House of Commons

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Monday 18 October 2010

The House met at half-past Two o’clock

Prayers

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Elizabeth Truss (South West Norfolk) (Con)]

1. What progress his Department has made towards the launch of its Work programme providing personalised assistance to those out of work.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

3. What progress his Department has made towards the launch of its Work programme providing personalised assistance to those out of work.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I am pleased to inform the House that the contracting process for the Work programme is going well. We have had more than 100 expressions of interest from would-be prime contractors. We will announce those who will be on the framework in late November and we will then move on to the next stage of contracting. All is on track to launch the Work programme in the first part of next year.

[Elizabeth Truss]

Is the Minister aware of the work of the Keystone Development Trust in Thetford, particularly the social enterprises it runs such as the green bikes scheme, which helps local people to get into work and gain practical skills? It is setting up a pilot that is due to be launched in November. Is the Minister willing to come and see the pilot in action?

[Chris Grayling]

I am delighted to hear about the work that is being done in my hon. Friend’s constituency, and when I am next in Norfolk I shall be delighted to find out more about the work being done there. Her comments underline the very important role that the voluntary sector and social enterprises play in getting people back to work. That is why we stipulated that prime contractors for the Work programme must demonstrate an ability to forge a team of specialist organisations, including social enterprises and voluntary sector bodies, that have the expertise that we need—either on a localised, geographic basis or in dealing with specific groups with a particular need—to ensure that we get people back into work. It will be a requirement of the Work programme that they have a place at the table.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

May I urge my right hon. Friend to select a number of providers who have strong roots in rural communities both in advising clients and in networking among the rural labour market?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely assure my hon. Friend that that will be a factor. As we select organisations to fill different geographic parts of the Work programme, bidders’ ability to demonstrate a knowledge, awareness and understanding of the geography they will be dealing with will certainly be a factor for us. In substantially rural areas, it is essential that organisations have the expertise to deal with the particular challenges of the rural economy and not simply with those found in towns and cities.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that the best personalised assistance that could be offered to a couple with six children who are facing the £500 benefit cap would be to advise them to split into two single-parent families of three children? As a family, they already consume £500 in benefits plus £250 in housing benefit, but as two separate units they would get £250 each in benefits plus £250 in housing, thereby costing the Exchequer £1,000, using two houses and being a split-up family.

[Chris Grayling]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise how important it is that work pays in our society and how frustrated working people are that it is possible for a family to receive, when the tax equivalent is taken into account, an income comparable to £35,000 a year in benefits. If we are to send the message that work pays, we have to limit the amount that the state supports people when they are outside work.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

The Minister will be aware of the pilot scheme operating in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire. In this extremely rural area, people are being asked to travel significant distances to appointments and the availability of suitable public transport is very limited. Will he consider taking appointments to the rural communities where people are rather than asking them to travel long distances to jobcentres?

[Chris Grayling]

One reason we are doing the two pathfinder projects is to understand precisely the issues and challenges that we will face when we roll out the programme nationwide next year. I am very happy to consider any of the lessons that have been learned from the experience in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to see whether we can do things better. In the mean time, we have provided additional funding to the two towns and cities involved in the first programmes—Burnley and Aberdeen—so that local needs that arise during the process can be met.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

I applaud the payment by results model: it has worked in America and Australia, and it will work here. May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Department for Work and Pensions website of 19 July, where he makes the point that results have to be delivered before any payment is made? Lots of small charities that I have spoken to up and down the country say that that will mean that they simply do not bid for contracts, even if they are part of a consortium with a big corporate player. What will my right hon. Friend do to design a system to protect the interests of the smaller charities that are so important for the big society?

[Chris Grayling]

May I say what a great pleasure it is to have a question from my hon. Friend, and to see him in his place?

We are doing everything we can to ensure that the systems in place are suitable to ensure we have a mix of organisations. We have launched a specific new code of conduct for prime contractors—the Merlin standard—that is designed to ensure that they look after the commercial interests of smaller organisations on the framework, or that are working with framework providers. It is essential that we have a proper mix of organisations involved in the Work programme and we will take all the steps we can to ensure that that is the case.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

A great deal will hang on the Work programme. We all remember the damage in our constituencies when unemployment reached 3 million before, and we remember which party was in government at the time. The warning last week from PricewaterhouseCoopers that 500,000 private sector jobs, as well as 500,000 public sector jobs, are under threat makes clear the danger ahead. The Minister will know of the fear of the small providers we have been talking about—social enterprises, rural organisations, community groups and faith groups—that they will be included in bids for marketing purposes, but dropped once the contract is awarded. How will contracting address that danger?

[Chris Grayling]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position. I look forward to working with him, as well as debating the issues, over the months ahead.

PricewaterhouseCoopers’ chief economist said he expected the private sector to be able to take up the slack from changes in the public sector. On smaller providers, the Merlin standard is designed to achieve precisely what he aims for. Under the terms of the Merlin standard, a prime contractor who wins a contract off the back of an attractive-looking consortium of organisations but dumps them all the next day can lose its contract. We shall be assiduous in ensuring that the interests of smaller subcontractors are protected, particularly those with the specialist needs we absolutely need for the Work programme. That is what the Merlin standard is designed to achieve.

[Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of services provided to jobseekers by Jobcentre Plus.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

8. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of the support provided to jobseekers by Jobcentre Plus.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has a huge interest in job clubs and has done a lot in her local area. I know that is appreciated.

There are 741 jobcentres, 35 contact centres and 78 main benefit delivery centres that process claims, investigate fraud and deal with inquiries. A full assessment of Jobcentre Plus services for 2009-10 was included in the annual report and accounts published on 26 July 2010. It was generally very positive. Jobcentre Plus has gone through a lot of difficulties over the past year and a half, but has done so really well. It is worth reminding ourselves that Jobcentre Plus helps 75% of claimants leave jobseeker’s allowance within approximately six months.

[Rehman Chishti]

A carpenter from my constituency, Mr Pay, was told by Jobcentre Plus that delivering thousands of leaflets and advertising his services in the local media did not constitute actively seeking work and his jobseeker’s allowance was withheld. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give me that that will not happen again?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I understand that the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), has intervened in the case and is busy sorting it out with the jobcentre to make sure that the rules change so that we never see a repeat of it.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My right hon. Friend kindly mentioned the job clubs that I started in South Northamptonshire. They do excellent work, largely through volunteers, with a bit of support from the local council. I should be grateful if my right hon. Friend told us what plans he has to support the work of those job clubs as they make the transition to work clubs.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister has made clear endlessly, it is critical in the whole Work programme process, which includes the element of work clubs, that we work on the basis of our understanding of previous information to bring people together and make sure that their shared experience can help them overcome some of the barriers. That is a critical component. That shared experience, as my hon. Friend and many other hon. Friends in the Chamber will know, can help people through the difficulties, so that they do not repeat the same mistakes. It will be an essential part of their work experience.

[Miss Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State is already aware that there will be a lot of pressure on Jobcentre Plus in Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire over coming months, because the Work programme—even with the best will in the world—will not be in place until next summer, and in the meantime there will be the migration from incapacity benefit to the employment and support allowance. On the Government’s figures, at least 200 people will end up back on jobseeker’s allowance, with perhaps another 400 needing the work-related activity element. The Minister has already announced £50,000, but, apart from that, what extra resources will be put into Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire to make sure that the excellent workers in Jobcentre Plus are able to give the specialist help that my constituents and others round about so richly deserve?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are, of course, aware of that, and the hon. Lady has, I think, discussed the matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State. As things stand, we think that the money that has been made available will be sufficient to cover the gap period, of which we are fully aware, so that nobody suffers a loss until they have gone through the system and had a chance to get on to the Work programme. We will, of course, keep the matter under review, and if there is an issue I guarantee the hon. Lady that we will make sure that it will not mean that people are penalised.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

In the same vein, may I ask the Secretary of State what he is doing to measure the adequacy and effectiveness of private job agencies such as FourstaR Employment and Skills Ltd, which has a Government contract to help unemployed people in my constituency to find work?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

The greatest form of measurement that we can use is that which will apply to the Work programme, whereby bodies will essentially be paid by results. In other words, if they do not get people back to work, they will not receive the money that will allow them to make any kind of profit at all. The best way of measuring them is to pay them when they are successful, and not, as happened with one scheme under the last Government, before they are successful.

[Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

4. What support his Department plans to make available to people on incapacity benefit to enable them to take up employment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We will make the Work programme available to incapacity benefit claimants who are moved back into the jobseeker stream. They will be eligible for support through the Work programme. We will pay an enhanced price to those providers who work with people coming off incapacity benefit to make sure that they get the tailored support they need.

[Tony Baldry]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he make sure that Jobcentre Plus, work clubs, and disability organisations can ensure that no matter where people are—whether they are on incapacity benefit or in Remploy factories that are making losses—they know where they can access support and get the skills training that they need to get back into the world of work?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the central goals of our work over the next 12 to 18 months is to start a process of ensuring that far more people with long-term health problems and disabilities have the opportunity to get into the workplace. We will take whatever steps are necessary, primarily through Jobcentre Plus, to ensure that those people are handled effectively, and are steered to the right support through the Work programme. The aim is to achieve a goal that we all want, which is to allow as many of them as possible to find jobs.

[David Cairns (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

The Minister is aware that a map of where incapacity benefit is most taken up would look like a map of Britain’s industrial heritage. In former shipbuilding constituencies such as mine, people do genuinely have long-term incapacity, which is associated with the work that they did. He will agree, of course, that that does not mean that they cannot work ever again. Is he absolutely fixed on what the question actually asks? It asks what support the Government can give to help people on incapacity benefit to move to work. I would like to hear him outline that support, rather than talking about the stick of benefit cuts.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I am sure that he would agree that one of the great failings of the past 13 years has been the fact that we have consistently had 2.5 million people on incapacity benefit, and the previous Government did absolutely nothing to help them to get back into work, which is a terrible tragedy and a huge waste. We intend to change that. The Work programme will deliver tailored, specialised support for those people—support that is relevant to them, and designed not in Whitehall but by the people working with them on the front line. We intend to make a difference to those people in a way that the previous Government did not.

[Gordon Birtwistle (Burnley) (LD)]

May I report that the pilot scheme in Burnley has now started? We have managed to get the local jobcentre involved with a local recruitment company, Vedas Recruitment and Training. The scheme seems to have started well; my only concern is that funding may run out before we complete it. Will the Minister guarantee that funding will carry on for a short period afterwards, if necessary?

[Chris Grayling]

I thank my hon. Friend and all those in Burnley, including those in the local authority and other local agencies, who have come together to help make the first stage of the migration from incapacity benefit a reality. I assure him that it is my belief that the money that we have supplied to Burley should be sufficient to see us through to the point when the Work programme starts next year. If there are issues, I will be very happy to talk again, and we will see what can be done about them.

[Mr Jim Cunningham (Coventry South) (Lab)]

5. What plans he has to amend the eligibility criteria for winter fuel allowance; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

In winter 2010, the winter fuel payment will continue to be paid at the higher rate of £250 or £400, according to family circumstances. Decisions about the rates for future winters will be taken as part of the annual Budget cycle, as normal.

[Mr Cunningham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give the same undertaking with regard to the chill winter allowance?

[Steve Webb]

I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to the cold weather payments. The rate of cold weather payment will be announced on Wednesday in the comprehensive spending review. As the House knows, for the first 11 years of the previous Administration, the cold weather payment was frozen at £8.50 and, although it was increased to £25 for two years in the run-up to the election, the previous Administration made no financial provision at all to keep it at £25.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

According to the National Pensioners Convention, 36,700 older people died of cold-related illnesses last year. Will my hon. Friend’s Department work with the Department of Health and redouble efforts to reduce that unacceptably high number?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. Excess winter deaths are a scandal. That requires work across Departments, as well as our commitment to the winter fuel payment and the cold weather payment system. We are working with our colleagues not just in the Department of Health, but the Department of Energy and Climate Change, because proper home insulation is a key to tackling excess winter deaths.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Last week the Prime Minister said he stood by the pledge that he made during the election about retaining the winter fuel allowance. I note with interest the answer given by the Minister. Will he confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that everyone who is today entitled to the winter fuel allowance will still be entitled to it on Thursday?

[Steve Webb]

I cannot pre-empt the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, but I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the wording of the coalition agreement, where we say that we are committed to protecting the winter fuel payment.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

6. What steps are being taken to improve the quality and accuracy of the work capability assessment.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

9. What steps his Department is taking to improve the quality and accuracy of the work capability assessment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We believe that the work capability assessment is effective at identifying a person’s functional capability for work and work-related activity, and very much more so than its predecessor, the personal capability assessment. However, I am clear that we must get this right, particularly with the large-scale migration beginning next year. On taking office we implemented some of the recommendations of a review carried out under the previous Administration. I have commissioned a new review under the chairmanship of Professor Malcolm Harrington of Birmingham university, with input from some of the leading figures among the mental health charities, to try to make sure that we get this right—that we deal with any rough edges that there may be in the system before the migration next year.

[Stephen Mosley]

There are a number of conditions—for instance, MS—where the health of an individual may vary daily. What consideration has the Minister incorporated in the work capability assessment to ensure that the fluctuations in someone’s daily health do not affect their entitlement?

[Chris Grayling]

My hon. Friend is right. This is the central issue that we have to get right. It is one of the reasons I asked Professor Harrington to include Paul Farmer, the chief executive of Mind, in his review, and why I invited mental health charities to make practical suggestions about changing the work capability assessment to identify precisely the issues that my hon. Friend has highlighted. I want to get this right. It is in no one’s interest that people should be given a steer in the direction of work if that should not happen to them. I want to look after those who genuinely need ongoing support. We will do everything we can to get this right.

[Mike Crockart]

Many of my constituents complain that too much weight was placed on one chat with one individual on a particular day, as my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Stephen Mosley) stated. That might be a good day for their condition, and the chat with that one individual may not provide a long-term in-depth knowledge of the claimant’s work capability. What help can the Minister give to assure my constituents that proper weight will be placed on the opinions of the claimant’s full medical team?

[Chris Grayling]

As I say, we must get this right. I have sat through a work capability assessment, so I understand exactly the issues that people are raising. I have looked carefully at the structure of it and have invited people with expertise to take part in the process. We will do everything we can to get it right. What I will not do is condemn people with mental health challenges to a life on benefits, with little opportunity of getting into employment. That would be the wrong thing to do for them. They deserve better and they will get it from this Government.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

The Minister will remember one of his ministerial colleagues describing the Conservative party as the “nasty party”. Given the obvious demonising of unfortunate people who need welfare benefit, should he not just stand up, give it to us straight and say, “Be afraid, be very afraid, the nasty party is back”?

[Chris Grayling]

That is precisely the kind of negative politicking that I hope we will not have from the Opposition over the next few months. I believe, and I think that most Members believe, that people with long-term health problems are better off being helped back into the workplace, if possible. They are better off than they would be if they spent a lifetime on benefits, and that is what all the charities that work with them also say to us. I want to do the right thing by those people, and I hope that Members on both sides of the House will unite behind a programme designed to deliver that.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Contrary to the Minister’s earlier assertion that our Government did nothing to deal with incapacity benefit, I must say that that is clearly not the case, because all of us will have heard our constituents’ experience of the work capability test. The hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) mentioned some of the problems, and one issue that some of my constituents have raised is that written reports from their doctors or other people are not taken into account at all; the assessment is based simply on the test carried out by the company in question. Will the Minister agree to allow written documentation as part of the test?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is not right, because written evidence can already be submitted to an inquiry. The decision maker in Jobcentre Plus will look at written matters as well, and that is right and proper. I have also asked those taking responsibility for the test to ensure that we maximise the discretion that is available to all the professionals involved, so that we get the assessment right. It is of course proper that we do so, but although the previous Government introduced the assessment for new claimants they left the 2.5 million people on incapacity benefit untouched. That was a mistake, and I hope that we can all work together to put it right.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

7. What steps he is taking to increase the proportion of benefit fraud detected.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

Total fraud—benefits and tax credits, involving my Department and the Treasury—stands at £5.2 billion. Total welfare fraud stands at £1.5 billion, involving £1 billion in benefits and about £500 million on tax credits. My Department performs about 500,000 data matches per year, and under the new strategy we will use more private sector data matching to try to catch fraudsters and to stop errors. We will recruit more than 200 new anti-fraud officers to sanction about 10,000 fraudsters every year, and there will be a new three strikes regime to ensure that the worst cases, of criminal gangs and larger-scale identity fraudsters are robustly dealt with. It is worth reminding the House that the universal credit system reform will go a very long way to helping to resolve some of the problems concerning errors, which amount to a huge and significant sum each year.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his response. Many of my constituents will be horrified to learn that during the last year of the Labour Government, prosecutions for false benefit claims slumped by 11%. I should therefore be grateful if he confirmed what action he intends to take to reverse that worrying trend.

[Mr Duncan Smith]

As I said earlier, we will undertake a major drive on that issue. We think that, taking on board what the previous Government did, we need to take further action. There have been reports about the issue, and I can clarify some matters. The three strikes policy to which I referred consists of, first, essentially the loss of benefit, sanctioned for four weeks, going up to 13 weeks; secondly, the loss of benefit from 12 weeks to 26 weeks; and, on third conviction, the loss of benefit sanctioned for about three years. We will look further at the penalties, particularly when we detect criminal activity by a consortium trying to defraud the state. The reality is that we have to undertake that drive, and to those who moan about it and say that it is wrong, I must say that the main problem that we face is that taxpayers, who are often on low earnings, pay their taxes to support people in difficulty, and they do not want to see their money wasted, going to people who, frankly, set out to defraud the system. I hope that Members on both sides of the House can agree on that.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The comprehensiveness of answers at the moment is equalled only by their length. They do need to be a little bit shorter.

[Mr Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Lab)]

When Members of Parliament hand on to their local offices allegations of fraud made by their constituents, will the Secretary of State arrange for the MPs concerned to read the fraud report to ensure that the job has been properly done?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

That is very tempting. I am happy to discuss that with the right hon. Gentleman, and I am definitely tempted in his direction.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

10. What steps his Department is taking to enforce payment of child support by parents who refuse to pay.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

The Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission has a range of enforcement powers that it can deploy to secure payments from parents who refuse to pay. However, non-resident parents are given every chance to pay their child maintenance, and only when they are deliberately non-compliant will the commission use these powers.

[Jo Swinson]

I thank the Minister for that reply. All Members of this House will have constituents who are not receiving the child maintenance to which they are entitled because their former partners are giving the Child Support Agency the run-around by changing jobs or the self-employed are hiding their true earnings. The Government rightly do not allow these people to avoid paying tax. Surely, therefore, HMRC data could be used properly to assess child maintenance liability. Alongside the Government getting tough on tax avoidance, will they get tough on child maintenance avoidance?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is absolutely right that this data can help particularly to ensure that individuals pay the money they are due to pay. Indeed, we will consider that under the planned revisions to the CSA’s IT system. I should like to reassure her that the Child Maintenance and Enforcement Commission is already putting in place a number of other measures to ensure that we increase enforcement actions. Indeed, as a result of those measures we have seen a significant increase in enforcement actions in the past 12 months.

[Malcolm Wicks (Croydon North) (Lab)]

Given that a significant cause of childhood deprivation is the failure of so-called absent parents—usually fathers, but sometimes mothers—to pay for their own children, and given that, to be blunt, both previous Governments, despite good efforts, found this a difficult nut to crack, will the Minister consider new measures to ensure that we do not just go after the easy targets, such as those on salaries and in the public services, but find new ways of getting to fathers, some of them serial fathers, who are determined to avoid paying for their own children and expect other mums and dads called taxpayers to do their job for them?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson), a number of measures are in place to crack down on the very people he is talking about. We now have 400 members of staff who are chasing these sorts of historical arrears. It is also about embedding a culture change; that is why we put at the heart of our coalition agreement a commitment to shared parenting that will drive the sort of culture change that he is after.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

Beyond the problem of recalcitrant parents, there is also a problem within the system. Last weekend, a constituent of mine said that she has waited two years to have an appeal in her favour sanctioned and moved forward. Every time, she simply gets a letter saying, “You’ll be allocated a number in 20 days’ time”, and it never happens.

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for that case in point. If she wants to raise any issues with me, I will be glad to speak to her separately. She makes a good point about ensuring that there are timely assessments. One in four parents with a liability still do not make a payment. The previous Government did not put in place the necessary measures to change the situation, and we will be doing everything we can to do that.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

11. What recent assessment his Department has made of the effects on levels of benefit dependency of wage levels.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

We have not yet made an assessment of the direct impact of wage levels on benefit dependency, but we firmly believe that work must pay. Within the current system, we have the anomaly that some individuals can keep as little as 4p in an extra pound earned if they move up the income scale, and a small number of individuals receive more than £26,000 a year in benefits—a substantial amount when compared to the incomes of most working households. That cannot be right, and that is why we are bringing forward radical welfare reform proposals to ensure that work pays.

[Jim McGovern]

I thank the Minister for his response. I hope that he agrees that the national minimum wage gave a massive lift to many working people throughout the UK, and it is now time to move on and progress to a decent living wage. When wages are low, it is no surprise that benefits are often worth more than work. In my view, that is not a problem for benefits, but whatever the problem I hope he agrees that the solution is a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work.

[Chris Grayling]

Clearly, as an Administration we would like employers to move people up the income scale, and for there to be wealth in the country to enable our businesses to do that. Of course, they have big challenges to overcome after the past few years and all the economic problems that were created under the previous Government, but I share the hon. Gentleman’s aspiration. I would like people to move up the income scale, but above all else, we want to ensure that, in all circumstances, work pays. That is why we are introducing the universal credit and the changes that we are making. There should never be a point at which somebody says, “It’s not worth my while going back to work.”

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

12. What programmes his Department operates to deliver equality for disabled people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

The Government are committed to equality for disabled people and to implementing the UN convention on the rights of disabled people. There is a full programme of work in my Department—and right across government—to deliver on that commitment. We have commenced the majority of the Equality Act 2010 this month, we are improving support for disabled people to enter and stay in employment through the Work programme, Access to Work and Work Choice, and we are piloting the right to control from the end of this year.

[Mr Burley]

I thank the Under-Secretary for that reply. I recently visited the Newlife Foundation, a national charity based in my constituency, and was told about the huge problems faced by families with children with disabilities and terminal conditions. I was concerned to hear that children under three are not entitled to DLA mobility allowance, and about the impact of that on their families. Will the Under-Secretary confirm whether that is the policy and, if so, whether the Department has any plans to reconsider it for the most vulnerable groups?

[Maria Miller]

I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the Newlife Foundation, particularly the work of Sheila Brown in setting up that important local charity. My hon. Friend is right to identify the complexities of the benefit system, particularly the way it can affect children and families. He will know that, in the emergency Budget, the Chancellor announced a review, and I would like to offer to meet the Newlife Foundation and Sheila Brown with my hon. Friend to discuss that matter further.

[Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab)]

Will the Under-Secretary confirm that an equality impact assessment will be published following the comprehensive spending review? Are the Government prepared to publish all the analysis that was undertaken of the implications of the spending review, particularly its impact on disabled people? In the light of that, are the Government willing to make a statement to the House on the full implications for disabled people?

[Maria Miller]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position—I believe that this is her first time at the Dispatch Box. I would like to reassure her that we already have the processes in place to undertake an equality impact assessment of all the measures that affect disabled people. We have said that we will make it publicly available.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

I have been contacted by Employ-Ability, a charity in my constituency that helps people with mental health difficulties and disabilities to get back into work. Those people are concerned that, if they are no longer eligible for incapacity benefit or employment and support allowance because they recover, they will lose the working tax credit at 16 hours and also their return-to-work bonus at £40 a week for a year. Will the Under-Secretary ensure that it is financially worth while for those people to get back into work?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question, in which he outlines some of the complexities that disabled people face when they try to get back into the workplace. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, we want to ensure that work pays for everybody who wants and is able to get back into the workplace. That principle underpins all the work that we are undertaking.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

13. Whether carer’s allowance payments will be included in the proposed cap on benefit payments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

We expect the benefit cap to apply to the combined income from all main out-of-work benefits. However, we will exempt all households with someone entitled to disability living allowance, many of which will contain claimants receiving carer’s allowance.

[Gregg McClymont]

I thank the Under-Secretary for that answer. Will she publish her assessment of the impact of the policy on poverty among carers?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. We obviously want to ensure that the policy works for everybody involved. The benefit system is designed to maintain a basic income for carers when caring responsibilities prevent them from working full time. It is right that carer’s allowance is paid with reference to what families could expect to earn if they were in fully paid work, but we will keep the policy under review and ensure that it works for carers.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

14. What options he has considered for future support for mortgage interest payments for those out of work.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

We are in discussions with mortgage lenders about the scope for them to freeze benefit claimants’ mortgage accounts and apply a standard interest rate for a fixed period. In return for lenders receiving up-front interest payments from the Government, claimants getting help with their payments would not accrue any arrears or face the threat of repossession.

[Dr Coffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, in these times, when perhaps there will be a lag in finding jobs, speed is of the essence, particularly for vulnerable people in our society, when making decisions about future support for mortgage interest?

[Steve Webb]

We will certainly move as fast as we can on this issue. My hon. Friend may be aware that had we done nothing the higher rate of 6% was due to expire at the end of this year and revert, under the previous formula, to just over 2%. We felt that that was unfair, and we will pay 3.6%, which is the average mortgage rate.

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

The Council of Mortgage Lenders indicated that financial support from the Government for home owners who got into trouble was one of the key reasons fewer repossessions occurred in recent years than in other recessions. Given the impact of the reduced levels of support for mortgage interest relief and the cuts in housing benefit, does the Minister think that the number of people requiring financial support because they are homeless will be higher or lower than now at the end of next year?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Lady is very knowledgeable about housing matters and I welcome her to her new role. She may not be aware that we will spend more money in the next two years on support for mortgage interest for people who are out of work than the previous Government planned to do. They planned to cut support to 2%, which would have led to many more homelessness cases.

[Stephen Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

15. If he will remove eligibility for child benefit in respect of children not resident in the UK from non-UK EU nationals working in the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the main purpose of child benefit is to support families resident in the UK. However, child benefit is classed as a “family benefit” under EC social security co-ordinating regulations. When an EEA national works and pays compulsory national insurance contributions in the UK, that person is entitled to UK family benefits, even if their family remains in another EEC country.

[Stephen Barclay]

I note the Minister’s reply, although at the 2003 European meeting agreeing the eligibility for child benefits, the British Government were represented by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, which suggests that the Department has an interest in this matter.

Would the Minister, together with colleagues, agree to set out in the Library within the next month her proposals for reforming a system under which the British taxpayer not only pays child benefit to non-UK European families who do not work and whose children live abroad, but pays up to four times as much in benefit as the children get from their own Government?

[Maria Miller]

I can understand my hon. Friend’s frustration about this matter, but I reiterate that it is a policy area for the Treasury and it is also an issue that we have inherited. Many other nations are as concerned as he is about this issue and I am sure that my colleagues in the Treasury will be looking at it in detail.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that her own Department has indicated that enlargement of the European Union has benefited the economy of this country? If people who come from the EU pay their taxes, they should be entitled to get child benefit.

[Maria Miller]

As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay) said, it is the inconsistency and the difference between benefits payable in this country and in the home country that rightly causes concern. It is right that the Treasury should look at this issue in detail.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

16. What progress he has made on his plans to introduce automatic enrolment into workplace pensions in 2012.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The Government remain committed to the introduction of automatic enrolment. We have now received the conclusions of the review that we set up, and we will make an announcement to the House shortly. I am pleased to confirm that we will go ahead with auto-enrolment according to the previously intended timetable.

[Stuart Andrew]

Saving for old age is often not viewed as a pressing concern for the young. Given the likely pressures on graduate funding following Lord Browne’s review, it is likely to fall even lower. What steps will my hon. Friend take to encourage a savings culture among the young, and will he please ensure that the future needs of the young are taken into consideration when setting the age limit for automatic enrolment in workplace pensions?

[Steve Webb]

We have asked our review group to look at the age limits for auto-enrolment, but my hon. Friend is right to say that getting young people interested in pensions is a challenge. We think that automatic enrolment will be part of the answer to that because, for the first time, they will have to decide whether to stay in a workplace pension. We also have to ensure that it always pays to save.

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

The beauty of auto-enrolment, as set out by the Labour Government, was that it would benefit all workers. Will this Government honour that commitment, which will support those on low incomes most of all, as well as temporary and agency workers, who often have the worst pension provision? Or will the Government water down those plans, storing up problems of pensioner poverty for the future?

[Steve Webb]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the Dispatch Box for the first time, and I look forward to working with her to establish cross-party consensus on pension reform wherever possible. She mentioned the actions of the last Labour Government, which I think she will recall were taken on an all-party basis. Our review was not meant to undermine automatic enrolment but simply to make it work, and work effectively—and that we will do.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to increase the quality and accuracy of the work capability assessment.

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

As I indicated in my earlier remarks, I hope that the Harrington review will enable us to make the work capability assessment as appropriate as possible for the months ahead and the start of the migration from incapacity benefit to employment and support allowance. However, we will continue to review the work capability assessment on an ongoing basis, and if any opportunities arise to improve it, we will take advantage of them.

[James Morris]

I have been approached in my constituency by many carers of people with severe mental health difficulties who have expressed concern about the work capability assessment. Does the Minister agree that we need to see how it can be adapted and refined to meet the requirements of severely mentally ill people?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why I have said to leading mental health charities that I actively seek their input on how we can improve, in particular, the wording of the different elements of the assessment. Equally, however, I stand by my view that, where we can, it is better to help people with mental health challenges into work than to leave them on benefits long term, doing nothing.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

T1. If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I draw the House’s attention to the fact that today, as I referenced earlier, the Department for Work and Pensions and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs published a joint strategy to tackle fraud and error in the benefits system, which we believe should save £5 billion each year. The proposals in the fraud and error strategy, which together represent an additional £425 million of funding over the next four years, will, we believe, deliver a £1.4 billion reduction in fraud and error by 2014-15.

[Karl Turner]

Can the Secretary of State explain to a large number of my constituents why he reduced the support for mortgage interest payments before his Department ensured that mortgage lenders would average out rates? Why did he communicate this only a few days before it was reduced, and is it not true that lenders are fighting this reform tooth and nail?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb), when he pointed out that the last Government left plans to slash that support. It is we who have actually brought it to the average, which means that people will do better under us than they ever would have done under the last Government—so an apology would do very nicely thank you.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

T2. I know that the Secretary of State is aware of conversations I have been having in my constituency with youth leaders about how we can communicate changes in the welfare programme to young people who do not watch the Parliament Channel and sometimes do not read the papers. Do we have a campaign plan to try to communicate the changes to them, perhaps through texting or facebooking and the internet?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We do indeed. My hon. Friend is right to draw the matter to the House’s attention. Using new media, it is important that we ensure that young people are brought fully into the net, particularly through voluntary sector organisations, which are much better at using the new media. However, I must also draw her attention to the Department’s commitment—a commitment that I have made—to ensure that older people approaching retirement should not retire without the ability to use the net and the web. That is a big commitment but one that we will stand by.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Last week, PricewaterhouseCoopers suggested that 1 million jobs could be lost over the next year. Given the answer we just heard from the Secretary of State and the present uncertainty in the labour market, will he confirm again that people affected by the change he just discussed will do very nicely—as he said—and assure the House that the reduction in the interest rate used for the support for mortgage interest programme will not lead to a rise in the number of repossessions among the approximately 255,000 people affected?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his position, although it would have been nice if he had risen at the Dispatch Box and first apologised for being part of a Government who left plans to cut the support to mortgage holders—[Interruption.] Yes, as the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Thornbury and Yate implies, they planned to slash the rate. So when the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander) next gets to the Dispatch Box, perhaps he will tell the world that he was going to do that, and apologise. We will give the support necessary and reform the system. As he knows, organisations and individuals, including a lot of very senior businessmen today, have said that our economy will grow, that they will provide the jobs and that therefore this Government will be right.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

T3. Building business will create employment opportunities in my constituency of Weaver Vale. What support will the Government provide to help unemployed people into self-employment?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Chris Grayling)]

I am delighted to tell my hon. Friend that we are looking to expand the support available to people in parts of the country that are particularly affected by unemployment and that have a small local private sector economy. We will provide enhanced support from early next year, including through more money than is currently on offer to help the self-employed and—this is particularly important—through mentoring for small businesses, to ensure that people have practical advice and guidance so that they not only set up small businesses, but those businesses survive, grow and flourish.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

T5. Will the Secretary of State join me in recognising the great contribution that the 54 supported employment Remploy factories make to our country? Even at this late hour, will he agree to lobby the Treasury on their behalf? It would be entirely unfair and unacceptable for 3,000 of the most vulnerable disabled workers to be handed their P45s by the Chancellor on Wednesday.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Miller)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and I agree that Remploy plays an important part in providing employment services for disabled people. As he would expect, we have been looking at the contribution that Remploy makes as part of the spending review process. I would just urge him perhaps not to believe everything that he reads in the newspaper, and say that he will get further details on Wednesday when the Chancellor speaks.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T4. Following a succession of soundbites from the previous Government, who promised to be tough on benefit fraud but delivered, as usual, very little, can my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explain to the House why he thinks the new initiatives that he has proposed today will succeed where those of other Governments have failed?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

Yes, I can. One thing that it is important for everybody to understand is that not only will we have the three-strikes policy, but we will try to disincentivise people in what I call the low-level area of fraud, which is when they knowingly fail to report changes in their circumstances. In those cases, there will be the ability to fine them £50 on the spot, which will have a big effect on people saying, “Well, I forgot and I didn’t do it.” Providing that we think they knew, it is time they realised that they have, in fact, defrauded the state as well.

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

T6. Does the Secretary of State accept that the result of changing indexation from the retail prices index to the consumer prices index is that pension increases in 2012 will be cut from 4.6 to 3.1%? Is that what he regards as fairness?

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

The right hon. Gentleman is probably not aware that the planned increase in 2012 under the Labour spending plans was 2.4%, which was what the previous Government thought earnings would be. Whatever the pension rises, we have guaranteed that the increase will be at least 2.5%, so whatever we do, it will be more than he had planned.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

T7. Before the election, one of the policies that resonated most with my constituents was the Conservative plan to eliminate the couple penalty—the absurdity whereby people can be better off splitting up as a family than staying together. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that that penalty will be erased completely in the next few years, and that there will be no unintended consequences of any other policies that we might be putting forward?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I must say that this remains a target for us, which is—[Interruption.] It is all very well for the Opposition to laugh: they are the ones who created the couple penalty. They could not care less whether people had to split up because of their benefits bills; the disincentives were all there and they created them. We will do our level best to eradicate them.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

On the Secretary of State’s announced crackdown on people fraudulently claiming benefits, the latest figures from his Department for fraud and error in the benefits system show that £1 billion is due to fraud, but that another £1 billion is due to official error. How will he ensure that his campaign against fraud is as high profile as any campaign against official error in his Department?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. The reality is that going after error—and not just fraud—is a critical component. As I said earlier, one of the big changes that we are making is the reform of the benefits system, which is so incredibly complex that many of my officials say that often they simply cannot quite figure it out until 45 minutes or an hour of serious study for each case. Simplifying the system will reduce the scope for error, which will be in the interests of all her constituents and members of my Department.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

T8. A constituent with bowel cancer has been found fit for work, despite having his colostomy bag changed 16 times a day. He is now going through appeal. How will my right hon. Friend ensure that those who are genuinely and obviously not fit for work are dealt with more humanely?

[Chris Grayling]

The point about cancer patients is a particularly apposite one. One thing I was astonished to discover on taking office was that we still had tough return-to-work requirements for those going through chemotherapy. Anybody who knows someone who has been through that knows it is a time when people cannot possibly return to work. We have sought to change that and we will make a number of other changes through the Harrington review. As I said earlier, our goal is, above all, to get this right. I do not want to do the wrong thing by those people who need support; I do want to do the right thing by the people with the potential to get back into work and make a better lot of their lives.

[Mr Ian Davidson (Glasgow South West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Minister agree that we want to minimise the number of people claiming mortgage interest payments by keeping them in work? Does he agree that the best way of keeping my constituents in work is to ensure that the aircraft carrier goes ahead?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We are not responsible for aircraft carriers, so I apologise for that!

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T9. My right hon. Friend would no doubt agree with me that the last Labour Administration presided over a system of welfare that trapped people in poverty and ignored devastatingly high levels of workless families in our country. Will he tell the House what he is going to do about it?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

My hon. Friend will know that we are planning to bring forward a White Paper on reform of the benefits system soon. As I alluded to earlier, one of the biggest problems is that the existing benefit system has become so complex, with so many different withdrawal rates and different tapers—some at gross, some at net levels—done through different Departments. By bringing all that together and simplifying the system by giving people basically one withdrawal rate, we should be able to allow them to understand what they will retain, while also ensuring that work always pays. That, I think, is in the interest of everyone in the House.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I welcome what the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said previously about looking into the work capability assessment. I met a delegation from Chesterfield and north Derbyshire on Thursday, although they were due to have a meeting with him. One in the group was told that she was fit to work four days before a cancer operation, while another who had a plaster cast the whole length of his arm was told that he was fit to work. Unfortunately, the Minister cancelled his appointment to see them on the day before they came down to London. Will he commit to seeing them? If he really wants to learn about the work capability assessment, he should meet some of the people who have been affected by it.

[Chris Grayling]

I did not cancel any appointment, and I had a meeting with the TUC official who organised the rally on that day. What I cannot do is get into discussion of every individual case. My goal remains to do the right thing by those people who are on incapacity benefit in the long term. We need to modify and refine the work capability assessment based on the best information available to us. What we face today is what we inherited from the previous Government. What I am doing right now is trying to improve it so that it is as foolproof as possible when we come to the national roll-out next spring. I will do my best to get that right and I hope there will be cross-party support for doing so.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T10. The auditors of the Department have not signed off the accounts for many years. Will the Secretary of State’s announcement today keep the auditors happier in future?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

It is always very difficult to know what keeps auditors happy—or if they are among that breed of people who are never happy—but the reality is that we are in discussions with them about the need to be a little more realistic between the two groups to make sure that the accounts are signed off in future. After all, this Department has made huge strides—both under the last Government and this one—to be more efficient. That has been acknowledged by the auditors, so perhaps it is time for us to come to a conclusion.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

The Government have said that the June Budget will have no impact on child poverty up to 2012. Will the Minister confirm that the new benefits cap will not change that fact? Will he publish the figures to demonstrate the effect of the cap on all categories?

[Maria Miller]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. As she knows, we will produce our child poverty strategy in full by March next year. We will shortly go into consultation on it and I hope that she will contribute. On the effect of the cap on families living in poverty, as the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), said earlier, this is about people earning the equivalent of a gross income of £35,000 a year; the majority of families earning that would not fall into poverty.

[Jenny Willott (Cardiff Central) (LD)]

How will the Minister ensure that lessons are learned from the review of the new work capability assessment, including, as discussed earlier, from the use of more medical information from claimants’ doctors, and how will those lessons inform the design of the medical assessment process for disability living allowance claimants when that is introduced?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I should like to set the record straight on that. There is no intention to introduce a medical assessment for DLA. The work capability assessment, which, after all, tests people’s ability to get into work, is very different. DLA is a benefit that is paid to disabled people to make up the additional costs that they incur for being disabled; it is not linked to their ability to work.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Sir Stuart Rose is one of the signatories to the business letter. Is one of his strategies to employ unemployed university lecturers as till operators?

[Mr Duncan Smith]

We have no such strategy, but of course, if those people want a job change, that is up to them.

[Nicky Morgan (Loughborough) (Con)]

I welcome the earlier remarks of the Under-Secretary on achieving equality for disabled people by helping them back into work. Does she recognise the excellent work done by the RNIB college in my constituency to help those who are blind or visually impaired back into work? Will she visit the college with me at some point?

[Maria Miller]

I thank my hon. Friend for her question. We have many different strategies for supporting disabled people back into work, and I know that the college in her constituency has done a great deal of work in that respect. I believe that there are plans to meet officials from her college in the not-too-distant future.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Many people in Sefton who work in the private sector rely for their livelihoods on customers who work in the public sector. What action will the Minister take to ensure that as a result of the comprehensive spending review, there is adequate provision in jobcentres around the country for both private and public sector workers?

[Chris Grayling]

Where we have issues in the labour market, whether public or private sector, we have a rapid response team within Jobcentre Plus that is available and able to provide advice to those who have lost their jobs. If the hon. Gentleman had read the letter that appeared in this morning’s media from some of our leading business people, whose businesses have a presence all around the country—we are also advised of this by the Office for Budget Responsibility—he would know that the private sector, in the right environment, with the deficit dealt with, can more than make up for any job losses that result of our dealing with the deficit, which we inherited from the previous Government.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am afraid that demand exceeds supply, and we must now move on.

Education Policy

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

15:32

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State to set out the Government’s policy on the fairness premium to disadvantaged young children, pupils and students.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I have been asked to reply to this urgent question as it falls within my departmental responsibility.

I am delighted to have this additional opportunity to confirm the very good news that this coalition Government will be spending more on schools. The House will know that the full details of the comprehensive spending review will be announced on Wednesday, but I can confirm today that we will fund a new fairness premium of £7 billion over the whole CSR period, which will be invested in accelerating social mobility.

This coalition Government will give all disadvantaged two-year-olds 15 hours a week of pre-school education. We will give all disadvantaged children a pupil premium in schools to improve their attainment—that will amount to £2.5 billion a year by the end of the CSR—and we will introduce a student premium to help more disadvantaged children to make it to university.

We have had to undertake a fundamental review of expenditure to deal with the massive deficit bequeathed to us by the previous Government, whom the right hon. Gentleman served as Chief Secretary. As we have protected NHS spending—against his advice—all Departments have had to look for efficiencies. I have already taken steps to halt inefficient programmes, cut out waste, prune bureaucracy, close quangos and drive forward school reforms. The decisions that we took in the first months of this Government to reduce inefficiencies were tough. The outlook overall is tight, but thanks to the steps that we took early in the life of this Government, we can now prioritise spending on the front line, so I can confirm today that school spending will rise in real terms.

In addition, we can spend more on those who need more. We inherited a two-tier school system, with the biggest educational divide between rich and poor of any developed nation. The opportunity gulf begins in the early years and grows over time. By the time they are 16, the poorest children—those eligible for free school meals—are only half as likely as other children to get five decent GCSEs, and of 80,000 children in any year eligible for free school meals just 45 get to Oxbridge. As many children from one top public school—St Paul’s school for girls—get to Oxbridge as the entire population of poor boys and girls on benefit. That lack of opportunity is a scandal—an affront to the nation’s conscience—and thanks to the decisions taken by this coalition Government, the policies are now at last in place to give every child a fairer chance.

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

First, let me thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement, and may I also welcome him to his new role clearing up after the Deputy Prime Minister?

On Thursday evening, the BBC was briefed about a new policy—the so-called fairness premium—with huge implications for early years, schools and higher education funding. No notification was given to this House. We know that the Deputy Prime Minister had a bad week, and this had all the hallmarks of a hasty move to get him out of a political hole. The country could hear policy being made on the hoof.

On process first, therefore, when did the Secretary of State for Education hear that the Deputy Prime Minister was making that speech? We know that the Cabinet was kept in the dark on child benefit, but can the Secretary of State confirm that the Cabinet discussed all aspects of the fairness premium policy before it was briefed to the media?

