be a long-shot problem, it could be serious in a marginal seat. I look forward to the noble Lord's amendment, which I am sure will be different from mine. It will certainly cost more. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): Before calling Amendment No. 37, I should point out that it relates to Clause 6, not Clause 7. There is a misprint on the Marshalled List.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 42. leave out from ("Where") to ("to") in line 44 and insert ("the entitlement of such a person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Registration: amendments of 1983 Act]:
[Amendment No. 38 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 19, line 17. at end insert (". or to remain,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Dholakia Lord Dholakia moved Amendment No. 39A:
Page 19, line 23, leave out ("or mental hospitals (within the meaning of section 7 above)").
The noble Lord said: I hope that I shall have as much success with Amendment No. 39A as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, had with the previous one. Paragraph 4(3) of Schedule 1 is concerned with the preparation of electoral registers. It replaces Section 10 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 and creates a new Section 10A. Under that new section, subsections (1) and (2) require the registration officer to carry out an annual canvass by reference to residence on 15th October to establish who in his area is entitled to be registered.
My problem is that the canvass would not include mental hospitals, penal institutions or those registered by means of a declaration of a local connection. For that reason, I propose the deletion from subsection (3)(a) of the words,
"or mental hospitals (within the meaning of section 7 above)".
This Bill removes the current bar on the use of a psychiatric hospital address for registration purposes and enables both voluntary and detained civil patients to register either at that address or another address outside the hospital with which they have a local connection. I welcome that as a major step forward in ensuring that people in psychiatric hospitals are able to exercise their right to vote. However, these rights will be meaningful only if those in hospitals are fully advised of their rights and steps are taken to ensure their proper inclusion on the register.
As it stands, paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill excludes psychiatric hospitals from the duty on electoral registration officers to carry out an annual canvass of electors in their areas. Evidence of the operation of the current law indicates that without such a duty many of those in psychiatric hospitals who are entitled to register are likely to remain unregistered. The Representation of the People Act

975
1983 enables informal patients in psychiatric hospitals to register either at their home address or by means of a patient's declaration, for which an address outside the hospital is also required. Guidance on this matter was issued to health service staff.
However, there is a problem. Between 1987 and 1990 MIND carried out a survey of patients in psychiatric hospitals in the north-west which demonstrated that those who completed electoral registration forms were few and far between. The survey found both low numbers of patients registering to vote and significant variations between hospitals. In 1990 only 8.3 per cent of patients in the region were registered to vote. This varied between 3.1 per cent at the lowest to 16 per cent at the highest. These variations could not be explained by differences in hospital populations: they reflected stark differences in staff practices.
The survey found great variation in the way in which hospitals distributed the relevant forms to patients. In one hospital staff visited every ward and explained the implications of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to each patient. Other hospitals, however, did not distribute any forms on the grounds that,
"the initiative should be taken by the patient".
In those hospitals patients were effectively disenfranchised despite having the right in law to register. Patients received differing levels of support from staff in completing the different forms. Some made sure that patients understood the forms and helped those who were not literate to complete them; others felt that patients should complete them unaided.
If the Government continue to rely on those in charge of the institutions to ensure that those entitled to register do so, a similar situation is likely to arise again. The amendment will ensure that all those who are entitled to register using the hospital address can do so. It will also ensure that there is consistent implementation of the Act across different institutions. Unless a clear legal duty is placed on someone to ensure that there is registration that will not happen. There is no reason to believe that the present situation of non-registration will not continue. To place responsibility on the EROs to see to it that patients who are eligible to register do so will ensure that the intentions of the Bill, which we welcome, are realised in practice. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: One of the most important purposes of this Bill is to make it easier for those who have traditionally been put at a disadvantage to register as electors. This includes the homeless, remand prisoners and mental patients. I know that these provisions have generally been widely welcomed. We understand the noble Lord's concern that the annual canvass which electoral registration officers are required to carry out will not include psychiatric hospitals, but we do not believe that this will result in those affected being under-registered, and I shall go on to explain why.
976
Most electors are able to register only in respect of their residence, and it is therefore important that an annual canvass is carried out to ensure maximum registration levels. By contrast, mental patients will be able to register in one of three ways. They will be able to register at the address where they would otherwise be living (which will be covered by the appropriate canvass); they will be able to register by means of a declaration of local connection; or they will be able to register in respect of the institution where they are resident. The availability of the first two options means that relatively few patients are likely to register in respect of the hospitals. The local electoral registration officer is unlikely to know which patients have registered using the first two options. Therefore, if he were to carry out a canvass in the normal way it could lead to a great deal of double registration.
The Department of Health intends to issue guidance to those in charge of mental institutions to make sure that they are aware of the new rules that govern electoral registration and that they can advise those resident in the institutions of their rights accordingly. I hope that, with those assurances, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Dholakia: I thank the Minister for that response. However, that explanation still does not explain the kinds of discrepancies found in the survey. Perhaps it is possible for the Minister to consult mental health bodies in order to relay the concern and see whether something can be done. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 40:
age 19. line 25, after ("above)") insert ("or other places at which persons to whom section 7A above applies may be detained").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 42 and 43:
Page 19. line 41. leave out from ("shall") to second ("as") in line 43 and insert ("make such alterations in his registers as fall to be made in accordance with section 10A below").
Page 19. line 44. at end insert—
("( ) In this section "residence" means residence for the purposes of section 4 above.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 19, leave out lines 45 to 50.
The noble Lord said: Although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, intends to substitute other words for this amendment, it is probably for the convenience of both myself and the Government if I formally move Amendment No. 44. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We dealt with the issue in an earlier debate. I believe that we were the odd couple on this, and I hope that we continue to be so. The words are much the same.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 45 and 46:
Page 20, line 14, at end insert ("in respect of that address").
Page 20, leave out lines 28 to 35 and insert—
("(5 ) Where the name of a person ("the elector") is duly entered in a register in respect of any address, the elector is entitled to remain registered in the register in respect of that address until such time as the registration officer concerned—

(a) determines, on the conclusion of a canvass under section 10 above, that the elector was not resident at that address on the 15th October in question, or that because—

(i) the form mentioned in section 10(4) above was not returned in respect of that address, or

(ii) for any other reason, insufficient information was obtained as to whether the elector was resident at that address on that date,

the registration officer is unablee to satisfy himself that the elector was then so resident at that address, or

(b) determines, in any prescribed circumstances, that the elector has ceased to be resident at that address or has otherwise ceased to satisfy the conditions for registration set out in section 4 above.

(6) Where the entitlement of a person to remain registered in a register in respect of any address terminates by virtue of subsection (5) above, the registration officer concerned shall remove that person's entry from the register once the officer has satisfied any prescribed requirements applying in relation to the removal of that entry.
(7) Subsection (6) above does not apply if, or to the extent that, regulations so provide in relation to any prescribed circumstances; and regulations may, in particular, authorise a registration officer to retain entries in his registers for the prescribed period if he thinks tit in cases where the form mentioned in section 10(4) above has not been returned in respect of any address.
(8) Nothing in subsection (5) or (6) applies in relation to the registration of persons in pursuance of—

(a) applications for registration made by virtue of section 7(2) or 7A(2) above; or

(b) declarations falling within section 10(3)(b) above.

(9) In this section—

"determines" means determines in accordance with regulations;

"resident" means resident for the purposes of section 4 above.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No, 48:
Page 20, line 47, leave out ("(subject to any regulations under section 10(7) above)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 21, line 20. after ("13A") insert ("or 13B").
The noble Lord said: On behalf of my noble friend Lord Bassam of Brighton, in moving the amendment I speak also to the other amendments in the grouping.
This group of amendments relates to the correcting of clerical errors which may have been made in the electoral register after the close of nominations at an election. This is an issue which was debated in the other place and these amendments respond to concerns that were expressed there. They also follow discussions which Home Office officials have had with officers of the Association of Electoral Administrators and SOLACE.
We believe strongly that candidates and political parties need certainty about the electoral register that is to be used at an election. They need to know how many and which electors will be eligible to vote. Accordingly, in line with the existing practice, the Bill provides that no changes to an electoral register to be used at an election can take place after the closing date for nominations. The Government believe that Members of the Committee would agree that that is right.
However, it does not seem right that a person should be denied the right to vote as a result of a clerical error made by electoral registration staff. Such errors are likely to come to light only in the course of the election probably because the voter realises that he has not received a poll card. There can be no one in the Committee today who has not experienced such an eventuality during the course of canvassing during an election, and the upset it causes to the voter when he realises that he is not registered. We therefore think it would be right to make an exception to the general rule.
These amendments make it possible for an alteration to an electoral register to be made after the closing date for nominations at an election where the registration officer is satisfied—those are important words—that this is for the purpose of correcting a clerical error in the register. They also allow alteration to a register to be made during an election period following a decision of the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I have no objection in principle to the amendment, but I have one query.
In a number of places new Section 13B refers to something happening before the date of the poll. Under Clauses 10 and 11 it will be possible to have polls over more than one day. Should not the provision refer to "the date of the poll", or "the first day of the poll" if it takes place over more than one day?
Lord Bach: That may be a good point. I shall consider it and, if necessary, answer the noble Lord's point on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 21, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) On publication or alteration to the register, any person registered within a borough or district shall have the right to make a challenge to any inclusion, alteration or omission to the said register; and regulations shall apply the provisions of section 56 in respect of any such challenge.").
The noble Lord said: The objective of the amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that the present method of challenging the electoral register is to continue in the way currently carried out on the publication of draft registers. Members of the Committee will remember that I explained that one of the major differences between the old and the new systems will be that we shall not have draft registers. We shall have a register on 1st December. That will be "the big bang". Then monthly (except for one or two months) a supplementary register will show the names added to or deleted from the register.
Members of the Committee who have been involved with elections will know that the only point at which challenges can be made to the inclusion of a name on a register is when the draft register is published. However, with a rolling register the position changes dramatically. I believe that with a rolling register we should ensure that we keep the existing system for challenges. That provision should be on the face of the Bill. My amendment would mean that someone could challenge the inclusion, alteration or omission of someone from the register on 1st January, 1st February and so on. When the supplementary roll is published, political parties and individuals could check whether they are included in or omitted from the list.
It would be useful to have clarification on how the Government envisage challenges to work under the new arrangement. While my amendment may not contain the exact words required, the Government may consider it sensible to put on the face of the Bill or in a schedule provision for challenges as the register rolls on. I beg to move.
Lord Norton of Louth: My noble friend's amendment goes to the heart of the reason for a published register. In considering the history of electoral registers in this country, he raises a fundamental point. We did not have an electoral register in this country before 1832; there was seen to be no need. It was only as a consequence of the 1832 Reform Act that the need arose because of the number of electors. Because of the inefficiency by which it was compiled and because the qualifications for the franchise were extremely complex, it was necessary to publish the register. Access was required so that people could challenge omissions from or entries in the register. That goes to the heart of the reason that we have an electoral register in this country.
I shall return later to a related point about why we continue to publish the register. It may be less necessary given the current method of data collection. However, so long as we continue to publish a register, the rationale for it must be access so that people can check and challenge. Therefore it is important that such a provision is on the face of the Bill, and I support my noble friend's amendment.
In responding, it would be useful if the Minister is able to give us figures of the extent to which challenges to the register have taken place. It is relevant in the
980
context of my noble friend's amendment. It is also relevant to a point that I shall raise later. I have pleasure in supporting my noble friend's amendment.
Lord Goodhart: I, too, support the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, made some telling points as to why the provision should be on the face of the Bill. I await with interest the Minister's reply.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have listened with interest to the argument that the provision should be on the face of the Bill. I shall give that further consideration. I am not sure that I can answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, about the number of challenges. No doubt challenges take place, and rightly so. I shall have to write to him on that point after we have undertaken some research. We may need to carry out a survey with the registration officers. I am sure that he appreciates that that will take some time.
Our position on this is quite simple: we do not believe that this provision is entirely necessary. If your Lordships look at line 15 of page 20, you will see that it says:
"A registration officer shall also determine all objections to a person's registration made in accordance with the prescribed requirements by another person whose name appears on the register in question".
It is therefore quite clear that any registered elector in the area concerned can object to any entry in the register. I am sure that in the vast majority of cases the registration officer will be able to resolve the matter locally. Should he be unable to do so, Section 56 allows for the matter to go before the courts. From time to time, people have used and will continue to use that facility. I hope that that is reasonably reassuring to the Committee, and I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful for the support that I have received from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. I am presently trying quickly to read the paragraph to which the Minister has referred. As I see the words "15th October" above it, I presume that this is for more than the main update, the big bang, and that it is in fact for all the updates that take place throughout the year. The Minister has been helpful in this respect, and we shall have to study what he has said, relating it to Schedule 1, page 20, to ensure that it does not refer to the big bang but to the monthly updates. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
Page 21, line 29, leave out from ("made") to first ("that") in line 32 and insert ("by any person in accordance with the prescribed requirements, determines").

981
Page 21, leave out lines 34 to 39 and insert—

("( ) is required, by virtue of any provision of this Part of this Act, to remove a person's entry from the register;").

Page 21, line 44, leave out ("becomes satisfied") and insert ("determines").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 21, line 45, at end insert—
("( )Each registration officer shall each month, or seven days before any poll, contact every registrar of births, marriages and deaths covering the area for which he is responsible in order to ascertain the names and addresses of those persons deceased within the previous month and the registration officer shall remove such deceased persons from the register within three working days of ascertaining this information.").
The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. This takes us back to the issue of the accuracy of the register. Amendment No. 54 is not concerned with adding names to the register, but, I regret to say, with deleting them. Amendment No. 55 is a little different. It could deal either with people who are not on the register and who perhaps should be on it, or with people who are on the register and who the electoral registration officer has reason to believe should no longer be on it.
I am trying to standardise the principles of registration across the whole country. Although it is not a direct quotation, my recollection is that the Minister said in as many words that the ERO should use all the sources of information that he can make available to himself in order to ensure that the register is up to date. I do not believe that there is anything between us on that point. However, it seems to me that in the other place some doubt was cast on the registration officer contacting the Registrar of Births, Marriages and Deaths to keep up to date with the deaths that had occurred in that area. I submit that this is not just about making sure that the register is accurate or about the problem of the denominator, as I described it earlier. I believe that it is also about the fact that people who have passed on ought to be taken off the register as quickly as possible.
When I was involved in trying to be elected and then to keep a fairly marginal seat in the other place—it certainly turned out to be very marginal!—we had a small team of people making sure that we kept the register up to date with regard to people who had died, which is easy to do in a country area, where virtually all deaths are notified in the local newspapers. Our purpose in doing that was so that, come an election, we would not be sending communications to people who were dead. It is not a very pleasant matter for someone to have an election communication addressed to a late husband, a late wife or late parents. We all understand the problem and I am sure that all the political parties try not to do it. The last thing we want to do is to upset electors who may decide not to vote for us because they are annoyed about the fact that we have not been aware of a death.
I am therefore trying to help all the political parties by suggesting that the registration officer should—I have provided a time—towards the end of each month be prepared at some stage to contact the registrar and ask for a list of the people who have died in the area over the past month, in which case he would be in a position to remove their names from the register and keep it very much up to date, prevent the political parties doing some work on registers and, perhaps more importantly, prevent us sending communications to people who have died in a way which would be fairly hurtful to the relatives who remain at their address. All of your Lordships who have been involved in elections will know exactly what I am seeking to do in this regard.
Amendment No. 55 would underline in legislation that the electoral registration officer should canvass a part or all of the register if he thinks that he ought to and if he thinks that in that way he will gain more accurate information. In this case, it could be additions and deletions. We have never previously faced the sort of problem (except in October/November) that might arise where, for example, a new housing development becomes occupied by new people in the spring of the year. It seems to me that the electoral registration officer ought to decide at that point to inquire who they are, add them to the register, and, one hopes, remove their previous registration.
We are in a whole new ball game with a rolling register. This is quite different from the situation that we have had in the past. In the sort of example that I have mentioned, it is often the case that over a few months in the spring and summer a lot of extra people can come into an area because of a new housing development. It seems to me sensible to give the electoral registration officer the power to take steps to ensure that those people are on the rolling register. I beg to move.
Baroness Fookes: I very warmly support my noble friend. These two amendments are very sensible. Quite apart from the issue of accuracy, I endorse what my noble friend has said about the hurt and distress that can be caused when party workers inadvertently make contact with relatives and appear not to know about the death of someone very much loved by them. It causes considerable upset. Furthermore, my previous experience as a Member of Parliament has been that, in towns, this is very hit and miss. It is unlikely that one would know of a death. Whether or not party workers know about a death depends very much on the thoroughness of their canvassing. I therefore believe that there is every reason to allow the electoral registration officer to make inquiries about whether anyone has been registered as dead. As I understand it. that information is public. The registration of a death is not a private matter. Therefore, I can see no objection whatever to inquiries being made by one official of another, if indeed it is correct that the propriety of this was questioned in the other place.

983
The other point is less pleasant. We know that there is always a possibility of someone impersonating another. This will be less likely if the information is brought very much up to date. For that reason also, it is important that information should be made available as quickly as possible.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like to make a very short point in favour of this amendment. In the case of a rolling register, we have a new situation. It is not the old situation as it was. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will look at it in that light, without a backward glance to the previous position.
Lord Goodhart: I, too, support the amendment. Anyone who has canvassed as extensively as I have—and many have canvassed a good deal more so—know that it is embarrassing to the canvasser to knock on a door, meet an elderly woman and ask about her husband, only to be told that he died six months ago. Whether or not such incidents and the sending of leaflets lead to a loss of votes, they are painful for both the resident voters and the canvassers. Therefore, we support any reasonable steps that can be taken to ensure that people who have died are taken off the register as soon as possible.
Lord Jopling: I, too, am anxious to support the amendment for a reason that has not yet been mentioned. I was much taken with what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, about the problem of impersonation and by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about the distress that is often caused during an election campaign. I am sure that many Members of the Committee have experienced the problem of knocking on a door and being told that the person's spouse had recently died. It is most distressing to meet a widow or widower or a son or daughter who is clearly upset by having to explain that grandpa is no longer alive.
However, the deceased may have been registered for a postal vote. I do not believe that I fought a general election—and I fought 10 in my time—without knocking on a door and being told, "Grandpa died some time ago, but we have got his postal vote behind the clock on the mantelpiece". You then have to tell them that there is no way that that vote can be used. However, I have often wondered whether people might be inclined to think that if they fill in the form no one will know. I have no evidence whatever that that happens, but it could. I imagine that it is almost impossible to trace and therefore it is important to keep the register as up to date as possible. The gist of my noble friend's proposal is therefore sensible. It will cause a little more trouble, but not much, and it is in everyone's interest to have an up-to-date register.
Lord McNally: My wife has stopped me eating strong cheese at night because it gives me bad dreams. There was a point today when I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, had eaten the political equivalent of that strong cheese because he seemed to be
984
summoning up all kinds of hobgoblins to frighten us. We heard about New Age travellers moving into marginal seats; jet-setting hijackers carefully landing at the appropriate time to be put on the register; the standard Irish tinkers; and the nefarious students. They were all distorting the vote presumably in an anti-Conservative fashion. It is not paranoia; it is just that they have a lot of enemies!
Interspersed with all the hobgoblins, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, jumped on every one of his hobbyhorses. At one stage I was thinking of going into the Prince's Chamber and opening a book on how many he would ride today. We had the euro; student fees in Scotland; the competence of the Greenock sheriff; the Faslane nuclear debates; the European Convention on Human Rights; and CND. And the list is still open if someone wants to place a bet. We also had the statutory genuflexion to the wonders and glories of the Thatcher years.
It has been vintage Mackay today and I must say that when I saw the amendment I thought, "Oh, my God, we are now going to get the voting dead!", presumably all the deceased being firmly anti-Conservative. Therefore, I was reasonably surprised when I heard the reasoning behind the amendment and was sympathetic towards it. Anything that could prevent unnecessary upset to the recently bereaved is to be welcomed. However, can the Minister confirm that the Home Office and the study group which examined these matters found little evidence of the abuses from which the Conservative Front Bench have tried to save us from this afternoon? Will he confirm that he, like Members on these Benches, remains committed to a Bill which will try to encourage people to register and to vote rather than to find as many obstacles to that as possible?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McNally, for his intervention. It was timely and brought a little lightheartedness to our considerations. I, too, had wondered how many more demons would emerge!
I have sympathy with the amendments and believe that they were honourably expressed. It would be strange if it were otherwise, because I was last elected for a ward which had about 8,000 voters, three cemeteries and two crematoria—so there were more deceased former voters than live voters. However, the live voters were always charitable and always returned me to the council and leadership of that great authority. I was very grateful to them.
The points which Members of the Committee made are well intentioned. Nothing can be worse than knocking on a door and asking for someone only to find that there has been a recent bereavement and having to offer instant casework in their terrible loss and sad tragedy. Everyone has great sympathy for such situations. Amendment No. 54 would require electoral registration officers to consult the local registrar of births, marriages and deaths with a view to removing the names of the deceased. Apart from the