As this announcement came in advance of the CSR, and given the overall reduction proposed by the Chancellor, people are anxious about where the funding is coming from. Can the right hon. Gentleman today give the House an assurance that he is not robbing Peter to pay Paul and that no other part of the education budget is facing disproportionate cuts to pay for the policy? Is he aware that his announcement has fuelled rumour over the future of the education maintenance allowance and universal Sure Start? Can he today reassure the House on those fronts as well?

Finally, the heart of the matter is this: we need to know whether the Government will honour repeated promises that the pupil premium will truly be additional to the schools budget. A BBC report suggested that funding will be recycled from within the schools budget. The Liberal Democrats have broken one education pledge; we need to hear from the right hon. Gentleman today whether another has been broken, or whether the Deputy Prime Minister has secured the reddest of his red lines.

[Michael Gove]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his series of questions, and may I also thank him for his generous words about the Deputy Prime Minister, who had a very good week last week? I think that being able during the course of our CSR to secure a better deal for schools than the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) was able to negotiate when he was Education Secretary counts as a significant triumph. I think that advancing social mobility and social justice by delivering on Liberal Democrat manifesto promises is something in which Members on both sides of the House can take pride.

The right hon. Gentleman asks when I knew about the fairness premium. I knew when I read through, and nodded with approval at, the education section of the Liberal Democrat manifesto. The Liberal Democrats committed then—months ago—to spending more on early years, to funding a pupil premium and to ensuring that more disadvantaged people can go to university. The Liberal Democrats, in this coalition Government, have delivered on all those goals.

The right hon. Gentleman asks whether there will be any disproportionate cuts in any other part of the education budget. I can assure him in respect of Sure Start and 16-to-19 funding that he will find out on Wednesday that we have ensured that the funding is in place in order to guarantee that more people will participate after the age of 16 and that a network of Sure Start children centres is there for every child who needs them.

All of this has been done because our coalition Government working together has dealt with the inefficiencies, the waste and the bureaucracy that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government bequeathed to us. A coalition Government working together has prioritised social mobility after years in which it was frozen. A coalition Government working together has ensured that money goes to the front line rather than being spent on bureaucracy and waste. As a result, we are taking the tough decisions that he and he and he—his right hon. Friends on the Opposition Benches—ducked. They will not support reducing child benefit in order to ensure that the poorest get more. They will not support our VAT increase in order to plug the deficit. They will not support any of our steps to improve efficiency on the front line in schools. They are a party of naysayers and deficit deniers, and that is why this coalition Government are putting right the mess we inherited from them.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I welcome today’s announcement and the commitment it shows on the part of the Government to narrowing the gap between rich and poor and between their respective outcomes. Has the Secretary of State yet decided how the pupil premium will be allocated and on what basis?

[Michael Gove]

The Government have consulted on exactly who should receive the pupil premium. That consultation began earlier this year and there are still a couple of hours left should the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) wish to contribute to it—he has not yet done so. We are looking at a variety of measures of poverty and we wish to target the pupil premium most effectively on all children in need. One of the disadvantages of the way in which the previous Government targeted resources on the very poorest was that the premium attached to children who were eligible for free school meals was as low as £22 in some local authority areas.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

In fact, the pupil learning credit was £350 per pupil in the most disadvantaged schools.

Will the Secretary of State tell me what was the impact of the £600 million cut in area-based grant from the Department for Communities and Local Government, which was half the total announced on 22 June, and which cut child and adolescent mental health services, work dealing with teenage pregnancy and youth and careers services across the country, coupled with the £670 million cut in-year from his own Department? If we cut his salary by £40,000 and gave him £20,000 back, would he be better or worse off?

[Michael Gove]

I suspect that the taxpayer would be a lot better off, but I do not do this job for money; I do it because I am convinced that we need to do better to improve children’s education. The right hon. Gentleman was a great Education Secretary, and I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to him. During his years as Education Secretary, we were able to see an improvement in performance in primary schools that was not subsequently matched by any of his successors. Yet during his first three years as Education Secretary the amount spent on education in this country actually declined for three years as a proportion of national income, which proves that if the right policies are pursued and we are rigorous about cutting waste, we can ensure that children will perform better—that is what we are doing.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks this afternoon. Will he assure me that he will ensure that the pupil premium gets to every child, no matter where they live?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s point. It is crucial that we ensure that disadvantaged children across the country receive the money that they need. One of the inefficiencies in schools funding under the previous Government was that disadvantaged children, particularly those in rural areas, often did not receive the support that they needed to achieve their full potential. We want to ensure that poverty knows no boundaries, and that the ways in which we will tackle it know no boundaries either.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State guarantee, first, that he will use a more sophisticated criterion than free school meals? The former Select Committee found that it was a very dodgy measure of whether a pupil was from a poor background. Secondly, he worried me by referring to “a network” of Sure Start children’s centres, so is he going to maintain the current good level of those centres or cut it down to a smaller number?

[Michael Gove]

Those were two very good questions from the former Select Committee Chairman, with whom I often find myself agreeing. On his first point about targeting children who are eligible for free school meals, he will be aware that there is no perfect way of identifying the children who are in need. One of the ideas floated by the Sutton Trust is that we should allocate money to children who have ever been eligible for free school meals. Another idea is that we should link eligibility to eligibility for tax credits. We are examining all these ideas. The consultation has not yet closed and I do not wish to pre-empt the conclusions that we will reach, but I can say that the work that he did as Select Committee Chairman plays a part. On Sure Start children’s centres, we want to ensure that the funding is there to maintain the current network of phase 1, phase 2 and phase 3 centres.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

I strongly welcome the extra money for children from the poorest backgrounds. Will the Secretary of State tell me whether he has any proposals for helping pupils who have special educational needs as well?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, and I can tell him that we absolutely do. We recognise that many factors hold children back from achieving their full potential. I have been struck by the way in which many children who have special needs, including children of very high cognitive ability, do not achieve their full potential and, in particular, by how children with low-incidence special needs, such as deafness, who can achieve so much more, fail to achieve everything possible. That is why I am so delighted that the Minister of State, Department for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), will be publishing a Green Paper on special educational needs, which will reform the assessment and the funding systems, and will ensure that all children, whatever their needs, get the support that they deserve.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Leaving aside the political knockabout content of part of the Secretary of State’s statement, I welcome the fact that more resources are to be targeted at children in the greatest need. Will he give me an assurance that he will work closely with local authorities and schools to ensure that the additional resources are targeted properly and effectively at those children with the greatest needs?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman’s constructive question. He is a distinguished member of the dwindling Blairite tendency on the Opposition Back Benches. He is fortunate in having in Knowsley one of the more imaginative and creative local authorities. That is why representatives from Knowsley are working with the Department for Education to ensure that we can target deprivation more effectively.

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

One of the biggest complaints that I hear from local head teachers concerns the way in which they were micro-managed under the previous Government and told how to spend their money. Will my right hon. Friend please give us an assurance that head teachers will be free to spend the pupil premium money in the way that they see fit?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are working with head teachers to ensure that the unacceptable level of ring-fencing and bureaucracy that fettered their discretion under the previous Government is removed, so that the money—particularly the money that will be spent on the very poorest children—can be spent in line with their priorities and judgment. Of course schools will be accountable for how that money is spent, but greater freedom combined with sharper accountability seems to me to be the adult way to go.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

The simple fact is that two-year-olds who have never been to school are not yet eligible for free school meals. What new mechanism will the Government use in the eligibility testing process, especially for children without elder siblings, to integrate the functions of the private and voluntary sectors and the tax authorities, and what will that new mechanism cost?

[Michael Gove]

That is a very good question. We are consulting now on how we can identify the broadly 20% poorest two-year-olds. At the moment, the number of two-year-olds who are eligible for pre-school education is just 20,000 and, under the previous Government, they were allocated just 12.5 hours. We intend to increase that significantly, and we expect 100,000 two-year-olds to be eligible for 15 hours of pre-school education. How we identify them is a matter on which we will consult, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would be delighted to play a part in that consultation process.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Under the last Labour Government, schools in Cornwall received some of the lowest levels of funding in England. I very much welcome today’s announcements, but can the Secretary of State confirm that the pupil premium will be extended to early-years education?

[Michael Gove]

I can absolutely confirm that. I mentioned earlier that we are specifically looking at how we can target two-year-olds. I am sympathetic to the position in which Cornish MPs find themselves, because there are pockets of deep rural poverty in Cornwall that deserve to be attacked, and unemployment in Cornwall is far too high and linked to seasonal factors. We need to improve the level of educational attainment in Cornish schools, and I look forward to working with all Cornish MPs and, indeed, with the new unitary authority in Cornwall to do just that.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

How much of the £7 billion is going to be given to people who want to set up free schools?

[Michael Gove]

The £7 billion is for everyone who is involved in improving state education, and the overwhelming majority will go to the head teachers who are responsible for doing a fantastic job in existing state schools. Free schools will be developed where we need new provision, either because provision does not exist or because it is not good enough. In doing that, we shall only be doing what I think the hon. Gentleman voted for when he supported the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, in introducing his Education White Paper in 2005 and his Education and Inspections Act 2006.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

Although I appreciate that no final decision has been made on the level of university fees, will my right hon. Friend confirm that his Department will work closely with colleagues from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to ensure that no poor child from my constituency will be prevented from going to one of the best universities in the land because of cost?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. That was outwith the terms of the urgent question, but I feel sure that it is not beyond the dexterity of the Secretary of State to respond to it.

[Michael Gove]

Thank you for that very generous compliment, Mr Speaker.

I have been working closely with my colleagues from BIS. We have one joint Minister, who is my hon. Friend on the Front Bench—[Interruption.] He represents one of the most beautiful parts of Lincolnshire, which I was privileged to visit just 12 months ago. The image of the sunlight on the fens will stay with me for ever, as will the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham). Yes, by using the £150 million that has been dedicated, we will do everything possible to ensure that children from disadvantaged backgrounds are encouraged to go to university. As there are no up-front fees, and because no one earning under £21,000 will be paying anything for their university education, those from poor homes and those who devote themselves to public service for low pay will not be dissuaded from going to university.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

As well as poverty, other things that affect the cost of educating children to the highest standards include the mobility of the school population, English as an additional language, the extent of special needs and behaviour problems among children. Will the Secretary of State assure me that those education authorities that at present have a relatively high level of funding will not have that amount diminished as a result of this targeted funding?

[Michael Gove]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I am well aware that in Slough—the local authority that covers her constituency—there are huge pressures on education as a result of migration, of the many children who have English as an additional language and of the entrenched pockets of deprivation. It is our aim to ensure that all deprived children, wherever they are, receive the funding that is necessary, so we will take account of historic investment in tackling deprivation while ensuring that deprivation money is better targeted on the individual children who need it. The hon. Lady’s area also has a particular pressure on primary places that was not addressed satisfactorily under the previous Government. We hope to work with her and her local authority to address that.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on this excellent announcement on the pupil premium. I have one quick question. May I have confirmation that head teachers will have control of where money is spent so that the dead hand of Whitehall and the local authority does not get in the way of what head teachers know how to do best?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely confirm that. One of the benefits of working in coalition, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is that I have been able to work with the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that the right balance is struck between respecting the autonomy of individual schools and promoting social justice.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State said that Sure Start centres would remain open for people who need them. That does not preclude any change to the criteria by which people access such services. Will he state categorically today that there are no plans to introduce any measures that will restrict access to Sure Start centres?

[Michael Gove]

It is our intention to ensure that Sure Start is a universal service. That is why we are investing additional money in securing 4,200 health visitors in order better to guarantee that the very poorest benefit from those services. One point that has been borne in on me is the fact that in the early years it is critical that children from poorer homes mix socially and learn the skills that come from being in a genuinely socially comprehensive environment, so we will ensure that Sure Start remains a universal service.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

This announcement will come as welcome news to my constituents in Stratford-on-Avon, where we suffer from invisible rural poverty. I ask my right hon. Friend specifically what does the announcement mean for the current two-year-old pilot and will it continue until the expansion to all disadvantaged two-year-olds is introduced?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point and I know that he is absolutely committed to ensuring that pre-school education is delivered effectively to the very poorest. We will ensure that we move from the 20,000 children who currently benefit to around 100,000 as quickly as possible.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I wanted to double check that I heard the right hon. Gentleman correctly. Will the education maintenance allowance be available to my constituents in Nottingham in the same way as it is currently?

[Michael Gove]

We will be reforming the way in which money is available to those over the age of 16 to ensure that we can meet our shared goal of maximising participation.

[Mr Edward Timpson (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)]

When it comes to levels of educational attainment, the Secretary of State will be aware that the worst performing group of children are looked-after children. I welcome the extension of the pupil premium to early years, but can the Secretary of State confirm today that that will extend also to all looked-after children and that careful consideration will be given to how the allocation of the pupil premium is taken into account for each of those children individually?

[Michael Gove]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s commitment to helping children in care. Before he entered the House he worked enormously hard as a family lawyer on behalf of those children and they have been consistently championed by him in this place. I confirm that it is within the scope of the consultation to extend the pupil premium to all looked-after children. He is absolutely right that their fate is a reproach to our conscience and that we must ensure that they get the resources and support that they need to fulfil their potential.

[Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that his education policy—along with what will happen on Wednesday—consists of cutting overall resources for state education by between a quarter and a third and redirecting what is left away from disadvantaged areas and failing schools towards leafy suburbs and extra schools in middle-class areas? How can that possibly be construed as fair?

[Michael Gove]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no. The slightly longer answer is that he could not be more wrong. The figures that he quotes and the dynamic that he invokes are utterly wrong. We will not be cutting in the way that he mentions; we will be increasing spending on schools. More than that, we will be targeting spending more effectively on the very poorest. I know that it is difficult for him to cope with, but the Government whom he supported from the Back Benches, before he lost his seat and came back representing somewhere else, presided over a growth in inequality and a freezing of social mobility. If he is committed to advancing the education of the very poorest, he should make another journey, like the one he made from Croydon to Swansea, from the Opposition Benches to the Government Benches on the side of social justice.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

I recently visited Fleetville infant school which runs a very successful extended schools programme. Will funding such as the pupil premium be allowed to fund programmes that support the whole family and deliver a holistic approach to better educational outcomes for small children?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend, who is a former teacher, makes a very good point. I absolutely agree that the funding can be used in the context of extended schools to deliver a holistic approach that will help the entire family to do better.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State recognise the very real concerns of families and students about cuts in child benefit, the future of the education maintenance allowance and tuition fees? Those concerns have led a number of students in my constituency to reconsider whether to go to university at all or whether to go for a different course that would allow them to be paid better when they qualify. What actions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman but his question is very wide. I have let him ask that question, but, after a very brief reply from the Secretary of State, we will move on to matters that are, I hope, fully within order.

[Michael Gove]

I share the hon. Gentleman’s commitment to ensuring that no one who has genuine talent is put off going to university. That is the function of the £150 million undergraduate premium.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

By slashing the Building Schools for the Future bureaucracy that was holding back Bedford academy, and through his strong support for the free school in Kempston, my right hon. Friend has already delivered for disadvantaged children in my constituency more in five months than the Labour party did in five years. May I point out that 50% of the children in lower schools in my constituency come from families in which English is not the primary language? Will he please ensure, through the consultation, that attention is given to people in that situation so that they do not lose out in the very welcome review that he is undertaking?

[Michael Gove]

Bedford is a classic community in that even though it sits within a county that is considered to be relatively wealthy, it contains not just pockets but large areas of real deprivation. That is why my hon. Friend, who is utterly committed to social justice, has played such a big role in helping to support teachers such as Mark Lehain who are committed to providing a better education for the poorest. Today’s announcement will only help such people to do a better job for the children who are in the most need.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In his answers, the Secretary of State has referred repeatedly to the need to improve social mobility, which I very much welcome. Does he agree that any change in social mobility as a result of measures that he puts in place will take many years to show and that the freeze in social mobility in the past 13 years that he mentioned is down to the preceding 18 years of Conservative government? The children who have benefited from short programmes such as Sure Start in the past 13 years have not even left school yet.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is right that we need to do more to close the social mobility gap and that it will take some time to do so. However, the Sutton Trust, which is the leading organisation when it comes to championing greater social mobility, is quite clear that it was under the previous Government that social mobility moved backwards. I know that she would like to rewrite the past and lay the blame for the past 13 years on the former Conservative Government, but her comments reaffirm my belief that we need proper narrative history once again to be taught in the nation’s schools.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the wide disparity among the benefits that go to schools and colleges on the front line for deprivation. Much of that is because local education authorities hold back the money, or divert it for other purposes. How will he make sure that the money reaches the front line and is not diverted for other purposes?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the problems with the way that school funding worked in the past was that the method of allocating money was so opaque that much of the money that was intended to go towards deprived children went elsewhere. We will ensure the money is passported directly to the schools that need it.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

The poorer pupils premium will offer real help to children and young people in my constituency, but will my right hon. Friend work hard to ensure greater opportunities for children with speech, language and communication disabilities, which are so often associated with social deprivation?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely will. If you will forgive me for saying so, Mr Speaker, I want to work on the marvellous steps that were recommended under the previous Government in the Bercow report. I pay tribute to the work of everyone associated with it, and to the right hon. Members for Morley and Outwood and for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson). We want to carry forward their work.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State and colleagues.

Points of Order

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

16:01

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. We are informed by the media that the Government have been lobbied into spending vast sums on the nuclear industry, which has already dumped a £93 billion bill on taxpayers to clear up its waste, at the expense of developing tidal power, with all its immense potential. It is power that is clean, British and renewable, virtually for eternity. May we call the Minister to the House? We realise that he is embarrassed by his volte-face, but a decision of such magnitude, which will have spending commitments for decades, should be presented to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian. He is no stranger to getting his point across, if at all possible in prime time, and registering it in the Official Report. He has been successful in that objective. There is, I believe, a written ministerial statement today. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand if I take the remainder of his comments in the spirit in which I think they were intended—as a contribution to the debate and a register for the benefit of his constituents of his trenchant views on the matter.

[Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Over the weekend, the media reported a leak from the Treasury about the amount of compensation payable to Equitable Life victims. That came the day after the Public Administration Committee published its report on the matter. May I seek your advice, Mr Speaker, on how we can get clarification from the Treasury as to how that happened and if it is indeed the Government’s position? May I also ask you how we clarify whether the Government will actually respond—as they should—to the Select Committee before they make firm and final recommendations?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order, to which I would make two points in response. First, as he knows, an urgent question application was submitted on the matter—if memory serves me correctly, by the hon. Gentleman himself. That urgent question was not granted and the House will know that the Speaker is not expected to give reasons as to why UQ applications are not granted and, in fact, is expected not to do so. In those circumstances, it is not really proper for an hon. Member, who may be disappointed by the decision, then to try to raise it as a point of order instead. I say that on this occasion, but I am sure that it will not be necessary to say it again.

The second response to the hon. Gentleman, who is a very assiduous contributor to our proceedings, is that on Wednesday he will have an opportunity, or at least the House will, further to probe these important matters, which I accept are of enormous interest to a large number of Members, and more particularly to hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of constituents across the country. I hope that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

[Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) said, today the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change published a written statement dealing with significant issues for the future supply of energy, particularly as regards tidal technology and nuclear power, in the United Kingdom. I share the concern that it was not an oral statement; the House should have had the chance to question the Secretary of State.

Mr Speaker, you have been a good champion of the House, and of Back Benchers in particular, when such information is leaked to the national newspapers. I was surprised to read in great detail about the written statement in the national and Welsh papers on Sunday. I hope that you will take the matter up and find out whether Ministers in devolved Administrations were consulted on this important information being leaked.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order. The last point that she highlighted is a matter on which I can make no comment, because I am simply not in a position to know the answer to the question that she raised. I am grateful to her for saying that I do my utmost to ensure that the rights of the House are paramount. It will not have gone unnoticed over the past 16 months that, on issues on which it is perhaps thought that there should be an oral statement but none is forthcoming, there are frequently urgent question applications. This Chair has been inclined to grant them regularly; indeed, one was granted today.

My third point is that the form of statement made by a Minister—that is, whether it is written or oral—is a matter for the Department. It might help the hon. Lady to be reminded that the House has invited the Procedure Committee to look into how Government announcements are made to the House. She may wish to contact the Committee with this example and mention her dissatisfaction. She may also wish to submit further evidence as part of the Committee’s inquiry. I hope that that is helpful to her and the House. I am grateful to her, and to other hon. Members, for their points of order.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Third Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill, HC 437, and the oral evidence taken before the Committee on Thursday 15 July on the Coalition Government’s programme of political and constitutional reform, HC 358-i.]

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee

[Mr Lindsay Hoyle in the Chair]

Schedule 1

Further provisions about the referendum

16:07

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I beg to move amendment 261, page 14, line 8, at end insert—

‘Counting officers

1A (1) The counting officer for a voting area that is—

(a) a district in England,

(b) a county in England, or

(c) a London borough,

is the person who, by virtue of section 35 of the 1983 Act, is the returning officer for elections of councillors of the district, county or borough.

(2) The counting officer for the City of London voting area is the person who, by virtue of that section, is the returning officer for elections of councillors of the London borough of Westminster.

(3) The counting officer for the Isles of Scilly voting area is the person who, by virtue of that section, is the returning officer for elections to the Council of the Isles of Scilly.

(4) The counting officer for a voting area in Wales is the person who, by virtue of provision made under section 13(1)(a) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, is the returning officer for elections of members of the National Assembly for Wales for the constituency that forms the voting area.

(5) The counting officer for a voting area in Scotland is the person who, by virtue of provision made under section 12(1)(a) of the Scotland Act 1998, is the returning officer for elections of members of the Scottish Parliament for the constituency that forms the voting area.

(6) The counting officer for the Northern Ireland voting area is the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 262, 168, 169, 263, 265, 266 and 270.

Amendment 353, in schedule 2, page 49, line 15, at end insert—

‘(aa) certify as respects the votes cast in each parliamentary constituency within his area—

(i) the number of ballot papers counted by him in that parliamentary constituency; and

(ii) the number of votes cast in favour and against to the question asked in the referendum.’.

Government amendments 279, 280, 307, 309 to 322, 325 and 326.

[Mr Harper]

The Government have tabled a number of amendments relating to the referendum that are necessary to allow for the smooth running of the poll on 5 May. A number of the amendments—261 to 263, 270, 279, 280, 307, 309 to 322, 325 and 326—provide that all returning officers appointed for the local district council or borough elections in England, for Assembly elections in Wales, or for the parliamentary election in Scotland, are automatically designated as counting officers for the referendum. The provisions also appoint the chief counting officer for Northern Ireland as the counting officer in the referendum. That displaces for the referendum the standard position under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which provides that the chief counting officer would need to appoint the individuals.

The key advantage of the approach that we are taking is that the returning officer and the counting officer will always be the same person, and that will provide returning officers with certainty that they will be the counting officers for the referendum. It will also ensure that the counting officers in the referendum have the necessary experience. The approach that we have taken to the appointment of counting officers is generally consistent with the practice for other statutory elections where legislation automatically deems, or provides for, the appointment of certain postholders in local authorities as returning officers for different elections—for example, local authority returning officers automatically become returning officers for the purposes of European parliamentary elections.

Government amendment 326 makes changes to the definition of the voting area for Scotland and Wales. The change ensures that in Scotland and Wales the referendum will be run on the same respective boundaries as the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections. No changes are required in respect of the current provisions in the Bill for England, which already allow for the referendum to be run on the same boundaries as the local government elections, which are scheduled to take place on 5 May.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Government amendment 261 refers, in paragraph 1A(2), to the counting officer for the City of London voting area being

“the person who, by virtue of that section—

section 35 of the Representation of the People Act 1983—

“is the returning officer for elections of councillors of the London borough of Westminster.”

How many people does the Minister think could, by virtue of this, vote in the City of London in the referendum?

[Mr Harper]

I am not entirely certain how the number of voters who can vote there has anything to do with the appointing of the counting officer. I am not certain that I follow the hon. Gentleman’s point.

[Chris Bryant]

It relates to the point that we will doubtless discuss later in relation to who is entitled to vote. As I understand it, paragraph 1A(2) refers only to peers, who would be able to vote in the referendum by virtue of their City of London voting right, as opposed to their residential voting right.

[Mr Harper]

We will talk about the franchise in due course. I do not think that the point is terribly sensible.

Government amendment 326 makes changes to the definition of the voting areas for Scotland and Wales. This change ensures that in Scotland and Wales the referendum will be run on the same respective boundaries as the Scottish parliamentary and Welsh Assembly elections. No changes are required in respect of the provisions for England, which already allow for the referendum to be run on the same boundaries as the local government elections.

Government amendment 262 provides that the local authorities within the voting areas must place the services of their officers at the disposal of the counting officer.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I seek clarification, further to the debate last week. Although I welcome the Government’s U-turn to let us have the boundaries in Scotland, will they make a single extra penny available to Scottish returning officers, as they have requested through their submission to the Scottish Affairs Committee, to pick up all the additional costs that will arise from the referendum?

[Mr Harper]

We have listened to what returning officers and electoral administrators have said, to ensure that these more sensible administrative arrangements are in place. That was the point of working with them during the summer. On costs, as the hon. Gentleman knows, by combining elections and holding them on the same day, there is a significant saving to the devolved Administrations, because much of the cost involved in running elections will be shared and split equally between central Government providing for the costs of the referendum and the devolved Administrations. It is considerably cheaper to hold a combined poll. I do not understand his point. The devolved Administrations will have fewer costs than would be the case if we did not combine the elections.

[Thomas Docherty]

To clarify, Tom Aitchison, who is the interim chief returning officer for Scotland, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) and the Scottish Affairs Committee stating that holding the referendum on the same day as the election would require extra ballot boxes, extra staff and perhaps larger rooms for a longer period. That, to my maths, is not a saving, but an extra cost.

[Mr Harper]

The costs specifically required to run the referendum are picked up by the Consolidated Fund and do not fall in any way on the local devolved authorities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Some of their costs for running their own election—the cost of hiring polling stations, for example, and the cost of paying for staff—is split between the local Administrations and central Government from the Consolidated Fund, so the devolved Administrations make a saving, compared with running those elections on a stand-alone basis. I do not understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.

[Chris Bryant]

That rather prejudges another set of amendments. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has yet tabled the 100 pages of amendments that he told some of us last week he would table today for debate next week. It prejudges also the statutory instruments which, as I understand it, the territorial officers will have to table and will be subject to votes in this place and in another place. The cost that may be required to issue, for example, two polling cards rather than one will be materially affected by those decisions. Is not the Minister getting his amendments in the wrong order?

16:14

[Mr Harper]

Not at all. We will table the combination amendments today, and, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, I wrote to him, to the Opposition Front-Bench team and to every Member who either spoke on Second Reading or who, at that point last week, had tabled an amendment—in other words, to those who were most interested. I wrote also to the leaders of parties in the devolved Assemblies and Parliaments to keep them informed about what we planned to do.

The assumption referred to is the one on which we have been working, and holding the referendum on the same day as the elections produces a saving throughout the United Kingdom of about £30 million, which will be shared between the Consolidated Fund and those devolved and local administrations.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but the Minister is completely wrong. He may have already decided how Parliament, in this place and at the other end of the building, will dispose of the Bill, but I have not seen any of the amendments to which he refers. We are, of course, deeply grateful for his writing to us all, but we have not seen the amendments. He even admits in his own letter that the amendments that he will table today are incorrect, because they will be attendant on other orders that will have to be laid in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I am afraid that, on this matter, the Minister is running ahead of himself.

[Mr Harper]

Mr Hoyle, I am sure that you do not want me to start debating new clauses and new schedules today which we will debate next Monday; I am sure that if I did so, you would put me straight. I have set out the basis on which we have said, since my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement to the House, we will proceed, namely by combining the referendum with local and devolved elections, which will produce a significant saving. If Parliament were to choose to do something different, we would clearly look at that. I am setting out the Government’s proposals, which we have included in the Bill and will lay before the House for debate in Committee. I really think that the hon. Gentleman is making a meal of it.

[Chris Bryant]

But the Minister has not even made any provision in law. He has not presented to the House the provision in law for the combination of polls in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I simply do not understand how we can debate whether the counting officers should be the same for the two polls when we have not been presented with the legislation that the Government promised would come along somewhere down the line. The Minister is treating the Committee with some disrespect.

[Mr Harper]

If I may say so, I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make debating points where there simply is none. He knows the proposals that we have set out, and appointing the counting officers has nothing to do, in essence, with the combination amendments, which we can debate next week. They will be tabled today, as I said in my letter. Members will therefore have a week to scrutinise them, and we can deal with that point next week.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend be good enough to give me an assurance on an important question relating to thresholds? He mentioned the issue in response to my concerns during earlier proceedings of the Bill, and he knows very well that the threshold is commonly regarded by anyone who knows anything about referendums, including about the Scotland Act 1998, as absolutely crucial—as fundamental to the question of how such legislation should operate. Will he assure me that the splurge of amendments before us has nothing to do with depositing the threshold proposals, which I and my hon. Friends the Members for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and for Christchurch (Mr Chope) have put forward, at the bottom of the pile for discussion today? It looks highly likely that we will never reach them. Can my hon. Friend the Minister assure me that he is concerned to ensure that the threshold amendment is properly considered today?

[Mr Harper]

That is a very helpful intervention, because my hon. Friend will know that in the programme motion that I laid before the House last week we made provision for the House to sit until 11 o’clock this evening, which, notwithstanding Mr Speaker’s decision to allow an urgent question, means that the House will have more time today to debate those matters than it would have had if we had not tabled the motion. I am very keen to ensure that the House makes progress. That is not entirely in my hands—it depends on every Member ensuring that we can debate all these important matters—but I certainly want to reach that debate and will do my best from the Dispatch Box to ensure that we do.

Government amendment 262 mirrors the position for UK parliamentary and European elections and is necessary to ensure that counting officers and regional counting officers are suitably equipped to conduct the referendum poll.

Government amendment 270 provides that across the United Kingdom the polling stations allocated for the referendum will be the same as those allotted to electors for UK parliamentary elections. The amendment also provides that where special circumstances arise, the counting officer can allot different polling stations.

The Government have tabled amendments 168 and 169 at the request of the Electoral Commission. Paragraph 5 of the schedule gives the chief counting officer a power to direct regional counting officers and counting officers in the discharge of their functions at the referendum. The amendments clarify the extent of the power of direction and specify that it includes any planning and preparatory steps essential to the smooth running of the poll. That will enable the chief counting officer to require regional counting officers and counting officers to provide copies of plans, risk registers or other things that demonstrate that they are, or will be, discharging their functions in accordance with the chief counting officer’s directions. We believe that the amendments are necessary to enable the chief counting officer to prepare, plan and manage the poll effectively and to ensure compliance with any directions issued within the scope of her power.

Amendments 265 and 266 allow for the fees that are paid to counting officers and regional counting officers for delivering the referendum on the voting system to be reduced in circumstances where they fail to meet an adequate standard of performance.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

Is there any provision for a recount if the poll is very, very close? There have been several incidents across the world with hanging chads and so on. Have the Government thought about that possibility?

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend will have noted that we are going to debate recounts under amendments 153 and 154 to schedule 2. I am sure that if he waits for that point in the debate, we will be able to engage in some dialogue.

The approach that I have outlined will apply only to the fee paid for the performance of a counting officer’s duty relating to the referendum. It will not impact on the level of expenses that the same person can claim for carrying out their duties in their capacity as the returning officer for the election.

[Thomas Docherty]

Particularly after the events of last May, I welcome the provisions relating to electoral returning officers not doing their job properly, but has the Minister had specific discussions about what will count as being an inadequate performance? Given the terrible scenes that we saw in Sheffield and other cities, what view will the Electoral Commission take of the confusion that may be caused by having parliamentary elections and the referendum on the same day?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman asks separate questions. The chief counting officer will decide about the level of performance of the counting officers and regional counting officers. The Electoral Commission has been working closely with the Government and with our officials, and it is confident that the referendum next year can be carried out in combination with the elections. We aim to continue to work with it to ensure that that remains the case through to 5 May next year.

[Chris Bryant]

I still do not quite understand what counts as counting officers not having performed their functions properly. What order of magnitude of not performing their functions properly would lead to their not being paid but would not disqualify the votes from that area?

[Mr Harper]

The level of payment would be a matter for the chief counting officer to determine; we would not expect Ministers or the Government to get involved in that process. The chief counting officer will be able to make the decision on payment in judging the performance of the counting officer, who will be working under her direction. That would not affect whether the votes counted in the same way as they did in a parliamentary election, even if there were the confusion that occurred this year at the close of polls, which did not affect the votes cast in those elections.

[Chris Bryant]

But if—let us say for the sake of argument—no polling cards were issued for the referendum in an area where there were other forms of election, or, indeed, no other forms of election, would that be a reason for not paying the counting officer? If the vote were tight, would it be a reason for invalidating the result in that area?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman is trying to draw me into doing the chief counting officer’s job for her and into trespassing into election courts. It is not my role to do that, and the chief counting officer will make those determinations in the usual way. The Government consider that the amendment represents the best option for ensuring that regional counting officers and counting officers are accountable for their actions. Given the hon. Gentleman’s comments and those of the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), I hope that that helps address some of the concerns that members of the public and, indeed, Members of Parliament expressed about the accountability of returning officers, following what happened at some polling stations, albeit limited numbers of them, on 6 May.

The amendments do not apply to the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland—the counting officer for the referendum—because he is a statutory office holder, who is already directly responsible to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for his conduct.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps it might help the House of Lords when it considers the Bill if the Parliamentary Secretary asked the chief counting officer to provide written guidelines about exactly what would constitute not doing the job adequately.

[Mr Harper]

I am sure that their lordships do not require help from me or the chief counting officer to deliberate on the Bill. I would not dream of that. I am sure that the Electoral Commission will set out in due course the approach that it plans to take. It has already done that on some issues to do with the referendum, and I am sure that that will be helpful to Members.

Let me speak briefly about amendment 353, in the name of the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) and others. It would mean that, in addition to votes in the referendum in England being counted on local authority lines, as we propose, they would also need to be certified on parliamentary constituency lines. Given that 32 metropolitan boroughs, 52 unitary authorities and 192 second-tier districts in England have elections next year that involve around 31 million electors—79% of the total local government electors in England—the proposal would present significant additional administrative requirements for local areas and result in considerable extra effort and cost. Counting and issuing the results of the referendum on local authority lines, as we propose, makes administrative sense.

In Northern Ireland, counting and issuing the results will take place on Northern Ireland Assembly boundaries; in Scotland, on Scottish Parliament boundaries; and in Wales, on Welsh Assembly boundaries. That will be done because all devolved Administrations have elections to their respective bodies on 5 May. We think that that also makes administrative sense.

The Government see no benefit in requiring the counting officer to certify the results of the referendum in each parliamentary constituency. Any possible benefit would be outweighed by the extra demand on resources that the proposal would make. I would also be wary of inserting an extra layer of counting into the process, as I am sure that everyone wants a clean, clear result, which is calculated and communicated as quickly as possible.

For all those reasons, I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendments, and Opposition Members not to press theirs to a Division.

[Chris Bryant]

Broadly speaking, I do not disagree with the main thrust of the amendments that the Parliamentary Secretary has moved. However, I point out that we are debating 26 amendments in this group alone. The Parliamentary Secretary has already referred to the fact that he has written to hon. Members to say that he will table 100 pages of amendments today. I do not think that he has made them available to the Committee yet. They are necessary only because they provide for combining polls. Indeed, the majority of the amendments that we are currently discussing are necessary only because the Government had not spotted early enough that they needed to provide legislatively for the combination of polls in Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England, and separately and differently in each because the law governing each of the three devolved nations is different, and in England, the elections relating to local authorities must have separate rules, too.

The Parliamentary Secretary has already admitted in the letter that he sent to many of us that the amendments that he has tabled today depend on existing law in relation to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Each of those territorial Offices intends to change the law for the combination of polls in the next few weeks—it was supposed to happen in mid-October, but none of the statutory instruments has been tabled yet. I see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in his place—[Interruption.] I am sorry: the Minister for Northern Ireland is in his place. Perhaps he should be Secretary of State, as he is a very charming chap. Now that he is having a little conversation with me, perhaps he will enlighten us as to when the statutory instruments for Northern Ireland will be available. It appears that he cannot do so.

16:30

The Government do not even know when they will table the statutory instruments that will change the law, and on which some of the amendments that have been tabled today—but which we have not yet seen—depend. Without the combination of polls, none of the new amendments that the Minister has had to table today would be necessary, but the Government are still unable to tell us what they are going to do. I presume that the same is true in Wales and Scotland. That is not good enough.

The Minister said that he would table further amendments at a later stage. I hope that that will be a later stage in this House, and not in the other place. He is studiously ignoring me and biting his lip. Is he able to tell us? A profound silence arises.

The Minister referred to amendment 353 which, in similar language to that used in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, provides that an accounting officer would

“certify as respects the votes cast in each parliamentary constituency within his area…the number of ballot papers counted by him in that parliamentary constituency; and…the number of votes cast in favour and against to the question asked in the referendum.”

The Minister seemed to suggest that everyone agreed that that would be virtually impossible to do because it would be too expensive and difficult, and delay all the votes. However, he has already made it clear—although I stand to be corrected on this—that the counting of the referendum will happen after the counting of all other elections. He nods his assent. Consequently, it would not delay the other elections to count by parliamentary constituency. The Minister has therefore already inadvertently misled us once on this issue.

The Minister also suggested that others are in broad agreement. In fact, the Electoral Commission has said that it sees no reason why the votes could not be provided by constituency—

[Mr Harper]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If I may finish my argument, I will then give way to the Minister.

In Wales, the results will be by Assembly constituency, which is the same as by parliamentary constituency. In Scotland, we will have them by Scottish parliamentary constituency, which is different.

[Nick Boles (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

In a moment, although I have promised to give way to the Minister. I am not sure which way age and beauty apply in this case, but I will give way to the Minister first, after I have finished my argument.

In England, we will have results by various electoral areas. For the sake of clarity in understanding the legitimacy of the vote, especially as this is not just an advisory but an implementing referendum—as laid out in the Bill—it would be better if we had equality across the United Kingdom, with the results announced in the same way in every constituency.

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to quote the Electoral Commission, he should quote it in full. It wanted to consider in more detail the implications of his amendment for the management of the count process and, in particular, the time required to conduct the count. It did say that it saw no insurmountable practical barriers to making the information available “in due course”, but it did not have information about the impact on the count process and the declaration of the result. Missing out the words “in due course” gave a misleading impression of the Electoral Commission’s views.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful for the Minister’s helpful intervention, because he made half the point I made myself.

I do not know what the total number of results will be, but let us say there will be 40 for Wales, and those in Scotland, Northern Ireland and so on. If, in a large number of those constituencies, there is a very narrow result, it will have a material effect on how people view the eventual result, particularly in relation to the differential turnout that might be achieved in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—by virtue of the fact that there are other elections at the same time—compared with the turnout in England.

[Nick Boles]

The hon. Gentleman’s suggestion seems extraordinary. I had understood that the Labour party’s position was to support the move towards an AV system, yet it seems that it wants to create all sorts of divisions and to undermine the legitimacy of any result. Surely, the whole point of the referendum is that it is a referendum for the electoral system for the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The only result that matters is the result for one constituency—the constituency of the entire United Kingdom. Trying to undermine the result by suggesting that, “Oh, in Gloucestershire, they did not vote for it” or, “Oh, in one part of Scotland, they did not vote for it”, seems to be a very strange thing to want to do.

[Chris Bryant]

In which case, the hon. Gentleman should be voting against the Government’s proposals, because their proposal is to conduct the referendum by constituency in Wales, by a different set of constituencies in Scotland and by different areas in England. Of course, those will all be added up. I am trying not to undermine, but to strengthen the result of the vote. Also, I should say to him that he has got the Labour party’s manifesto slightly wrong. Our commitment was to have a referendum on the alternative vote. We want the United Kingdom to be able to make a decision on that.

[Nick Boles]

I misspoke. I meant that the person who tabled amendment 353—the hon. Gentleman’s party leader—has stated that he is in favour of a move to the alternative vote. Is that not the case?

[Chris Bryant]

I have said that I will vote for the alternative vote, and I will vote for it. I personally support it and believe that it is the best way of electing candidates. It is how I was elected as a candidate for the Labour party in Rhondda, so it would be illogical for me to vote differently. However—

[Nick Boles]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Could the hon. Gentleman just keep calm for a moment? I recognise that many other people in my party take a different view on that. However, all I am trying to secure is a clear process that is effected equally across the whole of the United Kingdom. I think, therefore, that it would make more sense for the results to be provided by parliamentary constituency, because, as he himself said, we are talking about parliamentary elections.

[Nick Boles]

I apologise for taxing the hon. Gentleman on this point, but I think he is muddling up a separate issue with the practical arrangements for counting the votes. The Government are proposing—eminently sensibly, it seems to me—that we use whichever constituencies are counting votes for other elections. So in the case of the Assemblies in the devolved institutions—

[Thomas Docherty]

Or Parliaments.

[Nick Boles]

Parliaments, sorry—forgive me. In the other nations of the United Kingdom, it makes sense to use their constituencies. In England, however, where all we have are local authority elections, it makes sense to use them. That is a practical measure. It is not to suggest that it is legitimate to start second-guessing the result on the basis of whether, in this or that constituency, the alternative vote passed. What the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is suggesting is an entirely unnecessary, further division—

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I was generous in allowing such a long intervention, but the hon. Gentleman has gone on far too long. If the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) chooses not to answer, I will understand.

[Chris Bryant]

Well, I was going to make an attempt at an answer, but I do not know whether it will appease the hon. Gentleman.

I am not trying to undermine the result of the referendum. I would like every single person in Britain to vote in it. I would prefer a system that would lead to even turnout within the bounds of normal elections, rather than a system in which there were important general elections in some places—Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland—but only local elections in 83%, I think, of England. It would provide for a nicer outcome if we could provide results by parliamentary constituency boundaries.

[Thomas Docherty]

It might help the Committee to know that, certainly for Scotland, returning officers will allow recounting only at constituency level. They will not support a Scottish-wide recount because, they argue, it would be far too complicated. I think that that undermines the point made by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles).

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. My anxiety is that the route down which we are travelling will mean that ordinary constituents—voters around the land—will end up being treated differently according to which part of the country they live in. If the whole Bill goes through, they will effectively have less of an understanding of who represents them, because at different tiers there will be no clear structure going from the local authority, whether unitary or not, to the Assembly Member in Wales or the Scottish Parliament, or the UK Parliament. That is why the basic building block of the referendum, as it concerns the whole of the United Kingdom, should be the parliamentary constituency. The hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) obviously disagrees.

As for the Government’s other amendments, I am still not satisfied by the Minister’s answers about whether the job has been done properly or not. He says that he would not want to do the job of the chief counting officer, but in fact the Bill makes—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House says that it would be improper, but the Bill makes vast numbers of provisions relating to the counting officer, as does other legislation. As the Minister has introduced this new concept of not paying for a job that has not been done properly, I do not understand why it is not possible to delineate what not doing the job properly means.

For instance, if it had been decided that all the ballot papers for the referendum should be a different colour from the ballot papers for other elections on the day, would not doing the job properly mean that the ballot papers had not been provided in the right colour? Would not doing the job properly mean that some polling stations had too many barriers to disabled access? Would it mean that some of the polling stations did not have the official stamp? There is a whole series of issues in relation to the combination of polls that are laid out in the legislation in Scotland and Wales. I presume that the Minister wants to replicate those in the many amendments that he will come forward with, yet he says that he cannot make it clear this afternoon what not paying for a job that has not been done properly would mean.