985
fact that people do not always conveniently die in the area in which they are registered, the amendment is unnecessary. Perhaps your Lordships will turn to paragraph 23(3) of Schedule 1—it is at line 20 on page 26. You will see that registration officers will in any event be able to inspect records kept by,
"any local or public authority".
That encompasses not just records which are publicly available, such as the local register of births, marriages and deaths, but also those to which they would not otherwise have access. For that reason, we believe that this issue is already covered. However, if any point has been missed here, I shall be happy to listen to further proposals to cover any other eventuality.
Lord Norton of Louth: I understand the distinction made by the Minister here. However, the Bill as drafted states that the registration officer "may" consult, whereas the amendment tabled by my noble friend states that he "shall" do so. That would ensure consistency where, in the Bill as it stands, inconsistencies could arise. Registration officers may not use the powers available to them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord, Lord Norton, has made a useful intervention. The clear intention behind the drafting of the Bill is that it is the Government's expectation that electoral registration officers would regularly access the relevant data. Indeed, I believe that is already done in all authorities where good practice is evident. Most local authorities are extremely good. about carrying out these functions.
I shall now turn to Amendment No. 55. It addresses the issue of the accuracy of the register and returns us to an important issue. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, wishes to insert a provision allowing registration officers to carry out an enquiry or canvass at any time of the year. In principle, I feel that that would be unobjectionable. However, I question how realistic that might be in practice. Registration officers already find it difficult, costly and labour intensive to carry out even a single whole-town, whole-community or whole-area registration in any given year. I doubt very much whether they would have the resources or even the inclination to undertake a second canvass of the kind envisaged by the noble Lord, desirable though that may be.
Perhaps Members of the Opposition can tell the Committee whether, if they were in government, they would increase the grants provided to local authorities to pay for such exercises. I believe that considerable costs would attach to this proposal. On balance, the Government believe that the registration provisions in the Bill are about right and I hope that the noble Lord will see the wisdom of that opinion. We think that the system works well as it is and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Finally, I should like to respond to a point made a little earlier by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. Throughout our considerations and deliberations in this field, we have not detected any significant amount of abuse or fraud. I made that point earlier and I feel
986
that I should repeat it now. When the working party examined these matters, the issue of fraud hardly arose. By and large, registers are well put together; generally the dead do not vote—though perhaps some would have liked to have done so. I believe that the balance of these provisions is right and does not overly burden local services. I hope that noble Lords will feel able to support the provision as it stands.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his response and I thank all other noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. In particular, I was glad that the noble Lord, Lord McNally, kept count of the number of issues I could get in during my contribution. Perhaps we could come to an arrangement over the book he is running; I could then give him a suitable number.
Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord that I had not thought about dead people voting, although I understand that that was a traditional problem in the north of Ireland until steps were taken to prevent it. I encountered the problem with a constituent—a supporter—who tended to telephone me on a Sunday evening to give me a list of all those who had died in the previous week. He was totally convinced that they were all Conservatives. Occasionally I had to point out to him that some others who had died during the previous week were most certainly not Conservatives. That is my experience of the issue.
Perhaps I may turn first to Amendment No. 55. I take the point made by the Minister about expense. However, with respect, he could have given a little more information on the question of modern housing developments where an influx of people can make significant alterations to the register. There is a difference between that kind of circumstance and merely tidying up the register for no apparent reason.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I return to the point I made about good practice. It is the Government's expectation that—as in my own local authority area—when a new housing development is built, electoral registration officers will conduct a canvass to see whether those new residents are entitled to be included on the register. With the new rolling register that will of course be extremely important. Perhaps this is a point that might best be dealt with in guidance. I hope that satisfies the noble Lord.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That would satisfy me and I am pleased to hear the noble Lord make the point. If an appropriate form of words could he devised for guidance and for inclusion in Home Office circulars, then that would be a step forward.
As regards Amendment No. 54, it was interesting that the Minister drew the attention of the Committee to the schedule set out on page 26 of the Bill which provides that the registration officer "may" consult with local or public authorities. Obviously that would include the registrar of births, deaths and marriages. However, my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth referred to a problem here; namely, that "may" means

987
that some EROs will consult and some will not. My amendment seeks to standardise the procedure throughout the country and I still feel that that would be a useful step.
Perhaps, in the spirit of conciliation, co-operation and agreement that we have enjoyed over the past few minutes, the noble Lord and the department could consider putting in a form of words to cover use of the registry of births, deaths and marriages in guidance or circulars sent out to electoral registration officers. In that way, we would avoid the position where, in one area the exercise is carried out perfectly adequately while in another area it is not done at all.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has made a reasonable point, following on the comments of his noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. It costs me nothing to take this matter away to see whether, by perfecting the wording, we might come up with a form of words that would satisfy all sides.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 56 to 60:
Page 22, line 1, leave out ("subsection (4)") and insert ("section 13B(1)").
Page 22, leave out lines 18 to 22 and insert—
("( ) Subsection (2) above also does not require a registration officer to issue a notice under that subsection in a case where section 13B(3) below requires him to issue a notice under that provision.").
Page 22, line 25, at end insert ("and section 13B below").
Page 22, line 26, at beginning insert ("For the purposes of means subsection (1) above "determines" determines in accordance with regulations; and").
Page 22, line 28, at end insert—
(""Alteration of registers: pending elections.
13B.—(1) An alteration in a published version of a register of electors which takes effect under section 13A(2) above after the final nomination day in the case of an election to which this section applies shall not have effect for the purposes of that election unless the alteration—

(a) is made in consequence of a decision or determination falling within section 13A(1)(d) or (e) above; and

(b) takes effect on or before the fifth day before the date of the poll.

(2) Subsection (3) below applies where—

(a) at any time before the appropriate publication date in the case of an election to which this section applies, section 13A above applies to a registration officer, by virtue of subsection (1) of that section, in connection with a decision or determination—

(i) falling within subsection (1)(d) or (e) of that section, and

988

(ii) in consequence of which a person's name falls to be entered in (or removed from) the register in respect of an address in the relevant election area; and

(b) no alteration made in consequence of that decision or determination—

(i) has already taken effect. or

(ii) is due to take effect,

under subsection (2) of that section on or before the fifth day before the date of the poll.

(3) In such a case the registration officer shall issue, in the prescribed manner, a notice specifying the appropriate alteration in the register; and—

(a) the notice shall be so issued by him on the appropriate publication date; and

(b) the alteration shall take effect as from the beginning of that day.

(4) This section applies to the following elections—

(a) parliamentary elections,

(b) elections to the European Parliament,

(c) elections to the Scottish Parliament,

(d) elections to the National Assembly for Wales,

(e) elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and

(f) local government elections in England, Wales or Scotland.

(5) In this section—

"the appropriate publication date", in relation to a registration officer and an election to which this section applies. means either the sixth or the fifth day before the date of the poll, as the registration officer may determine;

"the final nomination day", in relation to such an election, means the last day on which nomination papers may be delivered to the returning officer for the purposes of the election;

"the relevant election area", in relation to a registration officer and such an election, means—

(a) the area for which the registration officer acts, or

(b) if the election is held in only part of that area, the part of that area in question.

(6) Section 119 below shall apply for the purposes of this section as if—

(a) it were contained in Part II of this Act; and

(b) each of the days referred to in this section were the day on which anything is required or permitted to be done by or in pursuance of that Part of this Act." ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 61:
Page 22, line 28, at end insert——

Accountability of registration officers to Electoral Coninfission.
13B. Electoral registration officers shall be accountable to the Electoral Commissior in relation to the compilation, production and accuracy of the electoral register.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment looks forward to the next Bill that will come to your Lordships' House in due course. It is likely that that is the answer I shall receive from the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, and perhaps I shall table the amendment again at that point. The amendment simply states that we should take account of the fact that an electoral commission will be brought forward shortly, which I very much welcome. However, at present all the work of electoral registration officers is governed by primary legislation, Home Office guidance and, indeed, by council and local authority pressures of various kinds.
The electoral commission, once it is established, would provide a focal point for establishing the minimum standards required for electoral registration; standards that would be free from political influences of any kind. It could also provide an authority to which complaints might be addressed. I certainly hope that the commission, once it is set up, will be one whose judgment will command respect and for that reason I feel that that body should be given some of the powers currently held by the Home Office, local authorities and others. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has anticipated part of my response to his amendment. However, he has done the Committee a favour by raising an important issue.
Although this Bill does not refer to the electoral commission, noble Lords will be aware that soon we shall have a piece of legislation to create just such a body. The question of the relationship between the commission and local electoral officials is important. That is why the matter was specifically addressed in the Government's White Paper, The Funding of Political Parties in the United Kingdom. The Government's view is set out in that document. I believe that it may be helpful if I quote reasonably extensively from it to remind the Committee exactly what we said:
"In some but not all … countries which have Electoral Commissions, voter registration and the actual administration of elections are in the hands of the Commission. This might be a natural model to adopt if starting from scratch. But the current arrangements command public confidence. A change-over would be a very large legislative and administrative project, at the expense of other priorities, and neither the Neill Committee nor any other authoritative body has suggested that it is necessary. The Government does not, therefore, propose to alter the present arrangement in [any such! far-reaching way …
We believe, however, that the Electoral Commission will quickly become the natural focal point for the provision of guidance to electoral administrators and for promoting best
990
practice in how they discharge their statutory duties. The Electoral Commission, for its part, may be expected to look to the cumulative knowledge and expertise of registration and returning officers to inform its reviews of electoral law and practice. By this two-way process the Government anticipates that the Commission will, as the Neill Committee envisaged, develop a close working relationship with the electoral administrators which will enhance the efficiency and effectiveness with which our elections are conducted".
That remains our view. It is an important development. It exists in other countries. The relationship will no doubt evolve and lines of accountability will develop over time. However, at the moment we are building on an existing and proven system. We believe that we can place our confidence and trust in that. I hope that the noble Lord will take some comfort from the close relationship which we see developing between the Commission and local electoral officials. In the meantime, given that this matter will be "coming along later", as it were, I invite him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I believe that I can tick that off in the box of "a mildly encouraging reply". Perhaps we shall come to the issue again when the next Bill relating to the electoral commission is debated. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 22, line 42, leave out from ("Where") to ("to") in line 43 and insert ("the entitlement of such a person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 69:
Page 23, line 29, at end insert—
("( ) Omit subsections (I) and (2).").
Page 23, line 30, at beginning insert ("In subsection (5),").
Page 23, line 32, leave out ("this section") and insert ("subsection (5) above").
Page 23, line 44, leave out ("any such special lists or records,") and insert ("the place and manner of its publication, and

(ii) the procedure to be followed in the preparation of any such special lists or records,").

Page 24, line 9, leave out ("section 13A") and insert ("sections 13A and 13B").
Page 24, line 14, leave out ("or 13A(2)") and insert (", 13A(2) or 13B(3)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Football: Commercial Issues
7.33 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the report of the Football Task Force on commercial issues.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to those of your Lordships who have put down their names to speak in this short debate, which is about the primary report of the Football Task Force on commercial issues. I served as the task force's vice-chairman from its inception in July 1997 to 22nd December last year when the final report was delivered to the Minister for Sport.
The task force was established as a direct response to widely shared concerns about where football was going and how it was treating its customers. Our terms of reference from the Government were to draw up plans to help to eliminate racism in football, improve disabled access, encourage greater supporter involvement in the running of clubs, encourage fairer ticketing and merchandising policies, develop the opportunities for players to act as good role models and reconcile the potential conflict between the needs of shareholders, players and supporters. Therefore, your Lordships may judge our effectiveness against those criteria. Taking our four reports together, did we achieve what we set out to do? My view is that on the whole we did, and much more effectively and with a greater degree of consensus than many thought possible at the outset.
The consultative process which led to the drafting of each report was extensive and thorough. Its central element was the programme of away-days to the 10 major cities of England, during which we took evidence during the day and held well-attended public meetings during the evenings. What impressed all of us about those occasions was the strength of feeling displayed by the supporters. At times, that approached outrage over the way in which they were treated by those who control and in many cases own football.
We took as our starting point the assumption that things were seriously wrong with the game and its governance. We learnt that football is quite different from any other consumer product or service. Supporter loyalty for a team lasts from the cradle to the grave. Perhaps the attachment that individuals have for their church is in the same category. However, one is not charged for a seat at a service and one certainly does not find worshippers buying replica cassocks from a church shop with the vicar's name on the back.
The football product may be on offer in scores of outlets almost every day of the week and, theoretically, the consumer is free to choose which supplier's product he or she wishes to buy. However, in practice each club is a monopoly supplier. The Newcastle United supporter has no more than one first team Newcastle product to buy. One would be ill advised to suggest to the fans who are taking their club to court
992
because they are being forced to move seats that they can always take their custom down the road to Sunderland, Hartlepool or Darlington.
What are the issues about which supporters feel most strongly? The answer, overwhelmingly, is ticket prices. Sixty per cent said that they were not happy with the level of prices and half said that clubs had not got the pricing right. And no wonder! We compared prices which prevailed at the end of the 1980s, before the Hillsborough disaster, with now. The average for an adult non-concessionary ticket in 1988–89 was £4.03. Now, it is £17.42. That is a price increase of 331 per cent. Prices generally, as measured by the RPI over the same period, rose by just 54.8 per cent. It is hardly surprising that 70 per cent of those who have stopped going, or hardly ever go, say that the price is the main reason for their non-attendance. We encountered a range of other consumer complaints, including poor treatment of away fans, the availability and price of concessions, replica kits exploitation, and so on. Your Lordships will find the details in our report.
We took a lot of evidence on what happens when clubs are floated on the Stock Exchange. We found that three-quarters of supporters believed that flotation was a recipe for conflict between their interests and those of shareholders. We also received allegations of financial impropriety—sometimes horrifying impropriety—and examples of how club grounds had been sold for private gain against the interests of the club and its supporters.
Therefore, it was obvious that we had to include in our recommendations proposals for some form of independent regulation and a means for providing a consumer voice for disaffected fans. But could we do that and still manage to keep all the task force members on board? For a while it looked as though that might be possible. In August last year the football authorities produced a paper which contained proposals for,
"the establishment of best practice guidance, the setting up of an independent scrutiny panel, performing a function not unlike that of the British Standards Institution or the Audit Commission, and the conduct of a health check/audit on the state of regulation, best practice and governance on a regular basis".
Most of us on the task force took the view that that represented a huge step forward. It was very much in line with the new approach which the new Football Association chairman was bringing to his organisation. It involved major changes in corporate governance and action, at last, on the implementation of Sir John Smith's recommendations on dealing with financial impropriety.
In my view, the independent members of the task force at least would have signed up to a report which gave the FA as the governing body a clear, defined role as the regulation enforcer. Accordingly, we produced a further draft of the commercial issues report which made the authorities' idea for an independent scrutiny panel the centrepiece of the new regulatory framework. But because in the end the football authorities were not prepared to make their scrutiny

993
panel a permanent standing body, they decided that they had to produce their own report. That is why there was a split report.
Their paper represents a substantial step forward compared with where they were three years ago. They accept the need for a customer charter and a code of practice. They propose some valuable safeguards to prevent the sale of grounds. They stick with their plan for an independent scrutiny panel which would review and assess the quality of the system of regulation, best practice and governance provided by the authorities.
But the majority of us on the task force felt that more was needed. The main recommendation in our report was the establishment of a football audit commission to make football and the actions of football clubs publicly accountable. We also proposed the appointment of a supporters champion, who we christened the "ombudsfan", who would be able to investigate individual complaints and seek redress. The third element in our paper covered the code of conduct for clubs, including such matters as limits on price rises, fairer ticket distribution, supporter representation and the running of clubs and limits on clubs which go to the Stock Exchange.
Both reports were considered by the All-Party Parliamentary Football Committee on 11th January. That committee supported the majority report and tabled an Early-Day Motion in another place which has so far attracted 97 signatures.
So now it is over to the Government. Everyone concerned with the game awaits their response with great interest. I know that my noble friend may not be able to give us a definitive reply this evening, but I hope that he will allow me to suggest what may be a way forward. I do not believe that the gulf between the two sides is so wide that it cannot be bridged.
I would be willing, for one, to give the new chairman and the new chief executive of the Football Association the opportunity to show that they can address the issues which the task force's investigations have uncovered. It should still be possible to establish an independent regulatory body at the FA provided that it is at arm's length from the FA. It does not matter whether it is called the football audit commission or the independent scrutiny panel provided it does the job properly. It must show that it would have dealt effectively with the scandals of recent years; that it would apply a strict fit and proper persons test to root out of the game people who should not hold any sort of office in it—the sort of thing that the Jockey Club does routinely in racing.
The new body would also have to demonstrate that it is on the side of football's customers, the fans, who must be given the means to have their complaints properly considered and to seek redress. It must be a permanent standing body, not one that meets for just a couple of weeks a year and has no teeth.
I am sure that the Government would much prefer effective, independent self-regulation of football to statutory control; and so indeed would I. But I must say to my noble friend that the Government have raised the expectations of supporters to such an extent
994
by establishing the task force and involving them in it that they cannot afford to ignore the conclusions which we reached and the concerns which we uncovered. I am sure they will not.
7.43 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for introducing this debate. Indeed, he asked me to speak in it. As your Lordships know, that is very dangerous. I have only six minutes because the debate is time-limited.
First, in congratulating the noble Lord, I ask your Lordships and, indeed, the noble Lord to start at the beginning of this fascinating report. The chairman, who used to be a right honourable colleague down the Corridor, said that:
"We resisted the temptation to go to see how much better the game is regulated in Hawaii, Bali and the Seychelles".
Perhaps the vice-chairman will tell me where he and his colleagues did go. Did they go to "Baywatch" or Australia? We are not told. It may be that he will not have the time to do so.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, we went to exotic places like Birmingham, Sheffield and Newcastle. We were constrained by a budget given to us by the Government of about £120,000. So it was a very small budget on which we worked.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I am delighted to have that cleared up.
Secondly, for reasons which will become apparent, I add my congratulations to Ms Eleanor Oldroyd of Radio 5 Live which keeps me and millions of other supporters, whatever they are called, in touch with our football clubs around the world.
I am delighted that on the working party was Mr Uriah Rennie, a referee. That is a class of sportsman with whom I have a great deal of sympathy since, seven years ago, I began to have the honour to become one of your Lordships' Deputy Chairmen.
I come quickly to the recommendations. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred to the regulation and football audit committee. I should be interested to know whether the Government have any more thoughts on a more precise definition of its duties. I was interested in paragraphs 127 and 128 of the reply of the Football Association—what I call "football's reply".
The financial compliance unit is dealt with in paragraph 89 of "football's reply". I wonder: are we to have more accountants, auditors and financial analysts than there are players and others?
I declare my interest. As the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, and other noble Lords will know, for 33 years now, I have been a great supporter, all round the world, of Everton Football Club. I am 200 miles from there now and 300 miles away when I am in Scotland. But thanks to the BBC World Service, when I have been in, for example, Seattle or elsewhere around the world, great happiness, or perhaps

995
sometimes sadness, has been caused by Everton's results. I declare an interest also in that I am a shareholder.
I hope that the noble Lord and the Minister who is to reply will glance at paragraph 4 of "football's reply" which sets the tone of the debate this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, mentioned ticket prices. It soon becomes clear which club he supports and it is a very fine club. But Everton is classified as being one of the large clubs, but not one of the superclubs. We do not know whether that will change. The top price for a ticket—and this is Merseyside—is £1,370 for the season for 20 games and an excellent meal is included in the price. It costs £940 without the meal. Season tickets cost from £330 down to £300. If you want to go to an individual game, it will cost from about £24 down to £20. For an old age pensioner, it costs £12; for a child, it costs £10. I do not necessarily believe that spectators (whatever their age) will go to every game.
In the report, there is quite a considerable contribution on the subject of what I call "apparel". The rules of your Lordships' House forbid exhibits to be produced. I did not think it fit to wear the apparel but I have an aide memoire with me on the Bench this evening. I have a jersey which I bought for £5 in 1975 which has been skiing with me. It has seen many battles and has been wrapped round trees and so on. It has been beautifully repaired and is still wearable.
I bought another shirt last year which cost £42. I paid an extra £5 to the Premier League for two numbers on the back. One must pay 75p per letter, if one wants one's name, such as "Lyell", on the back. I have not thought what it would cost to have "McIntosh of Haringey". It would cost Lord Grantchester, who is a director of Everton Football Club, £9. That is what it costs for the apparel and, apparently, that is what people are prepared to pay.
I shall leave the question of finance, except to stress to your Lordships that one of the paragraphs in the report presented by the noble Lord and his committee (Chapter 2, paragraph 24) refers to players' wages. It says that that is completely unsustainable.
I have mentioned Everton and I now turn to the non-financial side of things. As your Lordships will be aware, Everton is one of two major clubs in Liverpool, and on Merseyside. It has a tremendous record and large numbers of boys look up to the players. It has a very powerful "Everton in the Community" group. Last summer it visited Bideford and Barnstaple. It also has something called a "youth academy".
Three gentlemen there—Mr Hall, Mr Harvey and Mr Harper—not the famous half-back line, although one was—are in charge of training and nurturing the careers of young men and young footballers. Last year, they were champions of England. Three of those boys passed their A-levels. One passed four and the others passed three A-levels. The noble Lord invited me to Selhurst Park several days ago when Everton was playing. Five of the team on that pitch came through the Everton ranks and through the Everton youth academy. That is the nature of the creature of which the noble Lord is speaking.
996
I conclude quickly with a tale of two jerseys. One was worn by a young man, a boy, who was a mascot at Everton. He went out to a full house. Everton beat Manchester United. He was tucked up that night by his mother. He said, "It was a great night. We won". He died that night. The second relates to a young man called Craig Parry who was blown up by the IRA in Wigan. His father said that Craig's greatest wish to was to go to the grave in his Everton jersey. That is the nature of the emotion in paragraph 4 of "football's reply". I thank the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to mention it.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I have the feeling of being the only pagan in a church. I am not a great football fan. I have two comments regarding wearing a jersey with one's name on the back. First, as rugby players, we need slightly tougher jerseys than footballers; and, secondly, I have decided only ever to wear a jersey in which I have played. As my playing days are numbered, I have a nice stock, so I do not think I shall be stung heavily.
Professional football in this country is felt by its fans, the people who watch it, to be owned by them. That almost comes through the pores of fans when talking about the game; it is their game. The report addresses that issue head-on. With the possible exception of rugby league, virtually no other sport creates that feeling. It is theirs because they go to watch it, support it and take it on board. They ensure that it is theirs.
The problem referred to throughout the report is that people feel they are losing that link with football. They no longer feel that the game is theirs. I remember when everybody talked about football. Everybody went to see it. They stood on the terraces and there was a community feeling. I also remember people talking of the golden days of football when hundreds of thousands of people were in the grounds. I feel that perhaps in a large number of cases they went to watch the backs of each other's necks, but that is how it was.
I also remember how most people who went to football games decided either to run away from the fighting or to join in. Professional football can certainly pat itself on the back for having dealt with the problem of violence or the perception of violence within football.
The report refers to the fact that the fans feel that they are losing control of their game. Football has become incredibly fashionable. As such, it is in danger of being priced out of the market. Indeed, the marketing men had better beware. My own sport of rugby union flirted with the marketing men and got it horribly wrong. My old club, London Scottish, no longer exists. The marketing men decided that the sport should go in a certain direction but the money was not behind it. They tried to become soccer and have mass participation.
There is a professional football team in every major town. If we do not get it right by attracting fans to watch the game the whole structure of football is in