[Nick Boles]

Is this not a classic example of over-micro-management of professionals? We have a chief counting officer who knows her job. Would the hon. Gentleman not be willing to let her decide whether the law was being adhered to, rather than telling her how to do it?

[Chris Bryant]

In which case, again, the hon. Gentleman ought to be striking out large parts of the Bill, because the Bill determines in large measure precisely what the job of the chief counting officer is. Indeed, other legislation similarly does so, because we have to have clarity about certain things. For instance, should it be possible in Wales and Scotland for there to be just one polling card for the referendum and the Assembly or parliamentary elections, or should it be a requirement that there be two? If we left the issue to people’s discretion and everybody decided to go for one, many people might say, “No, sorry, that undermines the referendum,” because we would not be making it clear that, in addition to the Assembly elections, which would get a lot of media attention in Wales, there was a referendum on the same day. That is why the hon. Gentleman’s Government will introduce amendments on the matter. His quarrel is therefore not with me; it is with the Minister, which I am sure will upset him enormously.

I am keen to provide as much clarity as possible at this stage, quite simply because I believe that the Government are proceeding in the wrong order. First and foremost, we should have the legislation for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, to make it clear whether there will be three sets of elections in Northern Ireland—again, we still do not know, despite the fact that it is not many months ago—[Interruption.] I am sorry, but I am being corrected by the Northern Ireland Minister. Would he like to—[Interruption.] No, he remains in his place. In relation to Wales and Scotland, the legislation has not been changed, but that is what should happen first, and then we should move forward with the amendments that have been adumbrated today.

I will be keen to press our amendment 353 to a Division. Even if hon. Members may support the Government, I very much hope that they will also support the amendment standing in my name and that of my right hon. Friends.

[Mr Harper]

There are one or two points of fact that are worth putting straight. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) was spot-on about the counting arrangements. As for the result of the referendum, the important thing is the overall number for the United Kingdom. On the counting arrangements, we listened to the electoral administrators and the Electoral Commission during the summer, and they made it clear that it made absolute sense to count on the same basis, given the other elections taking place. I do not see that that makes any difference whatever to the overall result of the election.

16:45

On the point about Northern Ireland, a written statement was laid before the House last week by the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), to make it clear that the local elections in Northern Ireland will indeed take place on 5 May next year. It is correct that the parliamentary instruments have not yet been laid, but it has been made clear that, subject to the will of Parliament, the elections will take place on that day.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful; I had not noticed the written ministerial statement last week. Will the Minister clarify whether it is necessary to have legislation in order to be able to combine the polls in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Harper]

The combination amendment will provide for the combination of all the elections taking place next year.

Returning to the point about the instruments that will be laid, the amendments are clearly based on existing law. It would be bizarre to table amendments to this Bill in respect of legislation that has not yet been laid before Parliament. The amendments to this Bill are based on the law as it stands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the territorial offices will lay orders, and if they change the legislation, we will make the appropriate changes and lay them before the Committee or the House.

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I fully understand that: amendments cannot be tabled if they depend on legislation that does not yet exist. It would be better to put the legislation in place first and then table the amendments to it. I seek the Minister’s assurance on one issue. It would be inappropriate if the amendments that follow after the territorial statutory instruments were not tabled in this House—in other words, if we were not to see them on Report. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make that assurance to the Committee.

[Mr Harper]

Like the hon. Gentleman, I am very keen that on matters to do with elections this House should get to pronounce before the Bill goes to the other place. I believe that that is important; we will seek to achieve that.

[Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)]

I am looking at amendment 353, but it is not clear precisely which “parliamentary constituency” is referred to. Does it mean a Westminster parliamentary constituency or a Scottish parliamentary constituency? As Members would or should know, there is quite a difference in numbers—72 as opposed to 59—between the two. There is some ambiguity in the amendment; it is not at all clear.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. Fortunately, I am not responsible for the drafting of amendment 353; it is a matter for the Leader of the Opposition and his right hon. and hon. Friends, so they should answer questions about the amendment. For my part, I urge them to withdraw it. If they press it to a vote, I urge the Committee to vote against it. On this occasion—it does not happen on many occasions—I am at one with the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil).

[Chris Bryant]

For the sake of clarity, we are not saying that the count needs to be done by those constituencies; we are merely saying that the vote needs to be provided by parliamentary constituencies so that we can have full clarity across the whole of the land on the same basis. The wording is taken directly from the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

[Mr Harper]

Fortunately, neither I nor my hon. Friends were responsible for that legislation. It was introduced by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues when they were in government. I am thus not going to defend the wording. I think that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar is probably spot on in what he said.

[Mr MacNeil]

The intervention from the Opposition Front Bench has only added to my confusion. Does the amendment refer to both the Scottish and the Westminster parliamentary constituencies or neither—or is it “Please yourself and toss a coin”?

[Mr Harper]

Again, I think that the hon. Gentleman is quite right. The Government propose to have the counting done and the results declared in tandem with the other elections taking place that day. We believe that that is administratively sensible and in no way affects the legitimacy of the results, as my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford has pointed out.

My final point in response to the hon. Member for Rhondda is that he was effectively inviting me to do the chief counting officer’s job for her. Of course there are rules laid down for the conduct of elections, but it is for her to judge whether the regional counting officers and others appointed to work for her are carrying out their responsibilities appropriately. It is not for me to micro-manage her judgment—her judgment is a matter for her. On that basis, I urge hon. Members to support the Government’s amendments and urge the hon. Member for Rhondda not to press amendment 353 to a Division.

Amendment 261 agreed to.

Amendment made: 262, page 14, line 28, leave out sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) and insert—

‘Assistance to counting officers etc

2A (1) A local authority whose area forms, or forms part of, a particular voting area must place the services of their officers at the disposal of—

(a) the counting officer for the voting area, and

(b) the Regional Counting Officer (if any) appointed for the region that includes the voting area,

for the purpose of assisting the officer in the discharge of his or her functions.

(2) In this paragraph “the local authority”—

(a) in the case of a voting area that is a district or county in England, or a London borough, means the council for that district, county or borough;

(b) in the case of the City of London voting area, means the Common Council of the City of London;

(c) in the case of the Isles of Scilly voting area, means the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

(d) in the case of a voting area in Wales, means the council of a county or county borough;

(e) in the case of a voting area in Scotland, means the council of a local government area.’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Alun Michael (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

I beg to move amendment 328, page 15, line 35, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

[The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to take the following: amendment 329, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

‘(aa) directions about the discharge of their functions specifically in relation to voters with disabilities;’.

Amendment 330, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

‘Disabled voters

7A (3) The Electoral Commission must take steps to ensure that disabled voters are able to access information and support to facilitate understanding and participation in voting and elections.

(4) The Electoral Commission must issue guidance in relation to ensuring voters with disabilities have equality of access to the places and process of voting.’.

Amendment 331, in schedule 2, page 26, line 31, at end insert—

‘3A Any notices must—

(a) be published in a minimum 12 point font size, and

(b) include a prominent message in minimum 16 point font highlighting the availablility of accessible formats.’.

Amendment 333, page 27, line 3, at end insert—

‘Access to voting for disabled people

5A Each ballot paper—

(a) must be produced in a range of formats accessible to people with disabilities;

(b) must contain a tactile voting template to ensure participation by a blind or partially sighted voter.’.

Amendment 334, page 27, line 26, at end insert—

‘(za) ensure such rooms selected for polling are accessible to persons with disabilities in accordance with the requirements of the Equality Act 2010,’.

Amendment 335, page 28, line 29, leave out from beginning to ‘about’ and insert ‘information’.

Amendment 336, page 28, line 32, at end insert—

‘(ba) a transcription into large or giant print;’.

Amendment 337, page 28, line 32, at end insert—

‘(ba) a transcription into electronic format;’.

Amendment 339, page 31, line 39, at end insert—

‘(za) information on assistance available at every polling station to ensure access for voters with disabilities;

(zb) clear instructions to all presiding officers and polling clerks on the right of all registered voters with disabilities to vote;

(zc) clear guidance to presiding officers about the information and support specific groups of disabled people require.’.

Amendment 340, page 31, line 45, at end insert—

‘(4A) For the purposes of paragraph (4)(zc) specific groups may include (although not exclusively)—

(a) people with mobility difficulties;

(b) people with a visual impairment such as blindness or partial sight;

(c) people with a learning disability;

(d) people with social or cognitive disorders such as autism or Asperger’s syndrome;

(e) people with mental health problems.’.

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments. I am particularly pleased that it includes a number of amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger), who will speak to them in this debate.

The amendments relate to the referendum process, but in the long term they ought to apply much more widely to electoral arrangements in general. After all, the ability and right to vote is the central element of citizenship. The extension of that right and of the franchise—the inclusion of people in the electorate—has been central to the UK’s development into a mature democracy over many years. However, if the individual voter is unable to exercise their right to vote because physical obstacles are placed in his or her way, or if he or she cannot make sense of the ballot paper, the right to vote is meaningless. That is what the amendments address. If an individual cannot understand the choices before them, they are denied their democratic right. At the centre of these proposals is the importance of the democratic rights of those affected.

I pay tribute to the work of the Royal National Institute of Blind People, which has done a terrific job over the years to help Government Departments to understand what it means to look after the interests of the blind or partially sighted, or those who have even slight difficulties with seeing, perhaps with the onset of old age. The organisation has done that work consistently over many years. Today’s debate goes further than that, because it has been stimulated not only by the RNIB’s comments and concerns, but those of Scope and Mencap. A range of citizens with a range of disabilities and obstacles in their way could be helped if the Committee accepts the amendments, and I urge all Members to support them.

To illustrate where things can be improved, RNIB did a number of presentations—a number of Members on both sides of the Committee attended them, including the Deputy Leader of the House. It highlighted the implications, for instance, of the obstructions to understanding television. Members were invited into Aunt Megan’s living room, which was set out in the Strangers Dining Room, to see what following a television programme is like for people who do not have full vision. Actually, the dining room was changed into a more attractive place in many ways—the fact that Megan is the name of one of my granddaughters is absolutely irrelevant. Nevertheless, that imaginative demonstration got across to us how the inability to see things can affect people. Indeed, I am tempted to suggest that in order to lend weight to the argument for these amendments, the RNIB’s next exercise should be to lay out in the Strangers Dining Room a polling booth, complete with frosted glass and the other things it has sometimes provided in order to enable us to understand the problems. If it were to do so, all Members could see the issues that arise when the ballot paper is not absolutely clear, and I am sure that that would lead to Members of all parties being not just supportive of the amendments, but enthusiastic for them.

Ballot papers are often more complex than necessary, usually because the i’s are being dotted and the t’s are being crossed and all sorts of possible challenges are being eliminated. Of course, that has a consequence for those who need to be able to see very precisely what they are doing. As I have said, these amendments refer to the referendum process, although I think they should apply more generally. However, the design of the referendum ballot forms will be different from that of the familiar election forms, which is why these amendments are so important on this occasion.

[Chris Bryant]

My right hon. Friend is making some very good points, and I hope I will be able to explain why I agree with him both on this topic and with some other amendments that address similar topics.

There is an issue to do with ensuring that the information carried on polling cards is presented in a way that makes sense to, and is user-friendly for, all disabled voters. I am concerned that that will be more difficult when we have a combination of polls, because it will be necessary either to provide two polling cards, which may lead to considerable confusion for some people with disabilities, or for the writing on the polling card to be made so small that it is far more difficult for people to use. Does my right hon. Friend share that concern?

[Alun Michael]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. That is precisely the sort of issue that I believe should be covered by instructions, as we must also ensure that the simplicity of the form does not provide an unintentional additional obstacle. He is therefore right to raise that concern, and his point underlines the importance of my amendments. These amendments would allow direction to be given to deal with that concern by, for instance, ensuring that there is a simple form that enables people to understand what they are being advised to do in the polling booth.

I have tried to think of any reason Ministers and their advisers might have for not accepting the amendments. I hope I do not need to anticipate that, as I hope the Minister will respond by saying that the amendments are so clear and straightforward, and the case for them has been so well argued by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, that he is totally convinced and accepts them all. Having listened to his response to the debate on the previous group of amendments however, it seems that he might say the amendments should not be necessary because our expectations—in his case from Government, in our case from Parliament—are clear in the phrasing of the Bill. For instance, paragraph 3(1) of schedule 1 states:

“The Chief Counting Officer, Regional Counting Officers and counting officers must do whatever things are necessary for conducting the referendum in the manner provided by this Part.”

I do not think that is good enough, however. I have had enough experience of ministerial office to have seen how such very clear intentions written into a piece of legislation can be strangled by those who implement the law in the subsequent rules and interpretations unless we are very clear about our expectations, and I believe that our disabled and partially sighted citizens deserve us to be absolutely clear and unequivocal in respect of these amendments.

Paragraph 7 of the schedule states:

“The Electoral Commission must take whatever steps they think appropriate to promote public awareness about the referendum and how to vote in it.”

Well, yes, but that is not always the way things are delivered and the Electoral Commission is not very good at using its powers to ensure consistency in electoral arrangements. So these amendments are necessary, as we must ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place.

17:00

There are grounds for concern, because the Polls Apart 2010 general election survey found a number of worrying results. A total of 67% of polling stations had accessibility issues, such as poor access for people with mobility problems—I get the impression that things have not improved everywhere in recent years in that regard—and 47% of postal voters found accessibility problems with the ballot papers. Somebody voting by post from home may have people who can assist them, but they may not, so the clarity of the ballot paper is crucial for them.

Perhaps the most worrying finding in relation to my amendments is that nearly half of all polling stations failed to display a large-print ballot paper. That is worrying not only in itself, but because that figure represented a drop of 31% since the 2005 general election survey. I am surprised that a deterioration occurred on something that I am sure Members across the Chamber would agree ought to be in place as a matter of course and something that we can depend on as being understood by election staff and returning officers as the expectation of Members of Parliament right across this Chamber.

These things should be basic, but I hope that the Minister will not suggest that we just leave it to the electoral officer and the returning officer, or to the Electoral Commission, which has, in general, tended to fail as a regulator and has been poor in a number of aspects. It has grievously disappointed those of us who feel that it should have acted much more vigorously in promoting the full registration of the electorate, because in practice it left about 3.5 million people omitted from the register. That is a matter for this Government to pursue, but I can say with confidence that Labour Ministers and Members have, for a number of years, expressed those concerns vigorously.

The Electoral Commission has not covered itself in glory in using its powers to regulate. It has been good at asking for greater powers, but it has powers that could have taken us much further and much faster over recent years in ensuring that a number of improvements were made in areas where, as I have said, worrying deteriorations have occurred, had it used the capacity to name and shame and to encourage the bringing together of people.

One point made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, of which I was a member at the time, was that there should be regional arrangements in order to ensure that the Electoral Commission drilled down much more effectively to that local level and that it produced something that is not really a regional arrangement. In Wales, the situation has been better. Having a Welsh commissioner and a chief executive covering Wales and working with all the local authorities in Wales as a team produced far better results in the last government and Assembly elections than was the case across the regions of England. That demonstrates to me that things could have been done better had the Electoral Commission been more determined and followed more clearly the expectations of this House and of Ministers.

For all those reasons, it is important that these amendments should be made. Amendment 328 seeks to delete “may” and replace it with “must”. Surely our fellow citizens should have the right to expect that we insist that things are done in this way and that we do not just leave them to whim. Taken with that, amendment 329 would require chief counting officers to give directions to regional counting officers about their functions, specifically in regard to disabled voters.

Amendment 330 would insert a specific reference to disabled voters. Proposed new sub-paragraph 7A would state:

“The Electoral Commission must take steps to ensure that disabled voters are able to access information and support to facilitate understanding and participation in voting and elections.”

Being a little old-fashioned, I would have preferred them to be able to “gain access” to that information and support; nevertheless, I am sure we know what is intended. The amendment would make that a requirement, and that is what is important. It does not go into detail or try to micro-manage, but it would make that an essential requirement. The amendment goes on to propose:

“The Electoral Commission must issue guidance in relation to ensuring voters with disabilities have equality of access to the places and process of voting.”

That would ensure that access, and access to relevant information, was guaranteed for disabled voters.

Amendment 331 would make it clear that any notices must

“be published in a minimum 12 point font size”

and that they must

“include a prominent message in minimum 16 point font highlighting the availability of accessible formats.”

Anyone who has dealt with someone whose sight is failing—I recall this happening to my mother in her later years—will be aware of how frustrating and difficult it can be for them if they are unable fully to understand the papers that they are trying to read. That is a generality in life, but it is a particular burden for people who are losing their sight. Many elderly people feel passionately, and this is an especially important matter for citizens who want to exercise their democratic right to cast their vote, whether in a referendum or an election.

I was tempted to table a further amendment to ensure that such information be printed in a sans script, but I hope that we can trust the Electoral Commission—and the chief counting officers and regional counting officers—to seek the advice of the RNIB so as to ensure that everything is done to make the ballot papers and the information for voters as accessible as possible. It is therefore with some pride that I have moved amendment 328. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree wants to outline some other points on this group of amendments.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

I should like to speak to amendments 333 to 340, which aim to correct a serious deficit in our democracy. People will have seen in the media some of the scenes from the recent general election, in which voters queued for hours to vote. That happened in my constituency, where there was a paucity of ballot papers, and some electors are known to have been denied access to their polling station. What is less well known, however, is that a staggering 67% of disabled people surveyed by the Polls Apart campaign reported experiencing barriers to their participation in the ballot. Sadly, this is an acute reflection of the voting experience of thousands of disabled voters at every election for every tier of government since emancipation. It also highlights a worrying lack of accountability, as there is at present no way for people to appeal when they are wrongly denied their vote, other than by mounting an expensive, onerous and bureaucratic legal challenge.

Many disabled people find it difficult physically to access a polling station, and that can be for a variety of reasons, including steps leading to the entrance, narrow doorways and corridors or a lack of a low-level polling booth. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) said, nearly half of all polling stations failed to display a large-print ballot paper, making it virtually impossible for visually impaired people to mark their papers independently and with privacy. Election officials regularly offer postal voting as a panacea for disabled people to participate in the ballot, but disabled people often want to vote in person, like everybody else, or at least to have the choice. The fact that people are disabled is no reason to deny them that opportunity.

It is also important to remember that for a significant minority, postal voting is completely inaccessible. Voters with visual and co-ordination impairments, people with learning difficulties and those with low literacy or English as a second language all find it difficult or impossible to vote independently and in secret using a postal vote. In May, 47% of disabled people surveyed reported difficulty in completing their postal vote. For voters with co-ordination impairments such as cerebral palsy and arthritis, voting by post can present significant barriers. Even if someone can mark their ballot paper without assistance, the need to tear down perforated lines, fold the ballot papers and put them into a series of envelopes can make voting by post difficult and frustrating. I wonder whether any hon. Members here today could imagine going through the postal ballot process if they were blind.

The Electoral Commission said in its briefing for this Committee stage that it intends to work its hardest to ensure that the AV referendum is as accessible as possible. Although I welcome that news, I and organisations such as Scope, the RNIB and Mencap will quite rightly point to the evidence that I just presented to the Committee and say that more must be done. The Representation of the People Act 2000 and the Electoral Administration Act 2006 make some provision to improve accessibility in general, local and European elections. The Electoral Commission has also produced some good guidance, yet the evidence presented by the Polls Apart campaign shows that this last general election excluded thousands of disabled voters. What right have we to exclude them from this referendum or from any ballot box now or in the future?

There are some simple steps that need to be taken. Existing statutory obligations and guidance must be met and an accountability mechanism for returning officers must be introduced if they fail to meet them. Returning officers need to work with disabled people and their organisations when designating and setting up polling stations. Local authorities should annually review the accessibility of polling stations and publish that information for the electorate to comment on. Following the example of the Northern Ireland review, returning officers should write to voters informing them of the inaccessibility of their polling station and give disabled people the right to choose which polling station to attend based on their access needs.

It is essential that this Bill makes provision to minimise the risk that changes to our voting system will impact negatively on disabled people’s right to participate in the electoral process. Without proper scrutiny to ensure that there are no barriers to participation, the proposed changes could make it more difficult for disabled people to exercise their fundamental right to vote.

I want this referendum to be the most inclusive ballot we have ever held in the UK. It should be the ballot that sets the benchmark and this referendum should ensure that every person who wants to is able to exercise their right to vote.

[Mr Harper]

I welcome the principles behind the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger). It is very important that everyone has an equal opportunity to cast their vote in the referendum, and I am glad that the amendments raise that important issue.

I want to reassure the Committee that there are significant provisions made throughout the Bill—indeed, later this afternoon we will consider some Government amendments that will give the Electoral Commission further powers to ensure that the forms used are accessible—to ensure that voting is fair for all, including disabled people. Ensuring that ballot papers and polling stations are accessible to all is already a duty that counting officers and returning officers have. For the purposes of the referendum the chief counting officer will also be able to give directions to counting officers on how they discharge those functions.

[Alun Michael]

Will the Minister comment on the central point of the change from “may” to “must”?

17:14

[Mr Harper]

If the right hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall first set out what the Electoral Commission has said, some of which the hon. Lady has quoted, about how it intends to proceed. The chief counting officer can give directions to counting officers. Both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have made the point that in previous elections the Electoral Commission has not done an adequate job. Interestingly, Scope’s Polls Apart report, which I had the opportunity of speaking to at the launch event earlier this year, said that the guidance that the Electoral Commission and the Association of Electoral Administrators produced on facilitating voting by disabled people was good but was not well implemented. The Electoral Commission does not have the power in elections to mandate the way in which returning officers behave but the chief counting officer will be able to issue directions to regional counting officers and counting officers. It is therefore worth considering the approach that the Electoral Commission plans to take.

The Commission believes it is important that the voting process is accessible to all electors. It says that it takes seriously its duty as a public body under equality legislation—including under the Disability Discrimination Acts and the Equality Act 2010, relevant parts of which will come into force next year—to ensure, among other things, that the information it provides is accessible and available in alternative formats. It has made it clear that the information it plans to send to every household will include information about voting systems, what will happen in the event of a yes or no outcome and how to take part in the referendum, including how to register and how to vote. That booklet will be available in a range of formats, including Braille, audio and large print.

The chief counting officer has said that she will issue guidance and directions to regional counting officers and counting officers regarding their duties in respect of accessibility and disabled voters under relevant equality and electoral legislation. She has also said that the Commission will continue to work with the excellent organisations that the right hon. Gentleman and hon. Lady mentioned, such as Mencap, the RNIB, Scope and other representative and advocacy organisations, to ensure that the referendum is managed and delivered in an appropriate way so that all electors have the chance to participate. That is a great reassurance because, unlike in elections, the chief counting officer for the referendum will be able to direct regional counting officers and counting officers on how to carry all that out.

My officials have discussed aspects of the Bill with Scope and they are very happy to do so with other organisations. In my previous life as the shadow Minister with responsibility for disabled people, I worked very closely with many organisations representing disabled people so I know what an excellent job they do. I also know from my experience as a constituency MP how much disabled people want to participate in elections not just by postal vote but, as the hon. Lady correctly said, by taking part in person. People with physical disabilities and people with learning disabilities are keen to express their views and we want to make sure that they can do so.

Having welcomed the amendments in principle, I am not convinced that they are the best way of achieving the aims behind them. The commission already has powers to do what the amendments propose in many cases and I do not think that turning those powers into obligations—this comes back to the point on which the right hon. Gentleman was pressing me about converting “may” into “must”—would add much to the Commission’s options. Indeed, it might be damaging to take away its discretion to decide when it is necessary to issue directions or guidance. I do not think that would be helpful. By setting out what the commission has said on this, I have shown that it takes these issues very seriously. There are already important legal obligations on the commission, as a public body, under disability discrimination legislation and the Equality Act and I am not sure that the extra obligations that the amendments would place on the commission would add clarity. If anything, they would be in danger of making the legal position more complex.

Let me address another issue that the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady have both touched on about this poll in particular and elections in general. There may be changes that we can make to electoral law in general—the Government keep that under review—but I do not think that legislating specifically for one poll, even if there were things on which I agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, would be a sensible way of going about it.

On electoral registration, the right hon. Gentleman was right to point out that there is an issue to do with the number of people who are eligible to vote and are not on the electoral register. As he knows, during our September sittings I made a statement in the House about bringing forward individual registration, to deal not just with people who are on the register but should not be, but with the completeness of the electoral register. The Government think that completeness is as important as accuracy, and I have written to every local authority to urge their participation in data-matching pilots to try to identify voters who are not registered to vote and to look at how local authorities can best target their resources to get them on the electoral register.

The right hon. Gentleman made a tiny partisan point, when he said that he and his hon. Friends had been calling for change for many years. That may be the case and I have no doubt that the previous Government meant well, but in terms of outcomes they did not make a huge amount of progress in getting people on the electoral register. I hope he will support this Government in our efforts to do better.

To improve disabled people’s access to the democratic process, it is important that the Government continue to work with the organisations that the right hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree and others have mentioned. We shall keep the matter under review, but I do not think the amendments are the best way to improve access for the disabled to this poll, so I urge both Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on their amendments. There was a time when Parliament did not consider the rights of people with disabilities at all; those people and their rights were often ignored by society. We have moved a dramatic distance over the past 15 years in the rights of people with disability.

I am somewhat disappointed by the Minister’s words. When I was a Minister, an amendment might look perfectly sensible but some civil servant would come up with a reason why we could not possibly agree to it. The Whips would then say that we had to hold firm and that we could not possibly give way. The Minister may be right about some of the amendments, and it would be wrong to put in the Bill precise rules about whether the font size should be 12 point, 16 point or whatever. However, it would seem from what the Minister said that there would be no harm, in terms of their general principles, if the first two amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend were added to the Bill. They would apply only to this referendum, not to everything else.

The Minister made a point about the difference between the relationship in a normal election between the Electoral Commission and the returning officer, when the commission cannot direct, and the situation outlined in the Bill, when the chief counting officer can direct. That is all the more reason for us to provide in the Bill precise instructions that are in terms not of “may” but of “must”. I challenge the Minister to tell us what would be the harm in that amendment. I can see no harm that could possibly accrue, whereas the possible advantage could be significant to people with disabilities.

It is worth bearing in mind the statistics, which we have already heard, on the number of people who face significant accessibility barriers when voting at polling stations—67% of people with disabilities. We should recognise that there has been a tiny improvement on 2001 and 2005, but the previous Government were not enormously successful either, which is why we need to be more resolute in pursuing such issues.

The interesting figures in “Polls Apart” on voting by post are significant. Many people have presumed that now that people with disabilities can vote by post, the problem is solved. In actual fact, the great variation in how to cast a postal vote across the country—there are different ways of folding envelopes and of putting one envelope inside another—means that it is difficult to have a national campaign explaining how to use one’s postal vote. Many elderly people, quite apart from other people who might have disabilities, find it phenomenally difficult to vote by post.

At the general election, both in my constituency and when campaigning in other constituencies, I found that a lot of people had registered for a postal vote but found it difficult to understand precisely how they were meant to take it forward. Many of them would have preferred to have voted in a polling station, but if they are to be able to do so on an equal basis with anyone else in the land, explicit provision enabling them to do so needs to be made.

At the last election, there were fewer large ballot papers available than in 2005, which is a disgrace; I take no pleasure in saying that something that happened under the Labour Government was not an enormous success, but that is a fact. The difficulty with the argument that the Minister advances is that he is basically saying, “It’s all going in the right direction. We don’t need to put measures in the Bill, because it will all be provided for,” but the truth is that while many officials who have worked on the issue in previous years have made gains in some areas, in others they have moved backwards in relation to their obligations.

For instance, there are fewer polling stations in the Rhondda than there were in 2001. In the case of the polling station provided in Stanleytown, a small village in Tylorstown that is on a fairly steep hill, there was no public building in which to put it, and as the doors of all the houses are too narrow, no house could be used, so a portakabin was used. Unfortunately, halfway through the afternoon, the portakabin started sliding down the hill, which did not exactly make it more accessible than any other polling station.

There are serious problems, and I urge the Minister seriously to consider supporting, rather than opposing, the amendments that have been tabled.

[Mr Harper]

I have considered the amendments carefully, partly because of the role that I held before we entered government. I looked at the amendments myself, and at my advice from officials, and I genuinely do not think that the amendments add anything to the legal obligations that already fall on the Electoral Commission as a public body under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Equality Act 2010. Also, interestingly, the chief counting officer can make directions about whether the guidance, which Scope acknowledged was good, is put into effect. In response to the “Polls Apart” report, I have asked officials to look at all the recommendations and how we might act on them. The period after the referendum will be a good opportunity to look at the difference that the chief counting officer has been able to make with her direction, and to see whether we have proposals to take forward for elections more generally.

[Chris Bryant]

I am sorry, but that is more soft soap. I fully understand the Minister’s good intentions—he has advocated the causes that we are discussing many times—but I think that he has been seized by civil-servantitis. I fully understand the motivation behind the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, relating to the size of font and so on. I understand why the Minister might not want those provisions in the Bill, with regard to the referendum, but his argument falls at the first hurdle. He says that the chief counting officer will be able not just to provide guidance, but to direct. Surely it would make more sense for us to say not that the chief counting officer may make certain directions, but that she must do so, including

“directions about the discharge of their functions specifically in relation to voters with disabilities”.

I cannot understand for the life of me why the amendments could not be accepted. I can see no harm that would be done if they were. The Minister has not advanced any example of harm that would be done to the legislative process. If we are in any doubt as to whether we should move forward with the amendments, I would have thought that we should err on the side of caution and support those with disabilities. Once again, I urge the Minister to change his mind, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree, on their amendments.

17:29

[Alun Michael]

I am grateful to the Minister, who has been extremely courteous this afternoon. His speech was clearly well intentioned, but it was very old fashioned and traditional. It is the traditional approach from his Department—if we can refer to a fairly new Department as traditional—that the Minister should accept the principle and resist the amendment with every fibre of his body.

I regret that the Minister has taken that approach this afternoon. I am pleased, of course, to hear his endorsement of the principles underlying the amendments, so we can be agreed across the Chamber about the intentions and what we want to happen in the election. I take some comfort from that, but officials always tell the Minister to resist. The job of a Minister is to listen to that advice—yes, of course he should listen to the advice of the officials—but also to listen to the debate.

The Minister said that the amendment would not add to the duties or the clarity for the electoral officials or the Electoral Commission, but I do not accept that. It would make it clear that the House expects such consideration for those who would otherwise potentially be denied the right to vote. As ever, the problem is not the intentions of the Electoral Commission. I have met its members on many occasions and their intentions are good, but the delivery has not been as good. The House has a responsibility to make clear our expectations in respect of access for disabled people. I referred specifically to people with sight difficulties and the importance of helping them.

I cannot see how the amendments tabled by me and by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) could make the arrangements more complex or more difficult. The amendments are clear, but if there is any difficulty in that regard, and if the Minister wishes to improve the drafting in any way, he can easily do that on Report. I invite him to join us in the Lobby this afternoon, and if there are any such deficiencies, to put them right on Report. I shall be delighted to help and support him in doing that, should it be necessary, but let us make progress today.

I would very much like to pursue amendment 328, but as I do not want to take up too much of the time of the Committee, I shall press amendment 329 to a Division. Although I am disappointed by the Minister’s response, I welcome the fact that he has at least endorsed the principles that we advanced in this short debate.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: 168, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

‘( ) directions requiring them to take specified steps in preparation for the referendum;’.—(Mr Harper.)

Amendment proposed: 329, page 15, line 37, at end insert—

‘(aa) directions about the discharge of their functions specifically in relation to voters with disabilities;’.—(Alun Michael.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

17:34

Division 77

Ayes: 235

---

Labour: 220
Democratic Unionist Party: 6
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 328

---

Conservative: 275
Liberal Democrat: 53

Amendments made: 169, page 15, line 42, at end insert—

‘( ) directions requiring them to take specified steps in preparation for the referendum;’.

Amendment 263, page 16, line 6, at end insert—

‘( ) The number of ballot papers or votes purportedly certified under this paragraph or section 128 of the 2000 Act is not liable to be questioned by reason of a defect in the title, or a lack of title, of any person purporting to exercise functions in relation to the referendum, if the person was then in actual possession of, or acting in, the office giving the right to exercise the functions.’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 136, page 17, line 5, at end insert

‘subject to the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment 264.

Amendment 247, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

‘7A (1) The Electoral Commission shall not issue any explanatory document to persons entitled to vote in the referendum during the relevant period unless the wording, content and design of such document has been agreed by both organisations designated for the purposes of section 108 of the 2000 Act (designation of organisations to whom assistance is available), where such designations have occurred.

(2) In sub-paragraph (1) the “relevant period” is the relevant period for the referendum as defined in section 125 of the 2000 Act (restriction on publication etc. of promotional period by central government etc.).’.

[Chris Bryant]

The amendment deals with the simple issue of the role of the Electoral Commission in relation to the referendum next year. While the Bill provides that the commission should take whatever steps it thinks appropriate to promote public awareness of the referendum and how to vote in it, we believe that that should be subject to the agreement of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. I realise that hon. Members may think that that is some strange committee with no proper function and is just a bunch of MPs who want to interfere in the process, but in fact it is laid down in the 2000 Act. It has three ex-officio members—the Deputy Prime Minister, the Speaker and the Chairman of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee. In addition, a Minister is appointed to the committee by the Prime Minister, in this case the Minister for Housing and Local Government, as well as five other Members—the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr Gyimah), my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), the hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long), my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson) and the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter). One might call that an eclectic mix, but it represents a broad swathe of opinion on the issue of the referendum as well as many other electoral matters.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman know which of those members might vote yes in the referendum and which might uphold the current system?

[Chris Bryant]

No, I have not got the faintest idea. I just know that two or even three of them are definite noes. I do not know about the others. My point is that this body is used to considering electoral matters without seeking partisan advantage and to trying to promote a level playing field for all in electoral administration.

The committee has two specific roles, only one of which is material here. The first is in relation to the appointment of commissioners, which is why earlier last week we saw the appointment of new commissioners. In addition, it has a role in analysing the five-year financial plans produced by the Electoral Commission. It is the only point at which Parliament has a say in the financial plans of the commission and one of the issues that will have to be borne in mind is how much should be spent on the information that the commission provides to voters about the referendum. The Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission is therefore an important body to keep informed. The committee also provides an opportunity for a Minister to be directly involved, albeit only as one of the six Members on the committee.

The Electoral Commission has said that it knows that a considerable amount of information will have to be provided. The hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) knows that I do not share his views on the alternative vote. None the less, we share the view that the information provided should be fair, and it is important that we lay the details down in statute as far as possible to ensure that that happens. The way in which information is presented can inadvertently—and sometimes advertently—be biased. The commission said in its report on a referendum on the UK parliamentary voting system earlier this year:

“Without background information about the different voting systems, many participants in our research found the proposed question problematic.”

We might think that that is because the question is problematic, but the report continues:

“This was because they had almost no understanding of the ‘Alternative Vote’ (AV) system”—

and before the hon. Gentleman gets too excited—

“and very mixed understanding of ‘First Past the Post’ (FPTP).”

The last election in which I took part was last Thursday in Treherbert in the Rhondda where we had a council by-election. It was beautifully precise, because we had just two candidates—a Labour candidate and a Plaid Cymru one. It might appear that that would be easy for people to understand—a straight choice between A and B and one cross in the relevant box. However, there were several spoiled ballot papers because normally people get two votes in local elections in that two-member ward. Some people had voted for both candidates, presumably because they thought the by-election was like the normal elections. I am sure that hon. Members are dying to know who won the by-election. Labour seized the seat from Plaid Cymru with a swing of 10%, so Councillor Luke Bouchard is now the youngest councillor in Wales.

The important point is that voters do not fully understand the current system. They certainly do not understand the alternative vote system very well. However, in order for the Electoral Commission to provide information so that people can have a full understanding, we need a system that includes not only the commission but the weathered eye of some elected politicians, through the Speaker’s committee, which is unbiased and has no particular axe to grind.

I note that the hon. Gentleman and several others have tabled an amendment that would solve the same problem slightly differently. I suggest that the two are not mutually exclusive, although it might be a case of belt and braces. I am keen to hear what he has to say, if he succeeds in catching your eye, Mr Gale. I hope that the Government will want to involve the Speaker’s committee in this process and accept the amendment.

[Mr Jenkin]

Amendment 247 is in my name and of several colleagues, including the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Sir Stuart Bell). I do not think that that represents any slight on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant); it is just that I asked the hon. Member for Middlesbrough to table it with me.

The hon. Member for Rhondda has made the reason behind his amendment clear, and the principal purpose of our amendment is the same. The Electoral Commission has invited us to give it the enormous responsibility of sending out information, during a referendum, about the contentious matter on which voters will be asked to give an opinion. As the hon. Gentleman said, these are difficult issues to understand. Even the current voting system, to be called first past the post in the ballot question, is difficult for some voters to understand. That underlines the no campaign’s view that it should have been called the current system. As a more neutral description, that might have been better and more intelligible. These are subjective judgments, but the commission decided not to accept that suggestion. It also declined to accept our suggestion that the new system should be called the optional preferential voting system with instant run-off, which explains in more detail what it actually is. We are therefore left with some difficulty in explaining the systems.

Amendment 247 would provide that unless both the yes and the no campaigns are satisfied that the information being sent out is completely neutral, they should have the right of veto over it. That would be completely fair and equal, and would provide a safety valve, because there would be no possibility of information going out about which one campaign could cry foul.

18:00

Having said that, however, I am prepared to support amendment 136—the official Opposition amendment on this matter—because it is in the same spirit as ours. It is most unlikely that any information would be sent out unless there was unanimous approval on the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission. If one or other of the campaigns was making strong representations about the unfairness of the information in question, that approval would be extremely unlikely to be forthcoming. Broadly, therefore, I am satisfied with the Opposition amendment, so I direct my remarks to the Treasury Bench. What possible objection could there be to the Opposition amendment? It is a safeguard.

I would like briefly to point out one additional point. Earlier in these proceedings, the credentials of the chair of the Electoral Commission, Jenny Watson, were raised, and it was pointed out that she was, in the past, campaigns officer for Charter 88, which, as we know, has a strident view on the voting system for the House of Commons. I retorted that I had no doubt about her intention to be absolutely fair and unprejudiced, and that we should have complete confidence in the conduct of her office. I am not pleased with how the Electoral Commission handled the date issue, but that was not a matter of her being anything less than impartial; it was the result of a lack of competence and appreciation of the issues involved within that organisation.

We live in a democracy in which things not only have to be fair, but have to be seen to be fair and have to be conducted impartially. Those who have responsibility for sending out to voters information on the contentious issue of this referendum should be held to account, and if there is not proper oversight, we will invite unnecessary controversy and mistrust—however misplaced—of the process. I therefore invite my hon. Friend the Minister, who will be responding to this probably rather short debate, to consider accepting the amendment, or at least to indicate that the Government will introduce a safeguard of their own at a later stage.

I note that the Government have tabled an amendment containing an explicit power giving responsibility to the Electoral Commission to

“take whatever steps they think appropriate to provide, for persons entitled to vote in the referendum, information about each of the two voting systems referred to in the referendum question”.

I am bound to say that that is better worded than the current provision in the Bill, which states that the Electoral Commission must

“promote public awareness about the referendum and how to vote in it.”

I do not think that the possible misinterpretation of

“how to vote in it”

should not be taken too seriously, because any court will know what it means. However, if we are explicitly to give this responsibility to the Electoral Commission, which I have no doubt it has asked for—given the advice it gave to the Government—we should provide some mechanism for accountability. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to give that serious consideration, so that we can, I hope, save dividing the Committee and move on to the next group of amendments as quickly as possible.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I have reservations about amendment 136. I fully understand the spirit in which the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) argued for it, but I have concerns about requiring the agreement of the Speaker’s committee on the Electoral Commission. Would the committee have to agree on absolutely every bit of material, therefore having some sort of editorial control, with only their imprimatur and nihil obstat determining what goes? I am not sure that it would not put the committee in a potentially invidious position—indeed, hon. Members have already asked questions about what side of the argument the committee members are on. The safeguard that the amendment is trying to achieve might turn out to be more complicated and hazardous.

I prefer amendment 136 to amendment 247, however, because the latter would basically create not a difficult position for MPs sitting on the Speaker’s Committee, but an absolute veto by one campaign on the work of the Electoral Commission and indeed on the seemly and properly informed conduct of the entire referendum. To give each campaign an outright veto would be to give it too tempting an opportunity. Some of us come from territories where we are used to vetoes lying around the place, and they do not usually stay there as unused ornaments; they end up being used deliberately, effectively and destructively.

[Mr Jenkin]

The effect of my amendment is clear. It states:

“The Electoral Commission shall not issue any explanatory documents to persons entitled to vote in the referendum”

unless agreed by both campaigns. It is very clear. It would not prevent the Electoral Commission from carrying out its other work.

[Mark Durkan]

We are being told that no explanatory documents will be issued unless they have been approved by both campaigns. It could easily be in the interest of one campaign—for instance, a campaign saying, “We probably should not even be having the referendum anyway because it is not necessary”—simply to object. In such an event, no explanatory information could be issued, and then the conduct of the referendum would be seriously and fundamentally compromised.

Some of us have experience of seeing how referendums have been conducted in other jurisdictions.

[Mr Jenkin]

The yes and no campaigns will receive considerable public funds and will have a free mailshot. Each will explain the voting systems in its own way. That is a perfectly fair way of conducting a referendum. After all, at general elections, we do not ask an authority to explain the issues of the day to the British people; we let the British people make up their minds on the basis of what the political parties send out. That is the conventional way of running a referendum.

[Mark Durkan]

I will give the example of referendums conducted in the south of Ireland. The Referendum Commission has clearly gained some experience in how to manage the dissemination of information and how to deal with the various claims that emerge from different campaigns—and it has had to do that authoritatively and effectively. There are lessons to be learned from the Irish experience about how this referendum can be conducted. I would have a difficulty with putting absolute control over the Electoral Commission’s role in the hands of either campaign.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the point of allowing the Electoral Commission to issue information about the systems under consideration in the referendum is to ensure that those who wish to vote in that referendum have access to impartial information about the options available to them, not to partial information from either the yes or the no campaign?

[Mark Durkan]

The hon. Lady is right. That has certainly been the experience in the south of Ireland, where the Referendum Commission has played precisely that role and had to reprimand some individuals for claims—whether exaggerated arguments or not fully factual explanations—made on behalf of yes and no campaigns. It is appropriate that somebody be charged with providing neutral information, rather than the fairly colourful and possibly extreme suggestions that will come from both the yes and no campaigns. Those who are very committed might tend to be over the top in some of the material they produce. Certainly that has been the case in some referendums in the south, which is why the Referendum Commission there was developed and given this sort of role, and it is why the Electoral Commission will have to play the same role here. However, we have to be careful not to put the Electoral Commission in a difficult position in respect of the approval that it must secure in relation to anything that is issued, although campaigns obviously are—and should be—free to make their case.

[Ms Louise Bagshawe (Corby) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Does he agree that an ancillary danger of the amendment is endless delay? If one campaign raised objection after objection to wording, would that not muddy the waters and endanger the very date of the referendum?

[Mark Durkan]

Yes, that is precisely what could happen, and if the controversy and disagreement on the wording all tended to come from one side rather than the other, that could create an insinuation of bias on the part of the Electoral Commission’s conduct and intent as well.