997
danger of being undermined because the necessary funding will not come through. With few exceptions, that will not be compensated for by revenue from broadcasting in any form. We may have to return to that discussion on another occasion. The money will not be there for junior sides who are dependent on high attendance at the gates.
Several thousand people turning up to watch two teams play in the third best league is a remarkable cultural and marketing tradition which other sports would literally kill for. In this country, only football has that tradition.
I shall not go into the detail of the report, which has already been mentioned. The report points to the fact that we must refer back to the people watching football. It also refers to getting people interested in playing the game. It is the one sport where the major participation level is on Sunday morning, presumably so that people are free to watch football on Saturday afternoons. We should not break with that practice. Unless we keep the fans on board so that they feel it is still their game and they must watch their club play, the link between watching and participating will break down. In many other sports it is much more important to play the game than to watch.
I hope that the Government will support the report. Every single body is essentially conservative with a small "c" when it comes to change. I hope that the Government are prepared to stand with carrot and, more importantly, stick, and give the full support of their legal machine to the report.
7.54 p.m.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, it is customary to congratulate the noble Lord who initiates a debate and I do so wholeheartedly. However, I congratulate him and his colleagues even more on what I consider to be an excellent report. It gives real hope for the future in circumstances where real change is needed.
I declare the obvious interest that my commitment to football is that I have played in more matches that I have watched. I am not sure that I can define myself entirely as a fan, having been engaged for many years in what we called amateur football but what is now called, in a rather deprecating way, "junior football". For 20 years I was captain of the Parliamentary 11 in which the noble Lord, Lord McNally also played his part on important and significant occasions.
My declaration of interest may perhaps help to counteract what may be the great danger for someone from my generation participating in a debate such as this—that of being somewhat suffused with nostalgia for times past. It is the case that I greatly enjoyed being on the terraces. Standing on the terraces, I watched all the matches in which England went on to win the World Cup at Wembley. I would not have sacrificed that position for a seat. However, we all learnt the lessons of Hillsborough and we all know why football had to be transformed in the wake of that disaster.
Far from being nostalgic, I am appreciative of the modern game. We should recognise that it is faster, more skilful and a better spectacle than the game of the
998
past. Perhaps I may say, against the usual pejorative lines that follow the numbers of yellow and red cards displayed over the weekend, that previously football was less disciplined than it is today. From time to time we have the scandals of trouble on the field. However, 30 or 40 years ago, in my view football was much less disciplined. Players were selected for their ability to take out opponents from the game and actually did so. Referees have better control over the game now than then.
However, I resent the fact that football is drifting away from the very people who gave it sustenance and from which it derives its roots, as the report so accurately identifies. The vast majority of football grounds remain in working-class communities in our towns and cities. It is appalling that that which is part of the warp and weft working-class life is being ripped away by the simple fact that poorer people, particularly the unemployed, cannot afford to attend matches because of the exorbitant rise in football prices. The noble Lord gave us a clear illustration of how those prices have run amuck in comparison to almost any commodity one could think of that is set before the nation today.
Opera has had to learn the responsibility of being opera for the nation and has a pricing policy at Covent Garden which gives opportunities to the less well-off. Football is a beneficiary of considerable public money. The Taylor report would never have been implemented if it had not been for the substantial sums of money from the Football Trust, which also derives support from government largesse. Public money has helped to transform the grounds. What is more, many of the grounds have been transformed by the direct input of fans who contribute to them. Sometimes they find that they are then frozen out of the very grounds they have contributed towards improving. I do not have the slightest doubt that it is absolutely essential to implement that aspect of the report which calls for a wider range of ticket prices and wants to make it possible for the less well-off in the community to go to matches.
I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is right. We need control over the pricing of replica kits. I was absolutely shocked—I made the point repeatedly on the occasions I was able to do so when I represented Oldham in the other place—that the cost of replica kits escalated year on year. I watched families with limited resources, eager that their sons and, in many cases, their daughters, should identify with the town's club at a time when the club was enjoying rather better fortunes than today. However, the cost of doing so was prohibitively expensive. I have no doubt that we should seek regulation in that regard.
I have not the slightest doubt that we need a stake for fans upon the board. Even if football management and directorship is represented—a major achievement of high standards in this country—there would still be a massive case for the representation of fans. In fact, as we all know, the management of our football clubs has often been deplorable. Almost the only gesture to the fans is to throw them the manager's head when they have berated him sufficiently by demonstrations

999
on the pitch to show that they cannot tolerate the recent results—and at times that can be an extremely short-sighted perspective.
Fans have the right and expectation to be taken into a position where they can make their representations to the board and feel part of the club. That is why I have hopes that this report, in its excellent precision, will impact upon the football authorities so that they put their house in order and introduce reforms. The Minister may not be too assertive on what the Government intend to do about the report in the short term, but I assure him that, as has already been said, we will be pressing the Government to act if within a short period of time the major proposals of the report are not implemented.
8.1 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, on instigating this fascinating debate. I congratulate the Government on instigating the preparation of the report and the Football Task Force on coming up with an important document. As everybody has said—it is a conventional truism—football is not just a game; it is a huge exercise in national cementing. At a time when loyalties are hard to find and even harder to bestow, football remains an extraordinary repository of what is a basic human instinct.
One of the most amusing paragraphs in the report is paragraph 4.5, where apparently a financial analyst from Salomon Brothers gasped that football fans are described as "irrationally loyal". I suppose it would need a financial analyst from Salomon Brothers to realise that loyalty is not rational; indeed, its very essence is irrationality. It has to do with tribal love and identification, all the things the City has long since forgotten.
One point that worries me about the report and its conclusions is that they do not seem to have found a way of combining sport and business. The report is quite frank about the dilemma, but does not come to any sort of credible conclusion. Indeed, some of the conclusions appear to be a touch triumphalist.
In paragraph 4.3 appears this sentence:
"The survival of so many clubs and of such a strong tradition of support for them is a legacy of football's history. It is also a result of an ethos in the running of the clubs that they be sporting institutions and not mere vehicles for making money".
Frankly, if they cease to be sporting institutions, if they lose the ethos that the task force correctly refers to as being at the centre of soccer, then the game will not survive in its present form.
I come back to the ticket pricing issue, because that is the litmus test of whether or not clubs are capable of seeing that sporting ethos at the heart of their commercial affairs. The statistics are striking and I commend to your Lordships Section 5, which deals with them at length. When they did a detailed survey into pricing, it was found that 60 per cent of respondents—having asked thousands of people —
1000
said that they would like to take children to games of football but often could not because of the prices; six out of 10 were not happy; eight out of 10 unemployed people could not get to matches any more.
We all surely agree that soccer is much more important than merely being the place to which the increasingly affluent go, yet the figures from the University of Leicester show that 60 per cent of the season ticket holders from Chelsea are people earning more than £30,000 a year. That is a striking statistic. Good luck to them, but let us somehow retain the prospect of poor and unemployed people attending games they desperately want to see. I suspect—I am not sure that the report contains any evidence for it, it is probably difficult to find—that it is the poorer members of the clubs, the people who live in the immediate locality, who provide the absolute loyalty that sees clubs through thick and thin and which sustains them at the rotten as well as the great times.
I hope that we can look more frankly at this dilemma between commerciality and ethos, or sports. I want to say something in relation to ethos in terms of conduct. I hesitate to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Davies, who has stood on so many terraces—I have stood on a few in my time—but I do not buy his picture that football today is as sporting as it was when he was a lad. Many of our greatest players went through their careers without ever being sent off. Some of them were never booked. We are talking of Stanley Matthews, Bobby Charlton and John Charles; they scarcely ever had a foul awarded against them. By contrast, at the Leeds and Tottenham Hotspur game at the weekend there was a brawl involving nearly every player. At the Chelsea and Wimbledon game there was a brawl involving a large number of players and staff. At the Manchester United and Newcastle game, the captain of Manchester United, Keane—one of the most over-paid players in the world—was sent off for the sixth time in his career. What kind of example is that? These are matters which it is not sensible to be cavalier about. We often hear sports commentators—in relation to rugby too, which is my first love—being dismissive of excessive violence, saying, "That is the sort of thing lads do". But they should not do that before the cameras which beam the games around the world when they are being paid the money they are. Perhaps it is because they are paid so much that they behave so badly.
I conclude by saying that we must look to individuals and to individual clubs to put their house in order. We cannot ask the Government to solve this. The Government may be able to do some things, but it is basically down to the game itself. Let us not forget the small clubs, the amateur clubs. The professional clubs should be an example for them and enable them to have a better and easier life. I sometimes feel that they are not remotely interested in the seedbed of their own success. Let us make this once beautiful game a beautiful game again.
8.7 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, understands that the time

1001
constraint prevents me from paying him the tribute which his contribution to soccer deserves, not only in this report, but also on his work for the Football Trust.
David Mellor, the chairman of the Football Task Force, in the foreword of this report quotes the views of some of its members which go to the nub of our debate. They believe that soccer is,
"a modern, highly professional, big-money game, the demands of which … have far outgrown the present regulatory machinery".
The most significant statistic in the report is that there are 54,000 clubs affiliated to the FA. That is a glorious pyramid topped at the moment by the wealth, glamour and power of Manchester United, but supported by the love of the game are thousands of amateur officials and players and millions of fans.
It is interesting to read in the report how the founding fathers of the game foresaw some of our present problems and devised rules to protect it from narrow-based exploitation. The removal of earlier protections left the game with two very clear problems. First, how do we keep football at the highest level interesting and competitive if wealth and playing skills are concentrated in a handful of clubs? Secondly, how do we ensure that a decent proportion of the immense wealth coming into football at the top is used for the long-term benefit of the game at all levels? The 5 per cent levy proposed on new television contracts is a gesture in the right direction; but more may need to be done, either voluntarily or by compulsion, to shake money down the pyramid if the game is not to wither at its roots.
Without some of the remedial action outlined in this report, and other measures, we will face a situation where the interests of fans are constantly put second to the protecting of shareholder value; where clubs like Manchester United become increasingly like the Harlem Globe Trotters—circling the world chasing the fast buck at the expense of home fans and domestic competition; and where the game itself and its competitions become increasingly the fodder feeding the voracious appetite of television.
I was interested to hear what my noble friend Lord Addington said about marketing men. One of the most potent advertising slogans of all time was, "We always remember you have a choice". How many of today's fans were first taken to watch football by their parents? Break that link by greed or insensitivity and you lose not just today's fans but also those of tomorrow. That is why those involved in football, from club chairman to bootboys, need to realise that the future depends on their ability to give as well as to take.
It is true that I spent the twilight of my undistinguished career under the captaincy of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, in the House of Commons' team. But I am afraid that I agree with my noble friend Lord phillips on the question of player discipline. For example, the current behaviour of some Manchester United players is, quite frankly, a disgrace. A national Sunday newspaper said this yesterday:
"Sir Alex Ferguson's players are like volcanoes permanently on the verge of eruption".
1002
That is not good enough from football's premier club. If Sir Alex Ferguson is unwilling to control them, perhaps a three-point deduction would instil some discipline into Roy Keane or Jaap Stam next time they shove their faces into that of the referee and try to intimidate an official. Do they not realise that this behaviour is replicated in parks and playgrounds, along with the petty fouling and cheating that is the example set by too many in the modern game?
So players should set an example, as should the clubs, thereby making a far greater contribution to dealing with the social problems of the communities that nurture them. As has been said, many of our big clubs are located within areas of high crime, social exclusion, racial tension and social deprivation. Yet the contributions that the clubs make to addressing these problems is often all too minimal. For their part, the Government's priorities should be in ensuring that football at all levels is run with probity and accountability; and that the game's wealth is more evenly distributed.
The Government should also use this report as a basis for a new charter for football, which includes root and branch reform of the Football Association. Today I met the new chief executive, Adam Crozier, who, by his very youth, will look very out of place in the FA Council. I believe that the proposed code of practice and the audit commission are the right way ahead, as well as the "ombudsfan". In fact, I should like to see a football commissioner, along the lines of the American model, to get to grips with some of these problems. I should also like to see redistributive levies on transfer fees and broadcasting deals.
The task force has done a good job in identifying priorities and in suggesting remedies. We now look to government and the football authorities to respond in a way which will release the immense potential for good that is in football, and save it from those who either lack the capacity to manage the modern game or whose sense of vision and social responsibility ends on the bottom line of a balance sheet.
Perhaps I may conclude by saying to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that my father was born in Old Swan in Liverpool. He brought me up to believe that Liverpool had two great football clubs: Liverpool and Liverpool Reserves.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, for giving us the opportunity to have this short debate. I am certainly aware of the high regard in which he is held in the football world. I congratulate him on the valuable part that he has played both in the production of the report and in all the work that has gone into it.
It is, of course, disappointing to all of us that it was not possible for agreement to be reached on just one report. I look forward to hearing from the Minister which report is to be endorsed by the Government. Alternatively, will there be a pick-and-mix approach, or will the whole thing will be kicked into touch?

1003
I certainly hope not in respect of the last option. The reports are the last in a series produced by the task force. As noble Lords have said, the task force has addressed the most fraught area of the remit; namely, the commercial and regulatory issues, which are vital for us to resolve if the game is to have a healthy future.
Four weeks ago I saw the game at the hard end of it. I went to watch my own home town of Woking play in the third round of the FA Trophy. I thank its director of football, Phil Ledger, for making me feel so welcome. I also declare an interest because I had a free ticket. The club usually attracts about 2,500 supporters a week and is the source of local pride. On that occasion, I am pleased to say that Woking won 4:2. I shall say nothing about last Saturday; it is perhaps better forgotten.
Woking plays in the Nationwide Conference. When I watched the team play, I saw at first hand the financial problems faced by clubs that do not have access to the vast sums available to some League clubs and some League players. Therefore, when I came to read the reports, I naturally did so with the needs and views of the smaller clubs very much at the forefront of my mind.
The reports sweep across the business world of football from the macro—the issues of principle, duty and responsibility—to the micro. My noble friend Lord Lyell referred to one such issue; namely, kit. I believe that I shall remember for many a year the picture of my noble friend careering down a ski slope with his Everton jumper firmly in place. However, as is often the case with my noble friend, he has, by making a gentle joke, focused our attention on a tough issue and one that is very important to supporters of the game. I refer to the cost of replica kits.
The big question for the Government must surely be: do they accept the recommendation in the first report that there should be a football audit commission—a permanent standing body—and that if in a period of two years sufficient progress has not been made to establish such a commission, the Government should then appoint a regulator by legislation to implement a statutory code of practice for football? Alternatively, do the Government prefer the model proposed in the second report; namely, an independent scrutiny panel, the background of which was explained by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, which would not be a standing body or established by legislation? Can the Minister tell the House tonight what progress has been made in the development of this scrutiny panel? Further, is he satisfied that such a panel could provide an independent and impartial forum for football bodies to present their case for fair treatment?
I welcome the recognition on page 9 of the first report that,
"the economic gap between large and small professional clubs and between the leagues in the national structure is growing".
But the question should surely be: what do the Government think should be done about the situation? Indeed, do the Government have a role to play in that
1004
process? Do the Government feel that the vast resources flowing into the game are being distributed in an equitable and fair manner?
In their joint report to the task force, the FA, the Premier League and the Football League said that they were making extensive efforts to "ensure consistency" and to "promote best practice". Are the Government confident that these principles are being applied at all levels of the game? I make particular reference to the fact that promotion between the Nationwide Conference and the Football League remains at one place compared to three promotion places at other levels of the game—indeed, four places between Second and Third Division League clubs. I also draw attention to the fact that the criteria for operating academies for young players excludes clubs in the Conference and that under football rules Conference clubs cannot sign schoolboys aged between 9 to 15, although the League and the Premier League can do so.
I welcome the fact that there is a recognition in both reports of the need for a rigorous code of practice to govern the way clubs behave towards their fans. However, do the Government agree with the first report that there should be a written code of practice for the game both on and off the field? One begins to wonder where is the boundary between a footballer's professional and private life.
The overarching questions for the Government in all of this must be: do they accept the premise on which report No. 1 is based? The report states at page 2,
"that football—and indeed sport—is different from other business sectors".
Further, how far should, or could, any government intervene in determining the management and commercial operation of businesses that promote sport? I believe that their answers to these questions have ramifications beyond the world of football, large and important though it is to all noble Lords.
8.20 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Faulkner for raising this issue tonight and to all who have taken part in the debate. I can well understand why my noble friend, who is one of the task force's distinguished members—he is distinguished also in the wider football world—is particularly anxious to see the Government's response to the task force's final report. I am afraid that I must disappoint him. I am sure he will be aware that I shall not give the Government's response tonight. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who as usual fired off a barrage of questions at me, will know that I shall not even respond as precisely as she would wish to the questions which are the Government's concern. Many of the issues she raised are matters not for the Government but for the world of football itself.
However, this debate will form an input to the Government's consideration of the task force's report and will certainly be taken seriously by them. I am happy to set out the issues which are being considered by the Secretary of State and the Minister for Sport as they frame their response to the report.

1005
Before I do that, however, I must emphasise my congratulations to my noble friend and his fellow task force members. He has eloquently described their work over the past two-and-a-half years, not just on this report but also on previous reports on racism, disabled access and the sport's role in the community. Those earlier reports were notable for their sound analysis and the common sense of their conclusions and recommendations. The truth of that is confirmed by the speed with which the football authorities have implemented many of the proposals which they made. As a direct result of the task force's endeavours, football now has the equipment necessary to fight the cancer of racism. It has a unified policy on welcoming disabled people to stadia and providing them with the best in facilities, and it has a new will to work in partnership with local communities. Those achievements are substantial and we should applaud them.
The recommendations of the previous reports were, of course, unanimous. That cannot be said of the task force's latest report. We have two reports, one from a majority of the task force members and a minority report written by the FA, the FA Premier League and the Nationwide League. It would be easy to disregard the whole exercise for that reason, but that would be misguided. The report reflects genuine public concern about the way football is run in this country and the Government have no intention of using the lack of consensus as an excuse to avoid addressing that concern.
David Mellor rounded off his introduction to the report by quoting Milton. He could with equal profit have turned to Walt Whitman, who stated in Leaves of Grass,
"Do I contradict myself? Very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large; I contain multitudes".
That is not meant as criticism. Whitman celebrated the diversity of human experience. In the same spirit we should celebrate the diversity of the people involved in the making of the task force's latest report. The members of the task force were drawn from, and indeed nominated by, all parts of football, from governing bodies to supporter groups. They took evidence from a wide range of organisations including clubs, administrators and representatives of other industries. As my noble friend has emphasised, they carried out extensive, although not scenic, tours of the country. Hundreds of fans took part in the research work on which the proposals of the final report were based.
In view of that, the task force's achievement in simply agreeing on the scope of its proposals, if not on the proposals themselves, is an impressive one. That was no simple matter. Fans' detailed concerns cover a wide range of issues, from ticket prices—which have been much emphasised in the debate tonight—and merchandising (we have discussed strips) to the financial rectitude of clubs and the extent to which supporters are involved in decision-making. Their concerns reflect some of the huge changes that have taken place in football over the past two decades. It is
1006
now a big business but one which depends to a great extent on the decidedly non-commercial goodwill of its supporter base.
The conundrum which football, in common with other major sports, is facing worldwide cannot be characterised in black and white terms. We are not just looking at a contradiction between the business ethos and the sporting spirit. The paradox runs deeper than that, as Bill Shankley nearly said, as regards life, death and football. Governing bodies must encourage investment in football at all levels. Without that, the sport withers at amateur and junior levels and the national team suffers. Attracting and retaining investment means ensuring that investors make a reasonable return, but authorities must recognise their responsibilities. Both the noble Lord, Lord McNally, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, emphasised the importance of that.
It is, of course, a good sign that the Premier League is committed to allocate 5 per cent of TV revenues to support grass roots football. The Government are discussing the distribution of that money with the league and with the Football Association. The point is well taken. However, that must be balanced with the sport's wider needs, its traditions and the need to ensure fair competition between clubs.
Supporters have contradictory imperatives. They realise that a club's success at any level in the professional game takes a great deal of money. Logically, the committed supporter would gladly accept rises in the prices of tickets and merchandise if these would demonstrably improve the team's chances of success. To a certain extent, that is already the case. But football supporters, like the rest of us, are generally rational beings, despite being described as tribal by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, and indeed by the football authorities themselves in their report. They do not want to be exploited, especially if they feel that the exploiter is an institution to which they have been devoted in many cases since childhood. Therefore to characterise the split report as an analogy of a straightforward conflict between commerce and Corinthianism in modern football is a gross over-simplification.
To the great credit of all involved, both the majority and the minority reports demonstrate an acute awareness of the complexity of the issues. Yes, we have been presented with two reports. However, in view of the difficulties of the task force's remit, the degree of consensus that it achieved is remarkable. Both minority and majority reports agree that supporters have valid grievances which must be addressed. I repeat my acknowledgement of what has been said in that regard, particularly with regard to ticket prices. Both reports agree on the need to set standards of customer service and financial rectitude; for supporters to have a bigger say on how the game is administered; and on the need for an accountable body to monitor improvements in those areas. The two proposals for meeting those objectives are very different and not just in matters of detail.