I give hon. Members a warning. Perhaps this is not a warning, but bad advice; or rather, perhaps it will turn out to be advice that I am ill-advisedly giving to some Members who would campaign against AV. The experience in some of the referendums in the south is that no campaigns have basically adopted campaigns of misinformation. They have created a lot of confusion and controversy around relatively straightforward issues, and then resorted to the tactic of campaigning on the slogan “If you don’t know, vote no”.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mark Durkan]

No, because I shall sit down soon and the hon. Gentleman can make his own contribution then.

We have already seen an attempt to create confusion, with some of the obfuscation and the diversionary amendments from hon. Members previously. I am particularly worried that amendment 247 could be a recipe for serious mischief and utter grief as far as the conduct of the referendum is concerned. I wait to hear what more the Government will say about their amendment 264, which seems relatively straightforward. However, if the choice is between the two non-Government amendments in the group, I would prefer amendment 136, although I have my reservations.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

If we have a body such as the Electoral Commission which needs to be impartial, it is most important that we should not charge it with deeds that put it in a position where others may think that it is not being impartial. I therefore hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the points made from the Opposition Front Bench and to those made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin), because there is a danger here.

The process may start with the best of intentions. The Electoral Commission might feel that its draftsmen and women are sufficiently capable of setting out, in short and clear prose, exactly how the two different systems operate. However, it is easy to tiptoe from straightforward explanations of complex systems to value judgments. As we have already heard from my hon. Friend in speaking to his amendment, the language describing the two systems is already charged with prejudice and opinion. Calling the current system “first past the post” may make it attractive to those who like horse racing, but it may also make it anathema to those who do not, because it perhaps invites a comparison with the grand national, about which people have passionate views, both for and against.

“First past the post” is not a particularly elegant way of describing a system in which the person who gets the most votes wins, which is probably how I would describe the current system. People can win an election by having more votes than any other candidate in that election. That is a relatively simple approach, but it is not contained in the name of the system. I find the alternative vote much more difficult to describe. As colleagues will know, I am probably not a great fan of it. It is inherently complicated, because of the reallocation of votes and the fact that people who vote for losing candidates effectively vote twice, while people who vote for winning candidates vote only once. Again, however, that takes us into opinion. I am setting out my opinion, but how does one describe the system in language that does not in some way prejudice that description or imply that the extra choice for some electors is a good thing, and that people should therefore warm towards it?

It will be very difficult for the Electoral Commission to come up with language describing both systems that is thought to be fair, and this is particularly true for the alternative vote. There will be rows over the question, which will drag the Electoral Commission into the proper conduct of the election. That raises the danger of a well-intentioned body being dragged into a political argument that it should be well above, leading to the possibility of one or both sides in the referendum campaign feeling that they have not been fairly treated, because a word, a phrase, a sentence, a paragraph or even a whole document was in some way misleading, or was telling only half the story or using prejudicial language.

18:15

[Mr Jenkin]

Let me apprise my right hon. Friend of an example of just such a problem. I have seen the Electoral Commission asked whether it is true that a candidate has to get 50% of the vote to win under the alternative vote system. The Electoral Commission immediately replied that this was a subjective judgment and that it would not get dragged into the evaluation of the two systems, but how then could it describe the system? It is either correct that a candidate needs more than 50% of the votes to win or it is not, so what is the Electoral Commission going to say? Will it decline to inform the voters about the very nature of the system in order to avoid controversy? If so, it might as well not put out any information at all.

[Mr Redwood]

I agree, and the conclusion is just that: the Electoral Commission should not put out information because that might drag it into the debate. The whole purpose of testing a proposition in a referendum or testing candidates in an election is to allow a free exchange of ideas and views. The two campaigns will, of course, be heavily involved, but there will also be lots of other people, institutions, media representatives and newspapers claiming to be doing impartial analysis on the claims of the two sides. Some of them might even do something that gets close to being an impartial analysis of the claims of the two sides, but they will all discover, as we saw in the last general election, that having something that everybody regards as impartial is an impossibility.

The issue behind this debate may be for the political classes only. I do not think that it is the subject of much discussion in the pubs, clubs or schools of Wokingham, for example, but it is of passionate interest to the political classes. A large number of people now earn their living out of politics one way or another, and they will be watching every word and every sign, in every part of the referendum campaign, to see how it is going and whether it is fair.

I do not think that the Minister is about to give ground on the non-Government amendments in this group. I would therefore urge him to say to the Electoral Commission, ex cathedra, from his pulpit, “We love you dearly. We wish you to be impartial. Hesitate, hesitate and hesitate again before you start to make statements about this highly charged territory.” While there may be 40 million people out there who are not much moved by this subject, there are another 1 million or 2 million who are very moved by it—whose livelihoods depend on it or who are preoccupied by it—who will be watching every word. It will be extremely difficult to come up with that perfect, impartial prose that even describes the system, let alone avoids the obvious pitfall of wandering into opinion. There is nothing more annoying in the heat of an election campaign than for someone to claim impartiality, but then to say something critical of one’s own position, which is what happened in the last general election.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

I would like to bring to my right hon. Friend’s attention a particular difficulty in Wales that may be relevant. On the day that the referendum is taking place, a Welsh Assembly election is also taking place, the vote for which will use yet another system. I wonder whether he has a view on whether we are confusing people even further, and in particular the Electoral Commission, by suggesting that it needs to explain that the subject of the referendum is a different system from that being used when people cast their votes on the same day.

[Mr Redwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. A powerful point for the no case in the referendum—the case against a change in our electoral system—is just that: that so many electoral systems are already in use, particularly in Wales and Scotland, that it could become quite complicated for people trying to remember which system they are voting under. If people are voting under a system other than the current, general system for the national election, they may wish to vote more tactically. One feature of AV is that a natural Liberal Democrat voter who wanted to make their party greener might think it a good idea to vote Green for their first preference and to give the Liberal Democrats only their second preference. That would be a perfectly rational strategy for that voter to make their party greener, but they would need to know that they were voting under that system to make doing so sensible.

However, I have wandered a little from my main point, which is that in order to preserve that impartiality, it is better to say nothing. The whole point of an election is to tease out the issues, so that electors can make their own decisions. In the last general election, the different parties made claims, and we then had to watch or listen to the BBC come out with so-called experts who said that they could find the truth, either by saying that it was between the two parties, or by concluding that neither party was telling the truth and then coming up with the BBC truth. This is a free society, and that was probably quite helpful in the election—if that is what turned the BBC on and what it wanted to pay people good salaries to do—but I do not think that many voters think, “Ah! At last I’ve got the impartial truth! The BBC correspondent has told me that Labour weren’t right on this issue and that the Tories weren’t right on that issue, so I now know the truth.” I think that the elector goes off and forms their own judgment.

[George Eustice]

I want to pick up on the point about impartiality. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to guarantee the impartiality of the Electoral Commission and the information it puts out is to ensure that it has the agreement of both campaigns, which would prevent it from straying into this area? It was said earlier that the no campaign in a previous referendum was putting out misinformation, but in this referendum the NO2AV campaign has called for the Electoral Commission to issue an explanatory booklet because we want that information out there. Does my right hon. Friend understand that that information will be stronger if it is agreed by both campaigns?

[Mr Redwood]

I am grateful for that intervention, from which I learned that the no campaign would like one of these booklets. However, I rather prefer the lock on the door that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is proposing, as I remain to be persuaded that such a booklet can be phrased in a way that everybody would find fair. The fairest thing to do is to put this lock on the door; then we will know that we have had a fair referendum because everybody will have consented to it.

If the Minister will accept amendment 247, that will be wonderful and my hon. Friends will rest content. If, as I suspect, he will not, will he at least say that he will warn the Electoral Commission not to try to write a definitive document, as it would just be torn to pieces?

[Mr Harper]

There are three amendments in the group, which seek to clarify the role of the Electoral Commission in providing information about the voting systems on which the public will be asked to vote. I ask hon. Members to support Government amendment 264, which clarifies the Electoral Commission’s role, making it clear that it can make appropriate information available in line with its stated intention to provide strictly factual or neutral information to voters on how the different systems work in practice.

Hon. Members will know that when the Electoral Commission was doing its research on the question, which we debated last week, one important conclusion highlighted the limited knowledge of voters about different voting systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) raised the same point in his remarks. The report acknowledged that the referendum campaigns and media coverage will increase public understanding. The current public awareness role of the Electoral Commission, seen in paragraph 7 of schedule 1, is to provide information about the mechanics of the referendum—how it takes place and how to vote in it. My hon. Friend had a bit of fun with the language earlier, but I am sure we can agree that what is important is the practicalities rather than whether to vote yes or no. We are not going to table an amendment to mandate the answer, I am afraid to say. The Government are, of course, neutral on the result.

The current paragraph 7 of schedule 1 does not necessarily envisage giving factual information about the two voting systems and it is unclear whether the general awareness role in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 really enabled what was intended, which was to allow the commission to publish information about a voting system that is the subject of a future referendum. We wanted to make the position clear—hence Government amendment 264, so that the Electoral Commission can indeed make that information available.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Does the provision in the Government amendment to

“take whatever steps they think appropriate to provide”

in respect of information and so forth include the sort of activity described by the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) as applying in the Irish Republic, including putting out rebuttals against claims made by different sides of the argument? If that were the case, we could certainly see the Electoral Commission being dragged into very dangerous political territory indeed.

[Mr Harper]

If the right hon. Gentleman would allow me to make further progress in my response to what I thought were the wise words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood), he would understand the terms of the advice that I would put to the Electoral Commission, which I suspect it would work out for itself, too. I suspect that it would not be tempted down that path. If the right hon. Gentleman does not think that I have answered his question, he is welcome to intervene again.

Amendment 136, moved by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), deals with the Speaker’s Committee, but I am not at all convinced that that is the right body to be involved here. The Electoral Commission has already presented its plans for public awareness and costs to the Speaker’s Committee, supplying it with information, but given that the Speaker’s Committee is made up of politicians, I am not entirely certain that it is the most appropriate body. When it was said earlier that its views about this particular campaign were not clear, it reinforced the point that it might not be the right body to be involved. Given that two members of the Committee are Ministers, it is difficult to see whether they would be acting in their position as Ministers—the Deputy Prime Minister is an ex officio member, although the Government are neutral about the result of the referendum—or as protagonists. The two Ministers involved have their own views, so I fear that this might drag the Speaker’s Committee into the debate. Hon. Members have already warned of the dangers of bringing the Electoral Commission directly into the debate, so this provides an example of a similar danger.

[Mr Jenkin]

My hon. Friend is making a very strong argument for the Electoral Commission not to put out any information at all. If the Speaker’s Committee is fit to appoint the Electoral Commission, surely it is a fit body to hold it to account. Otherwise, to whom is the Electoral Commission accountable?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend waits until I have developed my remarks further, he might be a little happier.

If we are to allow the Electoral Commission to publish some information—I shall come on to the details later—we must allow it to be flexible, so putting in these extra hurdles is not sensible. The commission already produces lots of guidance—admittedly not perhaps in such charged circumstances—without any sort of approval, and it works fairly well.

Amendment 247 starts from the laudable assumption that we want to ensure that information provided to voters in the referendum—and most certainly if it is provided by the Electoral Commission—is neutral and fair. I fear, however, that it might have an unforeseen consequence by preventing the Electoral Commission from publishing information or giving the yes and no sides a veto in the 28 days before votes are cast. It might encourage the Electoral Commission to publish information earlier than that, which I do not think would be particularly helpful for voters—effectively stopping the publication of information during what voters would perceive as the campaign period. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) made a good point when he said that giving either player on the pitch an effective veto might be a recipe for grief and mischief.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex has anticipated my next argument and tried to clear it out of the way. When asked about the neutrality of the Electoral Commission last week, he said that he had “the highest respect” for Jenny Watson and that

“because of her previous position, she will want to be seen to be as impartial as possible”.—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 204.]

I think that is correct.

I strongly suspect that when the commission considers what factual information it is going to publish in practice, it will come to the same conclusion as the Government. Before Second Reading, the Government published a short factsheet, which we placed in the Library. It was on the first-past-the-post system—for want of a better description—and the alternative vote. Although the two Ministers involved have a difference of opinion on the outcome of the referendum, we were very clear that the Government document needed to be neutral. The amount of information that can be produced on the two voting systems—the current one and the proposed new system—without being drawn into their merits, is very limited. That is why we ended up producing a factual and neutral document, not a very comprehensive one, which we have placed in the Library. I suspect that the Electoral Commission will reach the same conclusion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham thus made a good point, and, as I say, I believe that the commission will reach the same conclusion.

That is not to say that there is no value in producing the information. Research done earlier into the question that should be asked revealed that a number of members of the public did not understand terms such as “House of Commons” and “Parliament”—even basic information like that. We might consider providing such information unnecessary, but it might be of great use to enable voters to make a decision. A great deal of information that is neutral and factual can help to get voters up to a level that we would take for granted, without trespassing on the merits of the arguments behind the two voting systems.

[Mr Jenkin]

Can we therefore put my hon. Friend’s neutrality to the test? Is it true that under the alternative vote system, no one can get elected without obtaining more than 50% of the votes?

[Mr Harper]

I will give a brief answer, as Mr Gale will tell me off if I stray too far from the amendments and we will debate this issue again when we get to clause 7. Someone can be elected. One has to have 50% of the votes remaining in the count at that stage. Under our system, which is optional preferential, voters do not have to express a preference. If a significant number do not express a preference for candidates, someone could get elected without having 50% of the votes cast in the first place, but they do have to have 50% of those remaining in the count. That is a very simple, straightforward, factual answer, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will probe me on it further when we debate clause 7 and the mechanics of the system that we plan to introduce.

18:30

Having had this debate, I urge hon. Members to support Government amendment 264 to enable the Electoral Commission to publish that factual information. Such information might not be on the merits of the system, but rather on educating voters about some of the common terms that would be used by the two sides. As I said, its research on the question, which I commend to Members, states that there are some basic concepts concerning Parliament and Members of the House with which some voters are unfamiliar. Some underpinning education would be very helpful, and would not in any way get the commission into a debate on the merits of the two systems. Actually, if the commission deals with that, the yes and no campaigns can deal with the merits of the two systems and their effects, and try to persuade the public to cast their vote for their side.

I urge hon. Members to support the Government amendment, the hon. Member for Rhondda to withdraw his amendment, and hon. Members who spoke to amendment 247 not to press it to a Division. On that last proposal, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, it does not seem sensible to give the players on the pitch a veto over when the referee can produce neutral information.

On the point made by the hon. Member for Foyle, given what I said on the difficulty of producing factual information without being drawn on the merits, I think it unlikely that the commission will get involved in rebutting information from particular campaigns. That would get it into exactly the problem that he highlighted, and it would be wary of doing so. I shall conclude my remarks there, hoping that the hon. Member for Rhondda withdraws his amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

This has been an interesting discussion. In a sense, at the back of this debate lies the fact that the vast majority of voters do not spend all their time worrying about voting systems. For that matter, they do not spend much of their time worrying about party politics or politics in any shape or form. In July, I knocked on a door to ask someone to vote Labour in an election. He said, “I am never, ever going to vote Labour again in my life because you just increased VAT.” When I said, “But we haven’t,” he replied, “You’re the Government aren’t you?” I said, “No, we’re not,” and he said, “Well, you were earlier this year.” I suppose that is a version of the argument that Conservatives and Liberal Democrats use all the time.

There is a serious point. Sometimes, when it comes to explaining voting systems, it is not so much that voters are not bright enough to understand, but simply that their eyes glaze over, because they think, “Why on earth are you bothering to talk to me about this?”—[Hon. Members: “Hear hear!”] Listen: I am one of those who wants to reform the system. As we lead up to the referendum, it will be difficult to provide the kind of information that most voters would admit they ought to have in their heads before they vote.

That could quite simply be because voters are not always interested, but the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) was absolutely right in saying that it is very difficult to arrive at a truly impartial presentation of the facts. From a theological point of view, that is true of nearly everything. We always underestimate how much our subjective opinions influence how we interpret and present the facts, and even what we choose to call a fact as opposed to something else. Certainly, that is true of the BBC. If the referendum were on the European Union or the Lisbon treaty, there would be even more excitement, and equal levels of misunderstanding and distrust of the system. The other aspect is that many voters simply do not believe anything that any politician says, so why on earth would they believe what is presented in the referendum?

There are specific matters on which there is enormous potential for quarrel in the material that the Electoral Commission will present. Let us say that the commission wanted to describe in its literature the advantages of a first-past-the-post system—the right hon. Member for Wokingham said that it could be presented as the person who gets the most votes wins. I would guess that every single one of those advantages would be disputed by someone on the other side of the argument. How on earth can the commission possibly arrive at a set of advantages or disadvantages of either system in the information? Similarly, some would argue that the alternative vote could lead to more hung Parliaments. That is highly contentious, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) would argue that that is a proven fact. I urge caution regarding the quantity of information that the commission will provide.

Interestingly enough—it may not be interesting to hon. Members, but it is to me—I had lunch today with some Chilean Senators and Members of Parliament who have accompanied President Pinera on his visit. They wanted to know exactly what alternative vote system was being proposed. They are experienced politicians and have just changed their electoral system, so I thought that they would know what the alternative vote system was. In their heads, they were working on the assumption that there would be a second round of voting rather than an instant run-off, to use the phrase of the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex, because if nobody gets 50% in the first round of Chilean presidential elections, there is a second round.

Notwithstanding that, the Electoral Commission has made it clear that there is a need for information. Some of its findings from earlier this year are enlightening. Its report states:

“The vast majority had no knowledge of AV and did not know how to vote under the system or how candidates would win a seat…A few people who were more interested and engaged had found out about AV when they heard about the referendum. Some people, particularly in Scotland and Northern Ireland, said they ‘had heard of’ the system but did not know how it worked. They assumed it to be the same as the proportional representation systems used in elections there.”

Of course, that makes the point that it is difficult to use a phrase such as, “The system used in parliamentary elections now,” because the system for Scottish parliamentary elections is not the same. We cannot simply refer to “the present system” because the system is different in Wales. For that matter, some have referred to the system for electing the London Mayor, but that is different again, because voters have only a second preference vote rather than a fully alternative vote.

There is also a problem in relation to the presentation of materials. Notwithstanding the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), the weathered eye—or perhaps the battered eye—of politicians can sometimes be useful. We are used to decrying politicians and saying how terrible they are. Everybody wants there to be no more politicians ever again, but we do add value in some regards.

[Mr Harper]

Just in case the hon. Gentleman is unaware, four former politicians were appointed to the Electoral Commission on 1 October specifically to improve the commission’s understanding of the conduct of politics. They are very experienced figures and represent major and minor parties, and I would have thought them perfectly capable of steering the commission out of any choppy waters into which it were so minded to sail.

[Chris Bryant]

I am aware that those people were appointed because I was in the Chamber when the Whip with the billiard cue came in and announced it. However, they are not all elected. Some are experienced in running elections—certainly Lord Kennedy of Southwark is—and some have stood for office, but none the less, the weathered eye of a sitting, elected politician would be quite useful.

For instance, let us say that the commission decides to use Labour red for everything relating to a yes vote and Conservative blue for everything relating to a no vote. That would be problematic. A politician would spot it instantly, but many professionals who run elections would not, because they are attuned to different things. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle that there is a specific role for the Speaker’s Committee—I can see one member of that committee in the Chamber.

Perhaps the hon. Member for Corby (Ms Bagshawe) is used to editors editing her copy, or perhaps it goes straight through and clean into her books, but I do not think that members of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission will want to interfere unnecessarily. They might just bring another valuable perspective to any material that is produced. There is no reason why that should lead to interminable delay, and I think it would be good if members and ex officio members of the committee were to bring their experience to deliberations.

The Minister pointed out that two committee members are also members of the Government, and he is right: there is the Minister for Housing and Local Government who is a Conservative, and there is the Deputy Prime Minister who, at least for the moment, is a Liberal Democrat. Of course, in their personal capacities the two of them will reach different conclusions coming from different sides of the argument, but in their ministerial capacities, they will agree on neutrality. Therefore, in making his observation the Minister adds to my argument, rather than takes away from it.

Finally, I have a bone to pick with the right hon. Member for Wokingham. He referred to the Minister speaking from his ex cathedra pulpit, and I just point out that one is either speaking ex cathedra or from a pulpit. The cathedra is the throne on which the bishop or Pope sits; it is certainly not a pulpit.

I will press my amendment to a Division, although I very much hope that the Minister will agree to it, notwithstanding his earlier complaints.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby.

18:41

Division 78

Ayes: 233

---

Labour: 222
Democratic Unionist Party: 7
Conservative: 2
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 328

---

Conservative: 269
Liberal Democrat: 50
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Plaid Cymru: 1
Alliance: 1

Amendments made: 264, page 17, line 5, at end insert—

‘( ) The Electoral Commission may take whatever steps they think appropriate to provide, for persons entitled to vote in the referendum, information about each of the two voting systems referred to in the referendum question.’.

Amendment 265, page 20, line 38, at beginning insert ‘Subject to sub-paragraphs (1B) and (2),’.

Amendment 266, page 20, line 47, at end insert—

‘(1A) Sub-paragraph (1B) applies to a service rendered by—

(a) the counting officer for a voting area in England, Wales or Scotland, or

(b) a Regional Counting Officer,

which in the opinion of the Electoral Commission was inadequately performed.

(1B) In respect of a service to which this sub-paragraph applies, the officer is entitled under sub-paragraph (1) to no more than the amount (which may be nil) that seems reasonable in all the circumstances—

(a) to the Commission, or

(b) on a taxation under paragraph 19, to the county court or Auditor.’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2

Entitlement to vote in the referendum

[Mr Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 59, page 2, line 9, after ‘constituency’, insert

‘with the exception of citizens of Commonwealth countries or, subject to sub-paragraph (c) below, of the Republic of Ireland.’.

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 332, page 2, line 19, at end insert ‘, and

(c) the person who, on that date, are aged 16 0r 17 and would, but for their age, be eligible for registration as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.’.

Amendment 60, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘; and

(c) citizens of the Republic of Ireland who are ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland and who have chosen Irish citizenship under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.’.

Amendment 61, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘; and

(d) British citizens living outside the United Kingdom and not currently entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.

(1A) The Minister shall, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, by Order provide for a system of prior registration of those entitled to vote in the referendum under subsection (1)(d) above, and for mechanisms by which their votes can be cast.’.

Amendment 156, page 2, line 19, at end insert ‘; and

(c) British subjects of Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies who have individually expressed a wish to participate in United Kingdom Parliamentary elections.’.

Amendment 157, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘(1A) The Minister must, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, by Order made by statutory instrument provide for a system of prior registration of those entitled to vote in the referendum under subsection (1)(d) above, and for mechanisms by which their votes can be cast.’.

Clause 2 stand part.

[Mr Brady]

It is a pleasure to rise to speak briefly to amendments 59, 60 and 61, which stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. We frequently make the mistake in this House of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure, but that is an even greater danger when we are engaged in legislation that can change the whole constitution of our country and that is what these amendments seek to address. I fear that in the Bill as it stands, we risk putting the cart before the horse, and I want to reorder those in the appropriate way.

In a nutshell, the import of my amendments would be that, first, only British citizens should be able to vote in the referendum and, secondly, that British citizens should be able to vote wherever they may be in the world. That would necessitate a number of changes, because my hon. Friend the Minister is proposing simply to take the franchise that we currently use for general elections and bolt it on to the referendum legislation.

19:00

We should also be asking whether we should revisit the whole basis of the franchise that we use in general elections, which is the result of layer upon layer of historical accident. There has never been any real thought or logic applied to it; it is simply a gradual accretion of different rules that affect the franchise. This is of vital importance when it comes to general elections. There are now tens of thousands of non-British citizens who are able to vote in general elections in this country by virtue of being citizens of Commonwealth countries or the Irish Republic. In some individual cities and towns, the electoral roll contain tens of thousands such people, and the total across the whole country must amount to several hundred thousand. That is certainly sufficient to swing the outcome of a general election and, without doubt, to do the same in a referendum that is likely to have a very low turnout, owing to the small part of the public who are engaged with the issue and likely to participate when we vote on it next year. The outcome of that referendum could be determined by people who are not citizens of the United Kingdom.

I know that the Conservative party is sympathetic to the point raised in my amendment 61, and I hope the coalition Government will be as well. While we allow a number of people who are not British citizens to participate in elections in this country, we also prohibit a large number of expatriate British citizens from participating in our democracy because they have been living overseas for more than 15 years. I hope that the Government will in due course address this question in relation to general elections, but the issue is all the more important when we are discussing a referendum that will change the very constitution of our country. One could argue that people who choose to live outside the United Kingdom have less interest in, and a less direct concern with, what we might loosely describe as the management of the government of the country for the immediate future, but many of those expatriate citizens intend to return to the United Kingdom when their work commitments come to an end. They intend to return to their country of origin, the country that they continue to regard as their home. They still want to participate fully as citizens of this country. To change the rules on which our democracy is based without consulting them about their own country and democracy would be wrong.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend explain what rules would apply to a British citizen—a British subject, indeed—in, say, Gibraltar or the Falklands?

[Mr Brady]

Perhaps my hon. Friend can enlighten me on that. My assumption is that it is possible for such people to vote, albeit with some difficulty, as long as they have not been out of the country for the period of years that would lead to a prohibition.

The mishmash of rules relating to the franchise deserves a moment’s attention. Before we address the question of how we vote, it would surely make sense to look at the related issue of who should vote in this country. Broadly speaking, there are three categories of participant in British elections other than that of a full British citizen resident in the United Kingdom. First, there are Irish citizens, who have the same rights to vote here as British citizens, except that those who are living overseas may not vote even if they are on the electoral register here. Also, in contrast to Commonwealth citizens, Irish citizens are not subject to a qualifying period before they can be included on the electoral roll here. Secondly, Commonwealth citizens have a right to vote in Westminster, European, local and devolved elections when they qualify to do so. For this purpose, they qualify if they do not require leave to enter or remain in the country, or if they have been granted such leave. This right extends to Gibraltar on the same basis. Thirdly, the citizens of European Union member states who are resident here through having exercised their right of freedom of movement around the EU have the right to vote in European, local and devolved elections, although not in general elections. There is therefore a rather complex combination of different participants, and of levels of participation, in the franchise.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Is it not remarkable that this country is almost unique in the world in allowing such a large number of citizens of other countries to vote? For example, in the United States, only US citizens are allowed to take part in elections, and that applies to all elections, as well as referendums.

[Mr Brady]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I am not mistaken, his wife is American. In the United States, it is a given that citizenship and the right to vote go together. At the very least, we should expect that when we choose to extend the right to vote to non-British citizens—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Brady]

I would not want to keep the Opposition spokesman waiting, as he appears to be pregnant with a very important point.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman has started a theme running in my mind now. Please will he tell off the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith)? It is impossible to be “almost unique”. It is a bit like pregnancy; something either is or is not unique. In regard to one of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), the truth is that we have reciprocal arrangements with the Republic of Ireland.

[Mr Brady]

Yes, we have reciprocal arrangements, although they are often not entirely symmetrical. For example, I believe that there is a qualifying period of residence for a British citizen in the Republic of Ireland before the reciprocal arrangement comes into effect. As a Brady, I hold no malice whatever towards those of Irish extraction, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, we allow an entirely different situation to exist in relation to citizens of Commonwealth countries. We have reciprocal arrangements with some of the smaller countries—typically the Caribbean countries, some of which have provided a significant number of residents in this country. However, the bigger Commonwealth countries such as India, Pakistan, Australia, Canada and New Zealand offer no reciprocal rights to British citizens living in those countries, even though we allow their citizens to vote when they are here.

[Mr Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend accept that there is also a distinction to be drawn between voting in general elections, where the rights of residents are important, and voting in a referendum involving constitutional issues that relate less to a right of residence and more to the issues that will affect our children and grandchildren and future generations? In such cases, the country of which a person is a citizen is of more central importance than where they happen to live.

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has made the point brilliantly. The requirement that one should be a member of this country—that we should extend voting rights only to those who are fully part of our country—would surely seem entirely normal and entirely rational in almost any country of the world. However, as my hon. Friend says, it seems even more so when we are considering the nature of our democracy and the rules on which we base our constitution for the future.

As I make these brief remarks, I stand here in a spirit of enormous optimism—which is my usual state—because I happen to know that the Opposition support my position. At the very least, they supported the position that my amendments encapsulate as recently as 2008, when, in the document “Citizenship: Our Common Bond”, Lord Goldsmith said:

“Voting in all elections, along with holding a passport, is the ultimate badge of citizenship.”

He went on to say that

“I do propose that government gives consideration to making a clear connection between citizenship and the right to vote by limiting in principle the right to vote in Westminster elections to UK citizens. This would recognise that the right to vote is one of the hallmarks of the political status of citizens: it is not a means of expressing closeness between countries.”

That deals with the concerns that many of us might feel. We have a real strength of affection and affinity for the Commonwealth and we would not wish by any means to offend Commonwealth partners or their citizens. Citizenship carries some rights, but they are entirely different from those that come from that closeness, friendship and relationship between countries, just as Lord Goldsmith said.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Mr Brady]

I hope that the shadow Minister will now endorse the views of his predecessor in the previous Labour Government’s views on this subject.

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, I am pregnant again with this issue. The hon. Gentleman should not confuse the views of a former Minister with the views of the Labour party. It sometimes seems that former Ministers hold all sorts of fascinating views that they did not hold when they were in office—[Interruption.] I include myself in this. One day the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), will be a former Minister and he might then have some views. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) should not confuse the views—that was not the Labour party’s view at all.

[Mr Brady]

I have always found the hon. Gentleman to be commendably consistent. I hoped that that would be evidenced this evening, should he be called upon to enter the Division Lobby on these matters. My optimism is not bounded even by the shadow Minister’s words of caution, because my hon. Friend the Minister also appears to endorse the sentiments that I have expressed.

[Mr Charles Walker (Broxbourne) (Con)]

He is a good man, although he is a bit wayward on occasions.

[Mr Brady]

As my hon. Friend says, the Minister is a good man. He said as recently as 6 September, in the winding-up speeches on Second Reading:

“It is perfectly normal in most countries that in order for someone to be able to vote for the national Parliament they have to be a citizen of the country concerned. That is a perfectly normal process and we are not changing it in this Bill. It is the existing system and I feel sure that Mrs Clegg will cope with it perfectly well.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 128.]

I am sure that Mrs Clegg will cope with it perfectly well, whatever we do this evening. However, crucially, although my hon. Friend the Minister appears to share my view that it should be perfectly normal for the right to vote in general elections to be reserved for citizens, as it is in most countries around the world—in almost every country around the world—it is not yet perfectly normal in this country. The purpose of these amendments is to begin to lay the ground for that important change in the franchise.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am reading the hon. Gentleman’s amendments with interest. I note that Republic of Ireland citizens would, as I understand it, lose the right to vote in the referendum if his amendments were to go through. However, those who live in Northern Ireland but have Republic of Ireland citizenship, so long as they were ordinarily resident in Northern Ireland, would be allowed to vote. My question is about those from Northern Ireland who might have Republic of Ireland citizenship—not UK subjects—but who subsequently move to Scotland. Would they vote or would they not, and how would we enable that to happen or not to happen?

19:15

[Mr Brady]

I think I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think that for the purposes of this Bill it would be perfectly simple. We are talking about a referendum vote that will take place on a single occasion, so any change we make in the franchise for the referendum would clearly depend on their status at that time.

[Mr MacNeil]

A particular instance might be the case of an individual who has never lived in the Irish Republic but who has chosen Irish citizenship and has then moved to Scotland.

[Mr Brady]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that I tabled amendment 60 in a spirit of compromise with the intention of avoiding re-opening difficult debates that had taken place at the time of the Good Friday agreement. It is of course an inconsistency set against amendment 59, but that is its sole purpose.

[Chris Bryant]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous, for giving way. May I clarify something? I realise that the amendments relate only to the referendum, but does he think that the perfect normality to which he has referred should apply to general elections? In other words, does he think that Commonwealth citizens should no longer be allowed to vote in British general elections, too?

[Mr Brady]

Absolutely. Like Lord Goldsmith in the document that I have quoted, I think we should move towards a position in which we treat the right to vote in a general election in this country as one of the rights and privileges that go hand in hand with full citizenship. I would like to see that happen. Clearly, it goes beyond the scope of this Bill—it is a debate that is yet to happen—but I hope it is a debate that we will have, because I think that most people in this country would be quite surprised even to hear what the franchise is for a general election. I certainly think that the hon. Gentleman and most other Members of this House would be hard pressed to advance a compelling case for the strange mishmash of franchise that I have set out this evening. We should simplify it and we should set out that important principle. I hope that the Opposition will continue with the rational position that was adopted on this subject in the previous Parliament.

[Mr Dodds]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Brady]

I think I should give way to Northern Ireland.

[Mr Dodds]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to Northern Ireland, but I do not claim entirely to represent Northern Ireland on this issue. I want to clarify the intention and consequences of amendment 60, if it were passed. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and where he is going with this, both as regards the referendum and elections in general. However, would the effect of amendment 60 be to include people who have chosen Irish citizenship in Northern Ireland post-1998 and exclude people who became Irish citizens before the Belfast agreement in 1998?

[Mr Brady]

I think the amendment as it stands would do that. I am entirely open to the right hon. Gentleman’s point and I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, in working hard to accommodate these reasonable concerns, could take steps to deal with that point, too, if he wanted to at a later stage of the Bill. The crucial point—the point of principle—is that it is even more important in a referendum on our constitution than in the franchise for a general election that we should have a rational franchise that we can all defend and explain to citizens of this country and that we should celebrate the importance of the right to vote. We should understand that the right to vote in a British election is a privilege that has been hard fought for over generations and that is fundamental to what it is to be a British citizen. It is time that we limited that right to those who are British citizens.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendment 332, which is in my name. The amendment would have the effect of lowering the voting age for the referendum to make sure that all people who are aged 16 on the day of the referendum can have their say on something that will affect them when they are 18 and eligible to vote in the general election. All those who are aged 16 on the day of the referendum, whenever it is, will be 18 or over by the time we get to the general election, if it is in May 2015, so the provisions will absolutely affect them.

I have a slight interest to declare. I speak as a former trustee of the UK Youth Parliament—

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

And as a former 16-year-old.

[Natascha Engel]

I was coming to that; that was my joke. [Interruption.] All right, I will say it again in a moment. I am a former trustee of the UK Youth Parliament, honorary president of the British Youth Council, a former chair of the all-party group on youth affairs and—are hon. Members ready?—I speak as a former 16-year-old. [Laughter.] I thank hon. Members for laughing at that. I could not vote when I was 16, and although it was almost 30 years ago I remember how deeply frustrating it was not to be able to take part in something as important as voting was to me then.

[Mr Mark Field]

Surely the logic of the hon. Lady’s position is to say that everyone who was born before 6 May 1997 should be entitled to vote in the referendum, if that is to be relevant on the day of the now-fixed election in May 2015. Why does she not have that date in mind? Is it the absurdity of people being entitled to vote in the referendum at age 14 years and eight months that dissuades her from going down that route?

[Natascha Engel]

I think that falls outside the scope of the amendment. It is important to establish that we are arguing that the voting age should not be raised. Referendums are very rare in this country and this referendum is specifically about voting reform and changing the system under which we vote in parliamentary elections, which are open to participation by anyone who is 18 or over on the day of the election in question. My argument is that we should not raise that voting age above the age of 18. Someone whose 18th birthday happens to fall a day after the election might be knocking on 23 before they get a vote, especially if we set in stone the five-year voting period. The almost unique opportunity presented by the referendum will affect people who will be 16 and over on the day of the referendum and it is very important for them to be able to participate in the referendum because it will affect the voting system in which they will be asked to vote on the day of the general election in 2015. We should therefore allow them to participate, as we have already told them that they will be allowed to participate in the election at the age of 18. This is an almost unique opportunity to lower the voting age to 16.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The Liberal Democrats share the hon. Lady’s passion for reducing the voting age, but does not her amendment risk looking dangerously isolated against the mission that she wants and we want: a much broader package of votes for everyone at 16? It looks very isolated and perhaps this is not the Bill in which to pursue this issue.

[Natascha Engel]

I would love the opportunity to table an amendment for, and to debate something much broader on, lowering the voting age to 16. This amendment gives us an opportunity to demonstrate that when 16-year-olds take part in an election, democracy does not crumble and the sky does not cave in; indeed, it might strengthen democracy. This is a good opportunity to demonstrate to the doubters that giving young people the vote at 16 is a good thing to do.

[Mr MacNeil]

Does the hon. Lady agree that if we can send 16-year-olds into our armed services and demand that they pay tax, they should be allowed to vote at 16? The Scottish National party and, I recall, the Liberal Democrats have been very strong advocates of having the franchise at 16; we are still of that mind and I hope that in the Lobby the Liberal Democrats will be, too. Is she optimistic about that?

[Natascha Engel]

I have it on good authority that I should be very pessimistic about the Liberal Democrats joining us in the Aye Lobby tonight, but they would be very welcome to do so.

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

I think that the hon. Lady was one of the sponsors of my Bill in the previous Parliament to reduce the voting age to 16, which was defeated by just eight votes. I suspect that there is now a majority in the House to achieve that historic change, but we cannot do that in this Bill. A much wider debate is needed to tease out all the issues. Does she agree that another private Member’s Bill is the way forward?

[Natascha Engel]

Oh no! I am a great fan of private Members’ Bills, and I do not want to do them down, but this Bill, rather than just a private Member’s Bill, is a really good opportunity to change the law.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is obvious that there is a certain degree of wriggling on the Liberal Democrat Benches as they try to find a reason not to support votes at 16 in this context, despite having been very strong advocates of it in another context. I urge my hon. Friend to push the amendment to a Division, because we have not had a vote on this matter since the new Parliament was convened and it is important to test the opinion of the House.

[Natascha Engel]

I shall indeed, and I thank my hon. Friend for urging me to push the amendment to a vote. I shall seek to catch your eye later, Mr Gale, to divide the Committee.

[Mr Charles Walker]

The hon. Lady will know that the Liberal Democrat Benches are full of independent-minded people and I am sure that some of them will demonstrate an independence of mind and support her in the Division Lobby.

[Natascha Engel]

I hope so too, and I hope to see the hon. Gentleman there as well. I would be delighted if as many people as possible joined us in the Aye Lobby—I am just getting used to being on the wrong side.

The United Nations convention on the rights of the child, to which the UK is a signatory, is very straightforward: it grants every child and young person the right to express their views “freely” and to have those views “given due weight” in “all matters affecting” them. That goes to the crux of the matter. Our 16-year-olds will be excluded by what we do here tonight unless the amendment is accepted. Their voices will not be given due weight regarding something that will fundamentally affect their democratic rights two years after the referendum. Anybody who is aged 16 on the day of the referendum will be 18 at the general election and eligible to vote. We need to be careful about contravening people’s human rights.

19:29

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) may have been taunting the Liberal Democrats to stick to their principles, but I am again stunned by their spinning, wriggling and movement. Is there anything left? No single transferable vote, no votes for 16-year-olds—what is left for the Lib Dems? May I offer them a cerebral argument? Sixteen-year-olds will be disproportionately affected by virtue of their age—

[The Temporary Chair (Mr Roger Gale)]

Order. I should like to curtail interventions to intervention length.

[Natascha Engel]

But they are so worth it!

[Mr Harper]

If the Government get their way, the referendum will take place on 5 May 2011, so based on the logic of her case surely the hon. Lady should be arguing that people who are 14 next year, who will be entitled to vote at the general election on 7 May 2015, should also be enfranchised. That is the logical conclusion of her argument, so why is that not the amendment she has tabled?

[Natascha Engel]

I tabled the amendment because the campaign to lower the voting age to 16 is well established. The argument we are making is that 16-year-olds are perfectly able to take responsibility and to have a well thought-out and well argued opinion. We need to focus on that. Personally, I would have no problem with allowing 14-year-olds to have a say, but that is not what we are arguing for today, although I know plenty of 14-year-olds who are very capable of making responsible decisions. The reason we have a limit at 16 is the same as the reason for having a limit at 18—it is arbitrary. I argue that we need to lower the age, because people can take responsibility. As has been said, 16-year-olds are allowed to go to war, and with the consent of their parents they are allowed to get married. They can do any number of things. Although the limit may be arbitrary, the campaign is well established and we need to draw the line somewhere. At present, it is being drawn at 18, but I would like it to be 16.

[Mark Durkan]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Currently, registration details are taken from people who are 16 and 17. They are not eligible to vote, but they are eligible to register, subject of course to having achieved that age. The registration details of many people aged 16 and 17 are already available.

[Natascha Engel]

That is absolutely spot-on. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Mr Harper]

I shall limit myself to this point, or we shall be in danger of not moving on, but I want to nail it because it is driving me round the bend. The hon. Lady correctly said that 16-year-olds could not join the armed forces without their parents’ permission, but she also knows that we do not deploy to conflict people aged under 18. If she makes such arguments, she should at least make sure that they are factually accurate.

[Natascha Engel]

I should have been more particular about that point, and I apologise. My argument was that 16-year-olds are allowed to do any number of things—

[Mr MacNeil]

Such as paying tax.

[Natascha Engel]

Indeed. At 16, people are allowed to do many things over which they have no say. The argument I am trying to make is that, as we are proposing a fundamental change in the voting system for a parliamentary election, at the referendum—and referendums are rare—that will happen only a few years before the general election at which we propose to change the voting system, it is only right that the people who will be affected by it should have a say in whether they want that system changed.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that as well as the principled reasons why the age for taxation and for voter registration is 16, there are also some practical reasons? Sixteen is not just an arbitrary number; it is quite sensible and there is a fundamental principle behind it.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady has been generous in giving way.

[Mark Durkan]

She will regret this.

[Sammy Wilson]

She probably will, because I am a bit confused about the argument for the amendment. It started off as an argument that, as people would be using the system to vote at the next election, they should have some say about it. As has been pointed out, that ought to mean reducing the age to 14, because 14-year-olds will be using the system. Then the argument changed and we heard that we had to choose an arbitrary age, and it was 16. What is the central point that the hon. Lady is making? Is it that people should have a say about the system that will be used when they first have a vote at a general election? If that is the case, why is the age not 14? Why not choose any number at all and put it in the amendment?

[Natascha Engel]

I shall stop taking interventions now.

The argument, which I shall now try to make without taking too many interventions, is that a limit at 18, 16, 14 or 12 is quite random. Individuals mature at different times—I shall not make personal assumptions—so when we draw the line under any voting age, there will be some people who are more mature and others who are less mature, but there are lots of reasons why 16, and not 18, is a good age at which to draw the line. Although I should love to see votes at 16 for every election—parliamentary, local government and referendums—the Bill offers us our only real opportunity to lower the voting age in a referendum, because referendums come up very rarely. The change could be quite easily made; as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has pointed out, 16-year-olds are already on the electoral register, so the process will not be difficult for local authorities. Sixteen is a good age at which to draw the line, because it has to be drawn somewhere. All those 16-year-olds will be 18 by the time of the general election, at which point the new voting system will be in place—or not. All I am arguing is that those people need to have a say.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the proposal offers a good way to test the water for 16-year-olds. If Members on the Government Benches are right and no 16-year-olds are interested and none of them takes part, we can learn from that, perhaps by engaging further with them. The proposal offers a good test-bed for us to engage with younger people, which everyone in the House supports.