1007
As my noble friend Lord Faulkner said, the majority report calls for an independent football audit commission actively to monitor clubs' performances against a national code of practice. It would oversee a new system of auditing clubs and would have the power to impose financial or other penalties. The report also recommends the appointment of an "ombudsfan" who would investigate complaints from supporters and report to the football audit commission.
The football authorities' proposed independent scrutiny panel would be appointed by the governing bodies themselves, although with additional independent members. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that I am not aware of any developments in setting up such a scrutiny panel, but we have yet to discuss the report with the football authorities.
The panel's primary task would be a review of the current state of regulation in the sport. It would be supported by a permanent management board and by individual customer charters drawn up by clubs. The noble Baroness asks me to choose between the proposals. However, I hope that she will recognise that the right thing for us to do is to consider the proposals on their merits and not to make that consideration too hurried. The consideration must start—indeed has started—from what unites the two proposals. My noble friend Lord Faulkner recognised that when he talked about bridging the gulf between them.
Any scheme, whether based on an external body or achieved through self-regulation, must command the support of all parts of the sport. However it is constituted and whatever it is called, a new body would have to work closely both with the present governing bodies and with supporters' associations. Without that widespread support it would lack both legitimacy and effective power.
There are more practical considerations. Any new regulator must not impose burdensome costs on the sport. Of course supporters and governing bodies are entitled to expect high standards of customer service and financial rectitude from clubs. But we live in an imperfect world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, many clubs outside the premier league have severe financial problems. Any new regulatory framework must take account of this without materially compromising its commitments to the agreed principles of the two reports. The key decision here for football concerns the form and powers of any new regulatory body.
The report makes a number of other key recommendations. The Government have already taken forward one of these. We agree with the task force that supporters should be given every assistance in investing in clubs. The Secretary of State announced the principles of the SupportersDirect initiative on 1st October last year with the creation of the new unit to administer it on 29th January. In shadow form it is already offering support, advice and information to groups of supporters who wish to play a responsible role in their clubs by collectively owning shares. I am
1008
sure that SupportersDirect will play a key role in improving the future health of the football industry. I acknowledge that this is not the same as having fans on the board, an argument put by my noble friend Lord Davies of Oldham, but it is certainly a related initiative.
The task force was designed to achieve the future health of the football industry. It was never intended to function exclusively as the voice of either football supporters or of the governing bodies. The Government's response to the report, when it comes, will be proportionate to the wider public concern about the running of football. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, that we shall not be kicking the report into touch.
Many people both inside and outside football are concerned by what Hugh McIlvanney has described as,
"The strange. disproportionate and often damaging role that a simple ball game has come to play in the lives of so many of our fellow citizens".
McIlvanney wrote shortly after the Hillsborough tragedy, when football had rather more important considerations than commercialisation to address. Even so, he expressed a general truth with which I think even the most committed follower of the sport may agree after reflection.
But I do not want to conclude on a downbeat note. The Government are extremely grateful to the task force. We are confident that much good will come from its final report. We have made the report widely available and, just as we are grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, we look forward to hearing the views of the public as part of the consultation process.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.36 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.33 to 8.36 p.m.]

Representation of the People Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 1.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 25, line 16, leave out ("for publication of notice of the election") and insert ("on which nomination papers nominating candidates at an election may be submitted").
The noble Lord said: The amendment is concerned with that part of Schedule 1 which discusses election addresses. I shall come to the main point about election addresses shortly. This is a simpler point and I suspect that the Government may be aware of the problem.
As I read the Bill as it stands, the date on which registration closes and the last date for postage of electoral addresses do not seem to match. It seems

1009
logical that they should be the same. There is no point in the register closing—save, perhaps, for the special circumstances of a clerical error—after the date on which the Post Office demands from the political parties that their election addresses be sent to the Post Office. The two dates should relate to each other so that when the political parties come to send out their election addresses they are sent out to all the people on the valid register.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of this part of the Bill—no doubt the Minister will tell me if I am— but those two matters should be in the correct order. The register should close, so to speak; the political parties should get the complete register; and they then have the opportunity to ensure that they have sent their election addresses to all those voting in the election. It should not be the other way round. It should not even be coincidental, because it would be rather difficult to deal with then, and it certainly should not be the wrong way round.
I invite the Government to correct me if I am wrong. If I am not wrong, perhaps they can assure me that they will have a look at this issue before we come to Report stage. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Who am I to say that the noble Lord is wrong? I can understand why he has moved the amendment. The first point I should make is that for most purposes the key dale in the election cycle is the closing date for nominations. Yet, as the proposal reads, the right to a free mail delivery would be related to the electorate as at the date for the publication of the notice of election, rather than the closing date for nominations. Members of the Committee may wonder what is the reason for that. The answer is quite simple. It has long been recognised that some candidates, in order to kick start their campaign— "to give it momentum" as it is described in the American presidential system—may want to send their election address out early, before the close of nominations.
Section 91(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 specifically provides for that by allowing candidates to send out their freepost delivery before the publication of the statement of persons nominated—which is produced directly after the closing time for nominations—provided they can give the Post Office sufficient security. We did not want to remove that flexibility. However, if candidates are to continue to have the right to send out their freepost delivery before the closing date for nominations, for that purpose electors need to be defined by reference to the earlier date on which the notice for election is published. I trust that, in the light of that explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Given all the complicated dates involved, the best I can do is to take away the amendment, talk to those perhaps more involved in elections than I now am and see what they have to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
("Election Addresses: Greater London Authority Elections

GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY ELECTIONS; CANDIDATE'S RIGHT TO SEND ELECTION ADDRESSES POST FREE
19A. After section 91 there shall be inserted—
"91A.—(1) At an election for the Greater London Authority held under the provisions of the 1999 Act—

(a) each individual candidate for Mayor of London;

(b) each individual candidate for return as a constituency member of the Greater London Assembly,

is entitled to send free of charge for postage either—

(i) one un-addressed postal communication, containing matter relating to the election only not exceeding 60 grammes in weight. to each place in the Assembly constituency (in the case of an individual candidate for return as a constituency member) or (in the case of an individual candidate for Mayor of London) each place in the Assembly constituencies, which, in accordance with the Post Office Regulations 1987 (as applied and modified by subsection (5) below) constitutes a delivery point for the purposes of this subsection; or

(ii) one such postal communication addressed to each elector.

(2) Any such candidate is also, subject as mentioned in subsection (1) above, entitled to send free of any charge for postage to each person entered in the list of proxies for the appropriate election one such communication as mentioned in subsection (1) above for each appointment in respect of which that person is so entered.
(3) A person shall not be deemed to be a candidate for Mayor of London or to be a candidate for return as a constituency member unless he is shown as standing nominated in the statement of persons nominated, but until publication of that statement any person who declares himself to be such a candidate shall be entitled to exercise the right of free postage conferred by this section if he gives such security as may be required by the Post Office for the payment of postage should he not be shown as standing nominated as mentioned above.
(4) For the purposes of this section, "elector" means a person—

(a) who is registered as a local government elector in an Assembly constituency for which the election is to be held in the register to be used at the election; or

(b) who, pending the publication of that register appears in the electors' lists for such a register (as corrected by the registration officer) to be entitled to be so registered,

and accordingly includes a person shown in the register or electors lists as below voting age if it appears from that register or those lists that he will be of voting age on the day fixed for the poll, but not otherwise.
(5) The Post Office Regulations 1987 shall have effect in relation to an election for the Mayor of London and the London Assembly subject to the following modifications—

(a) in regulation 1, the reference to "section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983" shall be construed as a reference to this section;

1011

(b) any reference to "constituency" shall, in relation to a candidate for return as a constituency member, be construed as a reference to an Assembly constituency, and, in relation to a candidate for return as Mayor of London, be construed as a reference to the Assembly constituencies.

(6) If the area of the GLRO is situated in the area of more than one Head Postmaster, the controlling Head Postmaster for the purposes of the Post Office Regulations 1987 as applied by subsection (5) above shall be determined by the GLRO.
(7) Any communication issued under the provisions of this section by a candidate for return as a constituency member standing as the candidate of a registered political party may refer to the candidates for return as London members submitted on that registered political party's party list.
(8) For the purposes of this section—

(a) "the 1999 Act" means the Greater London Authority Act 1999;

(b) "Greater London Authority" means the body referred to in section 1 of the 1999 Act;

(c) "Mayor of London" means the office referred to in section 2(1)(a) of the 1999 Act;

(d) "London Assembly" means the Assembly referred to in section 2(1)(b) of the 1999 Act;

(e) "constituency member" means a member of the London Assembly of the type referred to in section 2(2)(a) of the 1999 Act;

(f) "London member" means a member of the London Assembly of the type referred to in section 2(2)(b) of the 1999 Act;

(g) "Assembly constituency" has the same meaning as in section 2 of the 1999 Act;

(h) "GLRO" means

(i) in relation to the first ordinary election of the Greater London Authority, the person, or persons of the description, designated by order under section 3(4) of the 1999 Act as the returning officer at the elections of the Mayor of London and of the London members;

(ii) in relation to any other election, the proper officer of the Greater London Authority (as defined in section 424(2) of the 1999 Act);

(i) "registered political party" means a party registered under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998;

(j) "party list" means a list submitted to the GLRO in accordance with paragraph 5 of Part II of Schedule 2 to the 1999 Act on behalf of a registered political party."").

The noble Lord said: It is fair to say that this is far more than a probing amendment. It is a serious amendment in which not only I am involved; I am joined by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and—I nearly said "my noble friend", but I meant the noble Earl, Lord Russell, with whom I have sparred on many occasions. On this occasion we are speaking on the same side. If I were the Government, I should be trembling in my shoes.
The background to the amendment is of course that there are shortly to be elections in London for the mayor and the London assembly. They are significant elections; they will certainly encompass the largest electorate of any election below the level of the election to the United Kingdom Parliament. The constituencies involved are therefore extremely large. The mayor will have a mandate from an electorate in
1012
excess of 5 million. I am not entirely sure whether it is more or fewer—but it is certainly on a par with the electorate in Scotland. It is remarkably larger than the electorate in Wales or in Northern Ireland.
The Government themselves have created that structure. The elections are extremely important. They will clearly give London a voice—that is what the Government said they wanted—and the mayor will be a significant figure. In addition to the mayor, there are to be elections to the assembly of a rather limited number of candidates: 14 constituencies in London will elect one each; and 10 top-ups, which is something we are now fairly used to in Scotland and Wales. There will be three groups: the mayor, who is self standing; the 14 constituency members; and the 10 top-ups, who will be related to the 14 constituency members via the d'Hondt formula. I shall not bore the Committee by reminding your Lordships about d'Hondt. I am sure that my previous lessons on the subject have all been well learnt.
Lord McNally: Can I add d'Hondt to the list?
8.45 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is therefore a serious election. While the powers are certainly different, I suggest that it is on a par in democratic terms with the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. They in themselves are of course different; the Scottish Executive has far more powers than the Welsh Executive, which in turn has more powers than the Northern Ireland Assembly. They are not all the same, which goes for London too.
The mayor's responsibilities are reasonably limited, but he will be a voice for London. Knowing the way the system works, I suggest that he will be a voice on a range of issues, including those which do not come directly under his responsibility. If the Government doubt that, I invite them to take a look at what the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly are already doing. They venture occasionally into areas that are not their direct responsibility, much to the annoyance of Dr John Reid, the Secretary of State for Scotland and even more to the annoyance of his deputy, Mr Brian Wilson.
We are discussing important elections. I do not want to hear from the Minister that this is just another local government election. It clearly is not. The Government have created a structure entirely different from local authorities.
The Government are not going to allow free post in London. That seems absolutely amazing. Free post is allowed at parliamentary elections. It was allowed at the elections for the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. We allowed considerable free post, because we believe that it is right and proper that every candidate is able to send one communication to each elector, or each household—it rather depends how the candidate wants to play it—in an election of the importance of Parliament, of the Scottish Parliament, of the Welsh Assembly or of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

1013
I submit that it is equally important that the candidates for mayor and those for the seats in the London assembly have the same right. It seems amazing that free post has been given in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not to the mayor with an electorate of 5 million-odd and to the 14 constituencies, which have electorates far greater than any other in this country.
Without the free post it will be impossible for the candidates to reach all the electorate. It will certainly be grossly unfair to anyone who decides to stand in a constituency as an independent candidate without the backing of a party machine. I believe that the election expenses have been set reasonably high, but, frankly, I am told by the people who have carried out the calculation that if a political party had to pay for postage to the electorate, it would be exceeding the limit without doing anything else. The election expenses level will be swallowed up entirely if there is no free post and the parties are obliged to use the postal system.
The reason we have a free post is that we believe it right that every properly nominated candidate should be able to send one communication to the elector. If the Bill is about involving the electorate in the elections—which is, after all, what we are continually told—then surely the one thing which will encourage electors to vote will be if they receive communications from the candidates standing for election.
I look forward to the Minister's reply. At Second Reading I suggested to the House, slightly tongue-in-cheek, that it was a "Stop Ken" manoeuvre, designed to stop Ken whichever way it works. If Ken decides to stand as an independent because of the rigged ballot by the Labour Party for its candidate, he will be absolutely tied hand and foot if he cannot communicate with every elector. Frankly, he will probably manage to do it quite successfully via the media. Unless the Government propose a blanket ban on him appearing on radio and television, they may find their desires slightly frustrated.
Even if he wins the Labour nomination, I suggested that they would then tell him that they did not have enough money to fight a campaign of the kind he wanted and that they could not possibly pay for all the postage because they had a major election to fight next year and he would have to go out into the highways and byways of London to try to persuade major donors to give him a good deal of money to carry out his own postal delivery. In that way, he would be stopped. Anyone—or, rather more specifically, the Conservative candidate—would be preferable to Mr Livingstone, and would therefore win; and that would be all right. Anything to stop "our Ken".
I do not suppose that that is the reason. I cannot believe that Downing Street would be so Machiavellian as to try to use the refusal of a free postal service to stop Mr Livingstone. Can I? I am not sure. But what I do know is that it is an insult to the people of London who have been given the mayor with much trumpeting by the Government—my goodness, trumpeting from here to yonder, as they say—that this
1014
was a terrific step forward, that democratic accountability would return to this great city of London, and so on. But at the end of the day, they say, "Ah well, we are not going to go that far. We are not going to give the candidates the right to send out their election leaflets by free post".
I can assure the Committee that when it came to the Scottish parliamentary elections in the constituency of Glasgow, Govan, which is certainly not very big but it is where I live, the candidates—there were a number of them and not just from the main parties—all sent me pieces of paper, which were quite interesting, to try to encourage me to vote for them. Not only that, but the top-up candidates in each party were able to send a piece of paper extolling the virtues of voting for them with my second vote, whatever I did with my first vote. There were probably more candidates in Govan than in most other constituencies in Scotland, but there were a good many candidates at those elections. I am sure that the cost of sending all those pieces of paper in Scotland was not dissimilar to what the cost would be in London. If the Government are serious about this reform in London, they should do what they have done in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and allow a free post.
I have attached this issue to my amendment because I thought that that was a sensible way to flag up this problem. Without the Bill we shall be coming to two Prayers which I have tabled. Prayers, as Members of the Committee will know, are slightly more dramatic and "sudden death" outings. I hope that by doing it in this way, even if the Government feel that they cannot accept my amendment today, we have at least warned them that this is a matter which we take extremely seriously. They can either bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Report stage, if they do not like my amendment, or they can take away the subject of my Prayer, before they get down on their knees next week, and amend their Motion. Either way, I think that I can speak for my allies in this matter on the Liberal Democrat Benches and for my noble friends. We really do feel that we have to draw the Government up short on what we think is a major error on their part. Knowing their desire to have a large turn-out at these elections and at all other elections, they will, I hope, reconsider this matter. I trust that we shall hear from the Minister that they are seriously reconsidering it and that we can have some expectation that either via the Prayer or via amendments to the Bill a decision will be taken by the Government to allow a free post for these important elections. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I have to tell the Minister that we on these Benches are four square behind the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, on this matter. There is one minor technical problem with the amendment which I shall mention simply to get it out of the way. The amendment proposes that the mailshot for the London members should be piggy-backed on to the mailshots that are sent out on behalf of the constituency members. That seems perfectly reasonable because it means that the parties will be able to send out two mailshots—one for the mayor and

1015
one for the candidates for the assembly—rather than three. We accept that three is unreasonable. But it creates the problem that, as the amendment is drafted, independent candidates to be London-wide members of the assembly will not get a free mailshot. That would be wrong.
The right to the free mailshot has applied, so far as my researches show, to all parliamentary elections at least since the passing of the Representation of the People Act 1948. It has also applied, as the noble Lord said, to the Scottish elections, the Welsh elections and the Northern Ireland elections, and to the European elections on every occasion on which European elections have been held by popular vote. It does not apply to local government elections for reasons which I shall explain in a few moments. The fact that it does not apply to local government elections provides only an extremely flimsy excuse for the Government.
The Government's first proposals in this matter were "no free mailshot" and a very high spending limit of £900,000. A mailshot costs at least £400,000. So a £900,000 limit would have made it possible to send out a mailshot, but no party other than Labour or Conservative could have afforded it—indeed, probably not the Conservative Party if the reports of the state of its finances are anything like true. What could be the reason for that? Could it be that if Mr Livingstone were running as an independent he would be unlikely to raise enough money to afford a mailshot, although the official Labour Party candidate would? That is history because the Government's present proposal is that there should be a limit of £425,000 on a candidate for mayor; £35,000 for each constituency candidate and £330,000 for individual or list candidates for London members. In effect, that means that no one can provide a mailshot. I suppose that to some extent that levels the playing field, but it is in no way an adequate answer. It is not enough to have a level playing field. We need to know why there should be a mailshot.
We need mailshots because candidates need to be able to communicate with their voters. In local elections, we do not need a free post. Wards are small. Outside the city of Birmingham, which for some historic reason has very large wards, few, if any, wards have more than 10,000 voters. It is therefore possible for a candidate in town or suburban wards to deliver addresses in person within two or three days, except perhaps in thinly populated rural areas. In London elections, it would clearly be not remotely possible for any single candidate to deliver, and it would be impossible to rely on volunteers to achieve hand delivery of a leaflet. Even if there were willing volunteers, more and more Londoners live in blocks of flats, behind locked doors and entry phones. That is true both of council and trust housing and of private housing. As someone who has canvassed in three parliamentary elections in London and in local elections in London, I can say that it is quite exceptionally difficult either to canvass or to get leaflets to people who live behind locked doors and entry phones. For a very large number of Londoners,
1016
the only information about the election which they receive is the poll card and the free mailshot. It is now being proposed that there should be no free mailshot.
This is an extremely important election. It is the first-ever direct election for the office of mayor that has been held in any city in this country. It is the first election for many years for an elected body which represents the whole of London. It is a new system of voting. The mayor will have limited but important powers. If ever there was an election where voters need information about what is going on, this is it. If we end up with a percentage turn-out for this election in the 20s or 30s, it will be a disaster for democracy.
Moreover, the Government's proposals mean that a high proportion of voters will receive only the poll card and nothing else through their door. They can, of course, read about the election in the press. But what will that tell them? It will tell them plenty about the misadventures with the truth of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, plenty about Steven Norris's misadventures with women and plenty about Millbank's efforts to keep Ken Livingstone off the ballot. But about the issues and the other candidates, there will be nothing. Even Susan Kramer, our own excellent candidate for mayor, receives almost no publicity, and minor party candidates receive none whatever. Yet these are not fringe candidates. With the additional member system of voting that is in place, the Liberal Democrats will certainly get seats in the assembly, and it is possible, if not probable, that other parties will as well—as indeed happened in the European elections.
The Government may claim that they are worried about the abuse of freemail for advertising. That did not happen in the European elections; nor to my knowledge has it happened in any election so far. Anyway, the problem could be dealt with by means of regulations prohibiting the circulation of leaflets which amount to commercial advertising.
The refusal to provide a free post is deeply anti-democratic. There will be an election in which millions of electors will take part. It is the first election of a new body under a new electoral system. It is an election in which many electors are inaccessible to the candidates. Yet the Government propose to deny the right to the one thing that guarantees the parties a chance to state their case to every elector who is willing to read it. This a very serious issue. I must warn the Government that we shall use every possible method to obtain the right to a free mailshot, including support for the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, when he moves his Prayer next week.
9 p.m.
Earl Russell: The arrangements for informal co-operation between parties and the management of business are loosely, accurately, if incompletely, known as the usual channels. They deserve a great deal more credit than they usually receive, because when they work well there is no news. For a very large part of the time they work very well indeed. They are, of course, particularly important for any of the political

1017
rules of engagement, and above all for the rules for the conduct of democratic elections. That those rules should command general consent is a vital part of the legitimacy of our government.
One cannot, of course, always demand that everyone consents to absolutely everything. That would be to give to every party a veto on any arrangement, however unreasonably it might be exercised. But it is legitimate to expect of any democratic election that it should have the assent for its rules not only of the Government but of at least one significant opposition party, preferably including the Official Opposition.
Above all, in a democratic state it is thoroughly undesirable that it should be possible for a government to lay down the rules for the conduct of an election without the consent of any other party whatever. When that happens, we are somewhere near the top of a very slippery slope indeed.
I have made inquiries of those whose political memories are a great deal longer than mine—including the Electoral Reform Society, of which I have the honour to be presiclent—as to how many such cases there have been since the war. As the debate began, we on these Benches were still discussing whether the number of cases since the war is one or none. It is certainly a very small number.
The consultation paper for the regulations was published just before Christmas, with the consultation concluding on 4th January—itself a slightly uncomfortable timetable. It marks the concern about this issue that the timetable was met by every opposition party. At a press conference on 12th January the initial regulations were condemned by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats, the Green Party, the Electoral Reform Society, and Charter 88. That is a startling line-up.
In response, the Government made significant concessions, which are welcome as far as they go. They reduced the mayor's proposed expenses from £975,000 to £420,000, and those of the list and constituency candidates in proportion. But in making that concession without the free post, they brought in the classic law of unintended consequence. They inadvertently shot themselves in the foot.
According to the Government's own estimate, the cost of a free post to contact each individual elector is £750,000. The cost to contact each household is £420,000—and £420,000 is now the maximum possible sum that mayoral candidates are allowed to spend. So, were they to make a postal delivery to each household, they would be able to do nothing else whatever, even paying their phone bill.
That is on a par with the classic story of Jimmy Carter's signature. In 1976, while running for President, Jimmy Carter discovered that letters from the President were not always seen or signed by the President. He was shocked to the core by that information. He delivered an election pledge that, if he were elected, every letter from the President would be personally signed by himself. Once he had been elected, his staff slowly and painfully persuaded him
1018
that fulfilling that pledge would take him precisely 24 hours a day. The Government have landed themselves in the pitfall of Jimmy Carter's signature.
I have also made inquiries about what is the greatest number of electors a candidate has had to address previously without a free post. I have put down a Question for Written Answer. It has been down for 12 days and has not yet received an Answer. If I am mistaken, no doubt the Minister will take the chance to enlighten me, but my information is that the highest number candidates have been expected to address without a free post was in the GLC elections: it was between 70,000 and 80,000. The leap from those figures to over 5 million is a fairly steep step. The idea of personally contacting 5 million electors lacks credibility. As my noble friend Lord Goodhart reminded us, in many parts of London it is extremely difficult to contact electors any other way.
The Kensington by-election of 1989, in which my noble friend was the first person to stand for Parliament as a Liberal Democrat, is still known in party circles as the "answerphone election", because that was the only way it was possible to make contact with the voters. What is more, free post puts candidates on an equality with each other. Since there is inevitably great inequality in many aspects of any election contest, that there should be one event based on equality in the political decathlon which leads to election is no more than good sense.
The Minister may reply that this is a local election and therefore there is no free post. But local elections have no deposits, whereas there are deposits here. The Green Party claims that those deposits cost it an arm and a leg. If deposits are to be introduced, the Government have already departed from the comparatively safe ground of arguing that this election is treated exactly like any normal election. They have also introduced very tight rules for nominations. Candidates must produce 10 electors from each borough in London. Therefore, one cannot do it simply on the basis of strength in some boroughs.
As my noble friend pointed out, there is plenty of room for negotiation on these points in future. However, the rules as to spending limits and deposits have been taken from national elections and the rules as to free post have been taken from local elections. These regulations are properly described as a genetically modified organism. As hybrids go, they are not particularly successful.
The Government's concerns about free post have not proved widely convincing. I have repeated them to a good many people who ask why the Government have taken this position and have been met with widespread incredulity. The result is that conspiracy theories, some of which we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, multiply round the political gossip circle. I have no idea whether any, or even all, of those conspiracy theories are false. It is perfectly possible that we are dealing simply with the Treasury refusing to authorise the spending of even the last few pence. There is nothing in the world as good as the British Treasury at spoiling the ship for a

1019
ha'p'orth of tar. But if it really is the position of the Government that they cannot afford free post, then if they could not afford to set up a Greater London authority, they should not have done it.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps the Committee will forgive a brief intervention. I was informed by the Table that I was too late to put down my name in support of the amendment. Having heard the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I do not believe that anyone could have put the case better. I ask the Minister whether he will defer to the traditions of this Chamber which on matters such as these are not motivated by party politics. The noble Earl made a fantastic contribution which was clearly delivered and wholly cogent and supportive of the speech of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. I ask the Minister to take this back.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: In the early 1960s I ran the organisation (if such it can be called) of the Liberal Party. I became used to fighting battles for parties which were hard done by. I believe that I, along with my colleagues, did quite well in fighting our way back. As a result, at least the Liberal and Liberal Democrat Parties were no longer under that kind of threat. However, I had personal responsibility for fighting the battle which allowed all political parties to advertise nationally. Up to that time it had been thought that that was an illegal activity. I very much regret having won the battle.
I have now moved to a party which finds itself in a worse position. Although it has very good elected representatives in Europe and the Scottish Parliament, other than myself it has no representation in Parliament. In the days when I was fighting the battles of the Liberal Party, we had at least six Members in the House of Commons. My party starts from a worse position. But we must fight for the rights of small parties, individuals and independence.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, said that there was no party political point. I have detected several party political statements during the past half hour; and my remarks may well be the same. I represent a party which has a large number of voters in this country and reckons to have, on a conservative basis, at least two, if not more, members of the Greater London council when elected.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I was only suggesting that party political points can at times merge in sane consensus.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: I thank the noble Lord for that intervention—I think.
If the Government believe in democracy and believe that they are giving freedom to the people of London to choose their own government—I give them the greatest respect; it is long overdue—they must give way on this point. Other Members of the Committee have said that it is an extremely important point. It is not one on which we shall give in if we can beat the
1020
Government on it. It would be better for the reputation of the Government and of Parliament if they reconsidered the issue and returned with a provision for a more democratic election.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I do not understand why the amendment arises now. During the course of the GLA Bill the matter was not raised. The GLA Bill clearly laid down that the GLA was an arm of local government. No one thought then that there may not be a free post, as there is not for local government. It was at that point that people should have considered trying to amend the GLA Bill to provide that it was not an arm of local government. The Government are right to treat the GLA in the same way as they treat other areas of local government.
The point was raised about whether the Government are serious about letting Londoners pick their GLA. Are we saying that the electorate do not have the freedom to pick the local authorities they want? They do not have a freepost.
We may be establishing precedents. I should like to know whether the amendment is foreseen as a precedent. Will other directly-elected mayors be an arm not of local government but of national government because they will be allowed free post? That is the suggestion. There are so many flaws in the argument put forward.
Where are all the people who have fought elections? I do not recall any candidate delivering personally every election address in local government.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: Noble Lords were unlucky that they did not have a team of people behind them. I have fought many local elections and I can honestly say that I have never had to do that on my own; I have always had a team of people. In a serious election such as the GLA there will be teams of people doing the work. The idea that the candidate for mayor will deliver everything himself or herself is ludicrous. We all know that elections are not fought that way.
I do not accept the argument that unless we have a free post the electorate will hear nothing about the candidates for the GLA or the mayor. If one analyses recent parliamentary elections, one finds that many parliamentary constituencies have stopped using the free post because they want to use a different design. It may not fit in with the Post Office requirements. Often they will use broadsheets or other documents. The idea that the free post is sacrosanct is nonsense. We have a later amendment which refers to new technology. We all know that new technology (and certainly the telephone, which is not new technology but which may

1021
be in election terms) is now used for elections almost entirely, and I am sure that it will be for the GLA election.
Lord Goodhart: Will the noble Baroness accept that one of the problems with telephone canvassing relates to the increasingly large proportion of people who are ex-directory?
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: That may well be true. I am ex-directory, but I seem to get a lot of telephone calls from many companies that somehow or other have access to my telephone number. If the noble Lord's point is accurate, why do the political parties spend so much of their time organising the use of the telephone as the main form of canvassing? It may well be that some people will be missed, but in the majority of cases they will be able to speak to the person concern.
What worries me is the question of cost. If it is the case that this might cost £15 million, do the taxpayers really want us to spend our money on having a free post? I find it ironic that this comes from the Opposition, because in 1995 I suggested that we might have a rolling register and I was told by the then government that £4 million was too much to spend on a rolling register in order to increase the number of people who participate. We are now told that it is acceptable to spend £15 million in order to put an election address through everybody's door. I do not believe that the two are comparable. I therefore question whether this is the best use of ratepayers' money. I also question why this amendment has come about now, rather than on two other occasions when it could have been raised.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. I understand the argument put forward by the noble Baroness. She is a great expert in this matter. With respect, I do not wholly agree with it. That is not the question that I am putting. What on earth has it to do with this problem that this point was not taken previously—because nobody thought of it or had sufficient interest or expertise in it— or that it is taken now? If it is right, it has to be taken.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I raised it because the GLA Bill quite clearly laid down that the GLA was an arm of local government. I am suggesting that that may well have been the appropriate time to say that it was not the arm of local government but an entity in itself and therefore was not bound by any local government rules or regulations.
Earl Russell: The noble Baroness, Lady Gould of Potternewton, tells us that many candidates now do not want to use the free post. She tells us that many people nowadays like marmalade instead. I am really not a fussy man, but I do like a little free post!
The point that the noble Baroness makes about the Greater London Authority Act is, of course, perfectly valid. We should clearly have raised this matter on that occasion, but not everybody in this House knows all
1022
the Representation of the People Bill by heart. It has not for one moment occurred to anybody to whom I have spoken that the Government could possibly contemplate conducting the Greater London election without a free post.
The Greater London Authority Bill happens to be the longest Bill ever put before Parliament in the whole of its history. If we are guilty of committing one oversight in handling the longest Bill in parliamentary history, for the sake of amicable relations between the parties, that, although we confess it to be an error, is one of which I believe it would be ungenerous to take advantage.
The noble Baroness has also raised a serious point in asking how far this will go in other mayoral elections. Clearly, where we are dealing with the possibility of regional government, which is what the London election is, we have a category which is intermediate between the local and the national. Some agreed limit will have to be arrived at—I hope through the informal discussions between the usual channels which I raised at the beginning of my speech—about the numerical limit of electors which will entitle people to a free post. I do not believe that reaching agreement on that is beyond the wit of the political parties because, after all, we have a long tradition of reaching agreement on practical rules for the conduct of engagement. The question is a real one but it is not incapable of answer.
As for the immediate cost, there are plenty of ways in which we could approach the question of keeping it down. If that is what is really worrying the Government, let us sit down and talk about it. I am convinced that it is solvable.
Lord Norton of Louth: I shall be brief because many of the points have been made. For the reasons already mentioned, this is an extremely important amendment. There is a qualitative distinction to be drawn between local government and what was proposed in creating the Greater London Authority. The question is not only one of size, which is important in terms of the number of electors, but there is a qualitative point in that, structurally, it is very different. Whatever the terms of the Act, one is not creating something similar to the local government to which we are used. Therefore, the issue needs to be seen in a different light.
Literature and election addresses are circulated post free for three important reasons. The first is to ensure that electors are aware of what candidates propose to do in their name. That is extremely important. The second is that it ensures a level playing field; candidates enjoying the same facilities. That point was made extremely well by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. The third is that it raises awareness of the campaign. That point was made by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish and it relates to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, as to why it is introduced at this stage.
The third reason is especially pertinent in the context of this Bill. The Long Title indicates that the purpose of the Bill is to try to get electors more

1023
interested in local government and to raise turn-out. In that context, the amendment is highly appropriate. Failing to circulate election addresses will be likely to have a detrimental affect on turn-out.
At Second Reading, I mentioned that evidence shows that campaigning acts as a stimulant to turnout. If electors are unaware of an election, it is not surprising that they fail to vote. Therefore, the more election literature that is available the better.
A fundamental point which derives from all that is that the distribution of election addresses should not be seen as a benefit to candidates, but rather as a benefit to electors. That is a crucial point and it is central to the health of the political system. Therefore, the question I ask in relation to cost is: what price democracy? If we are going to introduce this form of government, we must accept the consequences in terms of what should flow from it and the relationship between candidates and electors. That is fundamental. This is an important amendment and I hope that the Government, given the arguments that have been advanced, will accept it.
Baroness Hanham: I am conscious of the fact that the number of people who voted in the referendum on the mayor and the London authority was small and there is no evidence that that will improve in the elections on 4th May. There may be a number of reasons for that, but we are politicians and naively imagine that everyone is excited about elections. That is not known to be the case. Many people know nothing about the mayoralty, or the Greater London Authority, or what it amounts to, or why it is being introduced.
The excitement I sense around about me is not intense and there is a great risk that people will not know about the election. We may believe that they will pick up on it from the newspapers and television, but the chances are that they will not. Therefore, if it is believe that this is a good democratic innovation, everything should be done to ensure that the electorate is, first, aware that there is an election, and, secondly, that it knows who are the candidates and what they are standing for.
It is also totally naiїve to imagine that any party, however big, well resourced or replete with gangs of supporters, will be able to deliver all that information to every household. I am well aware of the doorbell problem. If I may say so, it has become much worse since 1989. If we want this election to be a success—and I imagine that this Government do want that because it was their great invention—then there should be a free post to deliver information directly to the doors of those who are going to vote.
9.30 p.m.
Lord McNally: I do not believe there are four noble Lords in any part of this House whom I respect more in terms of elections and electoral organisation than those presently clustered on the Government Front Bench. Between them, they have an immense track
1024
record for electoral involvement and participation. However, in knowing that—and I am not alone in my opinion—I am absolutely bemused at how those noble Lords can lend themselves to this course of action. Furthermore, for the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, to use that last refuge in any debate of, "The amendment is in the wrong place" and "You should have done something about it earlier", is really unforgivable.
Because we are told constantly that this House is a revising and advisory Chamber, then the service we should offer to the Minister tonight is to tell him, in case he is in any doubt—having listened to the breadth of the speeches—that the gun is loaded. This is not a party political matter. Many around the Committee believe this to be an outrage. To try to equate with local government what will be the biggest election for a single post is absurd. Those of us who have supported the Government in bringing forward a new form of regional government for London and in establishing the unique post of mayor of London are—to put it as mildly as possible—appalled that the Government should have decided to take this course.
One reason why this matter has not been raised before is because, as my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out, no one in his or her wildest nightmares could have imagined that a Labour Government would try to pull a stunt like this. I believe that the Minister should go back and think very hard about this. The whole point and thrust of the Bill is to encourage more people to participate in our democratic procedures. To pull away one of the central props, by refusing a free post, is a grievous mistake. Before they make that mistake, the Government should think hard and change their mind.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have certainly got the message loud and clear from around the Committee tonight. Clearly this is an honest and open debate, but equally clearly it is a debate that has come rather late in the day. Although noble Lords may not like it, I am surprised that the matter has been raised as late as this.
I should like to go through in more detail all the arguments that have been rehearsed and to set out the Government's position as clearly as possible. Amendment No. 71 would amend Section 91 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 to give each mayoral and assembly constituency candidate in the Greater London Authority election the right to send an election address to every elector or every household in their respective constituencies, post free. It would also allow assembly constituency candidates of a registered political party to refer in their election mailings to candidates on that party's London-wide list. In a sense, taking into account the way in which the amendments have been phrased, that would perhaps act rather unfairly—perhaps in a discriminatory way—against the top-up list. However, that is how it has been set out before us.
I want to make it clear that the Government oppose this amendment for very good reasons. I confess that it has a superficial attraction and, as one can hear this

1025
evening, one which is sufficiently large to bind not just two but three Opposition parties together in something of an unholy alliance.
First and foremost, this is a local election. It has never been intended to be anything other than that. Section 17 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 makes that absolutely plain. Candidates at local elections do not have free mailshots. Much outrage has been expressed this evening that this is the largest ever election of its kind where there has not been—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: With great respect to the noble Lord—and I thank him for giving way—it is getting late. Can he stop reading his brief and deal with the merits of the argument on the Floor of the Committee?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am dealing with the merits of the argument. I make the point crystal clear. It was said that this is the largest election of its type without a free post. We have had Greater London elections cumulatively with the boroughs; we have had the Greater London Council; before that, we had the LCC. They did not rely on free post. They relied on local activism.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hesitate to interrupt at this late stage. There is a tremendous difference. I was fighting elections under the old GLC system. One did not have to cover the whole of London in trying to support a candidate and now one does. That is the difference. I believe it has been said that there will be 5 million voters. How will one get a message to 5 million voters by the old-fashioned methods? I do not believe that it can be done.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The point is the size of the electorate. In order to secure control of the Greater London Council one had to appeal to an electorate city-wide. That was the case and we all understand that. That is the point that I am trying to make here. All those local elections take place without free mailshots. I believe that the point about the precedent issue is very important. Are noble Lords saying that in future, perhaps as the mayoral system develops in other major conurbations, we should make those accessible to free post? If they are, they are signing a very large blank cheque indeed. Is that where they are coming from on this argument?
Earl Russell: If that is not the position, there will be widespread doubt whether any further mayoral elections should be created at all.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl makes a point. However, the Local Government Bill is trying to encourage the development of local mayoral systems across the United. Kingdom. I believe—I am sure that this is a widely shared belief—that that is a very valid way forward. However, I cannot believe that this evening Members of the Committee are saying simply
1026
that they want to see free post everywhere for that type of local government. If that is the case, I should like very much to see—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: What about answering the argument on the Floor of the Committee?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am taking us through the arguments. These are important issues. They are relevant to the debate that we are having this evening.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Does the noble Lord not appreciate that there is an enormous difference between candidates in an election with an electorate, even in parliamentary terms, of 70,000 or 80,000 and most local electorates where there will be considerably fewer than that, and an election where the electorate is over 5 million? There is a huge difference. They cannot be compared. It is not a good argument to continue to tell us that they can be compared.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I believe that there is reasonable comparison. When local government elections are held throughout the UK, they involve very large electorates. Those elections are fought on party tickets as this election will be.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Yes, the whole area may contain large electorates, but the area is divided up into several little wards where each ward has a candidate. With regard to the mayoral elections, we are talking of a ward—a constituency—of 5 million-odd electors. I suggest to the noble Lord that there is a difference of considerable magnitude.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not here to give a lecture on electoral organisation but I suggest to the noble Lord that ward-based systems and constituency-wide organisations are the mechanisms by which the literature is delivered and by which the arguments are put across. That is where the campaigning and canvassing takes place.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: If that is the Minister's argument, why was it not good enough for the Northern Irish Assembly, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament, the United Kingdom Parliament and the European Parliament? Why not?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Because, quite simply, those are national elections. That is the basis on which the arrangements were put in place for those elections.
I want to turn to the basic economics of the amendments. We propose that mayoral candidates should pay a deposit of £10,000. Under these amendments, for that outlay, they will be able to demand a free London-wide mailing to every elector in London. That is worth £0.75 million to be paid for by the taxpayer. That is what these amendments provide.