[Natascha Engel]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. Since 2002, and the glorious days of the Labour Government, all secondary schools have given citizenship education. All young people who will be 16 by the time of the referendum will have had some citizenship education, and they will have some knowledge and understanding of participation in the voting process. We talk about engagement, but if we are really serious about engaging young people in democracy we need to allow them to participate.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

To expand on that point, a lot of young people’s first contact with politics on a serious level comes when they start their A-levels and do politics A-level. There is a huge amount of interest among the A-level politics groups in my constituency. When an election comes, and they are not allowed to vote, it does seem that we are excluding a group of people who have become engaged with the subject for the first time. For reasons that have been pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), the age of 16 is established as the point at which many of us move into adulthood in a whole raft of ways. A 16-year-old can get married, have sex legally, start paying tax and join the armed forces.

[Natascha Engel]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that intervention; he is absolutely right. By a happy coincidence of timing, on Friday week—on 29 October—the UK Youth Parliament will, for the second time, have its annual sitting on these Benches. Last year, when the UK Youth Parliament so controversially sat on these Benches, it debated four subjects and had a vote at the end to decide which subject was the most important to it. The subject that came out on top by a long way was lowering the voting age to 16. Those are 11 to 18-year-olds who are democratically elected through their youth services, and who have a lot to say on the issue. A lot of us who were here and who heard them speak were very impressed, but the issue has not gone anywhere.

The Youth Parliament is about to return, and it would speak volumes if we said to them, “We heard what you said last time round. We know that this matters to you, and we have today voted to ensure that 16-year-olds can take part in this unique referendum. We will give people the vote at 16, at least partially, on this one-off occasion.” The 16-year-olds can then demonstrate themselves that the move strengthens democracy, rather than undermines it.

To end on a positive note, I really hope that we all vote for the amendment, especially those parties which had votes at 16 written into their manifesto and campaigned on the issue at the general election. I hope that those people, at least, will find their way into the Aye Lobby. I hope that they understand how important the issue is to those who are 16 on the day of the referendum, and who really care about the issue and about having their voices heard on that day, so that when they take part in the general election at the age of 18, they will have voted for the system in which they are taking part.

Ms Primarolo, I hope that you understand how important the issue is. We are in a new Parliament, and we have lots of Members who are much closer to the age of 16 than Members were in the previous Parliament. It would be great to test the mood of the Committee, just to see where people stand on the issue, because it really matters. This is the last act of discrimination that we really need to get rid of. We need to widen the franchise, and this is a fantastic opportunity to do so.

[Mr Shepherd]

This is an important group of amendments, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) and those who signed up to them. It seems extraordinary to most people when one says, “But you don’t have to be a British citizen to vote in a national election in Britain.” It is, by and large, a remarkable thing. It may be a post-imperial legacy, or there may be other reasons, but that is what this issue is about.

We are holding this debate on the Floor of the House of Commons because it is a constitutional debate, and it therefore affects our rules and our sense of self-governance. I am particularly grateful for the amendments because in his remarks my hon. Friend mentioned the various criteria that enable people to vote in very important elections in this country.

19:45

The status of Commonwealth citizens is interesting. The Bill, as a package, brings together some important issues, among them the registration process to get on the electoral roll. I have had experience in my constituency of a family who were on the electoral roll—they were citizens of the Commonwealth—but who were not here lawfully. There is no duty imposed on a returning officer to ascertain whether those who fill in the form and submit it to the electoral officer are entitled to be on the register. In certain parts of the country, that can affect the outcome of elections, be they constituency or regional elections; it depends on the concentration of those who have got their names on the register in particular areas. That is the first point.

Through this loosely worded approach to a referendum constituency, if I can put it like that, we are giving a vote to people who have no natural association with this country other than through post-colonial arrangements. I do not think that that is appropriate, and most people, if they stood back and thought about it, would think it rather incredible that anyone who has got here unlawfully and has their name on the electoral register—although that is an offence—can vote. In fact, such people have voted, and may have affected the outcome of an election. The referendum is important, because it relates to a change to our constitution. Should that not be a matter for British subjects or citizens? I think that the right answer is yes.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am listening with interest to the hon. Gentleman. I have already given an example to which there has not yet been an answer—of the Irish citizen from Northern Ireland living in Scotland. What about the children of those who have left the islands of Scotland and gone off to Australia or New Zealand? I know some people who have done so. Those children are the children of UK subjects and have the title of British citizen. Are they entitled to vote, although they have never lived in the UK, when those who have come here and are materially affected by what is happening would not be allowed to vote?

[Mr Shepherd]

As for those who have emigrated, and possibly even taken up Australian citizenship, I would say no. Why should they? They have made a declaration.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Shepherd]

I do not want to engage in an exchange across the Chamber of the kind that we have just had. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s opinions, but it seems that we are talking about a central, small part of an issue: what constitutes British citizenship? It is not as defined in 1947 any more, and there has been a whole series of extensions to that definition. Now, European—not British—citizens can determine how local taxes are arranged in the borough or elsewhere.

This is a question that would, frankly, have been startling to many people, certainly when I first came to the House. The numbers are huge: 3 million new British citizens have been created since 1997, and I do not see them returned on the electoral register. It has not leapt by that number. I want to assert the essential concepts of citizenship, because the Bill is, in the end, about our citizenship; it is about voting processes and how we elect a Government, and it explores the idea of a five-year mandatory Parliament. However, the essential issue here is who should vote. That is all it is about.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that somebody who holds British citizenship because of their UK-subject parents—I know that these are funny terms that are kind of inconsistent—and who has never lived in the UK should be able to vote in the referendum and that those who live here should not?

[Mr Shepherd]

I am using common terms, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for that. I understand British citizenship as a link by birth to a country. I also see it as the sentiment of the individual. As I said, there have been 3 million new British citizens in 13 years, and it is not impossible for them to express that sentiment and qualify for citizenship. I did not want to be distracted down the routes along which the hon. Gentleman was trying to lead me. I feel that we have started on a question and answer session, and that was not my intention.

[Sammy Wilson]

I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I totally agree with him. One of the prices for taking part in elections in the United Kingdom ought to be that someone is a citizen of the United Kingdom. Given that principle, with which I agree, does he consider that amendment 60 sits uneasily with it, in so far as we are making exceptions for people who opt for Irish citizenship and yet would be entitled to take part in the referendum to decide on the kind of voting system that there should be for British elections?

[Mr Shepherd]

In a sense, there are two parts to that. One is sentiment. Let me illustrate that the other way round. I take the Crossland example. It is not a bad one, and concerns the American wife of a British politician. She lived here for many years, was married to a British citizen and wanted to vote in British general elections, her husband being a leading Labour politician. That was impossible for her under her citizenship of the United States. It was absolutist. The United States has given way on that and recognises that American citizens can retain their American citizenships while voting, in certain circumstances, in a British election. There is their concept of citizenship. Where is ours?

What is the basis of our great universal appeal? It is the formation of our own society and its integrity—the integrity of our view of the rule of law, the constitutional tradition, the way in which we change our laws, and so on, which are mostly unknown to those who come from foreign parts, who are here temporarily, but qualify under the terms of our existing arrangements.

The Government have opened up this great can of worms, in the sense that by putting the Bill on the Order Paper as a constitutional measure, they are inviting people who do not necessarily have any attachment to the concept of the United Kingdom or the integrity of its institutions to vote. Why? If we were to do a poll on this—my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles) seems to rely on the stars of polls—most people would be very confused by what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West said as he listed the various categories which, on the various sections, may vote for this, that and the other.

The amendment is important and I will most certainly vote for it. There should be a duty to ensure that everybody is validly on the electoral register. That is not funded properly. Local authorities maintain that they cannot afford to do it. Mine are already allocating numbers, because they have a small grant, of those who should go out to get people to register. One can look at any electoral register—I see it in my own constituency—and two missing residents jumps to eight, which jumps to 10 or perhaps 14. There are all those missing residents, and not just residents, but citizens.

When constructing the boundaries that will come from the Bill, we do not know what that will mean in terms of equality of boroughs. Some 95% of immigration into the United Kingdom is into England. It is concentrated in cities and in certain areas. Illegal immigration, as we know, is very high. Statistics are adduced for that. Immigrants who come from a Commonwealth country and speak English often apply to go on to an electoral register. They need it for other reasons, to show that they are householders and so on. Under the terms of the Bill, they will vote. It may not be lawful that they should vote, but there is no mechanism by which we can identify whether they are entitled to vote. I shall support the amendment.

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I shall contribute briefly in support of amendment 332 proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). Like her, I speak as a former 16-year-old, and also as a former chair of the all-party group on youth affairs. It is important that in this debate, hon. Members in all parts of the House are listening to the organisations representing young people who, as she said so eloquently, have been campaigning for many years for the principle of votes at 16.

I was 16 in 1983, and there was a general election that year which some of us remember only too well. I stood in a mock general election in my school and I came fourth as the Labour party candidate, although 14 years later perhaps made up for it by winning in that same constituency in 1997. I cite that because in my experience 15, 16 and 17-year-olds are often extremely interested in politics. The case that has been made for votes at 16 is about recognising the rights of citizenship that include the right to vote in elections.

The referendum gives us a first opportunity to try out the notion of giving votes to 16 and 17-year-olds. As a supporter of that, I am confident that it will work and that many 16 and 17-year-olds will choose to participate, for the reasons that my hon. Friend gave. Those who are more sceptical will have the opportunity to see whether it might not be quite so successful in practice.

My hon. Friend, who was subject to many questions and interventions, made the case clearly as to why it makes sense for 16 to be the age at which the limit is set. Of course, as she said, it is to some extent an arbitrary age, as is any age. An age lower than 16 would be problematic and would raise practical issues about the registration process, as hon. Members have said, whereas we already ask 16 and 17-year-olds to put their names down when placing people on the electoral register each year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, it is a straightforward proposition to suggest that 16 and 17-year-olds should be entitled to vote in the referendum.

[Mark Durkan]

A further consideration, certainly in the context of registration in Northern Ireland, is that anyone registering must give their national insurance number. Obviously, that would be available only from the age of 16.

[Stephen Twigg]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important additional point in support of the proposal.

I encourage hon. Members in all parts of the House to be brave and to support the excellent case that has been made this evening by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire. I respect the fact that there are some in the House who, in principle, are opposed to any lowering of the voting age from 18. If Members feel that strongly, the onus is on those of us who support a reduction to 16 to persuade them. I am more sceptical of those who fought an election on a manifesto to reduce the age to 16 yet are telling us today that although they support the reduction in principle, this is not the opportunity for us to do that.

[Mark Tami]

Name them!

[Stephen Twigg]

We have not had the vote yet. How can I name our Liberal Democrat friends when we have not yet had the vote? I encourage Liberal Democrat Members to consider this. The case has been made, including by the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) over a number of years, in favour of making the change, on the basis of equality and of democratic reform. I am a strong supporter of the referendum. It is an important opportunity for us to debate how the House is elected, and I would very much like us to give 16 and 17-year-olds the opportunity to be part of that decision when it is made next May.

19:59

[Chris Bryant]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) on providing us with the amendment to debate this evening, and on the manner in which she presented her case. It showed that one can make a forceful case with a considerable degree of humour, and I think that we all enjoyed it. Indeed, it was one of the most enjoyable speeches that I have heard in the House for many a long year.

I was going to say that I was once a 16-year-old, but I am not entirely convinced that I ever really was; I think that I am going back to my childhood now. Several hon. Members referred to the issue of 16 and 17-year-olds, and I know that hon. Members in the Liberal Democrat party are trying to find reasons why they do not have to vote against the Whip this evening, but I honestly say to them, “You’re either in favour of votes at 16 and 17 or you’re not, and if you are you should be voting in favour of votes at 16 and 17 in the next election, which may be held next May.”

Otherwise, it seems to me that the Liberal Democrats really are taking to heart the words of Homer Simpson, when he said:

“Weaselling out of things is important to learn. It’s what separates us from the animals—except the weasels.”

I know that the hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) is not a weasel, and I know that none of the honourable people currently sitting on the Liberal Democrat Benches is either, so I hope that they will stick with their manifesto commitment, which was to vote in favour of votes at 16 and 17. The most recent vote on the matter, held before the general election, was a free vote for Labour Members, and the Labour party will have a free vote again this evening.

I happen to support votes at 16 and 17, simply because we ask young people to do many things in modern society, and they are aged in many ways. We now expect them to take on significant levels of debt, and to consider doing so before they go to university, and I honestly believe that if they can make decisions about whether they can parent, about whether they have children, I think that they should also be able to decide who governs the country. That is not the precise proposal in the amendment before us, because it relates merely to the referendum, but I think that general election votes should also apply to that age group.

I am afraid that I find the amendment that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) tabled quite disturbing and unpleasant.

[Mr Charles Walker]

You’re over-egging it.

[Chris Bryant]

I am not over-egging it. Remarkably few people have migrated to my constituency of the Rhondda over the past 80 years, except from Ireland and England, so this is not an issue about who is and is not able to vote in my constituency. However, I rather like the fact that some elements of our law on citizenship are slightly fudged. I like the fact that we still emphasise the bonds of the Commonwealth sufficiently to be able to say that if an Australian works in this country in a bar as part of their gap year, is resident here, pays their taxes and is working, by virtue of their citizenship of Australia they are allowed to vote.

Let us refer to the Republic of Cyprus. Many north London Conservative MPs would reckon that it was not without the Cypriot vote in the general election that they were elected. In addition, if we were to disfranchise the large number of Greek Cypriots in north London and, for that matter, south Wales, we would be saying to them, “Please don’t engage in the British political system,” and doing so at a time when their engagement with the British political system enables us to engage better with the problem in Cyprus, which is still a divided island, with a divided capital city and all the problems about which this Committee knows.

[Mr Brady]

The shadow Minister may be disturbed, and I apologise for that, but, first, those Commonwealth bonds should be reciprocal, and they are not in the instances that he has set out. Secondly, on the Cypriot community in this country, can the hon. Gentleman give us any reason why somebody who chooses to make their home here permanently and wishes to be a part of our political process should not seek British citizenship?

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I want to encourage people to take up British citizenship, but our legislation is shaped as it is because of Mrs Thatcher. She introduced the British Nationality Act 1981, followed by the Representation of the People Act 1983, which guarantees citizens of Commonwealth countries the right to vote in this country. I very rarely say so, but on that occasion Mrs Thatcher got it right. [Hon. Members: “Resign!”] I think I might have lost the Rhondda there. There are other occasions on which I do not agree with her very much.

Let us take another instance. Papua New Guinea was never a British colony. It was an Australian colony and, therefore, part of the Commonwealth, but I delight in the fact that, because the main sport in Papua New Guinea is rugby league, Papua New Guineans come to the UK. There are some significant and famous Papua New Guineans playing that sport in northern England, and I am delighted that while they are here, they want to take an active part in British politics and are able to vote.

For that matter, I am delighted that Fijians, in significant numbers, want to join the British armed forces. All hon. Members will want to pay tribute to the role that Fijians have played in Iraq, in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Fiji is no longer a Commonwealth country, because of the situation in Suva, the military regime there and the fact it does not seem to have in place a direct course back to democracy, so I ask the Minister, why have we not amended the list under schedule 3 to the 1981 Act? Does he feel it right to leave it precisely as it is?

I say to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West that the bond that I cite in relation to the Commonwealth also applies to Ireland. It is pretty difficult to unpick our entire historical relationship and the steady process towards peace on the island of Ireland, but through the hon. Gentleman’s amendment there would be a real danger of him doing so. I value our relationship with the Republic of Ireland. It is important that British people be able to continue to vote there, and others here.

[Mr Brady]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman may be about to raise the issue of whether the relationship should be directly comparable, and perhaps it should be, but my instinct would be to say that if one wants to move towards greater compatibility or to reciprocal arrangements between different countries, one should do so through a Representation of the People Act, not a referendum Act.

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I was not going to make that point. I have said that I am an eternal optimist, and as one door closes another door opens, so, given the importance of the bond between people in different countries, which he believes gives rise to a right for them to vote in elections in this country, I assume that he is about to say that British expatriates, who may wish to return to this country in the fullness of time, have at least an equal bond, and that he will therefore endorse amendment 61 later this evening.

[Chris Bryant]

That is quite interesting, because rather bizarrely I spent a lot of the general election in Spain, trying to help British people get home during the ash cloud problem. Indeed, it was as difficult to get to Spain as it was to get back, so it was a slightly complex mission. I am conscious that about 1 million British people live in Spain, and that about 800,000 live in France, and many exercise a right to vote because they have a second home either in the UK, Spain or wherever. However, when they no longer participate in British society, it is difficult to see why, after 15 years, they should continue to have the right to vote as an overseas voter. In actual fact, the number who use their vote is infinitesimal. That is partly because of the difficulty of voting by post. I suppose that arrangements could be made for voting in embassies, consulates-general and so on around the country, but I am not sure that it is worth the effort. After 15 years, there is a good argument to say that if someone has no direct investment in the future of the United Kingdom, then it does not apply.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I am trying to follow the Minister’s argument. Is he saying that rugby league players from Papua New Guinea playing in the north of England should have a right to vote in a referendum on the future voting system in the United Kingdom?

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman is sitting next to the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West—a man who just described himself as an eternal optimist. They are both so optimistic that they are still referring to me as a Minister, which is a delight. Of course, the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) knows perfectly well that that is not the argument I am making; I know that because he did that little shrivel-up of his nose that he sometimes does when he is about to make a mischievous contribution in debate.

The basis of my argument is that the bonds of the Commonwealth are important, and I have given a couple of instances of that. We have significant numbers of people from these various communities in the UK. Many of them have been resident for some time, pay taxes and contribute to British political life, and I would like them to be able to remain in the same situation. The situation is not broken, and so, to use an old Conservative principle, I do not see the need to fix it. Particularly in relation to the Republic of Ireland, it would be a step completely in the wrong direction to try to unpick the relationship that we have managed to maintain over the past few years.

Another issue that has been touched on only slightly relates to the overseas territories. We should consider, not directly in relation to this referendum, but certainly in relation to the future, how overseas territories are represented in the context of the British Government. There is an degree to which we still decide matters for the overseas territories. For instance, in recent weeks the Government have decided to overturn the decision on borrowing in the Cayman Islands and allowed the Cayman Islands to remain as a tax haven. I believe that that is entirely a mistake, and that the finances of Cayman are unsustainable. It is therefore important that we find some means of ensuring that the overseas territories have some form of representation.

I want to ask the Minister a couple of other questions about why the Government have introduced the clause precisely as it is. I presume that we will not have a clause stand part debate, so I will mention these points now, if that is all right, Ms Primarolo. I do not understand why peers should be allowed to vote in a referendum on elections to the House of Commons. That seems slightly odd, because all the other provisions relate to those who are able to vote in elections to the House of Commons. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us. In particular—this may be down to my personal stupidity and inability to read legislation—[Interruption.] Undoubtedly it is, yes. I see that the hon. Member for Worthing West (Peter Bottomley) has swapped sides and decided to join the ranks of the Labour party: he is very welcome.

I asked the Minister about clause 2(2) earlier, so by now he might have had some inspiration from the officials. No, I see that he is not going to get any inspiration from them because they are all shaking their heads furiously. The clause makes provision for peers whose only right to vote will be by virtue of being able to do so through the City of London—for instance, as an alderman—and therefore not by virtue of their residence. Precisely how many people does he think that that catches?

Can the Minister tell us about the position of the bishops? As he will know, some bishops arrive in the House of Lords automatically and some arrive on a sort of episcopal escalator that takes them up there once they are among the longest-standing bishops of the Church of England, as long as they are diocesan, not suffragan or area bishops. What happens to bishops once they are no longer taking their ex officio seat? Will they be allowed to vote? What provisions does he think should be made for the future?

[Mr MacNeil]

How close does the hon. Gentleman think that this referendum might be?

[Chris Bryant]

I am hoping that it is some time distant yet. I hope that it will not be on 5 May, but so far we have not won any of those votes.

I hope that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West will press his amendment to a vote, and I look forward to pushing lots of leaflets through doors pointing out who he has decided to disfranchise. I hope that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire is carried. I look forward to putting lots of notes through doors in Liberal Democrat constituencies pointing out who they have chosen to disfranchise because they are not prepared to follow up what they truly believe.

20:15

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I should like to speak to amendment 332, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel). I am grateful to her for doing so, because this is about something that I passionately believe in. Like other Members, I too was 16 once, so I should like to join that club.

This is a unique and momentous moment, as it could open the door to votes for 16-year-olds in all elections. I would welcome that. We are in danger of marginalising young people, and we have to give considerable thought to which way we vote on this proposal, because we do not want to send out the wrong message to them. When I look around at young people, I see that they are growing up faster, certainly in my area. We have a more diverse economy and young people have different career prospects: they expect to change jobs several times, and they are more interested in the future than they ever have been. A more uncertain future gives them more interest in the changing job situation. In my constituency, 15, 16 and 17-year-olds want to be involved in that debate. We see it in the schools and colleges where all the young people are involved in debating—more so than I can ever remember in my lifetime, and perhaps before that on the basis of what I hear from other people.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I do not mean to disparage 16 and 17-year-olds, but most of them want to be on the Xbox, not putting the X in the box. Since the hon. Gentleman has been a Member of Parliament, how many 16 and 17-year-olds have written to him demanding the franchise at 16?

[Graham Jones]

That is a very cynical and jaundiced view to take towards 16 and 17-year-olds. The hon. Gentleman will not get many votes from 16 and 17-year-olds in his constituency, and he is probably in desperate need of some election training. However, I will leave that to his constituency: if he is going to lose it to 16 and 17-year-olds, I am quite happy about that.

Young people in general want to be involved in politics and take more interest in it. With issues such as climate change, politics has jumped a generational gap to 15, 16 and 17-year-olds, who are very interested in that because it is their planet that is being polluted. It is not just about climate change or jobs, but a series of issues that people of an increasingly young age seem to be gravitating towards. For example, there are big issues of teenage pregnancy. Decisions are being made about them in their formative adult years, and they want to be involved.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

I concur with my hon. Friend’s words on this. As a former trade union official, I know of many 16-year-old trade union representatives who represent workers of many different ages in an employment setting. They have much to contribute about employment law in their respective workplaces, and they should also be able to contribute in the wider political setting.

[Graham Jones]

I enjoyed that intervention. It is good to hear that young people are joining trade unions; Labour Members certainly welcome that. The TV debates encourage us to extend the franchise—I think that we all agree that young people in our constituencies were energised by them. The medium and the mode meant that young people could see politics in a different light, and there was an increase in interest and participation. I went around the polling stations in Hyndburn when I was elected, and many more young people were in the polling booths. I think that that contributed to the higher turnout at the election.

Let me extend the argument about extending the franchise, because I believe that it should apply to all elections. We have a by-election in Baxenden on 18 November, and our candidate, if I can plug him, David Hartley, was 18 only days before nomination. He cannot suddenly have become politically aware; he has built up to that. We should encourage young people into politics, and it is good that a young person has come forward. We must be clear that to be politically aware at 18 requires a build-up of knowledge, and 16 and 17-year-olds should participate.

Although the amendment is about the AV referendum, the principle is clearly broad. It is a watershed moment because if we give 16 and 17-year-olds the vote for the referendum, it opens up the argument for the future. Let us consider tuition fees, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) mentioned. That assists the argument for extending the franchise. Parliament is discussing the differential charging of students. We could go back to the old debate about taxation without representation, but if we intend to subject young people to differential charging based on background, not ability to pay, we should extend the franchise to them. Today could be the day we start extending it.

The major argument against extending the franchise is lack of knowledge and experience among young people, but that is ageist and not based on young people’s cognitive processes.

[Mr Charles Walker]

I know that the hon. Gentleman is making a heartfelt plea, and I quite like children—I have three of my own. Why cannot we leave them alone to let them get on with being children? They are not obsessed with getting the franchise. Sixteen and 17-year-olds want to chase girls, drink beer and have a good time. Let us stop accelerating the ageing process.

[Graham Jones]

Given that the hon. Gentleman is now encouraging his constituents aged 17 and under to vote against the Conservative party, I hope that he has more children.

It is claimed that young people do not have the experience and knowledge to vote. When my grandmother was 95, she had serious Alzheimer’s, yet she still held the right to vote. Nearly all young people are far more informed than my grandma was in her later years, but we never thought about taking the vote from her. Saying that young people are not experienced or knowledgeable enough is not a strong enough argument. It does not reflect real life or how people experience it. Indeed, I believe that 16 and 17-year-olds are often in a better position to make an informed judgment. There is no principled or consistent argument that justifies denying the vote to young people.

[Mr Harper]

Many issues have been raised and many amendments have been tabled. I shall try to deal with them briefly—

[Mr Brady]

At a canter.

[Mr Harper]

Indeed.

The amendments would amend clause 2, which sets out the franchise for voting in the referendum. It might be helpful to tell hon. Members who have tabled amendments that, with one exception about peers, which I shall outline, we have simply applied the franchise for Westminster elections in the Bill. We thought that that was appropriate. We have not used the one-off referendum as an opportunity for experimenting with the franchise.

Amendments 59 and 60 would prevent Commonwealth and Irish citizens from voting. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said that he was not only an enormous but an eternal optimist, I hope that he can hold that optimism in reserve for a future date, when we might revert to those matters.

To explain why we are here, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr Shepherd), who is no longer in his place, put his finger on it when he mentioned the history of our country and how citizenship came about in the first place. I do not often agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but he made a sensible point when he referred to our history. I also agreed with him when, in speaking about the Commonwealth, he drew attention to the fact that around 10% of our Army is made up of people who would not otherwise be eligible to vote in this country. They serve our country well, and several have been prepared to pay the ultimate price in that service. The point was sensible and well made.

We wanted to stick with the current franchise for the referendum. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West made a wider point, to which it is worth the Committee’s reverting. When the House has considered other Bills to reform the electoral arrangements, it has always taken the view that it wanted to stick with the existing position, enabling some qualifying Commonwealth and Irish citizens to vote. Of course, it is open to the House, if asked to consider the matter in future, to disagree and try to make a change. I will think some more about the matter, and consider whether it is appropriate for the Government to make such proposals in future. However, I ask my hon. Friend to stick with the existing, tested franchise for the referendum. Indeed, he said in his opening remarks that he did not want us to legislate in haste. All the proposals to fiddle with the franchise specifically for the referendum constitute legislating in haste. There are perfectly sensible arguments for doing as my hon. Friend suggests and for making other franchise changes, but I think that it is best to stick with what we use for our Westminster elections for the referendum.

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

Is not the point about the referendum that it will change the rules of the constitutional landscape for ever? Now is therefore the time to focus our attention on who should exercise the franchise on that critical question, which will affect how Members are elected to the House for the next 100 years or more. It is different from an ordinary election.

[Mr Harper]

Given our tradition of parliamentary sovereignty, my hon. Friend does not set out the position accurately. If we have a referendum next year, as I hope we do, and if the people of the country decide to change the electoral system, as I hope they do not, it is open to a future Parliament to hold another referendum. The referendum will not change the position for ever—nothing is for ever in a parliamentary democracy. I do not buy the argument that, just because we are having the referendum, we are required to change the franchise over and above the one that we use for parliamentary elections. Choosing the Government of the country is a significant matter. Indeed, many—perhaps more on the Government side of the Committee—would argue that Governments who are elected can make significant changes. Governments took us into the European Union and signed treaties that bind us unless we decide specifically to opt out of them. We might not have been entirely happy that Governments did that, but we did not challenge their right to do so. The Government’s position is that we have stuck with the franchise. However, I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West said, and this is an issue worth revisiting, but this Bill is not the right place to make the change.

[Mr Cox]

Is my hon. Friend seriously suggesting that if the country opts to change the voting system to the alternative vote—I do not think that it will and I fervently hope that it will not—a future Parliament could never turn the clock back and restore first past the post?

[Mr Harper]

Of course it could. If the voting system were changed, the public might reconsider and want to change, either back to the old system or to another one. That has been the experience of other countries that have reformed their electoral systems. It is perfectly sensible to say that that could happen, and my hon. Friend is not really setting out an argument for why we should change in this case.

[Mr Brady]

The Minister is trying to be helpful, and I get the clear message that there may be more legislation in the not too distant future, at which point this issue may be revisited. Can he help me a little further by saying whether the Government believe, as a matter of principle, that the franchise should be adjusted to have citizenship as its basis?

20:30

[Mr Harper]

I do not think that my hon. Friend would expect me to set out that position now. As I said, referring to what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, we have arrived at this position because of our history and traditions. Parliament can, in the future, consider the extent to which it wishes to recognise that history and those traditions—how we have got where we are and how this country was created—or whether it wishes to adopt a pure system such as those adopted by countries without that long history. The House can debate and decide that issue at a future date. The Government do not wish to make that change now, but I will listen to what my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West has said, and I will think on it some more.

[Mr Brady]

The only argument that my hon. Friend has advanced against changing the franchise for the referendum is that it would be legislating in haste and we should give the issue deeper consideration before taking that action. He has not actually argued against the point of principle, and I hope that he will express a view on whether the franchise in elections in this country should be predominantly a matter for citizens, as indeed on 16 September he agreed was perfectly normal and was the case almost everywhere else in the world.

[Mr Harper]

I did say that it was perfectly normal in other countries, but my hon. Friend knows that this country is special—[Interruption.] It has a unique history and we are where we are because of the experiences that we have had in the past. As Conservatives, we should not lightly throw off those historical resonances—

[Chris Bryant]

I hate to say it, but I agree with that last sentence. In offering solace to Conservative Back Benchers, the Minister seemed to suggest that he is actively considering whether Commonwealth citizens should be removed from the franchise for parliamentary elections. Is that true?

[Mr Harper]

I chose my words carefully and I said that I would think about it. There may be an opportunity in the future, when the House considers a wider Bill, when it would be appropriate to debate it. Even if the Government did not bring forward such proposals, hon. Members would table amendments—as they have for this Bill—and give us the opportunity to debate the matter.

[Chris Bryant]

That is clear, and I am grateful to the Minister. Can he answer the question that I asked earlier about Fiji?

[Mr Harper]

Fiji has been suspended from the Commonwealth, and the usual practice is that in such cases we do not take steps to remove the right of qualifying citizens from those countries to vote in our elections.

It is worth saying that the right of Commonwealth citizens to register to vote is restricted in electoral law to qualifying Commonwealth citizens—those who do not require leave to enter or remain under the immigration legislation, or those who do require leave but have it. I say that because my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suggested that in some constituencies significant numbers of illegal immigrants had managed to get themselves on to the electoral register and that there was no duty on electoral registration officers to do anything about that. But that is not the case. Electoral registration officers have a duty to maintain an accurate and complete register and to inquire whether people are eligible to be—

[Mr Shepherd]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Harper]

I see that my hon. Friend is back in his place.

[Mr Shepherd]

Of course, there is no money. The state of the register is as I reported in my speech. There are many people in that situation, and he cannot disprove that—any more than I can prove it—because no efforts are made to identify whether a Commonwealth citizen who applies to go on the register is here lawfully.

[Mr Harper]

I would say two things to my hon. Friend. First, money is provided to local authorities as part of their normal funding, and it is a matter for the local authority to decide on priorities. In his own case, if he is dissatisfied with how the electoral registration officer is conducting himself, I suggest that he speaks to the chief executive of his local authority and makes those strong representations.

Secondly, given our proposals to move to individual voter registration in 2014, we will be improving the registration system and making it much more difficult for people who are not entitled to be on the register to be on it. I have written to local authority chief executives to ask them to take part in data-matching pilots in which we can, first, identify those who are more likely not to be on the register who should be, enabling authorities to target their resources on them and, secondly, target voters who should not be on the electoral register, to enable authorities to ensure that the register is not just complete but accurate. So there are two avenues there that my hon. Friend can pursue.

I want to address the argument made by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), whose amendment 332 would extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds. As I said, our approach has been that the people voting in the referendum should be those entitled to vote in a Westminster election. She, perfectly reasonably, is continuing her long-running campaign, supported by a number of hon. Members, to lower the voting age. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, I do not think that experimenting with the franchise in this Bill is the right way to go.

Many hon. Members will know my views on lowering the voting age, but—on a note of agreement—my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) is right. He is a firm advocate of lowering the voting age in elections in general, but he acknowledges that trying to do that in this Bill, for one specific referendum, is not the right thing to do.

[Natascha Engel]

I do not want to sound rude, but the Minister’s general views on lowering the age are neither here nor there. My amendment concerns this one-off referendum. It seeks to change how the voting system will work at the next general election, when those who are 16 at the time of the referendum will be 18. This is a completely different situation from normal elections.

[Mr Harper]

As I said in my intervention on the hon. Lady, she has not thought through her argument. She has tried to make two different arguments for her amendment, and they do not really make sense. Her argument that people who will be voting at the next general election, on 7 May 2015, should have a say in the referendum would imply logically that people who are 14 next year—four years before the election—should be able to vote in the referendum too. Even she, with her campaign to lower the voting age to 16, has not proposed that, because she knows perfectly well that a proposal to allow 14-year-olds to vote would get laughed out of court, even by those who propose lowering the voting age to 16.

The hon. Lady’s argument does not stack up or make any sense. If we take her argument to its logical conclusion—picking up on the point made about a new voting system kicking in in perpetuity—we should enfranchise everybody alive today, because at some point in the future they will be voting in a general election based on the voting system bought in by the referendum next year. That simply does not make any sense. So we have adopted the usual position in this country, which is that to be able to vote in an election, one must be an adult, which in our system means being 18.

[Chris Bryant]

As far as I can see, the Minister’s argument is that we should use the franchise used for parliamentary elections, but he makes one enormous exception, which is for the peers. [Interruption.] It is not a small exception; it is a large exception. These are the people who are least experienced in dealing with parliamentary elections. I say that not because I have any distaste for peers—some of my best friends are peers.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Were your best friends.

[Chris Bryant]

Indeed. Nevertheless, what is the logic behind the Minister’s argument for specifically exempting the peers?

[Mr Harper]

Let me deal with that point, and then I will finish off on the general point. Very simply, we considered the franchise, but we made one exception because, the usual argument for peers being excluded from voting for Members of this House is that they are Members of this Parliament. However, we did not think that that restriction made sense in a vote on the voting system, and we therefore decided to make that change. That is the only exception that we have made, and it is a very limited change—I think it unlikely that the result of the referendum will be swung by Members of the upper House.

Let me conclude on the point that the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire raised. Her argument is a perfectly reasonable one, albeit one that I happen to disagree with, but just as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale West, this is not the place to make it. If we were having a debate about voting in general, she would be perfectly entitled to put that view before the Committee and to test the Committee’s opinion. However, for the referendum in question, it does not seem sensible to do that. Her argument—that people who will be affected by the election in 2015 should be entitled to vote in the referendum on the voting system—simply does not make sense, because it would mean giving 14-year-olds the vote in that referendum.

[Natascha Engel]

I want briefly to correct the Minister on that point. That was not the argument I was making; the only argument I was making was that 16-year-olds on the day of the referendum will be 18 on the day of the election.

[Mr Harper]

But my point is that 14-year-olds on the day of the referendum will be 18 on the date of the next general election, so that argument simply does not make sense.

Also, the hon. Lady may not like this—I am happy about it, although she might not be—but I should point out that under the coalition Government’s proposals, referendums are likely to be more frequent rather than less, as we have proposed bringing them forward under our referendum lock. They might be referendums on European matters, local referendums or mayoral referendums. Therefore, those young people who are not yet 18 who miss out on voting in the referendum next year will find that there will be many referendums in the future on which they can vote, once they are 18.

My final point to the hon. Lady is that this issue is not a small one, because if all 16-year-olds on the date of the referendum were able to vote, that would mean electoral registration officers having to register those who are 15, which is a significant change to the way that they collect data. The hon. Lady said that the change would not cause much trouble, but it would actually cause a significant amount of trouble. I therefore hope that she will not press her amendment 332 to a vote, but if she does, I urge hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—and particularly those on the Government side—to vote against it. I also hope that those who are otherwise in favour of lowering the voting age can be happy that this is not the place to do so, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol West said, he can bring forward a private Member’s Bill on the issue, which would be the place to have that debate. I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments to a vote.

[Mr Brady]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He is being generous with his time, but he has not yet dealt with amendment 61, and I hope that he is about to do so.

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend: I had indeed omitted to talk about his amendment 61, about overseas voters. He will know that at the moment there is a 15-year time limit, to which he drew attention, for British citizens who live overseas. The Government are considering whether to bring proposals before the House in due course. Again, however, I would say to him that this Bill, on the referendum, is not the place to explore that issue. However, he is an eternal optimist, and he might not have to wait eternally before he can debate the matter in the House—perhaps in the near future. I hope that that will satisfy him and enable him, in all good conscience, not to press his amendments to a vote.

[The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Dawn Primarolo)]

Natascha Engel, do you wish to respond to the debate?

[Natascha Engel]

I will be seeking your permission to press my amendment 332 to a vote when the time comes, Ms Primarolo. It is a shame that the Minister has focused on a technicality, rather than looking at the important point behind the principle of extending the franchise to 16-year-olds. That is a shame; therefore, I shall seek to divide the Committee on my amendment.

20:45

[Mr Brady]

These issues—the size, extent and description of the franchise—are absolutely fundamental and of grave concern. They are issues that can decide the outcome of general elections in this country and, as I said earlier, could decide the outcome of the vote that we are discussing. I know that the Minister has sought to be helpful. He has also sought to encourage my optimism by deferring matters to a future date. I think that this matter is crucial.

I accept that some elements need further debate—we need, for example, to be very careful about how we handle relations with Commonwealth countries. As the Opposition spokesman said, we must ensure that we get things right when it comes to the Republic of Ireland. These are complex matters. Reluctantly, I will take the Minister’s advice and defer these issues for another occasion. I shall therefore withdraw amendment 59 and not press amendment 60. However, I view it as a crucial issue of principle that British citizens should be able to vote in British elections, so I shall press amendment 61 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 332, page 2, line 19, at end insert ‘, and

(c) the persons who, on that date, are aged 16 or 17 and would, but for their age, be eligible for registration as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.’—(Natascha Engel.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

20:46

Division 79

Ayes: 196

---

Labour: 181
Scottish National Party: 5
Liberal Democrat: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Conservative: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 346

---

Conservative: 277
Liberal Democrat: 50
Labour: 12
Democratic Unionist Party: 6

Amendment proposed: 61, page 2, line 19, at end insert—

‘; and

(d) British citizens living outside the United Kingdom and not currently entitled to vote as electors at a parliamentary election in any constituency.

(1A) The Minister shall, within one month of the day on which this Act is passed, by Order provide for a system of prior registration of those entitled to vote in the referendum under subsection (1)(d) above, and for mechanisms by which their votes can be cast.’.—(Mr Brady.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:00

Division 80

Ayes: 25

---

Conservative: 13
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Labour: 2
Liberal Democrat: 1

Noes: 539

---

Conservative: 264
Labour: 213
Liberal Democrat: 53
Scottish National Party: 5
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

21:18

[Mr Harper]

On a point of order, Ms Primarolo. I gave a commitment on Second Reading that I and other Front Benchers would do what we could to ensure that the Committee had an opportunity either to debate or to vote on the significant issues that arose. Given the time, the Committee will wish to know that in the event of our not reaching clause 6 in today’s debate, I intend to allow it to vote, even if that is, sadly, without debate, on the lead amendment in the group selected for debate in relation to that clause, which proposes turnout thresholds for the referendum to be valid. With the permission of the Members concerned, a member of the Government will therefore move amendment 3 so that it can be put to the vote, thereby fulfilling the commitment that I made on Second Reading.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

I am sure that the Minister knows that, strictly speaking, that is not a point of order. He has given a point of information to the Committee on how he intends to conduct the business this evening, and I am sure that all Members have taken note of it. I do not wish to have a debate on how the Government might handle this, and I should like to return to the debate because there is still a great deal to cover.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 2

Rules for conduct of the referendum

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move amendment 267, page 26, line 5, leave out ‘16th’ and insert ‘15th’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 170, 269, 271 to 273, 171 to 173, 177 to 181, 306 and 161.

[Mr Harper]

The amendments make minor and technical drafting changes to the Bill. Amendments 267 and 269 change the deadline for issuing the notice of poll in the rules for the conduct of the referendum from 16 to 15 days before the poll. The change is necessary to ensure that the combination provisions, which we tabled earlier today, work in the right way.

The rest of the amendments contain a series of miscellaneous minor technical amendments and corrections. I am happy to discuss them further if Members are interested in the detail. I commend them to the Committee.

[Chris Bryant]

I briefly note the Minister’s point of information earlier. However, there are several amendments on the Order Paper and if he thinks that we shall not reach them because he has not allowed enough time, that is his problem. To force a vote, rather than hold a debate, is a disgrace.

I am always profoundly disturbed when I see the words “minor and technical amendments”, because all too often far too much can be hidden away in the detail. The Minister skirted over the change of the notice of poll from 16 to 15 days. As he rightly says, that is because of the combination of polls, but there is no need to have a combination of polls next year. As we have rehearsed many times already today, and on our previous day in Committee, we do not need to hold the elections on the same day, in which case 16 days could be provided for the notice of poll, which would be more sensible. I should be grateful if the Minister explained why he thinks it is better to have 15 rather than 16 days’ notice of poll, in particular because it is more difficult for overseas voters to know when an election is happening. Does he not think that if the elections were on different days, they would have more time? Why is it important to have just 15 days?

Amendment 171 would remove sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 21, which relates to the keeping of order in polling stations. The paragraph states:

“It is the presiding officer’s duty to keep order at the officer’s polling station…If a person engages in misconduct in a polling station or fails to obey the presiding officer’s lawful orders, the person may immediately, by the presiding officer’s order, be removed from the polling station.”

Sub-paragraph (4), which the amendment would remove, states:

“A person so removed may, if charged with the commission in the polling station of an offence, be dealt with as a person taken into custody by a constable for an offence without a warrant.”

I do not know why the provision was originally included, or for that matter why it is being removed. What has prompted this change of view? I presume it is nothing to do with the technical wording of the statement, in that the person might not have been charged when he was actually in the polling station, but might have been charged with committing an offence in the polling station. However, I should be grateful if the Minister enlightened us. Some of the other amendments indeed seem to be technical.

[Mr Harper]

I think that with the hon. Gentleman’s first set of questions he seeks to re-argue the debate we had last week.

[Chris Bryant]

indicated assent.

[Mr Harper]

Last week during our first day in Committee, we had an extensive debate on the date of the referendum. I know that the hon. Gentleman argued a different point, but the Committee took the view, by a significant minority, that it wished the election to be on 5 May next year. Given that, it absolutely makes sense to ensure that we combine the elections, so that we make the administration more sensible and make significant financial savings. We have had that argument, and it seems to me that he is seeking to reopen it.

On amendment 171, the hon. Gentleman referred to the fact that sub-paragraph (4) was an outdated provision; to be quite honest, that is why we have removed it. It is simply not necessary.

[Chris Bryant]

What has changed since the Bill was brought forward that has made the provision outdated?

[Mr Harper]

I think it is more the case that we copied across to the Bill a lot of the existing rules. This is a minor, technical change, but on going through the rules more closely, we decided that the provision was no longer necessary. We are simply tidying up the legislation, which I think is perfectly sensible. These are, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House often says, running repairs.

Amendment 267 agreed to.

Amendment made: 170, in schedule 2, page 27, line 33, leave out ‘education’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 354, page 27, line 37, at end insert—

‘(iii) a school which enjoys charitable status.’.

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 355, page 27, line 38, leave out from ‘Scotland’ to end of line 39 and insert

‘any school other than those which are run as profit-making enterprises’.

Amendment 356, page 27, line 41, after ‘Assembly’, insert

‘or a school which enjoys charitable status’.

[Chris Bryant]

The amendments are in my name and that of my right hon. Friend the Leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. Historically, legislation has always provided that the returning officer is able to use polling stations in state-provided schools. For many people up and down the land, when they go to vote, they expect to turn up to a school. Normally it is their local primary school, but provision may be made in their local secondary school. Sometimes, where schools have disappeared, there is a problem with the local returning officer finding a suitable venue. Of course, there is an impact on local state schools: sometimes they have to be closed because there is no other means of providing that the returning officer can use the entrance and make sure that there is security for the children in the school.

These are three simple amendments, the first of which—amendment 354—would insert in schedule 2, page 27, line 37, the words

“a school which enjoys charitable status”,

so that the provisions applied not just to schools provided by the state. We have used that term in relation to the law in England and Wales, because in those areas, independent schools with good facilities that might be made available could be so termed. To provide a similar provision for Scotland, we have tabled amendment 355, which would insert, in schedule 2, page 27, line 38, the phrase

“any school other than those which are run as profit-making enterprises”,

because the independent sector in Scotland works slightly differently.

I see that none of our Northern Irish colleagues is with us, but amendment 356 relates to Northern Ireland. We would not want to conflict with the provisions relating to Roman Catholic schools run by nunneries and convents, so we have not provided the exact same measure as for England and Wales, where “charitable status” covers the situation. We therefore suggest in the amendment that in schedule 2, page 27, line 41, after “Assembly”, we should insert

“or a school which enjoys charitable status”.

I recognise that there are those who would say, “Why on earth should independent sector schools be forced to act as polling stations?” I suspect that more independent schools are likely to say that they would quite like the income that might accrue. More importantly, I do not see why state-provided schools should be regularly used and should therefore undergo the upheaval that polling stations cause, but the independent sector which, in the main, enjoys charitable status and is therefore able to have tax benefits, should not be required to provide the same facilities.

The Minister may say, “We think this is an unnecessary measure.” Our point is that it should be a matter of fairness. The provision should apply across the board. It should not be state schools alone that are inconvenienced. The inconvenience should be shared by all. In addition, some preparatory schools or public schools would be able to provide the necessary facilities relatively easily, without any major inconvenience to them.

In recent years we have seen a considerable attempt by schools in the independent sector to open their doors so that they are far more engaged in the local community. This is an opportunity for them to be engaged in the political process. I hope the amendments will be acceptable to the Government. I am sure they would not want to defend the present injustice.

21:30

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

I am slightly puzzled as to why schools attached to religious establishments in Northern Ireland should be excluded, but not those in England and Wales. I can think of a number of Roman Catholic schools attached to monasteries that it might be wise to exclude in the amendments.

[Chris Bryant]

I know personally only one public school in England and Wales that is attached to a monastery, which is Ampleforth. There is also Downside. I know of a considerable number of others, and many are attached to Anglican foundations in various ways, such as Charterhouse. The point I was making was specifically in relation to the Northern Ireland settlement. I now have two Northern Ireland colleagues present. I did not want to disturb the complex equilibrium that sometimes exists in relation to these matters in Northern Ireland.

In the case of Ampleforth, for example, which has a large number of pupils over the age of 18 and a large number of teachers who live on a very large campus, I see no reason why there should not be a polling station for Ampleforth itself. That might apply to a number of the larger public schools which, to all intents and purposes, would represent as large a polling district as some other polling districts. The amendment does not require any action to be taken against public schools. I hope they would see it as an enabling measure so that they might be able to encourage more of their students to vote.

I still hope the Minister will support the amendments.

[Mr Harper]

I fear I may disappoint the hon. Gentleman. The amendments would compel independent schools to be used for electoral purposes and for the referendum, should the local authority decide that they are the most suitable place for such a purpose. Electoral legislation at present provides that all publicly funded schools can be used as polling stations, and we are applying those provisions to the referendum. So that there is no doubt, following discussion with the Department for Education we can confirm that academies and free schools will fall within those provisions as well.

Under the Bill, as in electoral law generally—

[Chris Bryant]

The Minister hurried on there. Following discussions with the Department for Education, he says that the same arrangements will apply to academies and free schools, but under what Act is that made clear? Is it made clear in the new legislation that was rushed through Parliament earlier this year?

[Mr Harper]

It is clear that schools that are publicly funded and receive Government grants fall under these provisions. Schools that do not receive Government grants do not. I was setting that out for the benefit of the Committee, in case there was any doubt. I see no need to labour the point.

Under the Bill, as in electoral law generally, independent schools cannot be compelled to act as polling stations for other electoral purposes unless they receive Government grants. But, to pick up the hon. Gentleman’s point about how he hoped that his amendment would be an enabling measure, there is nothing in the law to prevent such schools from serving as polling stations voluntarily. So there is nothing in the law to prevent all those schools that he mentioned from acting as and hosting a polling station, particularly if they have lots of students of voting age. They can make that offer to the local authority, and the local authority can take it up; there is nothing at all to stop a school doing so.

On the hon. Gentleman’s wish for the amendment to be an enabling measure, I must say that it is simply not necessary. I do not see any need at all to change the arrangements, which work well. There is nothing to stop such schools volunteering their premises, and I see from his examples that there may well be benefits to the schools and to their students, so I urge him to withdraw this unnecessary amendment.

[Chris Bryant]

I shall not withdraw the amendment, because I do not accept the premise on which the Minister has advanced his argument. I presume that in his definition of a school for the purposes of the provision, he relies on paragraph (9)(3)(a) of schedule 2, which states that it is either

“(i) a school maintained or assisted by a local education authority;”

or

“(ii) a school in respect of which grants are made out of moneys provided by Parliament to the person or body of persons responsible for the management of the school”—

including, therefore, all the free schools. From the way he was talking, however, it seemed he was suggesting that he had come across some new reason in his conversations with the Department for Education which proved that free schools would be included.

The Minister is right that anybody can apply to provide a polling station. Indeed, some members of the public have said, “In my street, there is no provision,” or, “In my little village, there is no provision, so if you would like to use my house feel free to do so.” However, I am not aware of any public school or independent school having sought to do so. The Minister did not meet the point that for many state schools there is an inconvenience attached to providing a polling station. The law requires them to do so free of charge, but it does not require anybody else so to do.

The Minister’s distinction is based on whether schools are in receipt of moneys or not; my point is that if a school benefits from a favourable tax regime, namely the charitable status that attaches to large parts, although not all, of the independent sector, they should have a concomitant responsibility to provide such facilities. Many public schools are quite happy to provide on a limited basis their sporting facilities—swimming pool, gym or whatever—to the wider community, and such provision might apply to the situation before us, too. I shall therefore press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

21:38

Division 81

Ayes: 226

---

Labour: 215
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 336

---

Conservative: 281
Liberal Democrat: 55
Alliance: 1

[Mr Cash]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. I do not know how the order of the amendments was decided, and I am sure that it was done in a proper and orderly manner, but I wish to place on record the fact that the threshold provisions are being driven further and further down the selection list, yet they are seminal to the referendum and whether it can be justified in the national interest.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

A statement was made by the Minister earlier about thresholds and I am sure that it will all become clear to the hon. Gentleman as he stays for the rest of this evening’s proceedings.

[Mr Harper]

I beg to move amendment 268, page 28, line 2, at end insert—

‘Modification of forms

9A (1) The Chief Counting Officer may, for the purpose of making a relevant form easier for voters to understand or use, specify modifications that are to be made to the wording or appearance of the form.

(2) In paragraph (1) “relevant form” means any of the following—

(a) Forms 3 to 11, 14 and 16 in Part 2 of this Schedule;

(b) the form of the notice set out in rule 16(7).

(3) In this Part of this Act a reference to a form is to be read as a reference to that form with any modifications specified under paragraph (1).

(4) Where a form is modified by virtue of paragraph (1), section 26(2) of the Welsh Language Act 1993 applies as if the modified form were specified by this Act.’.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments 274 to 278, 281 to 305, 308, 323 and 324.

[Mr Harper]

These amendments make several modifications for the purpose of adding clarity to the forms and statutory questions that a presiding officer may put to voters in certain specified circumstances in light of the recommendations of the Electoral Commission, Scope and electoral administrators. I referred to these amendments earlier, when we were debating the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael).

We recognise the important role that the chief counting officer has to play in the successful running of the poll so, at the request of the Electoral Commission, amendment 268 gives the chief counting officer power to amend the wording and appearance of voter-facing forms, except the ballot paper, for the purposes of making them easier to use or understand. This power will extend to forms 3 to 11, which are the form of postal voting statement, the declaration of identity, official poll cards and poll cards for postal or proxy voters; form 14, which is guidance for voters; and form 16, which is the form of declaration to be made by the companion of a voter with disabilities.

We have also made some other minor amendments to improve the clarity of the material seen by voters, including to the instructions on how to vote; to ensure that voters in devolved areas in particular are clear that the referendum relates only to the UK parliamentary system; and to ensure that the questions put to voters prior to being given a ballot paper are clear for areas in which more than one referendum may be taking place.

Following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, we have sought to make the voting instructions clearer by stipulating that voters must vote in one box only. Amendments 287,291, 293 to 298, 303 and 308 effect this change at the relevant points in the Bill.

Amendments 282 and 283 give effect to the recommendations in the Electoral Commission’s guidance on prescribing voter materials to move that voting instruction to directly above the location of the boxes where electors will make their mark.

We have also tabled amendments to make it clear that the referendum provided for by this Bill relates to the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections, as opposed to electoral systems electing members to devolved legislatures. That issue came out of the research that the Electoral Commission did when it was looking at the question. Amendments 281, 284, 286, 289, 290, 304, 305, 323, and 324 achieve that objective.

We have also tabled amendments to make it clear that the referendum provided for by this Bill relates to the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections, as opposed to electoral systems electing members to devolved legislatures. That was an issue that came out of the research that the Electoral Commission did when it was looking at the question. Amendments 281, 284, 286, 289, 290, 304, 305, 323, and 324 achieve that objective.

Given that mayoral referendums might also be taking place on 5 May next year, we have introduced amendments to clarify the statutory questions that the presiding officer may put to voters requesting a ballot paper for the referendum for which the Bill provides. The amendments adapt those questions so that the presiding officer must specifically ask whether that voter has already voted in the referendum on the electoral system for UK parliamentary elections. Amendments 274 to 278 effect that change at the relevant points in the Bill.

Amendment 302 adds a title to guidance for voters to specify that the guidance to which the form refers relates to the referendum on the voting system for UK parliamentary elections. Amendments 285 and 288 give clarity to electoral administrators on where the official mark confirming the authenticity of the ballot paper may be placed on the form. It is important that no wording other than specified in the Bill appears on the front of the ballot paper. Any official marks that contain words, letters or numbers must therefore be printed on the back of the form, which will ensure that ballot papers are as simple and clear as possible for the voters to use.

Following advice from the chief counting officer in Northern Ireland, we have introduced amendments 299 to 301 to remove unnecessary forms from the Bill, as in practice separate poll cards are not sent to electors voting by post in that part of the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant]

Notwithstanding what I said earlier about technical and minor amendments, sometimes they are actually technical and minor amendments, and I do not want to delay the Committee too long.

I have two points. First, I do not understand why, in amendments 274 to 278—and, for all I know, in a couple of the others as well—the question has to be asked not just about “the referendum”, but about the referendum

“on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections.”

I am not aware of many other referendums coming down the line on that date, so the amendments seem rather otiose and verbose. Will the Minister enlighten me on why they are thought necessary?

Perhaps a more serious point is that several of the amendments—in particular, amendments 287, 291, 293 and 296 to 298—replace the direction to vote just “once” with the direction that people should vote “in one box” only, which is slightly confusing, especially given that we will be having a combination of polls. Elsewhere, schedule 2 provides that there may be more than one polling station in a room, which is quite common because two polling districts might be using the same polling station—so there might be two desks with two electoral registers and two boxes. I presume, however, that in Wales and Scotland, there could be four desks with different registers, given that there are different electoral registers for the different elections—for the referendum and the elections. There could, therefore, be four ballot boxes in the room, and people might be expected to mark two boxes. So the inclusion of the words “in one box” is rather misleading.

As the Minister will know, a ballot paper will often contain the name of the candidate—for example, “No. 1: Chris Bryant”—followed by the address or whatever the candidate has allowed on there, followed by the party and finally the box. I presume that returning officers will be allowed to count as valid votes, as they do in parliamentary and other elections, any ballot paper on which the signifier, which could be an X or in some cases a tick, has been marked anywhere along the line of the yes part of the question—in other words, not in the one box specified as the box in which the person is meant to put their cross, but at any point across the whole of that line.

First, therefore, does the Minister think that extending the question on “the referendum” is necessary or otiose? Secondly, by inserting the words “in one box”, will we not actually make the situation worse? At combined polls, people will expect to vote in two ballot boxes and to mark two boxes on two forms, and whether they do so in the little box itself or in the wider area on the ballot paper will be of material significance. I would be grateful if the Minister enlightened us on those matters.

21:59

[Mr Harper]

The point about mayoral referendums is that some may indeed be held. Where there are mayoral referendums, we simply wish to capture them and cover that circumstance. The hon. Gentleman may think that the provision is otiose, but we thought it sensible to be clear.

On the hon. Gentleman’s point about amendment 287, amendment 291, and so forth—his point about putting an X in one box only—we are following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, which I understand it has tested, to make voting instructions clearer. I recognise that he thinks that that might lead to some confusion, but we do not propose to change the normal rules that apply for elections or the test that returning officers adopt to determine whether a vote is validly cast. For example, as long as someone has made clear their intention, the usual rules apply. So, if they have not put an X, but drawn a little smiley face, or if the mark is partly in one box and partly in another, but what the voter intended is clear, the usual rules will apply and returning officers will attempt to ensure that such votes count. Those are the normal rules for elections that we are all used to, so where there is doubt, if the returning officer thinks that there is clarity about someone’s intention but then does the usual check with the counting agents, that vote will be allowed.

[Chris Bryant]

I was not aware that a smiley face was a signifier of assent, but I hope that that matches present practice. The Minister may know more about that than I do, but if he is wrong, he will doubtless correct his statement later. However, the bit that the Electoral Commission has not been able to check is how the system works where combined polls take place in the same room and where a voter has to go to two desks to cast two votes, and therefore votes twice. That is the bit on which I am seeking clarification.

[Mr Harper]

Just to return to the other point, of course the rules talk about putting down an X, but it is usually the case in elections that if someone has made a mark and signified a clear intention, the returning officer will normally accept that, although that is usually run past the counting agents. That is the usual practice and we do not propose to change it. We do not want to disfranchise anybody unnecessarily.

As for the hon. Gentleman’s point about voters perhaps being confused by the number of ballot boxes, personally I think that he is making a point for the sake of making a point, but let us assume for the sake of argument that he is trying to make a sensible point. Given that the proposal was adopted following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission, I will draw his concerns to its attention, and it can see whether they have any validity. The chief counting officer has the ability to amend some of the other forms and instructions given to voters, so I will draw the matter to her attention and see what the Electoral Commission thinks, which is perhaps the most reasonable thing to do in the circumstances.

Amendment 268 agreed to.

Amendments made: 269, page 28, line 8, leave out ‘16th’ and insert ‘15th’.

Amendment 270, page 29, line 6, leave out paragraphs (3) and (4) and insert—

‘(3) In England, the polling station allotted to electors from any parliamentary polling district wholly or partly within a particular voting area must, in the absence of special circumstances, be in the parliamentary polling place for that district unless the parliamentary polling place is outside the voting area.

(3A) In Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, the polling station allotted to electors from any polling district must be in the polling place for that district.

(4) The polling districts and polling places that apply for the purposes of paragraph (3A) are—

(a) in Wales, those that would apply by virtue of provision made under section 13(1)(a) of the Government of Wales 2006 in respect of an election for membership of the National Assembly for Wales held on the day of the referendum;

(b) in Scotland, those that would apply by virtue of provision made under section 12(1)(a) of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of an election for membership of the Scottish Parliament held on the day of the referendum;

(c) in Northern Ireland, those for the time being established under the law relating to local elections with the meaning of section 130 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962.’.

Amendment 271, page 29, line 41, at end insert—

‘This paragraph is subject to paragraphs (1A) and (2).

(1A) An official poll card must not be sent to a person—

(a) as an elector, if the person is entitled to a postal vote in Northern Ireland;

(b) as a proxy, if the person is entitled to a proxy postal vote in Northern Ireland.’.

Amendment 272, page 30, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (b).

Amendment 273, page 30, line 27, leave out sub-paragraph (d).

Amendment 171, page 35, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (4).

Amendment 274, page 35, line 31, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 275, page 36, line 5, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 276, page 36, line 9, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 277, page 36, line 22, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

Amendment 278, page 36, line 35, after ‘referendum’ insert

‘on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Chris Bryant]

I beg to move amendment 352, page 37, line 26, after ‘contrary’, insert

‘including any validly registered voter who presents himself to the polling station before 10 pm but, because of a queue, is not immediately able to vote’.

The amendment seeks to rectify the situation that we saw in the general election this year, when, as hon. Members will know, in several constituencies around the land people turned up to vote at 9.40 pm, 9.45 pm, 9.50 pm or 9.55 pm, but could not cast their ballots. Indeed, they were not provided with ballot papers because they could not get through the doors, as there were queues of people wanting to vote. I hope that all hon. Members thought it a bit of a scandal that although people have historically said that England is the mother of all Parliaments, and although we pride ourselves enormously on our historical past, we were not able to run—

[Mr MacNeil]

England?

[Chris Bryant]

Unfortunately it was a Liberal who first said that England was the mother of all Parliaments, so I can only excuse him. However, if the hon. Gentleman wanted to point out that the first Parliament was not on these isles at all, he would be absolutely right: it was the Althing, the Parliament of Iceland, which has sat since 929.

My point is that on election night we were deeply embarrassed by the fact that so many people were unable to vote in so many parliamentary constituencies. The Deputy Prime Minister himself said that the situation was simply unacceptable in a democracy:

“It is not right that hundreds later found themselves unable to exercise their vote when the polls closed. That should never, ever happen again in our democracy”.

In fact, the situation in his own constituency was among the worst in the land. The returning officer, John Mothersole—a name I have not come across before—apologised to voters who were turned away, saying that the council had “got things wrong.” He said that the turnout had been phenomenal, probably the highest in 30 years. That was not quite right—it was not the highest turnout in 30 years—but the fact that some 200 people were turned away in Ranmoor in Sheffield, Hallam and the police had to deal with an angry crowd of about 100 would-be voters is a clear indication that there is a significant issue to consider.

[Mark Tami]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this problem is made worse by a number of local authorities closing polling stations, which means that the number of people having to attend one particular polling station is much greater than in the past?

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is true that some people vote some days before the election when they vote by post, but for many people—those doing shift work, for example—it is vital to keep the polling stations open right up to 10 pm; otherwise, they would not be able to meet their work obligations as well as their voting duties.

[Mr MacNeil]

I saw how what the amendment proposes can work in practice in Venezuela, where I was once asked to be an international election monitor. When the time to close came, the polls stayed open until the queue of people had finished voting. It worked with no problem at all; it functioned very well in Venezuela.

[Chris Bryant]

Some people have had doubts about some of the Venezuelan elections, and I am not sure that we want to base what we do entirely on comrade Chavez’s elections. When I was the Minister with responsibility for Latin America, I was shown a hospital in Venezuela and on one occasion I saw the same woman in three different wards—to prove that the hospital was being used.

[Mr MacNeil]

Serious questions are often raised before elections, but that happens in this country, too. I do not want to leave people with the impression that there is anything specifically wrong with Venezuelan democracy. From what I have seen of that democracy, I know that both the opposition and the Government of that country were very happy with the process.

[Chris Bryant]

Perhaps we should stick to elections in this country, rather than worry about Venezuela. The point is that the amendment is designed to allow someone who has presented themselves to the polling station before 10 o’clock to enter it, receive their ballot paper and vote after 10’clock, even though there was a queue that prevented them from being dealt with by the officials immediately. This will be even more important if we end up with combined polls next year. In many areas in the Rhonda, there tends to be a fairly quiet period between 8 pm and 9.30 pm, but then there is a sudden surge of voters. If Assembly elections as well as the referendum are happening in the same polling station, with people having to approach two desks to provide the information necessary to get their ballot papers, the delay might well be increased. If local authorities are worried about whether the number of staff is sufficient to fulfil all the functions properly, that provides all the more reason to make special and specific provision for people to be able to vote, even though they are not in the polling station until after 10 o’clock.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

May I press the hon. Gentleman on the definition of presenting at a polling station? At what point when someone arrives at a polling station do they present? Will someone stand outside the polling station to decide? How long would a queue be before someone is excluded?

[Chris Bryant]

Discussing the length of the queue would be a great British debate, but my view is that if there is a queue of 500 people, they should be allowed to vote. I do not think that anybody should be disfranchised just because the operation is not swift enough to allow people who present themselves at the polling station before 10 o’clock to vote immediately. As is clear in the amendment, presenting means standing in a queue if it is not possible to vote at once. If a person arrives at one minute to 10 o’clock, they should be able to go straight through the polling station door and talk to the returning officer and then be presented with a ballot paper. If necessary, that should apply to the two polls—the referendum and local elections.

I note that the Electoral Commission has continued to be concerned about late polling since the general election. Clearly, there was uncertainty in the application of the regulations in different parts of the country, because some returning officers were slightly more generous than others. As I understand it, the commission is keen for a resolution, and is broadly supportive of the thrust of my proposal.

I am very hopeful, as always, that the Minister might succumb to my ardent desire in relation to the amendment.

[Mr Dodds]

I should like clarification. I take it that the amendment applies to voting in the referendum, because that is the Bill that we are discussing. However, it would mean that an elector who turns up to vote in the Northern Ireland Assembly elections and in the referendum could vote in the latter, but not the former.

[Chris Bryant]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point, and I am glad that Ministers appear to be taking it on board. Had they presented their changes to the Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland legislation to allow for combined polls, I would be able to present proposals that dealt with that problem. However, because the Government are not proceeding in an orderly fashion—they are putting the cart before the horse—I can table an amendment only in relation to the referendum. Should the Government get their act together and present their other proposals, the Opposition would indeed seek to make provision so that people could receive both ballot papers when they present themselves at the polling station.

Additionally, some people might say, “I’m here, but there’s a queue. Which of the two ballots should I participate in before the 10 o’clock deadline?” That could lead to a degree of chaos and disorder in the polling station, particularly in urban areas. The amendment would be an important provision and we need to make it. As I said, I am very hopeful that the Minister will meet my ardent desire and agree to it.

[Mr Harper]

I fear that I might disappoint the hon. Gentleman again. Clearly, some of the scenes on election night did not do our reputation any good, but it is worth putting them in context. The Electoral Commission report states that there was a problem with queues in 27 polling stations out of 40,000 that were used for the May elections, and that about 1,200 people were affected out of the 29.6 million people who voted. I do not wish to underplay the position for those people, but it is worth putting the problems in perspective. The report also states:

“The main factors which contributed to the problems were evidence of poor planning assumptions in some areas”,

meaning that some areas used assumptions for the general election based on the turnout for local elections.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

I understand the Minister’s argument, but in a very tight election that situation in two or three marginal seats could make the difference between the election of one Government or another.

[Mr Harper]

I had not finished my points, if the hon. Gentleman would allow me. I was not trying to underplay the situation, but to put the problem in context. The commission report also states that the main factors were:

“Evidence of poor planning assumptions…Use of unsuitable buildings and inadequate staffing arrangements”

and that

“Contingency arrangements…were not properly triggered”

when queues built up. Returning officers are supposed to have contingency arrangements in place to deal with unexpected demand, and to be able to move people about. It was clear from the Electoral Commission’s research that, in the areas where there were problems, there had been inadequate planning.

22:15

There clearly was an issue, therefore, and we must put it in context, but the key is how we then deal with it. We have to ensure that any changes made to the rules are workable. My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Rowley Regis (James Morris) put his finger on one reason why this is not as simple as it sounds. As soon as we start talking about there being queues and people presenting themselves to vote, issues arise. For instance, any queue will have to be managed so that people cannot present themselves after the end of the vote. This is not as simple as it sounds, therefore, and in trying to solve what is a real problem—albeit one that was not as enormous as it could have been, although I take on board the point of the hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins)—we do not want to create further problems.

The Government are considering the Electoral Commission’s report and looking at what steps are necessary to prevent a repeat of these events. I am not convinced that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment offers the right solution, however.

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman first.

[Chris Bryant]

It would be all right for this argument to be advanced if it were not for the fact that the Government are not doing anything about the problem. The Deputy Prime Minister said this was something that should never ever happen again. I have heard the Parliamentary Secretary say that voting fraud absolutely has to be dealt with, and I completely agree, but there are not any more incidences of that than there are of these problems in relation to the poll. If he were coming forward with a solution tonight, I might be more interested in his remarks.

[Mr Harper]

I did not say that we would do nothing about the problem. I specifically said the opposite—that the Government are looking carefully at the Electoral Commission’s report and its outline of the problem, and that we are considering possible solutions. We are not yet persuaded that a legislative solution is the right one, however. When we have decided what we think the appropriate solution is, if that requires legislation we will introduce it at the appropriate time. Also, if we were to make this change, we would need to make it for elections in the round, not just for this particular referendum.

[Ms Abbott]

The Parliamentary Secretary is in danger of understating the seriousness of the problem. My Hackney constituency was one of the places where this problem arose, and at the appropriate time I hope to expand on how serious an issue it was.

[Mr Harper]

I was not in any way underplaying the seriousness of the issue in those cases where these events happened. I was simply outlining the fact that it was not as widespread as people might have thought from the television coverage; I wanted to put it in context. However, as I said, I absolutely acknowledge that for those people who were affected, the problem was clearly very serious, and we want it to be solved, but we do not necessarily think that the proposal under discussion is the right way to solve it. There is a danger of creating as many, if not more, problems than those we are trying to solve in the first place. The law of unintended consequences might apply.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the Minister not accept that the problem is likely to be more acute in circumstances such as those in Northern Ireland, where voters will be using three different ballot papers? Regardless of what combination arrangements are put in place in respect of separate ballot boxes and so forth, that is likely to cause more delay. I also ask him to remember that in the last general election some of us had our counts delayed by dissidents who were directly attacking the democratic process. Sadly, it is likely that in some places in Northern Ireland there could be disruption outside the polling stations, which will add to the problem.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. The latter problem is clearly one that I hope does not arise, although he says it may well. If so, it must be managed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot make provision in legislation for that, but we want to make sure we solve the problem.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point about the combination of polls next year highlights exactly why we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and officials who administer elections across the UK to put in place sensible combination provisions to ensure that the elections run smoothly. It will be for those responsible for delivering both the elections and a referendum to look at what the likely turnouts will be and what complexities might arise from the elections, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland where there may be a number of polls with different electoral systems, and to put plans in place. One of the things that the Electoral Commission will be examining, certainly as far as the referendum is concerned, is whether people on the ground have made those arrangements. I know that the chief counting officer will be ensuring that the counting officers and regional counting officers have exactly thought through some of these issues to ensure that they do not arise again, and of course they have the power to direct some of these things to be sorted out appropriately, a power that they did not have for the election.

To be fair, it is worth making the point that although the Electoral Commission was criticised to some extent this year, it was not responsible for delivering the elections in those individual cases. It delivers the guidance and it encourages returning officers to think about some of these issues, but in the areas where there was a problem it was largely the responsibility of the individual returning officer for not having planned properly or having had proper contingency arrangements in place. That is where the responsibility lies, and we need to ensure that that does not happen again.

[Ms Abbott]

The hour is late, but I wish to put on the record how concerned people in Hackney were by the debacle that we had at the polls earlier this year. The number of people who were turned away is an underestimate, because in my constituency hundreds of people came out after work to vote, saw the queues, went away, came back again, saw the queues and went away again, so we will never know how many people were put off voting. The cause of the queues was partly that people in Hackney were voting in three different ballots—that was one of the problems. Another cause was that the returning officer put a great deal of effort into encouraging people to cast their votes—my area had its highest ever turnout, particularly among young people who had never voted before. Another cause was the enthusiasm of people in Hackney to vote Labour.

I wish to stress that in a democracy the state has a very basic responsibility to allow people to cast their vote. These people did not come along at 9.50 pm; they had been queuing since 9 o’clock, but when 10 o’clock struck they were told that they could not cast their vote because they did not have a ballot paper in their hand. All I am saying is that this matter caused great concern in Hackney and it was very demoralising, particularly for people casting their vote for the first time. Voting is a fundamental right, and it is a fundamental duty of Government to allow people who want to vote, and who have come out in good time, to vote. We all saw last year’s American elections, where very long queues of young people wanted to vote for Barack Obama. A system was put in place that allowed people who were in a queue to vote; once the point where the queue was stopping had been marked, everybody in that queue was able to vote, even if that took hours. I do not see why we cannot have a similar system here in the United Kingdom.

[Chris Bryant]

My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has exposed the problem: we do not really know the extent of the difficulties that voters had in this year’s general election. We are all deeply moved to see people voting in South Africa; they queued not just for a couple of hours, but for days when they first had the opportunity to vote. We felt moved when we saw people in the United States of America queuing to vote and we are moved when we see people in Poland, or people in other parts of the world who have not always enjoyed democratic rights, queuing to vote. So it is a bit depressing when the view that other countries had of our election night was of people queuing and not being allowed to vote. That is the simple point that Labour Members are trying to rectify by way of this amendment.

I had presumed, because the Liberal Democrat leader, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that this was something that should never happen again in our democracy, that he was going to deal with the matter rather more swiftly. The referendum will coincide with other ballots, as my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Hackney North and Stoke Newington have said. The Minister wants these combined polls next May—I would prefer not to have them—and it is therefore all the more important that we have a specific provision to deal with this matter.

If the amendment does not contain the right wording, I would be quite happy for the Minister to come back on Report and provide us with an amendment to our amendment. That is the advantage of this process, in which we debate constitutional Bills on the Floor of the House like this. That might also speed up his officials. I offer him this possibility in comradely spirit. If he were to support the amendment so that it were carried, that would spur on his officials to provide an answer to the problem before we reach the Report stage. I will, therefore, press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

22:25

Division 82

Ayes: 224

---

Labour: 215
Scottish National Party: 4
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Conservative: 1
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 345

---

Conservative: 281
Liberal Democrat: 55
Democratic Unionist Party: 8

Amendment made: 172, page 46, line 44, leave out ‘election’ and insert ‘referendum’.—(Mr Harper.)

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 153, page 48, line 29, leave out ‘may’ and insert ‘must’.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 154, page 48, line 32, at end insert—

‘(4A) If the difference between the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “Yes” and the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “No” is fewer than 10,000 or 0.1 per cent. of the total number of votes cast, whichever is the smaller number, the Chief Counting Officer must give a direction to regional counting officers to have all the votes in their region re-counted.’.

[Iain Stewart]

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing) and I have tabled the amendments to seek clarification from the Minister about the provisions for a recount at national level in the event of a tight overall result. Although I am satisfied with the provisions in the Bill for counting in each voting area, or for a recount in each voting area, just as there are provisions at a general election count for a recount in each constituency—[Interruption.]

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. Will the Committee please settle down? I am finding it very difficult to hear Mr Stewart.

[Iain Stewart]

Thank you, Mr Evans.

There are adequate provisions in the Bill for a recount mechanism at individual voting area level, just as at a general election count an agent or a candidate may call for a recount if the result is tight or there is some other doubt as to the accuracy of the count. However, if my reading of the Bill is correct, there is no such provision for a recount at national level and I am very concerned about that omission.

Counts in individual voting areas will be carried out in ignorance of what is happening in other counting areas. The Welsh devolution referendum of 1997 offers examples of where the problems may lie. Members may recall that the result of the referendum was very close. Of more than 1.1 million votes cast, the winning majority for the yes campaign was about 7,000 and there were approximately 4,000 spoilt ballot papers, so the result was on a knife edge.

It does not follow, however, that each area voted with the same margin of result; there were huge disparities between the counts in areas throughout Wales. In Rhondda, for example, which the shadow Minister may have some affection for and knowledge of, there was a large yes vote—a 15,000 majority for the yes campaign. Had that been at a general election, no candidate would have questioned it.

[Chris Bryant]

May I correct a mis-impression that is often given by Conservatives about the Rhondda? It was not actually in the Rhondda. The only result the hon. Gentleman can know about was for Rhondda Cynon Taff, which includes the whole county area. His Prime Minister has regularly said that there is a Conservative councillor in the Rhondda. There is not. There is, however, one in Rhondda Cynon Taff.

[Iain Stewart]

I stand corrected. I was using Rhondda as shorthand, in view of the late hour, but that does not undermine my point. The majority was clear in that counting area and had it been a general election no candidate would have challenged the result and called for a recount. However, in an authority close by—Vale of Glamorgan—there was a similar large majority for the no campaign, of 14,000 or thereabouts. There, too, no candidate would have chosen to call for a recount, but when we aggregate the two results, as happened throughout Wales, the result was very close overall. As far as I can tell, the Bill includes no provision for either the yes or no campaign to call for a recount in that eventuality.

Amendment 154 would establish a mechanism for calling a recount, and I invite the Minister to give some clarification as to whether my interpretation of the Bill is correct. Would the proposed mechanism be the most appropriate way to rectify the measure or would the Government care to suggest some other means?

Amendment 153 would provide for the chief counting officer to direct a recount. I am a little concerned about the wording in paragraph 42, which states:

“The Regional Counting Officer or Chief Counting Officer may give a direction under paragraph (3)(a) only if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes.”

I am not satisfied with the term “thinks that there is”, and I would be grateful if the Minister clarified the circumstances in which the chief counting officer should be compelled to call for a recount if he believes that there is some doubt about the accuracy of the count.

22:45

[Mr Cash]

I am intrigued by the proposals. The first of the two amendments—amendment 153—deals emphatically with an important question of administrative law. Under paragraph 42(3)(a), the regional counting officer or chief counting officer has a permissive power to give a direction. Importantly, sub-paragraph (3) says:

“The Regional Counting Officer or Chief Counting Officer must then either—

(a) direct the counting officer to have the votes re-counted, or”—

this is the crucial proposal—

“(b) direct the counting officer to make the certification under section 128(5) of the 2000 Act.”

From paragraph 42(4), it is clear that the Government’s intention is that the provision should be permissive only. I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), and for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), for insisting that the provision be not permissive but mandatory. That would put the whole question of the administrative arrangements for such a proposal on a compulsory footing, and that, when applied to the Bill, makes a significant difference. If the provision were merely permissive, almost anything could happen, but if it were compulsory, the regional counting officer or chief counting officer would be under a legal obligation to give a direction under paragraph (3)(a)

“if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes in the counting officer’s voting area.”

There will be enormous difficulty and ambiguity if that is done purely on a permissive footing, so I strongly recommend that the Government accept the proposal of my hon. Friends, who insist that the provision be made compulsory.

Under paragraph 42(5), there is a compulsory requirement, in that

“A counting officer who is given a direction under paragraph (3)(a) must—

(a) begin the re-count as soon as practicable, and

(b) if the officer does not begin the re-count immediately, notify the counting agents of the time and place at which it will take place.”

The most extraordinary situation would arise if, under sub-paragraph (5), action was compulsory, while under sub-paragraph (4) it was only permissive. I make the point strongly that a compulsory requirement, enforceable by law, seems the right way to proceed. However, all that would arise

“only if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes”.

As is well known, the question is not simply whether the provisions should be permissive or compulsory. We then move on to the question of what is in the mind of the officer.

How are we to establish what the officer thinks there is a reason to doubt? After all, if we are asking in legislation for a potential judicial interpretation—a compulsory requirement to depend upon what somebody thinks—how, short of bringing in the shrink, can we determine whether the person thought that or not? We are faced with an extraordinary situation, which is not uncommon in certain kinds of legislation, where the issue ultimately turns on what is going on in the mind of an official.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Is not the problem the fact that the Bill gives no guidance as to what matters should be in the mind of the returning officer when he comes to his decision? He is given no guidance as to what matters should be taken into account.

[Mr Cash]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that extremely intelligent and useful intervention, which demonstrates the very point that I am making. If we do not establish criteria, there is nothing by which the court, in a judicial action in administrative law, would be able to judge what was going on in the official’s mind. Is it to be merely a matter of opinion or is it to be a matter of judgment by certain criteria?

I notice that those on the Front Bench are watching me with some interest. I have been watching them with much interest throughout the proceedings as we were moving towards clause 6, but we were not getting there, so we will have to see.

I am sure my hon. Friend and others want more elucidation on the point. We get used to the fact that some legislation states “where, in the opinion of a Minister” and subsequently says that the proceedings shall not be challenged in any legal proceedings whatsoever. That occurs in another interesting and somewhat controversial Bill, the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, which I do not need to go into today because we will have plenty of opportunity to examine it on another occasion.

If the provision merely states that if the officer thinks there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes in the counting officer’s voting area, and does not say “in the opinion of”, we are using different language from the language that the courts are used to in administrative legal challenges, which is the precise wording, well established in the courts and in administrative law, “if, in the opinion of the officer, there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South made clear at the beginning, this is a matter of great importance when there is a knife-edge vote. He mentioned the experience of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) in relation to elections. We must bear it in mind that the Bill is not just about an election. It is about a referendum with a range of percentages that may be applied as a result of the threshold provisions. Those will become highly controversial in the context of clause 6, which we will reach later on—much later on.

[Mr Nuttall]

When one is considering whether a recount should be requested, one must take account not just of the number of votes, but of the manner in which the election process has taken place.

[Mr Cash]

I greatly admire my hon. Friend’s perspicacity. He puts his finger on an important point—the context in which these events take place. This is about whether or not, in relation to a matter of such importance as the issue of alternative vote, we end up with a decision which could be on a knife-edge and which is decided merely on the basis of what an officer thinks.

I do not know about hon. Gentlemen in the Committee at large, but sometimes I do not have that much faith in bureaucratic thinking; in fact, I have a strong aversion to it. But if the measure were to say, “In the opinion of the officer,” we would at least know that we were on what I would describe as generally understood judicial ground. The measure does not provide for that, however; it provides for the question of what is in his mind, not his opinion, and there is a very big and important distinction to be drawn between those two things. My hon. Friend is entirely right in believing that there ought to be a context and some criteria.

Furthermore, the measure includes the wording,

“if the officer thinks”—

whatever that means—

“that there is reason to doubt the accuracy of the counting of the votes in the counting officer’s voting area”.

What is or is not reasonable is, again, a question that the courts are well used to determining. There is a whole stream of case law, which I am quite capable of spending some time describing, on the question of what is or is not reasonable, and for that matter what is or is not practicable. I am afraid to say, however, that when the Bill simply states,

“only if the officer thinks that there is reason to doubt”,

it applies yet another spurious objective test, which is actually highly subjective, and that is not the way to legislate.

We want clarity and impartiality, and to be sure that, if there is a knife-edge vote, there will not be some unfortunate mistake in the mind of the officer—and I shall make no mistake whatever about what I say this evening.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a very compelling case, as usual. Does he not agree that this is an open and shut case? Owing to the way in which the measure is worded, if the chief counting officer, or the regional counting officer, thinks that there is a reason to doubt the accuracy of the count, he “may” give a direction for a recount. Surely, if a returning officer has reason to believe that the count is not accurate, it is an open and shut case. Surely, it is the duty of the returning officer that they must order a recount in those circumstances.

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely. My hon. Friend, with again the greatest perspicacity and accuracy, has put his finger on the complete absurdity of the Government’s chosen language. Let us be quite serious for a moment—I am trying to be serious the whole time—because the fact is that in legislation of this importance, and in the circumstances of a knife-edge vote, we are allowing a situation in which, if the counting officer “thinks” that there is a reason, he only sort of has to think about whether or not he might or he might not decide to order a recount. However, as my hon. Friend says, it is absolutely crystal clear in the circumstances to which he refers that it is not possible for the officer to give a direction other than on a mandatory basis, which is what “must” actually means.

[Philip Davies]

I obviously agree, but does my hon. Friend agree that his proposal would actually benefit counting officers and returning officers? In a situation where people have been up late at night, they are tired and it is not clear whether people want to have a recount, making the position abundantly clear in the legislation would be of great help to a returning officer, who would then not be under any pressure not to undertake a recount.

[Mr Cash]

Given the seriousness of the situation that we face this evening, for example, it would be intolerable to keep people up late for no useful purpose. That is precisely why I am making these very useful comments—to ensure that what happens is in line with the proper principles of administrative law.

On the next provision, which is amendment 154, there are a number of other extremely important matters that are of grave concern. That is so important that hon. Members have devised a special provision—not merely an amendment of the kind that I have described but the very well-thought-out separate paragraph (4A), which says:

“If the difference between the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “Yes” and the total number of votes cast in the referendum in the country in favour of the answer “No”—

this is crucially important—

“is fewer than 10,000”—

23:00

Debate interrupted (Programme Order, 12 October).

The Chair put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair (Standing Order No. 83D), That the amendment be made.

Amendment negatived.

The Chair then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83D).

Amendment proposed: 353, page 49, line 15, at end insert—

‘(aa) certify as respects the votes cast in each parliamentary constituency within his area—

(i) the number of ballot papers counted by him in that parliamentary constituency; and

(ii) the number of votes cast in favour and against to the question asked in the referendum.’—(Chris Bryant.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

23:01

Division 83

Ayes: 223

---

Labour: 212
Democratic Unionist Party: 8
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 344

---

Conservative: 284
Liberal Democrat: 54
Scottish National Party: 4
Alliance: 1

Amendments made: 279, page 50, leave out lines 34 and 35 and insert ‘relevant registration officer’.

280, page 51, line 11, at end insert—

‘(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1) the relevant registration officer is—

(a) the registration officer of the local authority in whose area the counting officer’s voting area is situated, or

(b) if the voting area comprises any part of the area of more than one local authority, the registration officer of the local authority in whose area the greater or greatest (as the case may be) number of electors is registered.

In this paragraph “local authority” has the same meaning as in paragraph 2A of Schedule 1.’.

281, page 54, line 9, after ‘for’ insert ‘United Kingdom’.

282, page 54, leave out line 10.

232, page 54, leave out lines 11 to 14 and insert—

	‘At present, the UK uses the “first past the post” system to elect MPs to the House of Commons.
	Should the “alternative vote” system be used instead?’.

283, page 54, line 14, at end insert—

‘Vote (X) in one box only.’.

284, page 54, line 20, after ‘for’ insert ‘United Kingdom’.

285, page 54, line 26, at end insert—

‘The official mark may be printed on either the front or the back of the ballot paper if it does not consist of or include any letters or numbers; if it does, it must be printed on the back of the ballot paper.’.

286, page 55, line 1, after ‘for’ insert ‘United Kingdom’.

287, page 55, line 3, leave out ‘once’ and insert ‘in one box’.

288, page 55, line 5, leave out from ‘question’ to end of line 7.

289, page 55, line 10, after ‘for’ insert ‘United Kingdom’.

290, page 55, line 19, after ‘for’ insert ‘United Kingdom’.

291, page 55, line 20, leave out ‘once’ and insert ‘in one box’.

292, page 55, line 21, leave out paragraph 7 and insert—

‘The words mentioned in paragraph 6(a) must be printed in bold characters.

The words on the front of the ballot paper indicating the alternative forms of answer to the referendum question must be printed in bold capital letters.’.

293, page 55, line 29, leave out ‘question’ and insert

‘the direction “Vote (X) in one box only”’.