1027
The potential and scope for abuse are enormous. For a £10,000 deposit, a sharp business person wishing to make use of the system could secure London-wide publicity for his particular cause, obsession or business. That is for just £10,000 as a form of deposit.
Lord Goodhart: Does the Minister not agree that in addition to that £10,000 deposit, it would cost something like £100,000 to print the leaflets?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am sure that anybody who has commercial sense will make the best possible arrangements to secure value for money. But the point I make is that there is scope for abuse. I believe that Members of the Committee understand that and have accepted in the debate that there may be scope for abuse.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have been an agent as well as a candidate. The Post Office requires to see the content of the leaflet before it will accept it.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: That may well be the case but it is not allowed to vet it. The point is simply that the Post Office cannot vet the leaflet. It may well wish to see the leaflet but it certainly cannot vet its content or order it out of court, as it were.
The election for the London mayor is an extremely high profile event. I am sure that we all accept that.
Lord Rennard: The Post Office is under a statutory duty to vet the entire content of the leaflet. It is part of the Post Office's elections regulations that the leaflet must conform entirely with the election and with no other matter. Furthermore, will the Minister tell us how many candidates abused the system in that way during last year's European elections when exactly the same rights existed as are proposed for the London elections?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord makes a fair point. But the point which I make is that there is accepted scope for abuse. If Members of the Committee cannot accept that point, then they are ignoring a very important issue indeed.
Let us suppose that 20 people decide to stand for mayor and use their right to have a free mailshot to every elector. That is not beyond the realms of possibility. I am told that there have already been some 20 expressions of interest. I have made a simple and short list of the number of parties which could potentially put up a candidate for mayor. My list has 12 parties on it. I am told that more than 12 parties participated in the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections last year.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall not ever intervene in this debate again. Perhaps I may most respectfully ask the noble Lord if it would not be wise to take this back because it is a serious matter and then it can all be considered in the light of what has been said.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I appreciate what the noble Lord has just said: that we are in Committee and that, therefore, interventions are entirely appropriate. But the noble Lord has now intervened three times in my noble friend's speech and on each occasion he has not contributed to the debate but has sought to speed up my noble friend's reply. Would it not be better for the Committee to allow my noble friend to reply to the debate?
9.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps we may return to the important issue of economics. I do not believe that anybody would want to get away from that fact. If just 20 candidates were to stand, we would be talking about a sum of £15 million. If 40 people were to stand, we would be talking of £30 million. There are then the constituency candidates for whom a deposit of £1000 can obtain a free mailing in their constituency. In a flash, a sum equivalent to the entire budget of the GLA would be swallowed up.
Perhaps we should remind ourselves that the first year budget for the GLA will be around £35 million. What would it be swallowed up for? It would not be for one new bus or one new train system; nor for the police or any of the vital functions of the mayor and the assembly. It would pay for leaflets through letterboxes. Can we honestly say that free mailshots for candidates would be the top priority of Londoners for expenditure of this order when so much else needs to be done with limited public funds.
Local elections do not have free mailings. The media will be covering this event in the minutest detail. There was reference to the "Stop Ken" campaign. This is not about a "Stop Ken" campaign. That is utter nonsense. I suspect that Ken Livingstone has had more publicity than any of the other candidates are likely to get throughout the run of the election. I really cannot accept that as a serious argument.
There is another point to be made. It would have been open to Members of the Committee to table amendments of this kind to the Greater London Authority Bill. As has been said forcibly, no one chose to do so. That was the appropriate time to make such amendments. There are plenty of additional matters we might have included in the Bill. Governments always have lists of things they would like to do if they have the right vehicle for them. However, nobody tabled an amendment of this kind.
Members of the Opposition should exercise restraint in this matter. They are encouraging the Government of the day to spend £30 to £35 million, maybe more, on a blank cheque to underwrite to all political parties and all others who wish to participate in this election, so that they can get a free post. We do not feel that that would be public expenditure in the best of public interest. We believe that the risk of abuse, coupled with the fact that these are local elections under local rules, would set a dangerous precedent for outside London. I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, I wonder whether I might ask him a question to which he might possibly say yes. Would he undertake to consult the Electoral Reform Society, which has some expertise in these matters, about the ways of limiting or control the abuse he fears?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Clearly we shall take advice from all quarters. No doubt the Electoral Reform Society will provide such advice if it believes that the arguments can be substantiated. I have no doubt that if we had had earlier notice of this issue we could have come up with systems which begin to curb abuse. No doubt there are other ways in which to curb expenditure. However, those are matters of detail. It is too late in the day in this run of arguments to go into such areas.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: On this occasion I cannot thank the Minister for his reply. I became increasingly amazed at the arguments. Perhaps the one that amazes me most is that somehow it is too late in the day to do anything.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that this should have been an amendment in the Greater London Authority Bill. I have not had time to skip through the Scotland Act but I do not believe there is mention of the freepost in Scotland. I could not be absolutely sure. I have tried to whip through it and I am pretty certain there is not. That provision came later in regulations. The same is true of Wales. I am not in a position to say one way or another about Northern Ireland. However, if the same precedent was formed, it came in regulations.
The regulations have only just appeared. The fact that the Government had set their face against a freepost really only become apparent—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Lord for giving way. This comes back to the question of what is a local election and what is a general election. The election of assemblies and parliaments are general elections. Does the noble Lord accept that these are local elections and those are general elections?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I thought I had answered that.
Earl Russell: I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord. Would the Minister agree that the Government cannot stand on the platform that this is simply a local election until they cease to require deposits?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: The noble Earl makes a good point. I was simply going to say that we have been round this course many times this evening. This election is not a local election as we have understood them in this country up till now. It cannot be considered as such. I know the noble Lord dismisses it, but the scale of magnitude of the electorate for the election of one person is out of proportion to anything else in this country. There may be a few elections in England breaking 100,000 voters, but nowhere is there
1030
anything of the scale of 5 million. The Government created the Greater London Authority, which is a hit more than a local authority and a bit less, I accept, than a parliament; but it is certainly not just a local authority.
My point was that, until these orders were laid, we did not know for certain that the Government were going to follow this course of action. We therefore took this opportunity to bring this matter forward. The Minister should be pleased; at least it is not next week when two Prayers are tabled and the Government are faced with a precipice because the rules of the House are inflexible on secondary legislation—that is not my fault. This is a flexible way forward for us to approach this issue. I proposed this as one way of dealing with the matter. I shall be happy to listen to any other proposals the Government have in order to save some of the money that they seem so worried about spending. They should have thought about that when they started off on the course of having a mayor for London with all the trumpeting that went with it.
That is my first point. It is also an answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Gould.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I want to get this on the record. Is the noble Lord saying that a blank cheque for these elections of perhaps £30 million or £40 million is entirely justified as a form of public expenditure when not one penny of that will contribute to the improvement of the police service, transport service or highway services in the capital?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not like to go over old arguments but the whole operation of electing a mayor will cost money. I am sure that that too can be translated into buses and the Underground service and so forth. The noble Lord willed having an authority over Greater London and willed having a mayor; he must face up to the consequences.
In relation to the £20 million or £30 million, it will not take long for noble Lords to suggest ways in which the expenditure could be controlled, if that was necessary. I was going to leave this point, but, as the Minister keeps coming back to it, I should remind him that we had European elections, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, reminded me—I had forgotten about them—and they had a freepost system. Scotland and Wales are two easily defined areas. Anybody who wanted to have a free mail shot to every house in Scotland could easily have nominated himself or herself for the European Parliament and got on with it. As far as I recollect, that simply did not happen. There were two or three more political parties, but what is wrong with that? That is called democracy. Nobody abused the mail shot for the European elections in those large constituencies. If I am wrong, the noble Lord will no doubt tell me so.
This idea that 20 or 30 candidates are going to stand for mayor, half of them to advertise their restaurant or whatever it may be, is really cloud cuckoo land. The Government will have to do a good deal better than that. I hope we shall not hear any more of that

1031
argument. We are talking about the situation which will occur in London with legitimate candidates. If the Government feel that we are going to be flooded with candidates who are not genuine, then let us look at increasing the number of people who have to sign nomination papers—it is already quite formidable in comparison with local government elections. The deposit also is infinitely more than the deposit required for local government elections. So the Government are not making this a local government election; it is more than that.
The arguments have all been made. My noble friend Lady Hanham made one I had not thought about. She reminded us about the low turn-out in the referendum on the London issue. Frankly, it is valid to ask, given that low turn-out, are we looking at a low turn-out in these mayoral elections? This Bill is supposed to encourage people to vote. That is totally inconsistent with saying that there cannot be a freepost system operating in these elections.
I am not sure if we have made any progress; I do not believe we have. But I hope that we have made this much progress. Members of the Committee on this side of the Chamber are serious about this issue. Even when we read tomorrow what the Minister says, I doubt that we shall be in the least convinced.
I could be convinced about going for a compromise in order to find some middle ground, if that does not sound too much like consensus politics. But I am certainly not going to accept the suggestion that we can have absolutely no movement in this matter. I recommend to the Government that they start serious negotiations about some form of movement in this respect before I have to stand up and address this Chamber regarding the Prayers, where, as I said earlier, the situation is a good deal more dramatic than just amendments to a Bill, which can either be agreed or not agreed here and either accepted or not accepted in the other place.
However, for the moment, and in the hope that the messages are being heard loud and clear by the Home Secretary and by the Prime Minister, I withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 25, line 20, at end insert—
("Evidence of registration
After section 180 insert—
"Evidence by certificate of electoral registration.
180A. The certificate of a registration officer that any person is or is not, or was or was not at any particular time, duly registered in one of the officer's registers in respect of any address shall be sufficient evidence of the facts stated in it; and a document purporting to be such a certificate shall be received in evidence and presumed to be such a certificate unless the contrary is proved." ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Registration: overseas electors]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 28, line 37, leave out from ("where") to ("to") in line 38 and insert ("the entitlement of such a person").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 74 to 76:
Page 29, line 27, leave out ("and Part I of the principal Act").
Page 29, leave out lines 32 to 43 and insert ("that he was not resident in the United Kingdom on the relevant date.").
Page 31, leave out lines 40 to 44.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Registration: local elections in Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80:
Page 32, line 24, leave out (", 13 and 13A") and insert ("and 13 to 13B").
Page 32. line 30, at end insert—
("( ) After the entry relating to section 62 insert—
"Section 180A (evidence by certificate of electoral registration)." ").
Page 33. line 9, leave out ("time,").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 [Restriction on supply of information contained in register]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): I have to tell Members of the Committee that, if the following amendment, Amendment No. 81, is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 82 to 91 inclusive.
10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway Lord Campbell of Alloway moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 10. line 22, leave out from beginning to end of line 27 on page 11 and insert—
(""10. Provisions requiring that the register prepared by virtue of this Act which shall be open to further inspection shall not be used without the consent of the person registered for any commercial purpose other than by a registered charity.
11. Provisions making it an offence punishable on summary conviction by a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale to contravene regulations made in pursuance of paragraph 10 above."").
The noble Lord said: Many noble Lords—indeed, many people throughout this country—think that the commercial use of the register designed for other purposes without the consent of each person registered is not only an inexcusable invasion of personal privacy but also an unwelcome and virtually uncontrolled nuisance.
As noble Lords probably know, there is no substantive domestic law that protects privacy as such. Members of the Committee may not wish to hear from any lawyer talking about law at this hour of night, but

1033
I am afraid that we cannot ignore Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which is now assimilated as part of our law.
The prediction of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in the course of the debate on the Human Rights Act was that Article 8 of the convention would be the ideal vehicle to develop the right of privacy and remedies for its invasion. I shall not go into detail, but, broadly, in the case against Sweden—I can give references if any noble Lord wishes me to do so—it was held that personal data, albeit in another context, was of fundamental importance to the right of respect for private life.
In another case against Spain it was held, again in another context, that the state had not struck a fair balance between the interests of the state and those of the rights of respect for privacy and family life. I make no personal criticism at all of the noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, in this regard—I hope that he will accept that—as the noble Lord relies on the advice of his department. However, it is not understood how on that advice he could have certified that the provisions of Clause 9 of this Bill were assuredly compatible with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. I do not suppose that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, knew much more about the matter than I before I started looking into it a few days ago.
However, when one looks into the matter, it is formidable. As an interim step it is suggested that at the conclusion of this debate on Clause 9 the clause should be recommitted so that this matter may be referred to the committee which advises the Chamber on these matters. If do not know whether that committee has been set up yet; it should have been. At the moment, lawyers such as myself have to look things up and seek to advise the Chamber. That is not, frankly, satisfactory; certainly in my case.
As I say, this is a serious matter. A certificate has been given. I tell the Committee in all seriousness and quite objectively, in a purely professional and not political capacity, that I reckon that the certificate should not have been given. Where do we go from there? Without effective advice it seems unreasonable that the Committee should say that the clause should not stand part of the Bill. In my respectful submission, it would be preferable that this clause should be recommitted.
The Committee is dealing with a difficult question. We do not sit as if we were an appellate committee of the Chamber, with its evolving system of jurisprudence to resolve judicially whether, as a matter of construction, Clause 9 is, or could well be, in contravention of Article 8. I must point out to the Committee that—as was said in the Netherlands case, which is the final authority I have consulted—there may be positive obligations on the state to adopt measures designed to secure respect for privacy and family life, albeit, again, in another context.
I have read the CBI brief, the DMA brief—I have them all here—and the WWAB Collins Group brief, all of which stoutly defend their commercial interests, as one would reasonably and fairly expect. But in none
1034
of those briefs, in none of those papers, in none of the Notes on Clauses—and that is far more important—is there any reference to the incidence of Article 8 of this convention which, under the Human Rights Act, is assimilated as part of our domestic law. The arguments in these briefing papers are understood but, with respect to them, not accepted.
But let me for a moment consider the arguments on the assumption that they are accepted—but, most assuredly, that cannot be so without the consent of all persons on the register. A single tick in a box by someone who wishes to receive all the material cannot be appropriate to bind him to, not surrender, but invasion of his privacy.
I shall say no more other than to ask the Government to take this matter back, to take further advice—if possible, from across departments: from the Lord Chancellor's Department, from the Attorney-General's Department, from any other independent source, even from the Bar—and to give it serious consideration; otherwise the clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: I can go some of the way, but not the whole way, with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I use the occasion of this amendment to speak rather broadly on the whole subject of Clause 9. That will save me from having to raise the issues again when we come to later amendments, including those tabled in my name.
These are difficult and contentious issues which have given rise to differences of opinion within my own party as well as within other parties. It is a case where disclosure of names and addresses is required by law. It is required for clearly legitimate purposes connected with elections. That information is needed in order that polling cards can be sent out, and staff in polling stations can issue ballots and check off the names of voters. It is also needed so that candidates can communicate with the voters.
In recent years, the register has been used for other purposes, particularly commercial ones. This is a relatively recent development which has arisen since the register was published in electronic form. Previously, the copying of printed registers was something which was clearly not worth the effort. Commercial purposes for which registers have been used include credit checking, the identifying of targets for junk mail and the cleaning and up-dating of commercial data bases. Also, there are a number of non-commercial uses, such as use by private detectives, police checks on whether the names and addresses given by suspects are accurate, and charity fund raising.
Anyone can buy a complete United Kingdom register on CD ROM and there is no control over the purpose for which that can be used. It could be used, for example, by a racist organisation to identify everyone on the register who had one of a number of common Asian surnames. The basic principle of data protection is that information collected for one

1035
purpose should not be used for another purpose without the consent of the data's subject. Furthermore, I agree in part with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that there is a serious problem under Article 8 of the European Convention on the respect for private life. The provision is clearly in breach of Article 8(1), unless it can be justified under Article 8(2). Unless there is an edited register, there may be serious problems. Unrestricted publication of the register is not in accordance with those basic principles.
The restrictions proposed by the Government have been subject to intensive lobbying campaigns. The lobbyists put forward a number of effective points: access to the edited register alone makes it much more difficult to carry out credit checks; it is more difficult for commercial organisations to keep their databases up to date—which it is in the general public interest to do; and it is more difficult for charities to send out appeals. The Government have accepted the argument for credit check access to the full register. On other issues, the Government, rightly, have not given way.
It is true that it is in the interests of mail-order companies to keep their databases up to date. That reduces the number of misdirected mailshots, which is in a sense in the public interest. But modern technology increases the amount that other people may know about us to an enormous extent—something unimaginable a generation ago. The economic benefits of organisations having access to the full register are not sufficient to outweigh the right of anyone to say, "I don't want my name and address to go on a CD-ROM or on the Internet and to be accessible to anyone, simply because my name is on the electoral register".
We accept that the edited register should be opt-out rather than opt-in. We have tabled amendments to ensure that the attention of anyone thinking of signing an opt-out form is drawn to the possible adverse consequences. We have tabled an amendment to try to ensure that other members of a household consent to an opt-out given in their name. We want to ensure that those who opt out may opt back in as easily as possible. But the case which is made for allowing the full register to be used for non-electoral purposes, even for charities, must be a strong one. If I do not want to be on a charity mailing list, I believe that it is my right not to be on a charity mailing list.
A case has been made out for credit checking. A further case has made out for some police purposes. There may be other limited cases where controlled access to a full register is desirable. But there should be no general widening of access to the full register. On that issue, the Government have broadly got it right.
Lord Borrie: I should like to comment on the amendment. I have tabled an amendment myself, which stands also in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, and Lord Naseby. It may be convenient if I follow the example of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in giving broad views on Clause 9. I should start by saying that, although I do
1036
not have any business interests in the area of direct marketing, I am the independent chairman of the Direct Marketing Authority—a body with a majority of independent members which determines complaints against direct marketers for any breaches of their self-regulatory code. My reason for tabling an amendment and intervening in the debate on Clause 9 is that through that activity I have acquired some knowledge of the industry.
I was unable to take part in the Second Reading debate, but I read it in Hansard with particular interest because I was struck by what appeared to be a degree of discrepancy between the objectives of the clause as stated by the Minister and the actual proposal in the clause to restrict the availability of the register. For example, at col. 14 of the Official Report of 31st January, the Minister said that there was particular concern for victims of domestic violence and about the problem of stalking. Yet, as the noble Lord, who is, I hope, departing only for a moment, himself said a little further on in the same column, the full register will be available for inspection in public libraries. I could not see anything in the Government's proposals that would thwart the determined stalker or former husband desirous of seeking out his ex-wife from checking up on her in the public library.
I then thought about the Government's objective of ensuring that the maximum number of eligible people should register to vote. It was said that restricting the availability of the full register would encourage people to register, yet the Government produced no evidence to show that the present wide availability of the full register—not only present but over many years in recent times—is a factor deterring individuals from seeking registration.
Coming more closely to the matter of direct mail, it was said that people are fed up with junk mail and that the tiresome receipt of junk mail would be significantly reduced if traders no longer had access to the full electoral register. There are several answers to that point. Few direct marketers use the electoral register to draw up their marketing lists. What they do is draw up, or purchase from those who commercially draw them up, purchase lists, often carefully targeted at people with known interests and likely purchasing intentions, but they use the electoral register to verify and to validate people's addresses. In other words, they use the electoral register to validate their own database, not to create it. That is surely in the public interest. It reduces the likelihood of people receiving unintended and unwanted mail and, for example, mail being sent to people who are no longer alive. In any case, it is reasonably well known—Members of the Committee will have seen this in post offices up and down the country—that people who do not want junk mail, either of a general or a particular kind which they find a nuisance, can use the mail preference service, which is a self-regulatory organisation, to get rid of that material which they do not want. There is also a telephone preference service and even a fax preference service.

1037
The Direct Marketing Association, which is the trade association to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, referred, has been in touch with the Home Office over a long period about its concerns regarding Clause 9 as it stands. The association believes that the clause could put severe restraints on a form of trading which is competitive, well regulated and, most important of all, is found to be extremely convenient and helpful to millions of our fellow citizens. The industry has an annual revenue of some £30 billion.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I am obliged to the noble Lord. He will know as well as I that there is no reference in our domestic law to Article 8 of the convention or the right to privacy.
Lord Borrie: The noble Lord is correct. I was about to come to the specific point of his amendment. If I was speaking more broadly, it was because I was following the precedent set by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, which seemed to be a good precedent. The rather more technical amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, if may call it that without disrespect, happened to come before the more substantive amendments as to whether Clause 9 is good or should be changed. I imagined that those who sent briefing had taken as read the certificate referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, that the Human Rights Act, and therefore the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 8, are being adhered to and that there is nothing in this clause or the rest of the Bill to go against it.
The point to which I was referring when the noble Lord intervened was that to deprive industry of the facility of validating its lists of prospective customers would appear to be damaging not only to the industry—that may not matter—but also to the public who benefit from the checks on names against addresses which the electoral register provides.
It would be helpful to have an indication from the Government, bearing in mind the concession referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, during the passage of the Bill in the House of Commons, that the full register would be available to check credit. It will be available to credit reference agencies, banks and so on. I should have thought that that would be very helpful to customers, because if those checks cannot be made, a decision may be made which is adverse to a customer, who would not receive the credit that he or she might otherwise. Surely the Government and Members of the Committee would disapprove of that because it would give rise to the possibility of social exclusion. So I am glad that the Government have made that change.
I am interested to know whether they will make other concessions. For example, it is of interest to millions of customers who purchase via direct mailing throughout the country that their names can be validated by an examination of the full register. It seems to me that that is in no way damaging to anyone's privacy. It seems to be most helpful to customers if that can be done. I shall refer to the specific purposes of my amendment when we reach that.
Lord Norton of Louth: My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway made some telling points in relation to Clause 9, as did the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I agree with a great deal of what was said. At Second Reading, I outlined my concerns about the provisions of the clause. Like other speakers, I shall combine my comments on my noble friend's amendment with comments on the clause generally. The two come together quite well.
At Second Reading, I indicated that I had a principled objection to the sale of the register, and that remains. I am completely unconvinced by the briefing that we have received, and I am afraid that I remain totally unconvinced by the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, which do not address the objection on principle.
Registration is required by Act of Parliament. It is a fundamental requirement of our democracy. There is no provision for opting out. Voting is not compulsory, but registration is. The statutory requirement to register must be balanced against the right to privacy. When I register, I do so in order to qualify to vote. My name appears on the register for that purpose alone.
A case can be made for political parties to have access to the register, under licence, for the purpose of campaigning. That flows from the nature of the electoral process. It is related to the exercise of the vote. That is fine. I also accept that the register may be used on a confidential basis, according to clear guidance, for the purpose of combating crime. I can see that electors may authorise other bodies to check the names on the register.
However, that is probably as far as I would go. When I register to vote, I do not register for the purpose of allowing anyone who obtains access to the register to solicit me for commercial, or indeed any non-electoral, purposes. I concede that purchasing the register may be invaluable to commercial firms and charities. But the usefulness of access does not establish a right of access. I have a fundamental principled objection to the sale of the register—full-stop.
The Government recognise the problem and have sought to address it by drawing a distinction between an edited register and a full one. I object to the sale of any register. Although the issue is a difficult one, the way forward must be based on very limited access to the register. At a later stage I may raise fundamental issues about the publication of and access to the register. We must look at the register in terms of limited access if we are to address some of the fundamental problems of privacy. It is not just a case of having an opt-out for commercial firms; one must protect one's privacy from other dangers as well. The distinction between an edited and a full register does not deal with those dangers.
I have great sympathy with the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. While it is an improvement on what exists now, and to that extent I support it, I should like it to go further. Therefore, I believe that this clause should be withdrawn and we should return to the matter later.