294, page 57, line 15, leave out ‘once’ and insert ‘in one box’.

295, page 58, line 32, leave out ‘once’ and insert ‘in one box’.

296, page 60, line 7, leave out ‘ONCE’ and insert ‘in ONE box’.

297, page 63, line 17, leave out ‘ONCE’ and insert ‘in ONE box’.

298, page 67, line 9, leave out ‘once’ and insert ‘in one box’.

299, page 67, line 14, at end insert

‘so please ignore this poll card’.

300, page 67, line 24, leave out from beginning to the end of line 36 on page 68.

301, page 70, line 16, leave out from beginning to the end of line 9 on page 72.

302, page 73, line 2, at end insert—

‘Referendum on the voting system for United Kingdom parliamentary elections’.

303, page 73, line 7, leave out ‘once’ and insert ‘in one box’.

304, page 73, line 16, after ‘for’ insert ‘United Kingdom’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

We now come to schedule 3.

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Evans.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Does this relate directly to schedule 3, Mr Chope?

[Mr Chope]

Yes, it does. Under the motion of the House, schedules 3 and 4, clause 4, schedule 5, and clauses 5 and 6 were to be debated this evening before 11pm. We now know that there is no time for debate on any of those parts of the Bill. May I refer you, Mr Evans, to the undertaking given by the Parliamentary Secretary when he addressed the House—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. We are not starting a debate on this. I am required by the rules of the House to put each of the amendments formally, and that is exactly what I am going to do.

Schedule 3

Absent voting in the referendum

Amendments made: 173, page 76, line 14, leave out sub-paragraph (9).

Amendment 174, page 77, line 47, at end insert—

‘(9) The record kept under sub-paragraph (8) must be retained by the registration officer for the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the poll for the referendum.’.

Amendment 175, page 83, line 12, at end insert—

‘(11) The record kept under sub-paragraph (10) must be retained by the registration officer for the period of twelve months beginning with the date of the poll for referendum.’.

Amendment 176, page 83, line 28, leave out ‘(subject to any conditions prescribed by the relevant regulations)’.

Amendment 177, page 85, line 18, leave out sub-paragraph (8).

Amendment 305, page 92, line 13, after ‘FOR’ insert ‘UNITED KINGDOM’.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4

Application to the referendum of existing provisions

Amendments made: 178, page 93, line 28, leave out ‘(subject to sub-paragraph (4)(b))’.

Amendment 179, page 93, line 32, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) and (5).

Amendment 180, page 94, leave out lines 7 to 27.

Amendment 181, page 94, line 38, leave out ‘for “this Part” substitute’ and insert ‘after “this Part” insert’.

Amendment 182, page 100, leave out lines 4 and 5 and insert—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

We now come to clause 6.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Evans. On clause 6, the Minister indicated to the Committee earlier that he intends to adopt amendment 3, which stands in my name, as a Government amendment, so that it can be voted upon at this stage in the proceedings. I have made no objection to the Minister’s suggestion, because it is the Government’s right to have a vote if they so wish, and I have every confidence that, in whatever circumstances, the Government would win the vote on that amendment and the other amendments in the group. I have no objection to there being a vote. However, the Committee must take note that it is not the vote that matters, but the fact that seven amendments have not been discussed. My purpose in tabling amendment 3 was not to win a vote or to change the Government’s mind, but to ensure that the Committee had an opportunity to discuss the very important issue of thresholds in the forthcoming referendum.

[Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. Two things arise from that point of order. First, it is normally the convention in this House that the vote follows the voice, so if the Government adopt amendment 3, does that mean that they will support it? Secondly, I hope that what is proposed is not a mechanism to meet the letter but not the spirit of the Government’s undertaking that all important elements of the Bill will be debated seriously. The threshold for the referendum to be carried is the most important component of the Bill, so we need to know from the Government whether they intend to provide us with time to debate it properly at a later stage.

[Mr Cash]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. I completely endorse what my right hon. Friend has just said, because I, too, have an amendment down in my name and that of several other hon. Members—amendment 45—but we have had no opportunity to discuss it. In the light of the proposal for the Government to adopt amendment 3, merely for the sake of a vote, but without discussion, I would strongly presume—indeed, hope—that there would be an opportunity to debate the matter properly on Report. There are other amendments affected, such as amendments 45 and 64, standing in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope), so what is proposed would be completely inappropriate, in light of the fact that, for example, the threshold for the Scottish devolution arrangements in 1979 led to a substantial constitutional crisis. I would therefore simply ask you, Mr Evans, to ensure that the Government are made well aware of our wish to have a proper debate on the matter on Report.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. I intend to call Mr Chope, Mr Bryant and the Minister, and then that is it, and we will have fully exhausted the point of order.

[Mr Chope]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. In discussing the programme motion on 12 October, the Parliamentary Secretary said that

“we have taken steps…in the programme motion”

to ensure that

“the House will be able to debate and vote on the key issues raised by the Bill.”—[Official Report, 12 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 183.]

On Second Reading he also made it quite clear that we would have the opportunity to debate and vote on the key issues. Nobody is suggesting that the threshold is anything other than a key issue in the Bill. Even at this late stage, it is open to the Minister to tell the Committee that he will come forward tomorrow with an amendment to the programme order to ensure that we can start the business tomorrow with a debate on clause 6, rather than closing down debate on that clause, which seems to be the Government’s intent. I should also point out that unless we have a debate, it will not be possible for the Committee to take a view on the relative merits of amendment 3 as compared with my amendments 64, 65 and 66. In the European debate the other night the Chair was able to decide which amendments were more worthy of being put to the vote on the basis of the debate. Without a debate, we will not be able to do that.

[Chris Bryant]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. Several hon. Members have made the point this evening that there has not been time to debate significant elements of the Bill. In addition, the Government have today tabled 100 pages of amendments to the Bill, which they have proposed we debate next Monday, but they have already said that those amendments are incorrect and will have to be superseded by further amendments. At the moment, only two days are provided for Report. I would therefore ask the Government to consider providing a third day on Report, so that the issues can be fully debated. Otherwise, I am sure that their lordships would want to spend a considerable period of time looking at the legislation properly. Finally, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) rightly pointed out that votes normally follow voices in this House. That is to say that Members who shout aye have to vote aye, and if the Minister is going to shout aye in a moment, he should be voting in the Aye Lobby.

[Mr Harper]

Further to that point of order, Mr Evans. If the hon. Member for Rhondda genuinely thought that this was the most important part of the Bill, he should have thought about that when he moved some of his less important amendments today. That was a time-wasting exercise and nothing else.

I gave a clear commitment on Second Reading that the Government would do everything within their power to ensure that we had a debate and a vote on all the key issues of the Bill. We provided extra time in the programme motion last week. Reaching a point in the debate, of course, requires Members to exercise some discipline, which they were incapable of doing today. What is left within my power is to propose amendment 3 to enable the Committee to vote on it, but I ask my colleagues to vote against it. I want to facilitate the opportunity for this Committee to vote.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

I have listened carefully to the several points of order that Members have made. What the Government propose is orderly under Standing Order No. 83D(2), although it is, as some hon. Members have observed, somewhat unusual. I am sure that hon. Members will also have noted the opportunities open to them, as has been remarked, on Report. I should just remind Members of the rule on voice and vote. It is possible to vote against one’s own amendment, but one cannot shout “Aye” and then vote “No”. We now move on to clause 6.



Clause 6

Commencement or repeal of amending provisions

Amendment proposed: 3, page 4, line 28, after ‘“No”’, insert

‘and the number of electors casting a vote in the referendum is equal to or greater than fifty per cent. of those entitled to cast such a vote,’.—(Mr Harper.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Question negatived.

[Mr Chope]

On a point of order, Mr Evans.

[The First Deputy Chairman]

Order. It is getting very late and I suspect that Members will now wish to see the conclusion of our proceedings.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The occupant of the Chair left the Chair (Programme Order, 12 October).

The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again tomorrow.

Education Psychology

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

23:28

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

I have taken an interest over a long time in the provision of education psychology services, as I am very much aware that long waiting times for assessment can have an impact on the rest of a child’s life. I am delighted that the Government are undertaking a review into special educational needs, but deeply concerned that the training of educational psychologists appears to have been put on hold while the review takes place. I shall return to this point in more detail later, but emphasise now that educational psychologists will be needed to help to deliver the Government’s agenda to improve educational outcomes for children with special educational needs and to assist with early intervention—another area being reviewed, which again I wholeheartedly applaud.

Clearly, educational psychologists have a crucial role to play. They use evidence-based psychology to help children make the most of learning opportunities in schools. They solve educational social problems and problems arising from children’s differing needs through the application of psychology. They work not only with a proportion of the school and pre-school population, but also more widely with groups of parents and pupils. Examples of differing needs include visual and hearing impairments, cerebral palsy, autism, dyspraxia, dyslexia, social and emotional difficulties, and many more.

Educational psychologists play a key part in helping to shape how educational settings approach a vast range of education issues through statutory and non-statutory work, including on curriculum development, generalised and complex special educational needs, support for the gifted and talented, behaviour management, and delivery of early-years provision. They hold a recognised qualification in educational psychology—previously a masters degree and now a doctorate—and must be registered with the Health Professions Council. The benefits that they bring include knowledge of child development, which is all important because so many teachers go through training without much emphasis on that, although I know that that is being remedied. They provide early diagnosis and intervention, which is particularly important in the context of conditions such as autism, both for children who need ongoing assistance at school and at home, as well as for high-need children, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. They also provide diagnostic advice and support. Understanding a child’s needs and providing a tailored support package to assist them is crucial to their development. A key role of educational psychologists is to advise and support teachers who would otherwise need to perform that diagnostic role.

Educational psychologists are responsive to local need. They work across the full range of educational settings and are well positioned in local authorities to identify and analyse trends across localities, and to implement strategies to address local need accordingly. They conduct a wide range of interventions, including help with emergency planning, critical incident support, support for fostering and adoption, advice on adapting curriculum and buildings for disability, and reviewing and monitoring children who are placed out of authority and within independent schools. Educational psychologists also play a crucial role in engaging parents and liaising between them and teachers to help to improve joined-up learning and developmental and well-being outcomes for children, not only in educational settings, but at home.

According to data from the Children’s Workforce Development Council, there are approximately 2,200 practising educational psychologists in England and Wales. CWDC’s 2009 work force planning exercise showed that approximately 120 new entrants to the profession are required annually to maintain a similar-sized work force and to meet current local authority demand.

The age profile of the profession is such that a sizable number of educational psychologists are approaching retirement. There is a national shortage and significant numbers of educational psychology services are carrying vacant posts. All the graduates from the training courses have found employment. In a recent parliamentary answer to me the Minister said that about 120 educational psychologists were expected to complete their training in both 2011 and 2012. That sounds encouraging, but my concerns are not allayed.

In 2006, the training changed from a one-year masters course to a three-year doctorate to acknowledge the increasing complexities within which educational psychologists work—a one-year course was inadequate to provide an appropriate level of training. That change also brought training in line with that of other professional psychologists across the UK and Europe.

In the past, funding for educational psychology training was administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, which oversaw the top slice of funds to the Local Government Association, which distributed fees to higher education institutions and salaries to trainees through local authorities. Now the CWDC oversees the funding of training. A decision was made at Government level to cease the top slice, and the sum of money previously reserved for training was distributed among the 152 local authorities, which would then subscribe to training for educational psychologists. The money collected by the CWDC would pay for the higher education institution fees and also a bursary for the trainees during the first year of their training. It is greatly feared that the anticipated Government cuts will put local authorities under massive financial pressure, and that local authorities will therefore find it much harder to fund educational psychologists, or be less willing to do so. In the current climate, what guarantee is there that those educational psychologists who, in accordance with the Minister’s parliamentary answer, are expected to complete their courses in 2011 and 2012 will be able to do so?

Compounding this problem, according to the CWDC website the recruitment of educational psychologist trainees for the next academic intake has been frozen on the instruction of the Minister’s own Department.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on such an important subject. Does she share my concern that the freeze on the training of educational psychologists from 2011 onwards risks undermining a key component of education in our country and the facilities that are in place to support it, all of which go towards ensuring that every child matters and every pupil is given the best opportunity for their own advancement? Does she also agree that the Government need to do more to ensure that training is in place for the educational psychologists of the future?

[Annette Brooke]

That is a very valid point. If the freeze is for just one year, for example, there will be a shortfall in the number of educational psychologists of at least 120. No guarantees are to be made regarding future provision and funding until the Green Paper is published. The website says:

“As such the recruitment process for the 2011/2012 cohort is on hold until we have further information.”

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some further information on that.

With existing trainees possibly finding that they will not be funded for the remaining part of their courses and the freeze on the recruitment process for 2011 and 2012, there is an immediate and real danger that the university courses will be without a new cohort of trainees for 2011 or the funding that they have depended on from local authorities, and they will simply be unable to continue to function. Students who are part way through their doctorate training may not be able to complete it, and significantly fewer, if any, new educational psychologists will be qualifying and entering the work force. That will be the case in a context where the Government have made a commitment to ensuring prompt access to high-quality specialist assessment and specialist provision. Those two conflicting aspects of this situation must be reconciled.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, at a time when there is significant and increasing interest in psychology as a subject for graduate university study, and therefore the prospective pool of possible employees in the field is growing rather than diminishing, the urgent conversations she calls for between Government, local education authorities and the universities need to be held? Otherwise, it might not just be a case of people not progressing in their course; we might also send out a signal that working in educational psychology with youngsters is not a good career option for those who currently want to go to university or who have just started their undergraduate studies.

[Annette Brooke]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I think the uncertainty that he speaks of is what is causing the greatest concern, because not being sure exactly what their professional future might be like acts as a great deterrent to people entering a profession.

Something that the Green Paper on special educational needs is likely to consider is whether educational psychologists give independent advice, as they are employed by local authorities. Psychological assessment could be provided by educational psychologists in a number of ways, be it within or outside a local authority, but the bottom line is that we will still need educational psychologists. I do not understand the freeze; I hope that we will hear some further points about that.

For the past year, there has been a considerable shortfall in the moneys collected by the CWDC from subscriptions from local authorities. The CWDC has set up a working party to look at ways of ensuring stability and sustainability in funding. The CWDC consultant reported a number of options, with the most favoured being the reinstatement of the top-slice. The cost of training 372 new educational psychologists, with one third qualifying each year, is in the region of £9 million to £12 million per year. An option put forward by pressure groups is a move to central funding. I understand that this would be comparable to the funding arrangements for clinical psychologists who have their training funded centrally. Educational psychology is a smaller profession than clinical psychology.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Annette Brooke]

I will, but this will have to be the last intervention, given the time.

[Mr Hollobone]

Has my hon. Friend received an explanation from Her Majesty’s Government as to why educational psychology is being treated differently from clinical psychology? If some front-line service professionals are having guaranteed funding, why should the situation be different for educational psychologists?

[Annette Brooke]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that the Minister will be able to address that point. The funding problems are threatening numbers, and that has implications for work force levels and the ability of local authorities to deliver all statutory responsibilities for the safeguarding, well-being and education of their children and young people. If an educational psychologist’s work was restricted only to statutory assessment and reactive casework in order to maintain quality of service delivery, the capacity of staff to be involved in equally vital, but non-statutory, preventive work would be reduced. That would preclude proactive work with children, teachers, all the professionals who work within children’s services and parents to maximise the chances of successful outcomes from early intervention—the type of work that, in turn, might mitigate the need for such high levels of statutory assessment in the first place.

Further concerns emerged during the passage of the Academies Act 2010, particularly as insufficient time was available in the House of Commons to discuss in full certain issues pertaining to special educational needs. I tabled an amendment to try to have discussion on the subject but, unfortunately, there was no time to debate it, and that was one reason why I wanted to secure this debate. One presumes that as more schools become academies or free schools, less money will be retained by local authorities. In the past, they retained a considerable proportion of the budget allocated to schools in their area in order to pay for a variety of important services, including monitoring special educational needs provision, SEN assessment and co-ordination, and educational psychology services. There are concerns about the amount of money able to be retained by local authorities to continue to meet their statutory responsibility for all vulnerable children, both within and outside the local academies.

What guidance will the Department for Education be giving to academies and other schools with commissioning powers on the need to provide pupils and staff with access to educational psychology services? Will the Minister clarify what responsibilities local authorities will have for meeting the needs of children within academy settings? My amendment asked for monitoring and a report back on funding for SEN within three months of the enactment of the 2010 Act, one of the purposes being to pick up early signs of any problems with the local authority funding of educational services. Indeed, the Special Educational Consortium believes that the expanded academy programme must be monitored to ensure that children with SEN and disabilities do not experience further delays in accessing the services of educational psychologists. I want confirmation that funding for educational psychologists will not be delegated to academies, and I would further appreciate a commitment from the Minister that monitoring the impact of the expanding academy programme on all local authority SEN services will be a priority for the Government.

The central state funding of training is critical, given the specialisation and the relatively small size of the professional group. It is national legislation that sets the requirement for independent professional specialist assessment to adjudicate between school and parental perspectives and interests, and it is therefore a matter for the national Government to make this process possible by supplying the high-level specialist knowledge and skills to fulfil that role. Where there is a statutory requirement for assessment, the training to make it possible needs central national funding. I therefore urge the Government to look again at how educational psychology training is funded.

I also want to share with the Minister and the many hon. Members who are here tonight the importance of this topic. There is an urgent need for clarity on the arrangements that will be in place to support training in 2011. Surely the Department will not risk the supply of educational psychologists drying up. The freeze on recruitment for training is on the CDWC website for any potential educational psychologist to see. What kind of message does that send out? There is an urgent need to look again at the voluntary and unsustainable nature of current funding, to ensure that national funds are made available to train and maintain good levels of educational psychologists. The country wants and needs educational psychologists, yet the current funding arrangements and the decision to delay recruitment place the future provision of educational psychologists in serious jeopardy.

23:46

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Sarah Teather)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) on securing today’s debate on this important topic. She has campaigned tirelessly on the issue of educational psychologists and the need for adequate coverage for many years. I remember well the many times in opposition that she sought to amend just about every Bill that went through the House, to ensure that she had an opportunity to raise this issue. I understand how strongly she feels about it, and the fact that the House is so full tonight, despite the fact that it is almost 10 to midnight, is testament to the fact that Members on both sides of the House feel strongly about it, regardless of their political party.

My hon. Friend has shown her tireless commitment to this and to other issues relating to children with special educational needs and disability over many years, and it is therefore not surprising that Dod’s saw fit to make her MP of the year in its recent women in public life awards for her work on children’s issues. I offer her my congratulations on that.

It will not surprise my hon. Friend to hear that I share her ambition to improve education and children’s services in this country, in particular for those who need more support than the rest to achieve their potential. From my conversations with parents, teachers and children’s services professionals since I started this job, it has become clear to me that the complex and difficult situations that many families face can be made much more manageable if they receive the support that they need.

Educational psychologists are an extremely important part of the picture for many families in a variety of ways. They assess a child’s needs in order to identify problems before they get worse. They provide individual and group therapy to children who need psychological support, and they ensure that children and families are put in touch with the right professionals if they require other services. They also provide important advice to teachers and other school staff about what more can be done to support children with additional needs in educational settings, including gifted and talented children as well as children with special educational needs. They also provide a vital role in offering more strategic advice to local authorities across a range of children’s services, including fostering and adoption. I pay tribute to the work that educational psychologists do; it is absolutely vital for children and their families.

My hon. Friend has raised a number of specific issues about the operational aspects of the service, and in particular about funding and management. I shall turn to those first. She said that there are 2,200 educational psychologists in England, all of whom are trained to doctorate level. She said that there is a shortage, but in fact it seems that the work force are of probably the right size, notwithstanding the issues that she raised about future work force direction. It is a specialist service and it is demand-led, and local authorities must assess that need. As my hon. Friend said, that is undertaken by the Children’s Workforce Development Council. It has developed a useful model that will help local authorities to assess capacity in relation to local demand for the service. That could be an important part of local authorities’ forward planning and a good example of the more strategic role that we want local authorities to have.

Educational psychologists are employed directly by the local authority, which therefore manages the training and deployment of staff. My hon. Friend went through the history of how we got to the position we are in now. Previously, Local Government Employers administered the educational psychologists’ training and clearing house scheme. However, the LGE withdrew from those arrangements and the money was distributed to local authorities.

Since 2007, the Children’s Workforce Development Council has administered a funding scheme for the training of educational psychologists, to which local authorities are asked to contribute. However, I am acutely aware that the current scheme is not operating as effectively as it should be. As my hon. Friend said, contributions from local authorities have been steadily decreasing, and so far this year only 16 out of 150 local authorities have confirmed that they will be contributing, leaving a significant shortfall in funding.

That situation is not tenable. First, it leaves great uncertainty for those considering embarking on a career in the profession. Secondly, it is unfair that local authorities are not paying their share given that the money is included in local authority funding settlements. Thirdly and most importantly, as my hon. Friend outlined, we must have well-trained educational psychologists to provide for children’s welfare and development, particularly for children with special educational needs. So, in the context of the Government spending review and the systemic review of special educational needs, we are reviewing current arrangements and trying to find a more sustainable solution. We have had to place a temporary freeze on recruitment until the comprehensive spending review picture is clearer in the light of the significant shortfall in funding from local authorities’ contribution, but I am aware that the issue is urgent. I am very aware of the feelings expressed by Members of all parties.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am pleased to hear the Minister talk about the importance of supporting local authorities in supporting educational psychologists. Does she not share my concerns that some of the changes that this Government have made to the funding available to local authorities for centrally determined budgets, particularly the money that they have said has to go to academies and to free schools, will undermine authorities’ ability to fund central services and to support special educational needs in schools and therefore educational psychologists?

[Sarah Teather]

Academies are still perfectly free to buy into the services that are provided by local authorities and in many cases they do so, particularly when they are of a high quality. They now simply have more freedom to choose how they do that.

I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole will understand that, because of the proximity of the comprehensive spending review and the work that is ongoing on the Green Paper, I am not able to say more about the outcome of the work that I have said we want to do to put funding for educational psychologists on a more sustainable footing. As I have said, we are committed to this issue and I am aware that the situation at the moment is simply not a sustainable solution. I am also clear that educational psychologists are a key part of any reformed special educational needs system. Adequate numbers of specialists will be essential, no matter what reform we choose after consultation.

It is worth my saying a few words about some of the key principles that are guiding our work on the Green Paper, because they are relevant to the debate and pick up on some of the points that my hon. Friend made. I am clear that the system is far too adversarial, with parents all too often feeling that they have to battle to get the needs of their child recognised, let alone catered for. There are some excellent examples of good practice, but unfortunately all too often there are harrowing tales of poor practice. We must get better at identifying need early, diagnosing accurately and putting in place the right support to meet the child’s and, indeed, the family’s needs.

We need a more transparent system in which assessments are streamlined and easier to cope with—a system that focuses more on outcomes for the child and the family and not just on ticking boxes on a piece of paper. I want parents to have more choice and involvement in decisions about their child’s education and care. Much more can and should be done to raise the attainment of children with special educational needs and disability as well as to raise expectations of achievement. Key to all those areas of reform will be educational psychologists. We need to make much better use of their skills in assessment, advising teachers and schools, and working with families and children.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the urgency of giving a clear signal that there will be training opportunities for educational psychologists, to both potential candidates and university departments?

[Sarah Teather]

I recognise that this issue is absolutely urgent, but my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that I am not able to say anything about this before the comprehensive spending review on Wednesday, as it is way above my pay grade. However, I am very clear that this issue is critical to the reform that I want the Government to push forward in the Green Paper, which we will publish later this year. I am sorry; I know it is very frustrating for hon. Members who want answers now. They are quite entitled to come and ask the Government about this and I am relieved that so many people feel so strongly about it, but at this stage all I can do is assure Members that it is absolutely on my agenda.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The current freeze is giving a very unhelpful message, although the reasons for it have been explained in the debate. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) has pointed out the problem with the age profile and the need for a sustainable approach, and I welcome the Minister’s saying that there will be an answer to the sustainability issue. She talked about an adequate number of educational psychologists: can she give us an idea of an adequate number? That would be helpful.

[Sarah Teather]

What is an adequate number will depend a little on the Green Paper. The role of educational psychologists might change depending on what we do with the assessment system. I would like them to play a greater role in offering therapeutic advice rather than just being used by local authorities as a gatekeeper to services, as happens all too often. Much work needs to be done with the Green Paper.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I want to press the Minister on the period of time in which we might expect some clarity on this issue. She has talked a lot about the Green Paper, but when might we see it? Will she commit to coming to the House and telling us about educational psychologists after that?

[Sarah Teather]

We hope to publish the Green Paper at some point in December. I am sorry that I cannot give a time for reform of the system around educational psychologists. All I can say is that—

23:58

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Written Ministerial Statements

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

Monday 18 October 2010

Intellectual Property Office

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Mr Edward Davey)]

My noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Baroness Wilcox) has today made the following statement:

Following the statement made on 29 March 2010, Official Report, House of Lords, col. 172-173 WS, I would like to advise the House of certain changes to the targets set for the Intellectual Property Office for 2010-11. The revised targets are as follows:

1. Be able by March 2011 to quantify the level of IP rights and estimate IP’s impact on the knowledge economy.

2. Develop proposals on how the UK’s industrial property and copyright framework can further promote entrepreneurialism, economic growth and social and commercial innovation.

3. EU free trade agreements (FTAs) negotiated and agreed with IP provisions in line with UK priorities.

4. Issue 80% of patent search reports within four months of request.

5. Give good customer service in processing patent applications in 95% of quality assured cases.

6. Clear all outstanding patent examinations older than 49 months by March 2011.

7. Register applications for trade marks, for which we have not raised any issues and no opposition has been filed, within four months in 85% of cases, within five months in 90% of cases and within six months in 95% of cases.

8. Make the correct decision on registration on at least 99% of trade mark applications.

9. Register 95% of design applications for which we have not raised any issues within one month.

10. Our business outreach enables 80% of its recipients to improve the IP performance of their business or the businesses they advise.

11. Achieve a return on capital employed of 4%.

12. Achieve the savings target set by BIS of £6.3 million for 2010-11.

13. 90% of IPO customers will be satisfied with the service they receive.

14. Demonstrable improvement in our people’s perceptions of leadership and change management capability at all levels of the IPO compared with 2009.

These targets reflect the purpose of the Intellectual Property Office, which is to promote innovation by providing a clear, accessible and widely understood IP framework, to enable creators, users and consumers to benefit from knowledge and ideas.

“Common Sense, Common Safety”

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Oliver Letwin)]

In June this year the Prime Minister appointed Lord Young of Graffham to undertake a review into the rise of the compensation culture over the last decade coupled with the current low standing that health and safety legislation now suffers and to suggest solutions.

His intention in doing this was to bring about a return to proportionality and common sense in the application of both health and safety rules and to the payment of compensation for those victims of genuine accidents.

With the publication of Lord Young’s report “Common Sense, Common Safety” on Friday 15 October 2010 we are a step closer to achieving this. His proposals include measures to curtail the promotional activities of claims management companies and the compensation culture they perpetuate; clearer guidance for small businesses, schools and the police and fire services—freeing them from unnecessary bureaucracy and the fear of litigation; greater professionalism and transparency for those working in and with the health and safety industry; and a system where those wanting to hold events in their local communities are not hamstrung by red tape and over-prescriptive application of regulations.

The Government fully support this report and Lord Young will remain as the Prime Minister’s adviser. He will work with Departments, the devolved Administrations, and all those with an interest in seeing his recommendations put into effect.

Lord Young’s review “Common Sense, Common Safety” can be downloaded from the No.10 website, www.number10.gov.uk. Copies of the document have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Energy Policy

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Chris Huhne)]

National Policy Statements



On 15 July, Official Report, col. 40WS my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) told the House that the Government would hold a further consultation in the autumn on the draft energy national policy statements (NPSs).

I am today announcing this further consultation. It follows a consultation undertaken by the previous Administration which closed earlier this year. We have decided on this further consultation in particular because of changes which have been made to the appraisals of sustainability for the non-nuclear energy national policy statements following the previous consultation.

As my right hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for decentralisation told the House on 29 June, Official Report, col. 34-35WS, in announcing changes to the planning system, national policy statements are critically important documents and should have the strongest possible democratic legitimacy. They should be subject to public consultation and both scrutinised and ratified by Parliament before designation. I am today laying the revised draft NPSs before Parliament for any further scrutiny that Parliament may decide to undertake, and I am taking this opportunity to specify that the relevant period for that scrutiny under section 9(6) of the Planning Act 2008 will end on 31 January 2011. The public consultation will run until 24 January 2011, and we intend to present the finalised statements to Parliament for ratification next spring.

Energy national policy statements will be critical to delivering secure low-carbon energy supplies through the role they will play in the planning system. Decisions on new nationally significant infrastructure projects, whether by the Infrastructure Planning Commission or, in due course, by Ministers (subject to the passage of the Decentralisation and Localism Bill), will be taken in accordance with the framework of policies set out in the NPS.

At least one quarter of the UK’s electricity generating capacity needs to be replaced by 2020 and it will be important we create the right environment for business to invest in the energy market. The revised statements will give investors the certainty they need to bring forward proposals to maintain security of supply and ensure progress towards decarbonisation.

The energy NPSs set out national policy on a number of key energy policy areas: fossil fuels; renewables; gas supply and gas and oil pipelines; electricity networks; and nuclear. Each of these forms a separate NPS, sitting below an overarching energy NPS.

Each of the NPSs is accompanied by an appraisal of sustainability (AOS), which incorporates environmental reports which have been prepared under European law, and by a habitats regulations assessment (HRA). We are also consulting again on these associated documents.

Earlier this year, Parliament scrutinised draft energy NPSs both here and in another place. I would like to thank the Energy and Climate Change Committee for its report, and those in another place who also undertook important scrutiny work on the earlier drafts. I am today publishing the Government’s response to Parliament alongside the revised NPSs.

I am today also publishing a Government response to the previous consultation, to which there were over 3,000 responses, which identifies the key themes in the responses and responds to them.

Copies of all these documents have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available at http://www.energynpsconsultation.decc.gov.uk.

Regulatory Justification

I have today laid before the House draft statutory instruments containing my decisions, as Justifying Authority under the Justification of Practices Involving Ionising Radiation Regulations 2004, that the generation of electricity from the nuclear reactor designs known as the AP1000 and the EPR is justified.

Regulatory Justification is one of the actions which the Government are taking to facilitate the building of new nuclear power stations. It is required under EU legislation that provides that before any new practice involving ionising radiation (such as new designs of nuclear reactors) can be introduced, it must first undergo a high-level generic assessment to determine whether its economic, social or other benefits outweigh the health detriment it may cause.

As Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change I am the Justifying Authority and it is my responsibility to take these decisions.

Justification decisions are made by statutory instruments. The statutory instruments which I have today laid in draft before the House are supported by reasons documents, copies of which have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

The reasons documents set out how I have considered responses to the public consultations carried out by my Department, how I have assessed the net benefit of the classes or types of practice against the radiological health detriment they may cause, and how I have come to the decisions that they are Justified.

In summary, the basis for my decisions, as set out in the draft statutory instruments, is that there is a clear need for the generation of electricity by the nuclear reactor designs to which the statutory instruments relate, because of the contribution they can make to increased security of energy supplies and reduced carbon emissions. Against this the radiological detriment to health from these nuclear reactor designs and their associated waste facilities will be low compared to overall levels of radiation, and effectively controlled by the UK’s robust and effective regulators. I have therefore concluded that the reactor designs should be Justified.

The Justification Regulations provide that

“the Justifying Authority may cause an inquiry or other hearing to be held if it appears to him expedient to do so in connection with the exercise of any of his functions under these Regulations”.

Having considered all the evidence supplied in the course of the public consultations, I have concluded that interested parties have been provided with sufficient opportunity to make their views known; that I have been provided with sufficient information to balance the competing arguments, interests and evidence bases in the relevant areas; and that I have sufficient information before me to make a decision. The draft statutory instruments containing the decisions will also be subject to debates in both Houses of Parliament. I have therefore concluded that holding an inquiry or other hearing as part of the process would produce insufficient further information or other benefit to justify delaying the making of these decisions and that it is not expedient to do so.

Copies of a statement to this effect, and of the reasons documents, have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available on my Department’s website at

http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/what_we_do/uk_supply/energy_mix/nuclear/new/reg_just/reg_just.aspx.

Financing of Nuclear Waste and Decommissioning

The Energy Act 2008 puts in place the framework to ensure that operators of new nuclear power stations meet in full their waste management, waste disposal and decommissioning costs.

Today I am laying in the House the Nuclear Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Designated Technical Matters) Order 2010. This order will give operators greater clarity over which liabilities require monies to be set aside in segregated funds.



The order will proceed under the affirmative procedure and, if passed, will be followed by the Decommissioning and Waste Handling (Finance and Fees) Regulations 2010.

The order and the regulations together complete the statutory framework for the financing of nuclear waste and decommissioning.

No Subsidy for New Nuclear Power

Alongside the other announcements being made today on steps the Government are taking to enable new nuclear power, I should like to take the opportunity to reconfirm the Government’s policy that there will be no public subsidy for new nuclear power.

To be clear, this means that there will be no levy, direct payment or market support for electricity supplied or capacity provided by a private sector new nuclear operator, unless similar support is also made available more widely to other types of generation.

New nuclear power will, for example, benefit from any general measures that are in place or may be introduced as part of wider reform of the electricity market to encourage investment in low-carbon generation.

I would also like to make it clear that we are not ruling out action by the Government to take on financial risks or liabilities for which they are appropriately compensated or for which there are corresponding benefits.

Specifically, within the framework of the Government’s policy under the Energy Act 2008, that new nuclear operators must have arrangements in place to meet the full costs of decommissioning and their full share of waste management costs, we will not rule out taking title to radioactive waste, including spent fuel, at a fixed price provided that price properly reflects any financial risks or liabilities assumed by the state.

In addition, the Government are committed to the Paris convention on nuclear third-party liability and the Brussels supplementary convention. These conventions establish an internationally agreed framework for compensating victims in the unlikely event of a nuclear accident. The UK is already a party to them—and currently caps operators’ liability at £140 million. The UK is also bound, with other Brussels signatory states, to contribute to a fund that will compensate victims both in the UK and other convention countries should a serious nuclear incident happen.

The Government will consult later this year on our proposals to implement amendments to the conventions. These amendments impose a more stringent regime for operators than the current one, and alongside these improvements, the Government will be consulting on whether to continue to include an upper limit on operator liability, as permitted by the conventions. Accordingly, in line with the policy I am outlining, and without prejudice to the outcome of that consultation, the Government have not ruled out the maintenance of a limit on operator liability set at an appropriate level provided that it is justifiable in the public interest, is the right way of ensuring that risk is appropriately managed, and that, overall, any potential cost or risk to the Government can be justified by the corresponding benefits of the Paris/Brussels regime.

Arguably, few economic activities can be absolutely free of subsidy in some respect, given the wide-ranging scope of state activity and the need to abide by international treaty obligations. Our “no subsidy” policy will therefore need to be applied having regard to proportionality and materiality.

We will not rule out the Government providing support to industry in the normal course of the business of government, for example through the activities of the Office for Nuclear Development in taking forward the actions to facilitate the deployment of new nuclear power in a similar manner to the facilitation of other energy types. The Government will continue to meet their international obligations and support wider activity in the nuclear sector, including support for research and development, supply chain and skills activity.

The Government will also continue to provide funding to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to ensure the efficient and effective clean-up of the UK’s civil, public sector legacy nuclear facilities.

Severn Tidal Power Feasibility Study

I am also today publishing the conclusions of the Severn tidal power feasibility study and the key documents which informed its conclusions.

Following a positive recommendation from the Sustainable Development Commission in October 2007, a two-year cross-Government feasibility study was launched to inform a decision whether or not to promote a tidal power scheme in the Severn estuary. The cross-Government feasibility study, led by my Department, also included representatives from the Welsh Assembly Government and the South West of England Regional Development Agency.

The Severn’s enormous tidal range could provide up to 5% of our current electricity generation from an indigenous renewable source, and bring new employment opportunity both locally and nationally. But costs would be high, and a scheme would have to have a strategic need compared to other ways of meeting our need for renewable energy. Furthermore, the Severn estuary and some of its tributaries are designated as internationally important nature conservation sites. The study has considered whether Government could support a tidal power project in the Severn estuary and, if so, on what terms.

It has looked at five potentially viable scheme options in outline and assessed their costs, benefits and risks. The evidence base which I am publishing with the findings of the study is extensive and includes a strategic environmental assessment of the Severn tidal power options short-listed following last year’s consultation.

The key conclusion of the feasibility study is that the Government do not see a strategic case at this time for public funding of a tidal scheme to generate energy in the Severn estuary. The costs and risks for the taxpayer and energy consumer would be excessive compared to other low-carbon energy options. Furthermore, uncertainties over compliance with regulation would add to the cost and risk of construction. The Government believe that other options, such as the expansion of wind energy, carbon capture and storage and nuclear power, represent a better deal for taxpayers and consumers at this time.

However, the Government recognise that factors which will determine the feasibility of Severn tidal power could change over time. The feasibility study evidence therefore includes potential triggers for a future review, so that it can be considered by the Committee on Climate Change in the work they will be doing on the level of renewables ambition required to meet the 2050 greenhouse gas reduction target. The committee is expected to report next year. The Government do not intend to review Severn tidal power before 2015.

NHS White Paper

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

Today I am publishing two further consultation documents seeking views on proposals set out in the White Paper, “Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS” (Cm 7881). We are consulting on proposals for an information revolution and to give patients greater choice and control. The vision set out in the White Paper is of an NHS and social care system that puts patients and the public first and is more responsive to their needs and wishes—an NHS where patients, service users, carers and families have far more influence and choice in the system and where they have the information they need. “Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control—A consultation on proposals” and “Liberating the NHS: An Information Revolution—A consultation on proposals” have been placed in the Library and copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office. The documents are also available electronically at www.dh.gov.uk/liberatingtheNHS.

“Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control—A consultation on proposals” further develops the choice commitments set out in the White Paper to:

increase the current offer of choice of any provider significantly;

create a presumption that all patients will have choice and control over their care and treatment and that all patients will have a choice of any willing provider wherever relevant;

introduce choice of named consultant-led team for elective care by April 2011 where clinically appropriate;

extend maternity choice;

begin to introduce choice of treatment and provider in some mental health services from April 2011;

begin to introduce choice for diagnostic testing from 2011;

begin to introduce choice post-diagnosis from 2011;

introduce choice in care for long-term conditions as part of personalised planning;

move towards a national choice offer to support people’s preferences about end-of-life care; and

consult on choice of treatment.

The proposals envisage choice of treatment and health care provider becoming the reality in the vast majority of NHS-funded services by no later than 2013-14.

The second consultation “Liberating the NHS: An Information Revolution—A consultation on proposals” is about transforming the way information is collected, analysed, controlled and used in NHS and adult social care services. The information revolution is about moving:

away from information belonging to the system, to patients and service users being clearly in control;

away from patients and service users merely receiving care, to patients and service users being active participants in their care;

away from information based on administrative and technical needs, to information based on patient and service user consultation and good clinical and professional practice;

away from top-down information collection, to a focus on meeting the needs of individuals and local communities;

away from a culture in which information was held close and recorded in forms that were difficult to compare, to one characterised by openness, transparency and comparability;

away from the Government being the main provider of information about the quality of services to a range of organisations being able to offer service information to a variety of audiences; and

in relation to digital technologies, away from an approach where we expect every organisation to use the same system, to one where we connect and join up systems.

These consultations are opportunities to seek the views of patients, the wider public and the NHS, about the challenges that lie ahead, how we can successfully address them, and how we best take forward the choice and information commitments. Responses to the consultation will help us shape how greater choice and control and the information revolution are delivered.

The consultation period for both documents will close on 14 January 2011.

National Security Strategy

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am today publishing Britain’s National Security Strategy, “A Strong Britain in an Age of Uncertainty” (Cm 7953). Together with the strategic defence and security review, which will be published tomorrow, it sets out our strategic choices on how to ensure the security of our country. Both will be covered in my oral statement to Parliament tomorrow.

The United Kingdom faces a complex array of threats from a myriad of sources. The national security strategy describes the strategic context within which these threats arise, and how they may develop in the future. It describes Britain’s place in the world, as an open, outward-facing nation whose political, economic and cultural authority far exceeds our size. Our national interest requires our continued full and active engagement in world affairs, promoting our security, our prosperity and our values.

Our objectives are ensuring a secure and resilient United Kingdom, and shaping a stable world. In pursuit of those goals, our highest priorities are tackling terrorism, cyber security, international military crises and natural disasters such as floods and pandemics. We will draw together and use all the instruments of national power to tackle these risks, including the armed forces, diplomats, intelligence and development professionals, the police, the private sector and the British people themselves.

The national security strategy, together with the measures in the strategic defence and security review, will enable us to protect our security and advance our interests in the world.

Copies of the national security strategy have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses .

Benefits System (Fraud and Error)

Monday 18th October 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr Iain Duncan Smith)]

I am today publishing “Tackling fraud and error in the benefit and tax credits systems” a new joint DWP and HMRC strategy. This will be followed by a wider cross-government approach to tackling fraud, error and debt collection across the rest of the public sector being led by the Minister for the Cabinet Office. This strategy contains proposals to reduce significantly the level of fraud and error in the welfare system. It contains measures to prevent fraud and error from the outset of any claim; root out and correct mistakes where they do happen; deliver tough punishments for those who defraud the system; and deter those who would try to abuse the system in future.

Copies of the report will be deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

House of Lords

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Monday, 18 October 2010.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Introduction: Lord Williams of Baglan

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

14:39

Michael Charles Williams, Esquire, having been created Baron Williams of Baglan, of Neath Port Talbot in Glamorgan, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Dubs and Lord Malloch-Brown, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Education: Marshall Scholarships

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:44

Asked By

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial commitment they will make to support the Marshall scholarships scheme.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford)]

We strongly support the aims of the Marshall scholarships programme and we kept our funding at £2.2 million this year. We certainly intend to maintain the scholarships programme. We are discussing with the Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission what level of financial support would sustain the programme. The commission is planning around a number of scenarios to prepare for candidate selection interviews in November. I cannot confirm the figure now, as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not yet decided its own allocations between programmes, but we will do so as soon as possible after the 20 October announcement of the comprehensive spending review outcome.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer as far as it goes, which is not terribly far. Will he confirm that the HMG-funded scholarships under the Marshall scheme have been in steady decline in the past few years and are set to decline further? Does he not believe that that is an odd way for the British state to express its gratitude for a major act of generosity by the United States, which was, of course, the purpose for which the scheme was set up in the first place?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I wonder whether the noble Lord is right to take quite such a gloomy view. It is perfectly true that the numbers are down because the sums available have not covered so many scholars. However, there is no reason why in the longer term, as we cease to have to cut our cloth as sharply and as the nation becomes more prosperous, we should not return to a more expansive programme. On top of that, it is worth remembering that, outside such scholarships, there are many other forms of support. I am advised that, in British universities generally, the numbers of postgraduate Commonwealth and US students have been rising rapidly in recent years. That is one thing that the previous Government got right.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, as I was bicycling very recently along Trumpington, I thought about today’s Question. Does the Marshall scholarship bear any relation to the Commonwealth Fund of New York or the Harkness fellowship? Together, they are, I believe, well endowed. Would some sort of relationship among the three be of benefit to all three?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am very glad indeed, as I am sure that we all are, to hear about the vigorous cycling activities of my noble friend. As to her question, those two categories are not ones with which our Marshall scholarships, Chevening scholarships, our own Commonwealth scholarships or other programmes are related. We wish those schemes well and they are very good programmes, but they are not directly related to our programmes, which we run from our various departments here.