1039
For the reasons that we have heard, the status quo is not an option in order to comply with the requirements of data protection and so there must be a change. However, I am not persuaded that the manner in which the clause addresses the problem is the way forward. The Government have made a real attempt to deal with the problem, but I believe that the method that they have adopted does not tackle the nub of it. My solution would be more radical, with very strong emphasis on the right of privacy. I suggest that the Government take this away and come back with a completely new clause.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: Since my name appears on the Marshalled List next to the amendment to be moved later by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and my remarks will be brief and of a general character, it may be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I support the arguments that the noble Lord has advanced. Like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, I have no particular interest to declare. In the past my connection with the advertising industry was similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in that I was one of the regulators of standards. There are very substantial issues relating to a major part of the economy of this country—the advertising and marketing industry—which need to be faced.
My noble friend Lord Goodhart put forward with admirable clarity his approach to these problems which, like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, was based on our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. I await with interest the Government's response to the fundamental question of the legal position. Listening to my noble friend Lord Goodhart, my only doubt is that, if we are in breach of the European convention by making the register compulsory for statutory purposes and making it available beyond its immediate purpose, I am not sure how we justify drawing the line. I hope to be persuaded by the Government that our international obligations, which we must observe, give us a good deal of flexibility in making a judgment about exactly where the line is drawn. I accept that it is a very difficult balance to strike, but I am not clear as to the best compromise to be offered at the end of the day.
Perhaps I may offer one word to Members of the Committee, all of whom in one way or another are my noble friends. I believe that politicians should be cautious about becoming too rigidly self-righteous about intrusions into privacy. We now live in a world of electronic commerce, which I do not claim fully to understand. However, when it comes to junk mail and intrusions into privacy we as professional politicians who have played a part in public affairs have done our share. When first I was a candidate and a Member of Parliament for Dundee, in the pre-electronic age, we got the voters out by going around with a dinner bell. Then we moved into the electronic age. We managed to get a loudhailer and felt we were very "with it"—but, my goodness, we intruded into privacy.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Norton of Louth: I take the point the noble Lord makes. However, as a teenager I remember canvassing. When one knocked on a door, one asked the elector whether he would vote for you at the election. One did not then ask, "May I sell you something?"
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: I take the noble Lord's point. I am not dogmatic about where the line is drawn. I simply believe that we should be a little cautious about how rigid we are.
I suffer from the flood of junk mail through my letter box like everyone else. Much of that junk mail which causes me irritation is political, sometimes from my own party. I say that in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, who made such an excellent maiden speech recently. Much of that mail comes from pressure groups. There is a real problem to be faced.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: There is no objection if one wants it and consents to have it. Presumably one consents to have it from one's own party. However, it is when one does not consent to have it that the invasion of privacy occurs.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: With respect to the noble Lord, I am not sure that the issue is as simple as that. The register is a register. The action of the individual may safeguard him from receipt of junk mail, but it leaves the public issues still to be resolved.
I am genuinely puzzled about the Government's compromise. How will this two-tier system work? Is it enforceable? Is it practicable if one has a major statutory document such as an electoral register which is part of transparency in public life? It has to be in the public library. How will one enforce the two-tier system proposed? I do not know the answer. Should not there be a further opportunity for the Government and all those concerned to study the issue and return with more details of the final arrangements? That might help to balance these conflicting considerations.
I recognise the urgency of the Bill with regard to the pilot schemes for the coming local government elections. But the regulations that will follow the Bill have not yet been drafted. We do not know their content. Much discussion lies ahead.
In conclusion, the advertising and marketing industry is part of the modern economy. It is part of our living standards in this country. It should be regulated in the public interest. But it is an important part of our economy. I find it strange that the working party chaired by a colleague of the Minister from the Home Office—it was well represented by representatives of the political parties— had no representatives from the marketing and advertising industry, if not as members, at least as assessors. That industry was not even offered the opportunity to give direct evidence and to submit to cross-examination. We have a long way to go in considering the issues raised by Clause 9.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Noble Lords have ranged rather wider than the amendment. The speech of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was very germane to the whole argument.
My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth takes an absolutist view. I understand that. I think that he received some nods of agreement from some areas of the Committee. His absolutist view is that the register is prepared for electoral purposes and that, bar those electoral purposes and the political parties, no one else should be allowed to use it. I must say that as a cogent argument to put forward in a debate, it is not a bad place to start. I can tell my noble friend that in many ways I might be quite content to argue on his side, but there are some other pressures—and those pressures have come from other noble Lords who have spoken—where the electoral register is used by other people for reasons which benefit not just them but the individuals whose names appear on the register. This is one of the most difficult issues.
The point made by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway was that to use the electoral register for any purpose other than the purpose for which it is mandatorily collected would in fact be a breach of the European Convention. We very clearly need to know that. The reason we need to know it very clearly is, as I said much earlier today, twice in Scotland in the last few weeks the courts have made a decision about something which people thought was a long-standing arrangement in the law of Scotland, and indeed in the second case in the law of the United Kingdom, and these long-standing arrangements are in danger of being struck down because they are in breach of the convention.
Today another issue has been raised in the press by lawyers who think that another aspect of the law of Scotland, much admired in the children's panel arrangements dealing with juvenile offenders, may well breach the European convention. When the Government embarked on bringing the European convention into domestic law, I do not believe for a moment that they thought that it might strike at any of the three legal positions at which it has struck. Put very simply, in the case of the cameras it is likely that in Scotland one could with safety drive past them at any speed, because the kernel of a conviction is that the driver has to admit to being the driver. The court has found that that is a breach of the convention; you are incriminating yourself. I therefore believe that the Government will seriously have to address this point.
Is any sale of the register a breach of the convention? I might even ask my noble friend why, if I have correctly heard his argument, a sale to a registered charity is not a breach of the convention. If a registered charity sends me something, that must surely be as great an invasion of my right to privacy as it would be in the case of anybody else sending me something.
As I listened to the debate, I was reminded once or twice of the old adage, "When in a hole, stop digging". I believe that your Lordships have just been digging this hole ever deeper. Perhaps the only person who is
1042
on safe ground is my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who says that we should not have a hole here at all, which is quite a safe position to be in.
I look at the submission from the Data Protection Register. This is a summary of a submission in August 1998 to the Home Office Working Party, which states:
"The existing arrangements whereby the register is sold without restriction for non-electoral purposes should be discontinued".
There does not appear to be any qualification there about giving it to some but not to others, giving it to charities but not to others. This is a very difficult area. It does go on to say:
"Individuals' details should not be sold on unless they have signified agreement either generally or for specific purposes".
We will come to the question of whether or not a tick in a box is a general agreement or an agreement for specific purposes. This is an extraordinarily difficult proposition.
I was going to talk about some of the other issues that have emerged and follow the bad example of other noble Lords who have strayed rather wide of the amendment. I shall not do so, however, because addressing this simple issue of the position of the European convention may well mean that we can shortly go home. If the noble Lord, Lord Bach, says that it may all be in contravention of the convention, we may have to start again, or perhaps we may have to stay and go through some of the other amendments. In the meantime, until we are clear about the impact of the convention rights on any use of the electoral register other than for electoral purposes, as outlined by my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, we should not proceed with any of the other issues as to who else might get access to the register and who might not, which, of course, is equally to the point.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: Perhaps I may ask my noble friend for clarification. Does he accept that only without the consent of the person on the register is it a breach of the convention. Secondly, does he agree in principle that in this situation Clause 9 should be recommitted so that we may have advice upon it?
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: As to the latter point, after tonight's debate I can predict how things will go. The Government will be well advised to take the clause away and think carefully about it. Whether on Report they come forward with a new one which might need recommitment is entirely a different matter. If the clause were significantly different, it would need recommitment.
As regards my noble friend's first point, I concede that I may be prepared to tick the box for charities to use it, but no one else; I may be prepared to tick the box for the credit companies to use it because I may want credit, but no one else; and I may well be happy to receive junk mail because it livens up other boring mail so I shall not want to tick a box. Therefore, there may be so many options that as regards this hole we should all stop digging.
Lord Bach: We have had a fascinating discussion and it is meant as a compliment when I say that many

1043
heavyweight Members of this House have taken part. It has given the Government food for thought. My response will not be long, but I hope that it will be clear. Obviously, we shall need to look carefully at what has been said and consider it. I do not say that we shall change our minds, but we need to reconsider the matter carefully. When one hears arguments carefully put on both sides, it behoves government to re-examine the issue.
I want to make a couple of general comments and then move to what we are in danger of forgetting; that the debate stems from a single amendment dealing with charities. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, brought us back to that. First, unless the provisions of Clause 9 are enacted, the full electoral register will continue to be available to anyone who wants to buy it. The Government have clear advice from the Data Protection Registrar that that would not meet the requirements of the EU data protection directive. Secondly, we are advised that we would be at risk of being found in breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with privacy. I choose my words carefully; that "we would be at risk".
In Clause 9, we are trying to strike the balance between the need to respect data protection and privacy requirements and the established use of data from the electoral register for certain purposes. Under our arrangements, anyone who does not want his or her name included in the version of the register which will be freely available for sale will be able to opt out of such inclusion. Two versions of the register will be produced by electoral registration officers. As Members of the Committee know, an edited version will list only the names of those who have not exercised their opt-out right and a full version will list the names and addresses of all electors. The edited version will be available to anyone who wants to buy it, but the full version will not. However, the full version will continue to be displayed in town halls, libraries and so forth, so that it can be inspected locally.
As Members of the Committee know, we intend to provide in regulations made under Clause 9 for the full register to be made available to the police and other relevant agencies for law enforcement and crime prevention purposes; to credit reference agencies for use in connection with applications for credit; to banks to make money laundering checks; and, as at present, to Members of Parliament, local councillors and candidates at elections for electoral purposes. We believe that these arrangements will achieve something like a proper balance.
If the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, were to be accepted, there would continue to be available only a single version of the register. It would list the names of all the electors in the relevant area, but its availability would be severely limited. Only registered charities would be able to use it for commercial purposes. No edited version would be available that could be freely bought and used by others for commercial purposes.
1044
Clearly, the noble Lord is not alone in his belief that much tighter controls should be placed on the availability of the register. Because of that feeling, the Working Party on Electoral Procedures, which has been mentioned in the course of our debate, devoted a considerable amount of time to this issue. The working party concluded—I emphasise that the conclusion was supported by all its members—that the arguments for retaining a commercially available register are strong. The Government are not persuaded that it would be right to depart from that position. None the less, the working party recommended that people should be able to opt out of being included in the version of the register that will be made available for sale. Thus, two versions will be created: a full one to be used for electoral and law enforcement purposes; and the edited version.
Clause 9 allows for regulations to be made and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, was right when he said that we are still considering exactly what form those regulations should take. I do not apologise for that; it is not an easy matter.
The Government are minded to allow the full register to be used for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications. We have established with the Data Protection Registrar that this will not breach the EU directive on data protection and it will ensure that people who decide to opt out of inclusion in the edited register will not find it more difficult to obtain credit.
Perhaps I may also stress, since this point was raised in the noble Lord's amendment, that we intend that the full register will continue to be available for public inspection in public buildings—town halls and libraries. We regard that as an important safeguard against fraud.
I should like to turn to the question of charities, a point covered by the noble Lord's amendment. Charities tend to use the electoral register for the purpose of sending out fund-raising letters. While we may applaud their motives in doing so, it would be foolish to overlook the fact that this is a form of direct marketing. The EU directive on data protection specifically refers to direct marketing. For that reason, we do not believe that we could give charities direct access to the full register without being in breach of the directive. However, it goes without saying that there is nothing to stop charities from buying and using the edited version.
That completes my remarks on behalf of the Government tonight. However, we shall look carefully at the debate and I undertake to return to the Committee with any changes. However, for the moment we feel that we have achieved about the right balance. Indeed, I am encouraged by the words of general support from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Nevertheless, this is an important matter and I hope that, on the basis of what I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I should like not merely to thank the noble Lord, Lord Bach, but also to pay tribute to him for the trouble he has taken to deal with all the arguments with such care. He has produced a constructive background upon which to consider the whole matter—because it will have to be considered.
Perhaps I may say at once that I take his point about charities. I believe that he is right and that I was wrong here. However, a principle is at stake, as it is a matter of Community law that is now a part of our law, and we had better approach it rather carefully between now and the next stage of this Bill. Certainly I hope that, on behalf of the Government, the noble Lord will be prepared to entertain discussions and representations and, far more importantly, to seek advice of the highest order, not necessarily only government advice but perhaps independent advice from the Bar. This is a very important matter.
In the meantime, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, in particular my noble friends Lo rd Mackay of Ardbrecknish and Lord Norton of Louth and the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. I do not believe that I shall come back to it in precisely the same form but back, inevitably, I shall come.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 10. line 32, leave out ("both the full register and the edited register may") and inert ("the full register and the edited register may each").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 82, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 83, 87, 88, 89 and 91.I hope that we can take this series of government amendments a little more briefly. These amendments all relate to the practicalities of the new system that the Bill aims to put in place in relation to the electoral register. Amendments Nos. 82 and 83 are purely drafting amendments.
Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 are concerned with the uses to which the full electoral register may be put. If we are to limit access to the full electoral register, clearly we need to have regulations which govern the uses to which it may be put. By way of an example, it would be quite wrong if a local councillor who also happened to run a mail order business was able to use the copy of the full register he received wearing his councillor's hat for business purposes when other mail order businesses were denied access to the full register. We believe that the Bill should make clear that regulations can be made which govern not only to whom copies of the full register may be supplied but also the purposes for which it may be used. That is the purpose of Amendments Nos. 87 to 89.
Amendment No. 91 is designed to ensure that if misuse of the register occurs because an organisation which has access to the full register has inadequate safeguards in place, the directors of that company should be liable for their negligence.
I hope that the Committee will agree that these are worthwhile amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: In the last debate, which I listened to with fascination, I exercised at this hour of the night a commendable restraint—at least I hope that my noble friends will regard it as commendable—as I did not join in. However, I was mildly perturbed by something that the noble Lord said in his response. He said that the Government were "minded" to allow the credit agencies and the banks to make use of the full register. That sounds to me as though they have not made up their mind on that matter. In another place at Third Reading the Minister said:
"we believe that the full register should be available to credit and finance companies for the purpose of establishing identity in connection with credit applications".—[Official Report, Commons, 19/1/00; col. 889.]
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps the noble Lord will give way briefly. I believe that my noble friend Lord Bach did use the word "minded", but we are absolutely clear that we intend that to be the case. Therefore, I hope that that clarifies the point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: In that case, I have no wish to read further what was said in another place. That is a clear government intention. It then comes to the question, as he rightly said, of the regulations. In responding to the debate, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, indicated one or two areas where the regulations would be restrictive. Amendment No. 87 refers to "Provisions specifying" and then goes on to refer to,
"the purposes for which copies supplied to such persons under such regulations, or information contained in them, may be used whether by such persons or by employees",
and so on.
As well as precluding the two-faced councillor from using the register for his mail-order business when he has obtained it because he was a councillor, I ask the Government to make it absolutely clear that the regulations will be inclusive and will make it abundantly clear that the banks and other credit agencies will be entitled to use the information.
Considerable efforts were made to try to persuade the Home Office—and the Treasury was brought Jul to bat on behalf of the industries which they sponsor—that it really is in the interests not least of first borrowers that the banks and agencies should have access to check the information. It may be regrettable, but it happens to be true that the information on a registration form has always been more true than that supplied by an applicant for financial services.
The electoral register is likely to show the full and accurate name and, over a period, will provide an element of history. All that serves an essential function if credit is to be given by a building society or whatever it may be. I believe that the Government have accepted that, but I seek an assurance that the regulations will make that absolutely clear.
Lord Bach: I am grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. I apologise for my lawyer's caution in my

1047
use of the expression "minded to". But my noble friend has quite rightly put the Committee right about that. That decision has been taken.
I assure the noble Lord that the regulations will be—I use his word—inclusive in the particulars to which he referred in his intervention. I hope that that assists him.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I am grateful for that. That does meet my argument.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: These amendments take us into the complex issue of who may be able to obtain the full electoral register. My noble friend Lord Jenkin has just explored one of the exceptions. I was going to say "possible exceptions", but we now know that they will be exceptions.
I do not know anything about this particular field but I have been bombarded by the most amazing amount of paper. I raise this issue because, on the face of it, it seems to be part of the problem which the Government will encounter when they start making fine distinctions.
As I understand it—no doubt I shall be corrected if I am wrong—some companies will be allowed to purchase the whole of the electoral register in order to run those credit control systems. I gather that the two companies involved are called Equifax and Experian. I have a letter here from another company called i-CD publishing. It tells me what terrific work it does, largely supplying the electoral roll via software and the Internet. I am told that the Government now heartily approve of all those things. The latter company claims that it is a competitor of the two other companies which I have mentioned. It goes further and says that it is used largely by small businesses for credit controls whereas, by implication, the other two tend to be used by big businesses, presumably because their information is not available on the Internet or by e-mail. It complains that it has never been consulted and that, on the face of it, Its two competitors are to be granted a right which it has not been granted.
I simply take the letter at its face value. As I said, I do not know very much about this field. But if that is the case, I suggest to the noble Lord that the Government should do something to address that. That is the problem with moving away from the firm and high ground of my noble friend Lord Norton.
When one starts to make exceptions to the rule one must be absolutely sure that one does not favour one competitor against another and that one deals with a class of exceptions rather than individually named ones. I hope that I have made that point clear and that either tonight or some time in the next week or two we can be clear about the position as claimed by ICD Publishing.
Lord Bach: We note the point raised by the noble Lord and will consider it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 10, line 35. leave out ("that") and insert ("the edited").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 10, line 36, at end insert—

("(c) confirming that, where the exclusion of the name and address of a registered elector from the edited register is requested on behalf of that elector, the elector has consented to that request, and

(d) explaining any adverse consequences likely to flow from the exclusion of the names and addresses of registered electors from the edited register").

The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to the principle behind the amendment and therefore wish to move it "semi-formally".
We take the view that the various advantages which may accrue to people from opting in, or remaining opted in, should be made clear. It should also be made clear that people who opt out, or appear to have opted out, have agreed to do so.
Amendment No. 84 contains two parts. The first half requires that the opt-out form should make it clear that the person who signs it has consulted and obtained the approval of other persons in the same household. The opt-out form will be part of the canvass return circulated to everybody which has to be returned in October. For the purposes of simplicity, it will be dealt with in a single document. We believe that as only one person will sign and return it, it should contain a provision that that person has obtained the consent of any other member of the household to that person's opting out. The opt-out form should also make clear if any adverse consequences may flow from the exclusion of the name of any member of the household from the edited register.
Amendment No. 85, to which I also wish to speak, is self-evident. It is largely a probing amendment, asking what arrangements the Government have in mind to ensure that people who have opted out and then changed their minds can, within a reasonably short period of time, opt back into the edited register. I beg to move.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: This is perhaps the time to raise a problem mentioned briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. I refer to how an individual indicates that he wants to be in the full register but to opt out of the edited version.
From our previous discussions and those in another place, I understand that currently the head of the household will tick the box. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, pointed out, that does not cover the position of other people in the household. If the head of the household does not tick the box, could one other member of the household say that his rights under the Data Protection Directive and the European Convention would be infringed, and who would be infringing them? Would it be the head of the household

1049
for not ticking the box or the electoral returning officer for not asking the question of the person as an individual?
The interesting point, as I said at Second Reading, is that the working party said clearly at paragraph 12 that the form should be amended to include information about the purposes to which the information may be put—that is, the information if your name was on the full register—and to allow an opt-out box for each person included on the form and all commercial activities. That suggests that the working party envisaged a form with a box to be ticked by each person whose name was written down on the form. I feel that that is the proper way to do it and just asking the head of household to tick may not be the proper way.
We have gone into these arguments before, but it is likely that the head of household may not be bothered about a company checking him for his creditworthiness because he may have cards from his banks and so forth that show that he is clearly creditworthy; whereas his 20 year-old son may be in quite a different position. He may go along to buy his first car and find that his father has removed him from the edited list and therefore obtaining credit becomes a bit more difficult. Those are the problems which may arise. I shall certainly be interested to hear what the Minister thinks about the proposition that each person ought to indicate in a box whether or not they wish to be excluded from the register.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a useful amendment in a number of senses, in that it focuses on how the opt-out box will work. I hope my comments cover the concerns raised in this short debate and I will just run through the points we wish to make on this issue.
It is a long-standing feature of our electoral registration arrangements that the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household. Though that may sound more than a touch paternalistic and old-fashioned, there are good reasons for continuing with this arrangement. First, it significantly reduces the burdens of bureaucracy and the amount of paperwork which electoral registration officers have to process. Secondly, registration officers have no way of knowing when new people move into a household or when children reach voting age. The present arrangement makes the head of the household (who may in practice be any member of it) responsible for ensuring that all eligible people are on the electoral register.
More importantly, without this arrangement very few of our young people would appear on the electoral register. It is regrettable that so few young people would be bothered to take the initiative to register as electors if left to their own devices but it is certainly not a fact we can ignore. It is, rather, a fact of life. So I hope the Committee will understand why we must preserve the present arrangement under which the electoral registration form is completed by the head of the household.
1050
However, in future there will be an additional element to the registration form. Next to the name of each elector will be a box that will need to be ticked if that person wishes to opt out of inclusion in the edited register. That is a significant development. We consulted the Data Protection Registrar on the scheme we envisage. She supports it and sees no ECHR implication in it which would cause us any distress. Once there is an opt-out box, the head of a household will need to take reasonable steps to ascertain the preferences of the other members of the household. In the overwhelming majority of cases that would simply involve asking them. But we recognise that there will be cases where that is not possible. What we envisage, for example, in a student hall of residence is that, the warden might put up a notice saying that he or she intends to send back the electoral registration form in three weeks' time and that any resident who wished to exercise the right to opt-out should make contact within that period.
Any head of household who deliberately recorded the preferences of another member of the household falsely would be guilty of the offence of providing false information on the electoral registration form. Quite simply, I cannot see how this can be made to work in any other way without introducing a system of individual registration, which, for the reasons I have already given, would be unsatisfactory.
I am not sure how the first part of Amendment No. 84 would work without introducing either individual legislation or creating a whole new layer of paperwork and bureaucracy. Also, we believe that the second part of Amendment No. 84 is unnecessary. If noble Lords look at line 30 on page 10, they will see that there is already provision for explaining to the electorate the uses for which the full and edited register can be put. We want the electorate to be able to make an informed choice as to whether to exercise the right to opt out and we want to ensure that they have all the necessary information to enable them to make that choice.
We have already said that we are happy to work with the industries that currently make use of the electoral register to try to help to settle the content of the explanatory material that is made available to electors. We shall, of course, continue to consult them and to discuss such matters with them.
As regards Amendment No. 85, we believe that this would probably be superfluous. It will be open to anyone in respect of whom the box was wrongly ticked, or for whom the box was not ticked although he may have wanted it to be, to apply to the registration officer for a correction to be made. That is a very simple procedure in itself. We believe that that negates the need for Amendment No. 85, as drafted. In the light of those fairly clear explanations, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Goodhart: On the basis of what the Minister said, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 10, line 41, after ("copies") insert ("(or copies on disk or in electronic format)").
The noble Lord said: I believe that I can deal with this amendment very quickly. I mentioned earlier that the Government are very keen to change us all on to the airwaves—e-mail, Webs and goodness knows what else. Indeed, we are shortly to have a Bill on e-commerce to help us on our merry way into this new world. As I understand it, the electoral roll is already supplied in electronic and computer-oriented forms. Many political parties find that most useful. However, we want to be sure that that practice will continue and that, in addition, the addendum—the rolling register—is also supplied in that form. That is my question both fairly and simply put. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply, although not by e-mail! I beg to move.
Lord Rennard: Amendment No. 90 has been grouped with the noble Lord's amendment. Like Amendment No. 86, it is an important amendment. If I may say so, this is a rather more important debate than the one we had earlier about whether or not to remove the words "for example" from the Bill. The amendment deals with a very practical situation regarding the format of the provision of the electoral register and, in particular, making it free to the parties where it is provided in electronic format.
At present, someone who satisfies an electoral registration officer that he requires a copy of the electoral register in connection with someone's parliamentary candidature is entitled to free printed copies of it. However, if that copy of the register is required on disk or tape, a charge is made for the supply. I believe that to be something of an anomaly; it also represents a tax on democracy. Moreover, it is bad practice when we consider the environmental consequences.
Four paper copies of the register are generally supplied free to a political party when it is first published in February. In addition, a Member serving in another place is entitled to a free paper copy and each local councillor is entitled to a free paper copy for the ward that he or she represents. Local election candidates are also entitled to a free paper copy and a parliamentary candidate is entitled, once nominated, to two further free paper copies. This may mean that a political party can effectively claim at least six paper copies of the register in any one year, and sometimes many more.
A typical constituency register on paper may be printed on about 1,500 sheets of paper. So supplying one party with six copies of it may mean 9,000 sheets of paper, or about six kilograms in weight. That is a huge amount of paper, which is printed and sometimes packaged and posted at considerable expense. We heard much in more controversial debates this evening about the costs to the public purse. This is a way in
1052
which I believe that savings to the public purse could be made. All of these paper copies are provided free of charge to each of the political parties.
However, the supply of the register in computer format attracts a charge to the party, even though it could be provided on a computer disk for as little as, say, 50p or by e-mail at virtually no cost. The charge to political parties for the register in computer format is currently £1.80 per 1,000 names, or about £120 per constituency. Once supplied, however, in electronic format, a party will not generally demand so many paper copies. Perhaps only one is required in order to check the electronic version. Therefore the tax on the provision of the register in electronic format is, I think, unfair if the principle of making the paper lists of voters free to the political parties or potential candidates is accepted. It is, of course, a tax on democracy. In my short time in this Chamber I have heard much from noble Lords about our commitment to democratic principles.
I believe that there is also growing concern about the environment. Changes elsewhere in this Bill may mean that many more paper copies of the register have to be printed in future. Presumably entitlement to printed copies of a rolling register, regularly updated, will be broadly similar to the present rules. A register updated every month would have to be available in printed format, as is the present annual register. It would not, I think, be satisfactory simply to publish a list of additions and deletions each month. So the amount of paper produced, copying or printing costs and clerical work involved could increase considerably.
Alternatively, an updated disk could be supplied free to those entitled to free paper copies. The parties should be given the register in suitable computer format free of charge in return for expecting no more than one copy of the printed register. This would not cost much, if it costs anything at all. Indeed, it may well even result in savings when all the costs of producing and distributing paper copies are taken into account, and it would be welcomed by those concerned with the environmental impact of the present system.
11.15 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I can confirm that this is a green Government in the environmental sense at least. I shall deal briefly with the amendments, not least because I am extremely sympathetic to them. As Members of the Committee have said, MPs, councillors and local political parties are entitled to receive paper copies of the register free of charge, but they must pay if they want it in electronic form. This distinction apparently derives from a time when not every register was produced on computer and when provision of data in electronic format was significantly more expensive than provision in paper form. Fortunately technology has moved forward apace and that is no longer the case.
We believe that a computer disk will be even cheaper in the future. We see no reason why those entitled to a free copy of the electoral register should not receive it in the form which is most convenient to them. This is

1053
sad for me as I like reading pieces of paper. I have spent many happy hours reading an electoral register. For some that may be a sad experience, but for me it has often been a great thrill to check it annually to see whether old friends are still in place and so on.
Therefore we are keen to take this matter forward in discussion with both political parties and electoral administrators. We believe that much progress can be made. We do not believe that an amendment to the Bill is needed for this purpose, as the existing regulation-making powers are, in our view, sufficiently flexible. I believe that that is probably a more efficient way for us to make progress. We are happy to have more discussion. We invite parties to offer their views on this matter. However, we believe that there should be free access to the register in an electronic form.
As regards the points made about the need constantly to update the rolling register, these are well understood. There is no doubt that we can also include ways of making that accessible in electronic form. I trust that with those assurances noble Lords opposite in both parties will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I thank my noble friend for his comments, which are welcome. When the discussions take place with the electoral registration office and the political parties, will there be discussion on compatibility because there are certain problems relating to the rolling register being compatible with the original register that is produced? I hope that that forms part of the discussion.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am more than happy to give a clear assurance on that point.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That was a satisfactory reply. No doubt these matters will be set out perfectly clearly in the regulations, including the subject of compatibility. I think that all of us who have spoken to the amendment are satisfied with the reply. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bach Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 87 to 89:
Page 11, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) Provisions specifying, in relation to any description of persons prescribed by regulations made in pursuance of subparagraph (1)(a) above, the purposes for which copies supplied to such persons under such regulations, or information contained in them, may be used whether by such persons or by employees or other persons authorised by them in accordance with regulations to have access to such copies or information contained in them.").
Page 11, leave out line 19 and insert ("any purposes specified in such regulations or (as the case may be) for which the copies have been supplied in accordance with any such provision.").
Page 11, line 19, at end insert—
("()Provisions imposing, in relation to persons—

(a) to whom copies of the full register have been supplied, or information contained in such copies has been disclosed, in accordance with regulations made in pursuance of this paragraph. or

1054

(b) who otherwise have access to such copies or information.

prohibitions or restrictions corresponding to those which may be imposed by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above.
( ) Provisions imposing, in relation to persons involved in the preparation of the full register, prohibitions with respect to supplying copies of the full register and disclosing information contained in it.").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert ("or

(b) where such a contravention has occurred on the part of a person in the employment, or otherwise under the direction or control, of a company or other organisation, for —

(i) a director of the company, or

(ii) a person concerned with the management of the organisation,

to have failed to take such steps as it was reasonable for him to take to secure the operation of procedures designed to prevent, so far as reasonably practicable, the occurrence of such contraventions on the part of such persons."").

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Borrie Lord Borrie moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 11, line 27, at end insert—
( ) After paragraph 13 (offences and supplemental matters) there shall be inserted—
"13A. Regulations making provisions under paragraphs 10, 11 and 13 above may not be made until six months after the date on which the Representation of the People Act 2000 receives Royal Assent."").
The noble Lord said: I need not detain the Committee long in dealing with this amendment. I gave a number of views during the debate on the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and I was delighted to have the strong support of the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifieth, in expressing my concern about the adverse effects of Clause 9 on legitimate businesses and their customers and the restriction on the availability of the full register for a number of purposes.
It must be recognised that the Government have made concessions. During the debate in the House of Commons the points which have been repeated here today were made in relation to credit reference agencies, banks and others who want to use the electoral register to check on people's creditworthiness and it has been said that if that was not permitted, a great number of people would feel socially excluded and would be disadvantaged. I am glad that that concession has been made.
The amendment seeks to give the Government more time for consultation. They have not adequately dealt with all the various problems and possibilities, many of which have been adverted to in earlier parts of the debate today. Legal points were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and there are legal problems in relation to the EU directive on data protection. While I listened closely to the carefully drafted remarks of my noble friend Lord Bach on that

1055
matter—I shall read them even more closely—I have no doubt that it would repay the Government to inquire even further into whether they have the right balance in legal terms as to what can and cannot be permitted under those pieces of legislation. I ask the Government to use the period of time for consultation before making the regulations to look not only at the law but also at what is desirable.
The direct marketing industry and its customers will still be dissatisfied that the Government have not conceded that they will be allowed the use of the full register in order to check on the correctness of people's addresses against the names they hold. That is extremely useful for customers to ensure that they are not on lists they do not want to be on, and it saves a lot of money, time and trouble for the industry to strike people's names off if they do not match the addresses on the electoral register.
Verification and validation is an extremely useful exercise for many businesses engaged in mailshots, in selling goods off air or off screen and through e-mail and so on. I am sure that the Government will freely admit that these kinds of trading are increasing—the Government are introducing legislation to deal further with e-commerce—and are important and of significance to millions of customers in this country. It would be a pity if, as a kind of by-product of the Government's good intentions in Clause 9, a lot of people are deprived of the benefits of better devised marketing lists than would otherwise exist if full access to the electoral register is not permitted. In the light of those considerations, I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I shall be brief. No doubt access to the full electoral register is extremely valuable to direct marketing organisations. It seems unlikely that access to that list is likely to be detrimental to ordinary electors. Nevertheless, it seems that there is no overwhelming public interest in allowing direct marketing organisations to have access to an unedited full register. In those circumstances, the individual elector may say, "I do not wish this information—which I am required by law to provide—to be used for any purpose other than that for which it is collected". I do not see any overwhelming reason to justify going back from that basic principle.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I shall briefly intervene. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has the good sense of giving the Government some time. As I suggested earlier, the debate on the Bill looks like not only the Government, but all of us, digging a hole, where we keep on digging instead of stopping to ask whether this is the right place to dig the hole, or indeed, as my noble friend Lord Norton suggested, whether we want the hole at all.
An enormous number of people have written to us on the subject across a wide range of groups which use the register: the Direct Marketing Association; the Association of British Insurers; British bankers; charities that write in disgust; the WWAV Rapp Collins Group; and the ICD group that I mentioned
1056
earlier. All those groups have written because they believe that they have a legitimate and arguable use of the full register. I am not going to come down on one side or the other of that argument, but it seems that when the Government start cherry picking and saying, "This use is okay; that use isn't", they will need time to think through clearly what they are doing.
If the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, is correct and many organisations use the full register to clean their existing lists obtained from other sources, we may in fact be increasing the amount of unwanted mail that people receive, especially for households which receive mail addressed to someone who is dead and off the register. I gather that one of the ways in which such lists are drawn up is via the answers to the questionnaires that one is occasionally asked to fill in in shopping malls and going in and out of the airport. Whether I decide to give some answers depends on the approach to me and whether I am in a hurry. Usually I am told that I shall win some great prize. My wife gives me a row three or four months later when I say, "Why are we getting this piece of mail?" I know now that I should not answer any questionnaires from anyone. That is bad news for the marketing industry, of which the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, was once a distinguished member, but I am afraid—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The first thing that the noble Lord should do is to find out whether the interviewer is certified as a member of the Market Research Society Interviewer Scheme. If that is the case, and if it is a genuine interview, there is no question whatever that the noble Lord and his wife will be pursued for sales purposes afterwards. Otherwise, the company and the interviewer will be slung out of the Market Research Society.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: That is certainly useful. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, is here this evening. I shall still stick to my original decision not to answer any questionnaires again, unless, of course, the prize is overwhelmingly attractive.
I believe that many people are concerned about the issue. Once the Government open the door to one group, the danger will be that they will find it difficult to decide where to close the door. I have some sympathy with the Minister on the issue. He might be well advised to take up his noble friend's offer of a nice long period before anything happens.
Lord McNally: I should not move one scintilla from the line taken by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, explaining our party's position. However, I feel that this is about the only opportunity I have to confess that, rather like the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, getting his kicks by reading the electoral register, I actually like receiving junk mail. If only I had been engaged much earlier in a public relations capacity, I could have explained that the problem is the pejorative name "junk mail". If it had been called "information correspondence", it would have had a much easier ride.

1057
One of our earlier amendments suggested that people should have the full explanation for removing themselves from the register. Perhaps it will be necessary at some stage for the Direct Marketing Association to embark on a public information campaign. Junk mail is not junk. It is an important industry. As the noble Lord, Lord 'Mackay, said, it may be necessary for the Government to give deeper thought to the full consequences of this matter. People may think that they are escaping some terrible burden, but they may also be missing some real benefits and opportunities.
11.30 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not extend the debate very much longer. Reference has been made to hole diggers and non-hole diggers and to junk mail junkies and the like. Clearly, this debate could go on for ever. In a sense, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has raised an important issue. The purpose of the amendment is to get us to extend consultation for a further six months. In practice, we shall have a longer period to consider the issue. After all, we are now consulting the industry. That is my understanding. When the draft regulations are published, there will be a further round of consultation. We do not yet have the legislation in place. So I think that we are talking about quite a long way down the road. I should have thought that we should have some continuing discussion and consultation over the next few months. For those reasons, I do not think that adding a further six months' delay on to that will take us much further.
However, Members of the Committee have made the point that this is a tricky and complex area and one in which there are many issues to be thought through. Some of those issues have already been addressed by the Working Party on Electoral Procedures. That ran from the summer of 1998. No doubt the period between now and when the regulations are finally introduced will provide us with ample time further to polish and consider exactly what we intend to do.
We think that the legislation is clear. We have a basis on which we can work to consult some more. Clearly, we need to take away some of the points that have been raised in this short debate. We will continue to do that. With that, I trust that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Borrie: Assuming that the Minister uses the word "considers" to include "will listen to representations"—I am sure he does—I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 9, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Norton of Louth: I shall speak briefly to this issue, although, looking at the clock, I have to say that the last train to get me back to Hull this evening left at 11.10 p.m. and, since the next one is at.6.15 a.m., I may be a little blasé about how the proceedings go on. However, I felt I should speak as I had given notice of
1058
my intention to oppose the Question, That Clause 9 shall stand part of the Bill. I elaborated the reasons for that during the debate on the amendment of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Minister in responding focused principally on that amendment.
The stand part debate on the clause allows the Minister to address the issue quite fundamentally. My noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish referred to me as an absolutist. I make no apologies for that. It serves certain purposes in forcing us to think back to first principles. What is the purpose of the whole exercise? The Government are proceeding on a number of assumptions about why the register is produced, the way in which it is produced, and the purpose that is served by its availability.
Earlier, I mentioned the history of the electoral register, why it came into being and why it was published. Some of those reasons may no longer have the force that they once had. There is a danger of the clause, and indeed the Bill, constituting something of a lost opportunity if we do not return to first principles and ask fundamental questions about the nature of the register and in particular, in the context in which we are presently discussing it, its availability, the access that people have to it.
So we do need to return to first principles, and I fear that the clause does not do that. It does not address the problem. I elaborated my reasons earlier and I do not intend to go over them again now. The clause raises fundamental issues and I hope the Minister will take the opportunity to respond.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Lord has rehearsed the arguments rather well. He has gone to the heart of the some of the arguments that are collected together in Clause 9. My noble friend Lord Bach gave a clear exposition of the Government's position. However, some of the issues raised are worthy of further consideration. We said that we would look closely at Hansard without commitment and see which further matters need greater elucidation and clarification.
We believe that the arrangements that we have set out achieve a proper balance, and we think that we can rely on the way in which we intend the clause to work. So, with all the difficulties—there is common agreement that this is a complex area—I commend the clause as drafted to the Committee.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Lord Bach: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before midnight.

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry: Costs
  Bloody Sunday Inquiry: Costs
  Social Security Budget and National Insurance
  Social Security Budget and National Insurance
  UK Trade with US
  UK Trade with US
  Asylum Applications: Confidentiality
  Asylum Applications: Confidentiality
  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Verification Protocol
  Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention: Verification Protocol
  Child Soldiers
  Child Soldiers
  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Meetings
  Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Meetings
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Aviation Industry
  Disability Discrimination Act 1995: Aviation Industry
  Oil Shipment Standards: "Erika" Incident
  Oil Shipment Standards: "Erika" Incident
  Common Land and Village Greens
  Common Land and Village Greens
  Lead Shot Restriction: Entry to Private Premises
  Lead Shot Restriction: Entry to Private Premises
  Lead Shot Restriction and the Devolved Authorities
  Lead Shot Restriction and the Devolved Authorities
  Arable Area Payments Scheme: Retrospection
  Arable Area Payments Scheme: Retrospection
  CS Disinfectant
  CS Disinfectant
  Aged Hospital Patients: Statistics
  Aged Hospital Patients: Statistics
  Treasury Statutory Instruments
  Treasury Statutory Instruments
  Business Sponsorship of Government Activity: Tax Treatment
  Business Sponsorship of Government Activity: Tax Treatment
  Inward Investment to UK
  Inward Investment to UK
  Film Industry: Working Conditions for Women
  Film Industry: Working Conditions for Women
  Tourist Attractions: Closures
  Tourist Attractions: Closures
  Sterling: Values
  Sterling: Values
  House of Lords Authorities
  House of Lords Authorities
  Homeless Prisoners: Discharge Grant
  Homeless Prisoners: Discharge Grant
  Women in the Fire Service
  Women in the Fire Service
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Parole Board
  Parole Board
  Crime Reduction Targets
  Crime Reduction Targets