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords—

[Lord Kinnock]

My Lords—

[Baroness Jay of Paddington]

My Lords, at a time when the so-called special relationship is quite often under threat, is the Minister aware of the important fact that there are 10 Marshall scholars in President Obama's Administration? Given what we know of the generosity of previous scholars—for example, their personal donations to British universities far outweigh the scholarship’s £2 million cost to the FCO—it is very important that the scheme should be maintained.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

The noble Baroness is right to say that we must maintain the scheme. Obviously, we have to face up to the fact that we have to make economies everywhere, but she is right that we must maintain it. I had heard that the number of Marshall scholars in the Obama Cabinet was five, not 10, but perhaps there are some others. Certainly, one of the wisest of the Supreme Court judges is a very distinguished ex-Marshall scholar. The noble Baroness is quite right that we must maintain the scheme, but we have to face economic realities as well—everyone knows that.

[Lord Alderdice]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that it is not just a question of the special relationship and diplomacy, very important as those things are, or of looking with gratitude to the past? Because those scholarships can be taken at any university in the United Kingdom and in a range of subjects, they are also an investment in the scientific co-operation between this country and our colleagues in the United States, which is one of the primary engines for future development.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I am sure that that is right, and I would extend the same thought to the Commonwealth scholarships and the vast spread of people going through our universities who go out into the new markets of the world that will dominate our prosperity in future. We want those people to look back to this country to order their equipment, to provide their services and to develop their professions and we want them to realise that we can continue to be the workshop and service counter of the world.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, does the Minister recall that, in a speech at the New York Stock Exchange on 22 September 2010, the Foreign Secretary said that,

“it is this extraordinary level of personal connection that makes the relationship between our two countries irreplaceable”?

Often, those relationships that are made as students, very early in life, are so important. Does the Minister agree that the Marshalls have played a strong role in that extraordinary level of personal connection? Does he not think that, were the scholarships to be reduced any further, that personal connection would suffer, maybe not next year but in 10 years’ or 15 years’ time?

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

One has to look at all the relationships as a whole. Certainly, I do not dispute for a moment that the Marshall scholarships are an important part, nor can I reject the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, that their numbers have been falling. However, many other things have been increasing. As I mentioned earlier, under the Government of which the noble Baroness was a distinguished member, there was a dramatic increase in the number of US students in the United Kingdom. There are many other programmes, such as Fulbright and Gates, which make a contribution. I have to reveal to your Lordships that I stand here in the knowledge that I was supported by an American scholarship through my time at Cambridge, which may be welcome or not. Such scholarships are a feature of a whole network of relationships with the United States that we treasure greatly because we still regard the United States, through all its difficulties, as the home of liberty.

[Lord Kinnock]

My Lords—

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Lord Howe.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Cambridge Commonwealth Trust and of the Cambridge Overseas Trust. I seek to reinforce the point already made that the sum that my noble friend the Minister has mentioned is not large—it is a little more than £2 million. One consequence of such scholarships is to encourage the scholars subsequently to make contributions of importance to our universities and to encourage others to do the same. They have a big multiplying effect.

[Lord Howell of Guildford]

I totally endorse what my noble and learned friend says. They are a variable part of the overall scheme of our relationship for today and for tomorrow. We must work to sustain that.

Railways: North-west

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked By

[Lord Sheldon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to invest in rail services in the north-west.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government’s priority is deficit reduction. However, current proposals include route electrification between Blackpool North, Manchester, Liverpool and Wigan. We also plan to lengthen trains and platforms where necessary to accommodate patronage growth. North-west stations have been highlighted for improvement through the National Stations Improvement and Access for All programmes. In Manchester, the priority is to extend Metrolink. In addition to work under way, a further £170 million extension plan was announced in July.

[Lord Sheldon]

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that reply. At present, the best rail service between London and Manchester is two hours and seven minutes. By 2014, the journey from London to Paris will be under two hours. It is a longer journey, but it will be very much faster than the service to Manchester. There is a big chain between these two. Although there will eventually be a faster journey between London and Manchester, when will that be? How long do we have to wait for that?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the coalition Government are committed to high-speed rail. We hope to have parliamentary approval for the hybrid Bill in 2015 and work will start shortly thereafter.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester]

I am sure the Minister will be aware that Network Rail published its northern route utilisation strategy on 8 October, which contains some very encouraging figures for passenger growth in the north of England. For example, as regards Liverpool and Manchester, it estimates that by 2019 growth will exceed 30 per cent and may rise as high as 45 per cent. Will he give an absolute assurance that the Government will honour the comment that he made about electrification despite the horrors that may be in the Chancellor’s statement this week?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, we welcome the work carried out by Network Rail in compiling its route utilisation strategy. It provides a valuable input into the work to be undertaken by the Department for Transport to determine the outputs the railway needs to deliver during 2014-19 and beyond. My comments about electrification remain.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is disgraceful that, after 13 years of Labour rule, 10 transferred coaches have been sent to the northern franchise, 182 were promised in the rolling stock plan and, that under a Labour Government, an order for 200 multiple unit trains was cancelled? Can he please press on his right honourable friend the Secretary of State the need to pay attention to the great northern cities of this country and actually do something for them?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord makes important points. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, talked about increased passenger demand in the north-west, and Manchester in particular has some serious problems. However, capacity is constrained by the infrastructure—we need to do something about the northern hub—as well as by the rolling stock.

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, given the areas of multiple deprivation in east Lancashire and the current emphasis on localism, will the Minister consider giving his strong support for plans to re-establish the link between Colne in east Lancashire and Skipton? Will he also consider opening the Todmorden curve to passenger traffic, thus making it possible to improve the links between Burnley and Manchester?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government support proposals for the Todmorden curve and are providing help and advice to local authorities working with Network Rail and the train operator to develop a proposal that has a business case and can be funded through local and regional sources. On the general point about reopening lines, we would be happy to work with a local authority promoter which sought to establish whether reopening a line was the best way to meet local transport needs. However, I emphasise the need for a good business case.

[Lord Davies of Oldham]

My Lords, did the Minister notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, as a loyal supporter of the coalition, failed to mention the very great investment indeed made by the last Labour Government in the west coast main line, which has raised the performance of the train service to the level it has reached today? Does he also accept that while we welcome his statement today about electrification in the north-west, he knows that the shortage of rolling stock is an acute issue, and that this relates to investment decisions on Thameslink in southern England? The two are related because of surplus rail stock that is destined to go to the north-west. Will he confirm that he will take that on board, because there is not much point in producing an infrastructure if you do not have the rolling stock to roll on it?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord made several points, many of which were correct. I want to make it quite clear where we are on electrification. In 2009, it was announced that the following lines in the north-west would be electrified: Manchester to Liverpool via Chat Moss, which we plan to complete by 2013; Liverpool to Wigan North Western by 2014; Manchester to Bolton and Preston by 2016; and Preston to Blackpool North by 2015. That is what we are planning to do.

[Lord Peston]

Apart from the rise in the use of trains, which is welcome, is it at all possible that we might actually have some trains running at the weekend? Most people visiting this country are under the impression that we have become a totally third-world nation at the weekend. By the time we get to the Olympics, I think that people would like some trains in order to get to the stadiums.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, one of the issues that many of us who are interested in rail transport are particularly concerned about is the business of possessions for weekend engineering works and their overrunning. We pay a lot of attention to this and we look forward to Sir Roy McNulty’s report on value for money and efficiencies in the rail industry, which the Secretary of State is due to receive early next year.

Prisoners: Voting

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked By

[Lord Ramsbotham]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to comply with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights on the voting rights of prisoners.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, the Government have been actively considering the issue over the summer and this work is continuing.

[Lord Ramsbotham]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I understand that responsibility for the issue has now been passed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who announced that action was being taken. When I last asked this question in June, the Minister told the House that we would receive an answer in October. I gather that has now been deferred until December. I dread to think what would happen in this country if anyone who was made the subject of a court order did nothing about it for six years—the time that has passed since this order was made, and it has been five years since the appeal. Can the Minister assure the House that intentions are being carried out to enable those prisoners who will be allowed the vote to vote in the elections next May?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, that is a trick question because it assumes that a decision has been made about the vote being granted to prisoners. I have said that the Government have been actively considering the issue over the summer. It is only five months—not five years—since this Government came into office. We are looking at the situation and will make a report to the European Council of Ministers, as we promised over the summer, at its meeting on 30 November.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, is it not the case that there is room for more than one respectable view on this matter? Is it not further the case that, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and, presumably, the judges of the European court, very few people are in favour of this proposal? Will the Minister be guided accordingly?

[Lord McNally]

I agree with my noble friend that there are people who believe passionately that the removal of the vote is a proper sanction for someone who has committed a crime that justifies a prison sentence. There are also people—the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is one—who see the granting of the vote to a certain category of prisoner as being a useful way of rehabilitating them into society. Both views are perfectly respectable. The Government are considering both views and will make their decision in due course.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I remind the Minister—

[Noble Lords]

Question!

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

It is a question. I remind the Minister of the view taken by David Howarth when he was the Liberal Democrat justice spokesman. He said:

“It is unacceptable for the government to pick and choose which human rights treaty obligations it fulfils just because it feels the issue is unpopular”.

Is this another fault line within the coalition and one of the areas where the Government want to remain silent? It is important that we hear clearly from the Government—and soon—what is intended with regard to an order that was made about the civic rights of prisoners. What does the Minister have to say about whether there is a fault line here?

[Lord McNally]

I can absolutely assure the noble Baroness that no such fault line exists. As I have explained already, over a period of five months we have been looking at the situation and listening to various points of view. There is a Council of Ministers meeting on 30 November and we will update that council meeting in due course. We have not been unduly laggard in looking at the issue and, as I have said, the work is continuing.

[Lord Scott of Foscote]

Is the Minister aware that the rulings of the Strasbourg court are not binding on our domestic courts? Section 2(1)(a) of the Act states that Strasbourg court rulings should be taken into account, but an amendment to make them binding was rejected by this House and was never part of the Bill. Is the Minister aware also that the Hirst (No. 2) judgments contained a dissenting opinion from five of the 17 judges, including Judge Costa, and that in the opinion of many, including myself, the dissenting opinions are far more convincing than those of the majority? In these circumstances, does the Minister agree that it is not open to the Strasbourg court to add to the human rights enshrined in the convention in the manner in which it from time to time does, and that, so far as the issues in the present case are concerned, the Government should do no more than simply reaffirm the present position? Does the Minister finally agree—

[Noble Lords]

Speech!

[Lord Scott of Foscote]

Does the Minister finally agree that the Government must govern this country according to the laws in force in this country without regard to the occasional extravagances of the Strasbourg court?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, one of the values of Questions like that of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, is that it provokes interventions such as that. It means that we get, for free, legal opinions that would on normal occasions cost us a fortune.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords—

[Lord Janner of Braunstone]

My Lords—

[Lord Bates]

My Lords—

[Noble Lords]

Lester!

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Janner, might give way and let the noble Lord, Lord Lester, speak.

[Lord Lester of Herne Hill]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is an obligation under Article 46 of the convention to abide by the judgment? Is he aware that the British judge, Sir Nicholas Bratza, formed part of the majority? Is he aware also that Ireland, Cyprus and Hong Kong have all managed to introduce postal voting for prisoners without the slightest difficulty? Finally, is he aware that in November and December, the British Government will have to hang their head in shame in the Committee of Ministers when dealing with compliance with other judgments for being in default for more than six years?

[Lord McNally]

My Lords, slightly more respectfully perhaps, I again make the point that one of the advantages of a Question like this is that it enables us to learn the broad spectrum of opinion and hear details of research, which probably reassures Members over why we are taking such a time carefully to consider this matter before the meeting on 30 November.

Allotments

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question

15:07

Asked By

[Baroness Sharples]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of allotments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham)]

My Lords, the provision of allotments is the responsibility of local authorities. Allotment legislation places a duty on local authorities, except in inner London, to provide sufficient allotments where they consider that there is a demand for them in their area. The Government are supportive of innovative approaches to making land available for community use, including food growing and community land-banking. Meanwhile, licences and leases are being developed by the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens and the Development Trusts Association. All these could be ways in which communities gain more access to land for allotments.

[Baroness Sharples]

I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is she aware that the National Trust has established allotments at several of its properties? Why cannot other organisations do the same? With the new planning regulations, should not more encouragement be given to garden owners to plant their own vegetables?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, the National Trust is indeed doing an extremely good job in providing access to part of its land for allotments. I think that we would all be glad about that. I am not quite sure how many other landowners or landholders might be happy to do this, but I am sure that the example that has been set by the National Trust will be followed. There is plenty of enthusiasm and encouragement for people to start growing vegetables in their own gardens. There is also encouragement for people to be community gardeners and growers, and there are vegetable plots all over the country.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, is the Minister aware of the very important work currently being done by the Royal Horticultural Society in using gardening as a way of developing skills in schools, and that some of this work is connected to the use of community land? Would it not be a very great shame if the kind of limited but important funding available for schools to contribute to this work was in any sense compromised by the forthcoming spending cuts?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to what I said originally. The support for initiatives such as this comes from local government, which will make its own decisions about it. The sort of initiatives to which she refers are extremely valuable; they build into future generations a love of the land, the love of gardening and an appreciation of where our food comes from. Quite a lot of children just think that it comes out of the shop.

[Lord Tope]

Is the Minister aware that allotment associations are currently ineligible to apply for funding from landfill tax credits on the grounds that allotment sites are not technically open to the general public? Does she agree that access to such funding could enable allotment associations to bring a lot more unusable plots back into use? If she does agree, what will she do about it?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that anything that encourages people to have allotments and take up gardening is to be welcomed. I am not aware of the funding of which he speaks and will make inquiries and respond to him in due course.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

The Minister will be aware that legislation gives a local authority the right to terminate a tenancy when it discovers that a tenant lives more than one mile outside of the area for which the allotments are provided. In assessing the impact of this and, generally, on supply and demand for allotments, what regard has been given to the effect of the proposed draconian cuts in housing benefit, which will force many poor people out of their current homes and away from their existing communities?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, this Question is about allotments, not housing benefit. I shall resist the temptation of being drawn into the whole question of housing benefit and simply say that the rules governing allotments are in the hands of local government, which presumably pays attention to them when considering these matters.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that schools in inner London, and particularly in Battersea, where I went to see a very underprivileged school last week, have developed the equivalent of allotment gardens? That has proved immensely beneficial to underprivileged children, who before had no inspiration at all and now have not only learnt to produce food but think that they would like to become chefs.

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I am very well aware of what the noble Baroness refers to. I refer also to what happens within my own local authority, which has developed raised gardens on land such as old tennis courts to be used for community gardens that will also be available for children.

[Lord Grenfell]

Will the Minister give me an assurance that those who are digging for victory in their allotments are free to plant genetically modified crops without fear of them being ripped out at dead of night or even by the light of day?

[Baroness Hanham]

My Lords, I cannot account for who might rip them out, but I doubt that it would be the local authority. I am sure that the association governing allotments will have its own regulations on GM food—and, if necessary, not having made them before, will make them now.

[Lord Naseby]

Has my noble friend noticed that a number of local authorities have already responded to the need for extra allotments, certainly in central Bedfordshire? Now is the time to plant Aquadulce broad beans; it is an urgent requirement for a good broad bean crop, so will she continue to give encouragement to the local authorities to produce more allotments?

[Baroness Hanham]

I do not think that there is any need to encourage local authorities to continue to support allotments, as it is part of their statutory obligations to do so. Sometimes people will want to grow beans, but they might want to grow peas and a great many will want to grow tomatoes.

House of Lords: Conduct of Members

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:14

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, I inform the House about the publication today of three reports from the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. The three reports, which follow investigations by the Sub-Committee on Lords’ Conduct, relate to the conduct of the noble Lords, Lord Bhatia and Lord Paul, and the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin. The reports will be published this afternoon and are now available to all Members in the Printed Paper Office.

The House now has a duty to consider these three reports. It has been agreed by the usual channels that the three reports will be debated together on Thursday this week, 21 October, as the first business after Oral Questions. At the end of the debate, the House will be asked to take decisions on the reports and, subsequently, on the recommendations of the Committee for Privileges and Conduct.

Identity Documents Bill

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:15

Moved by

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Neville-Jones)]

My Lords, the Bill is short, and it is precise in achieving its aim of scrapping the identity card scheme and destroying the national identity register. Enactment of the Bill will meet the commitment set out in the coalition agreement and deliver the commitments made in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos for the 2010 election. We very much welcome the opportunity for debate today and will consider the matters raised in this House together with the content of the legislative scrutiny report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I have not yet seen the contents of the report but I understand that it supports the Government’s approach.

A number of your Lordships will recall consideration of the Identity Cards Act 2006 and the fact that our opposition to the introduction of the scheme was focused on preventing the state from intruding unnecessarily into the private lives of individuals and wasting taxpayers’ money. We have not moved from that view, or on the inadequacy of the implementation of the 2006 Act, which has served only to confirm why we were right. The ID card scheme has not delivered the promised benefits. It has been an unjustifiable burden on the taxpayer and very poorly received by the public, with only 15,000 cards in circulation, of which some 3,000 were issued free of charge by the previous Administration.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Baroness. Before we go any further, I must say that I am finding it very difficult to concentrate on what she is saying because of the conversations that are going on on the Back Bench. Could the Chief Whip, or the noble Lord who is a Whip, remind noble Lords that if they wish to have a conversation, the Companion suggests that they retreat to the Prince’s Chamber?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will take note of what has just been said.

Those are the exiguous outputs of the scheme and confirm our long-held concerns that the scheme was expensive, ill thought out and unlikely to find favour with the public. I will return to those aspects and to the issue of passport security later, but I will concentrate for a moment on our fundamental concerns, which lie in the gathering by the state of information that is neither proportionate nor necessary.

The setting up of the national identity register has meant gathering voluminous biographical and biometric personal data on the individual, on the sole criterion of having applied for an identity card. Under the 2006 Act, the individual is required by the state to notify any change in personal details—for instance, a home address—for the lifetime of the card. As things stand, any failure to do so within that period of 10 years could result in the cardholder paying up to £1,000. One has to ask what kind of big brother state that is.

The crux of our deep concern with the ID card scheme is that the purpose of gathering and retaining data was not clear either in the 2006 Act or in how the national identity register operated since its inception. There is the potential for the state to use gathered information for any purpose which it thinks fit. In effect, each cardholder has paid £30 to be photographed, fingerprinted, put on a database and tracked by the state for the following 10 years. Your Lordships may consider this an exaggerated view of the ID card scheme, but sadly it is the reality. We do not always agree with Liberty, but in this instance it is spot on. In its oral evidence in Committee in the other place, the director of Liberty said:

“One of our fundamental concerns about the national identity register was that it was a multi-purpose and non-purpose-specific database, which meant that by definition the amount of information on it would inevitably grow and by definition it was not necessary and proportionate to a particular cause”.

That view was echoed by Justice in the same Committee, and it reflects the importance of ensuring that databases are subject to openness, accountability and proportionality. In our view, the ID card scheme meets none of those key requirements. Instead we have a scheme with little or no purpose that allows the state to intrude into the life of the citizen. There was no attempt in the legislation to achieve the right balance between national security and public protection and the rights to safety and privacy of personal data. The ID cards legislation is a measure without equal in gathering large quantities of personal data from members of the public not suspected of any wrongdoing, which added insult to injury somewhat by requiring them to pay £30 for the privilege.

On cost, the previous Administration expended a total of £251 million. This went on projects to establish identity cards, passports with a second biometric feature and other related programmes. Prior to that, the Home Office spent an additional £41 million developing the policy, legislation and business case for the introduction of identity cards. Furthermore, it was estimated that a further £835 million would have to be spent on the national identity scheme by 2018. This is a huge waste at a time of financial stringency.

When promoting ID cards, the previous Government indicated that the existing and proposed spend was an investment and that the return from ID card sales would recoup taxpayers’ money, but the reality has been different; £251 million to issue 12,000 chargeable cards might be called reckless, which is why we have stopped all spending on the scheme and closed down the existing card-issuing operation, pending the outcome of parliamentary consideration of this Bill. We anticipate savings of £86 million over the next four years through cancellation.

Your Lordships will be aware from consideration of the Bill in the other place that there was a great deal of debate on the issuing of refunds or the provision of discounts or credits against future passport applications. The cost of providing refunds would be in the region of £400,000, which is not a trivial sum. We have come to the conclusion that it would not be right for the taxpayer to foot this bill and to add to the already excessive spending on the scheme.

We realise that some people who spent £30 for a card with a 10-year life expectancy will be disappointed that it will be cancelled later this year without any refund, but those who chose to buy a card did so in the full knowledge of the unambiguous statements by the coalition parties that the scheme would be scrapped if we came to office. They cannot now expect taxpayers to bail them out.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, is the Minister saying that it is a general principle that members of the public are meant to read through the manifestos of all the parties before making a decision, and that that decision is at risk if another party wins? That is an extraordinary argument.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, citizens have to be aware of what is going on around them. It was clear that this scheme would have a risky future ahead of it. I shall deal in a moment with one or two of the other points that were implicit in the noble Lord’s question.

Another idea that was advanced in Committee in the other place was to allow existing cards to remain valid until expiry. That would have required maintaining the infrastructure for the next 10 years or so—another problem. The cost of so doing would have been in the estimated region of between £60 million and £80 million, and we do not consider that spending at that level is justified.

My final point on refunds relates to the statutory basis for the issue of ID cards. There is no contract here; an identity card has been provided in the context of a statutory framework and is not available for the remedies that might be forthcoming where an agreement is governed by contract or consumer law.

The 2006 Act makes no provision for a refund policy, either in the case of early cancellation of the scheme or withdrawal of the card by the issuing authority, or by the individual who simply wishes to get out of the ID card scheme. There has been no provision in the law.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. Will she give sympathetic consideration to the possibility of refunding those who took out their ID cards before the manifestos were published? They seem to me to be innocent citizens, if I can put it that way, and I am sure that it would please a lot of people if it were possible to do that.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, the opposition of both coalition parties to ID cards was well known well before we incorporated that in our manifestos. This was not a surprise to the world. I am afraid that I cannot hold out any prospect of acceding to the noble Lord’s suggestion.

I turn to one other aspect of the 2006 Act that affects the integrity and security of the British passport. The UK passport is a highly secure and well respected document, both nationally and internationally, and it complies fully with international standards. The recent design changes announced on 5 October this year further enhanced the security of the document. It is essential that we ensure that there are sufficient powers available to help prevent and detect fraud. That is why we have proposed to retain the offences set out in the 2006 Act that deal with fraudulent access to, and use of, identity documents other than identity cards. They result in about 3,000 prosecutions each year for an offence with potentially very serious implications for both national security and, indeed, for crime prevention.

The second issue relates to the decision of the coalition Government to halt the introduction of the second biometric indicator in passports. The second biometric would of course have been fingerprints, in addition to the existing facial imaging. We do not believe that adding the second biometric indicator increases the security of the document, which is already at a very high level. By halting plans to introduce a second biometric, we are saving the taxpayer a further £134 million. Furthermore, we do not consider that the holding of a database of fingerprints of some 80 per cent of the British population—all those who make passport applications—is a proportionate response to the level of risk. National security and public protection are of paramount importance to the coalition Government, and we will not allow them to be compromised or endangered. We keep such issues under continuous review, but as things stand we do not consider that a second biometric is required to enhance the existing very high security levels of a British passport, or, indeed, to enhance its acceptance by border agencies around the world.

EU countries subject to the relevant provisions of Schengen will require their citizens to provide fingerprints, but we also know of other countries that will not be making this requirement. A country as border-conscious as the United States does not, nor do Canada, Australia and New Zealand. They have no current plans to use fingerprints in passports but are instead focusing, as we are, on the enhanced use of biographic and facial imaging based on identity authentication techniques: so we do not consider that a convincing case for having fingerprints in the passport has been made.

The Identity Documents Bill is about getting rid of an expensive and intrusive scheme that placed unnecessary and disproportionate requirements on the individual to provide information to the state. The Bill is a major step along the route of returning power to the citizen. At the same time, we have been careful to retain existing powers to tackle those who choose to commit, or attempt to commit, identity fraud. We have tabled a government amendment to Clause 10 in the other place to increase the safeguards for the individual in relation to the acquisition and retention of data in connection with passport applications. So while we add necessary precautions, the core function of the Bill is to remove from the statute book the costly, unsuccessful and invasive card scheme, to the benefit of the taxpayer and the freedom of the individual. On that basis, I am pleased to present the Bill for your Lordships’ consideration, and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

15:30

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for outlining the Government’s Bill so clearly and concisely for us this afternoon. We are very grateful to her. It is perhaps slightly ironic that we should be debating the Bill at the start of National Identity Fraud Prevention Week. ID fraud is, as the noble Baroness will know, one of the UK’s fastest-growing crimes, with nearly 2 million people a year falling victim to it, costing the country some £2.7 billion.

While in government, my party, as the House knows, introduced a system of voluntary identity cards. The identity card scheme was envisaged as a convenient, secure and affordable way of asserting one’s identity in everyday life. The card was a tool of empowerment—a way to give citizens some ownership of and control over their data. The card was affordable to nearly everyone, far more affordable than a passport. It was about protecting your identity and accessing your services. Indeed, in introducing consultation on ID cards in 2002, the then Home Secretary, the right honourable David Blunkett, described these documents as “entitlement cards” which would ensure that those who have a right to use our public services are the only ones to do so. The ID card functioned as a valid travel document throughout Europe, a way to demonstrate eligibility to work, and a proof of age for young people or those without a driving licence. It also added some protection against identity fraud—a crime which, as I say, costs a great deal of money each year.

Yes, we believe that the ID cards enhanced security. Their existence made illegal immigration and trafficking that bit harder. The Police Federation of England and Wales has long supported the scheme. It said:

“The Police Federation has backed an identity card scheme for over a decade, not as a knee-jerk reaction to any one specific or emotive event, but following objective appraisal. Unfortunately, all too often the case for identity cards is not pushed hard enough for fear that their introduction would be seen as infringement of peoples’ civil liberties. However carrying identity cards brings benefits to us all. If an individual is stopped by the police, they would be able to confirm their identity instantly; the result of which is that they would not have to report to a police station—a lengthy process that would amount”,

so the Police Federation argued,

“to a far greater infringement of their liberty”.

In an age when security is paramount, ID cards can help to protect us all. The existence of the national identity register provided the security services with a verifiable and authenticable database to contribute to their role in safeguarding the public. It was in making the obtaining of multiple identities harder that we believe the ID card scheme offered an obstacle in the way of would-be terrorists. I pray in aid the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, who said in 2001:

“Britain is the easiest country in Western Europe in which criminals and terrorists can lose themselves. If we are serious about tackling this problem, there is one obvious remedy—identity cards”.

That is no doubt why, under his leadership, the party opposite—which now makes up the Government—voted in favour of the Labour Government’s first Bill on this matter in 2004, and why it supported it in the 2005 general election campaign.

Having said all that, I wish to make a concession, which has also been made in the other place. However much these Benches may have supported the introduction of ID cards, we cannot deny this Government’s mandate to abandon the measure now. It was one of the precious few proposals that appeared in both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat manifestos. Therefore, we absolutely recognise the right of the Government to pass this Bill. However, that is not to say that we do not think there are considerable problems with the Bill before the House today. I shall raise some concerns and my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath will raise others.

We believe that the 15,000-odd ID cards already in use should continue as a legitimate form of identity until their expiry date. We argue that it is unfair, because of a change in government policy, to penalise people who have spent money on these cards. In the other place, as justification for their refusal to compensate card holders, the Government repeatedly deployed the argument—which was used again by the noble Baroness this afternoon, slightly unconvincingly, if I may say so with great respect—that:

“People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/10; col. 346.]

Am I alone in thinking that that argument is shocking in its arrogance and deep unfairness? The Government demonstrate a mean-spiritedness on this issue in not attaching a money resolution to the Bill. As a result we will not be able to move an amendment to call for refunds for card holders. Such a refund would cost less than £400,000 to deliver. In the context of the wider costs of scrapping the scheme—the Government have claimed that it will cost £5 million this year to implement the Bill—that is a comparatively small amount.

Furthermore, in refusing to offer compensation the Government really are riding roughshod over consumer protection law. We on these Benches agree with comments made in the other place that the Government's attitude to the cancellation of the ID card scheme is symbolic of their lack of regard for ordinary taxpayers—many of those affected are elderly and some are not the richest in society—who in good faith have spent money on purchasing the card. Not to compensate them seems to us a pretty cold-hearted approach. We shall certainly bring this matter back in Committee.

If the Government will not offer card holders a refund, we suggest that a credit of £30 should be attached to card holders’ next purchase of a passport. It seems plain to us that existing cards should remain valid until they expire. We would be grateful to hear the noble Baroness’s view on this. If the Government are not open to this argument, we would like to know what they have to say to the often older and poorer members of the public who took up the opportunity to purchase an ID card under an Act of Parliament. They will be inconvenienced and out of pocket if the Bill is passed as it stands.

We have doubts about the need to destroy the data held on the national identity register. We are committed to the security of the British passport and consider that data held on the NIR, especially the biometric information, is valuable in achieving this end. As the noble Baroness said just now, the Government have announced that they are halting the second generation of biometric passports. However, in scrapping the data already held and the infrastructure which has built up around the national identity register, it seems that the Government’s real intention is to scrap proposed second generation passports altogether. We disagree with that approach, which risks leaving Britain out of step not only with the rest of Europe but with other countries as well.

The Prime Minister himself has previously argued that there is clearly a need for biometrics on passports. I remind the House that following the British-Israel row over the use of fake British passports in the killing of Hamas leader Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in Dubai, the right honourable William Hague, the Foreign Secretary, acknowledged the value of biometrics. Biometric passports and the register represent important contributions to the integrity of the UK's system of identity. The Bill will undermine this. With the permission of the individuals involved, data on the NIR should be transferred to the Identity and Passport Service.

There are other arguments. We are concerned that the scrapping of the scheme will not allow us to learn from the experience of issuing cards to airside workers at UK airports. There are potential lessons in enhanced security which could have been applied to other areas, but now we will never know.

There are equality concerns. The ID card was the only form of identity proof that could be issued to transgendered people in both their birth gender and acquired gender, thereby making it much easier for them to prove their identity without fear or embarrassment. Transgendered people were not included in the Bill’s equality impact assessment, and there has been no consultation whatever.

As Liberty said in a press statement on 27 May 2010 and in its contribution to this debate, it is inequitable to maintain ID cards for foreign nationals while scrapping those for everyone else, as the Bill will do. We also have arguments with the Government about the costs involved. My noble friend will address that issue.

Before I conclude I remind the noble Baroness that, in a former life, not long before she came to prominence on the opposition Benches, and now on the government Benches, she said something which I suspect she thought she might be reminded of during the course of this debate:

“If you’re not going to have ID cards you have to find other ways of protecting identity and I don’t know how you do”.

Why has the noble Baroness changed her mind?

15:42

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, shortly before the general election I was asked at a meeting what would be the first new Bill that I would introduce if I had the opportunity to do so. I said that we had far too much legislation already and that I would be looking at making repeals before I would look at introducing new laws. I was on a panel with a Member of Parliament who had been a Home Secretary and he agreed with that analysis. The Identity Cards Act 2006 was not in the “unnecessary” column; it was in the column marked “plain wrong”. I am therefore delighted to welcome this Bill and to note the significance of the fact that the upholding of civil liberties and the right to privacy are being given parliamentary time so early in this Parliament.

Even those who were initially attracted by the, “I’ve done nothing wrong, so I have nothing to fear” argument were, in increasing numbers, losing faith in the effectiveness of ID cards. The events of 9/11 and the Madrid train bombings answered the assertion that ID cards would help in dealing with terrorism. As for organised crime, identity fraud—which the noble Lord, Lord Bach, mentioned—is committed mostly online, where identity cards are irrelevant. As for the potential convenience for young people in proving their age, all I can say is, “some nut, some sledgehammer”.

Then, of course, we have heard about the cost. The waste of money is a scandal. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, has mentioned refunds. I agree that there is an issue regarding the payments made by individuals. However, it is completely disproportionate to suggest that the charges that have been paid by individuals are a greater issue than the cost of the scheme so far, and its potential cost were it to be retained.

I could have spent 15 minutes reading into the record the quotes that I found in a very quick internet search. Instead, I will share a couple. These expressions of concern by citizens—I use the term deliberately—very effectively make the point. The first is:

“Why should I have to validate my very existence by signing up for this National Identity Register/ID cards? The potential of this data to be abused/lost/stolen is almost a certainty never mind the fact you have to pay for the privilege. It’s crazy that law-abiding people will be punished for not having one or not keeping their details up to date and it provides no extra benefit whatsoever. Saying it will counteract terrorism is an absolute delusion too”.

The second comment that I will share is as follows:

“ID cards will do nothing effective to reduce terrorism or crime, indeed criminal and terrorist organisations with the resources will probably find ways around them anyway. These cards do however extend the control and interference of the state by another step. This government in particular is investing heavily in building a very good infrastructure for oppression. I will not sign up for these cards, nor carry one. The scheme should be scrapped without compensation to the organisations involved and any money saved moved into worthwhile parts of the budget, perhaps even to help reduce the causes of crime by improving education and youth services”.

Those comments go to the heart of the matter. I do not need to spell out the concerns that we all have about the vulnerability of the personal data to which they refer. I look forward to debating in Committee amendments to explore points from the Joint Committee on Human Rights about the offences that are being re-enacted, and about information sharing in connection with the issue of passports. The JCHR picked up, among other things, on comments made by the Information Commissioner’s Office. I will quote from the Hansard report of the written evidence given to the Public Bill Committee:

“There should be no room for ambiguity over the information which will be destroyed”.

That is a matter that we will come back to.

Mention has already been made of biometric immigration documents, and the need for better language than the divisive “ID cards for foreign nationals”. I appreciate that residence permits are required for a fair system of border control. I hope that the Minister will comment either now or when we come to these points in Committee, as I am sure we will, on who has access to personal information held by the National Biometric Identity Service; how long the information will be retained; whether it will be retained after the individual has left the UK, and if so, why; and whether the UK goes further than is required by European law.

I look forward to passing the Bill after the proper scrutiny to which I have referred, and to the further protection of civil liberties that will no doubt be coming to us—to rebalancing, if I may use a good new Labour term. We can still learn lessons. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that it was a shame that we were scrapping the schemes because there were lessons to be learned. I hope that we can learn them in any event.

The ID register is an authoritarian strand of government that I deplore. I see no justification for the scheme other than that “it was invented here, but here is now there”. I do not want to be unnecessarily divisive, because all of us who value our liberties and who rely on a common-sense approach to good government should welcome the Bill—and I believe that they do, because I recognise that those views are held on all sides of the House.

15:49

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, as one of many who frequently expressed extreme unhappiness about the Identity Cards Bill as it passed through all its stages in your Lordships’ House, I was delighted to hear the announcement by the Government that most of its provisions would be repealed. I am even more delighted that the Identity Documents Bill has reached this stage so soon.

It was not just identity cards that presented a problem; of much more concern to me and others was the national identity register. As Liberty always maintained, these were a costly and completely unnecessary intrusion into our personal lives. Several noble Lords warned about the complexity of implementing such a scheme, the details of which were left to secondary legislation. All went unheeded by the previous Labour Government as, relentlessly, they ploughed on in their determination to get ID cards and the register into law. Now it seems that at least some members of the Labour Party have changed their view, for the new leader of the Opposition and another leadership candidate declared that they, too, are strongly against ID cards.

The cost and intrusive nature of ID cards and the register were not the only objectionable aspects of the Identity Cards Act 2006. Time and again, the previous Government were warned about the lack of security of the database and the detrimental impact on race relations. Of primary concern was the fundamental shift in the relationship between the state and the individual that would have occurred had the legislation been brought into effect.

I was fortunate to have worked with the Earl of Northesk. The breadth and depth of his knowledge about the functioning of computer databases were without parallel in your Lordships’ House and I am sure that his expertise will be sorely missed. He consistently warned that no database could be totally secure and that one as large and unwieldy as the national identity register was sure to be attacked. Recent warnings of cyberterrorism appear to endorse his belief.

I am probably not the only noble Lord to have received a briefing paper from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which expressed its concerns about the likelihood that racial discrimination would have been exacerbated by the Act. I was reminded of an occasion in the late 1950s when I worked in the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance in Birmingham. In those days, a national insurance card to which stamps were attached was issued to each working person. This would show the contribution year, the gender of the person and the class of stamp. Additionally, as the colour of the card changed each year, the colour was written in words below the gender. I vividly remember chaos breaking out at the counter when an Irishman demanded that his card be changed for one of a different colour. It transpired that he had not understood that the separate words “orange” and “man” did not indicate that he was an Orangeman. It took quite a while to calm and reassure him, for clearly he felt that both his privacy and his religious affiliations had been affronted. This is an indication of the sensitivities that must be considered when enacting measures such as this.

The exorbitant cost of setting up and maintaining the register has never been justified, but that issue has already been thoroughly aired, so I will not labour the point.

Article 8 under the Human Rights Act relates to the citizen’s right to privacy. The Minister will be aware that there is still a great deal of unrest about possible infringement of this right by the UK Borders Act 2007. Both Liberty and the Northern Ireland commission have expressed their concerns that the gold-plating of that Act goes beyond the requirements of EU regulation. Does the Minister share those concerns or does she hold that the documents required are a requirement of EU law? If the latter, will she please tell the House which powers, purposes and sanctions under Sections 5 to 15 of the UK Borders Act 2007 are over and above the requirements of EU law?

Sections 25, 26 and 38 of the Identity Cards Act 2006 are to be retained in Clauses 4 to 10 of this Bill. As a former long-serving member of the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, I am well aware of the number of false documents that are encountered in this jurisdiction. Clause 6 lists documents whose possession is an offence, but there is no definition of “reasonable excuse”. Will the Minister define that phrase, please? I also take this opportunity to make a plea for the consolidation of all the law that relates to immigration, asylum and border control. There has been such a welter of primary and secondary legislation in this field over the past two decades that I am amazed that anyone can ever get a full grasp of the subject. There really is a need to rationalise the law, to simplify the requirements for the identity of non-EU nationals and to bring the law into line with European law.

I look forward to the further stages of this Bill in your Lordships’ House and wish it a fair wind.

15:55

[Lord Maxton]

My Lords, it would appear that I may be the only Back-Bencher to oppose this legislation. I spoke during the Second Reading debate on the main Bill and I said then that it was necessary. I also said that the one mistake I thought was being made by the Government of the day was that they were not making such ID requirements immediately compulsory for all British citizens.

I think that this Bill is a backward step because we are in the middle of a major technological revolution that is transforming the country we live in and the way in which we carry out a whole variety of different functions, such as the way in which we access our services and the health service. Eventually it will transform the way in which we vote and do business over the internet, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, suggested. Yet, at the same time as this revolution is taking place, here we are going backwards and taking away biometric identification cards, which would allow people to access a whole range of services in different ways—something that they cannot do at present but would be able to do in the future.

However, the point is that all of us will be able to do that. The Minister introducing the Bill has an ID card hanging round her neck, as do I. We all have to have an ID card to be Members of this House: we have to produce some form of identity to get into the building. Even visitors who come into this House now have to have their photographs taken to ensure that we know who they are when they walk round and to ensure that they cannot switch identification with someone else. I have a wallet full of cards which give me various rights of access. The noble Baroness in front of me, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is busily saying that, “It’s not this and it’s not that”. Does she want the drive to move forward with ID cards to rely entirely on the market, which is what will happen?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, rightly said that most identity fraud takes place on the internet. That may very well be true. At some point the banks and the people who provide services on the internet are going to wake up to the fact that that fraud costs £2.8 billion and they are going to ask you to put some form of ID card into your computer to ensure that you are the person doing the deal. My noble friends are saying that some do that already. Therefore, the market will drive this forward. There will be a whole series of means by which we produce ID in order to get the services that we want but, if the push for that is market-driven—which is my major objection to what this Government are doing—that will increase the technological divide and wealth divide between those who have access to ID cards and those who do not. Perhaps it is taking a hammer to crack a nut, or whatever expression the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, used, but those who do not have such access are the young, the deprived, the poor and the people who are stopped by the police on our streets who cannot prove who they are. These are the people who need ID cards. These are the people whom we want to have some form of identity so that they can say, “This is who I am; I can prove it. If you want to put my ID card into a machine, it will prove who I am through the biometric system”. If we do not have some form of identity cards, we will find that the technological gap between the young and the deprived people who live in poor areas of our country and the rest of us will grow and we will live in an even more divided society. That is what this coalition Government are about, so perhaps I should not be very surprised by it. However, I certainly oppose the Bill and, to some extent, I regret that the opposition Benches are not opposing it more thoroughly, as they should be doing.

16:00

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I admire the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, for sticking to the old guns, as you might say. It may be worth while in this Second Reading debate reviewing where we have come from because I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, was not accurate in what he said. The principal issue that exercised this House back in 2005-06, to such an extraordinary degree that we threw that Bill back to the Commons three times, was the issue of compulsion. It is wrong of the noble Lord, Lord Bach, to start his speech by saying that the previous Government introduced a Bill for a voluntary card. Indeed they did according to their manifesto, but when the Bill came out it was compulsory. That is the rock upon which the opposition in this House was built and that opposition then grew across all Benches. It is as well to remember that.

I pay tribute to Mr Willcock. I do not suppose that many in the Chamber remember dear old Mr Willcock who, when asked by a policeman in 1952, refused to produce his identity card. He said, “I am not going to produce my identity card. The identity card was to stop the Germans, not to help you on some piffling nonsense”. The High Court upheld the good gentleman’s refusal and the identity card legislation was swiftly repealed. The point of that was to show that identity cards tend to have what you might call usage creep. The state cannot resist the opportunity to use the card for more and more things in more and more situations.

Again, one aspect of the Bill of 2005 that this House objected to profoundly was the right of the Secretary of State to add to the circumstances in which the identity card could be used and, in particular, to add to the category of information that could be on the national identity register. Let us not forget that the national identity register was to be unique in the world in terms of the amount of information that it would collect on each citizen. Microsoft licked its lips and referred to the register as the great honey-pot because it was to be the greatest source of information on earth.

The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, objects to what we are doing now because of the commercialisation that he says afflicts disadvantaged youths who want to establish their identity. I would be totally sympathetic to that if I felt that he was correct. However, he omits to remember not only that the ID cards that the Bill will abolish would have been compulsory if this House had not intervened three times but—this could never have been taken away—the huge cost of the scheme, which the LSE working group established would be more than £20 billion over the first 10 years and which was to be recouped by selling the ID cards to the great retailing outlets. These would have readers which, if you spent more than £15 at XYZ store, would read the purchase into the national identity register. Every time that happened, the store would have paid a small sum of money, and—how many of us remember this?—the national identity register would have recorded every occasion on which the card was used. The noble Lord, Lord Maxton, looks quizzical, but I assure him that that is so. That is why people objected to the sort of information build-up to which the card would lead.

[Lord Brett]

We are having a Second Reading debate on a Bill that will repeal an Act. Will the noble Lord say where in the Act the facts that he is putting forward appear? In the Act that was passed in this House and in the other place, there is no reference to that.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

It is a bit much to ask me to refer to a point of detail in the Act. I shall tell the noble Lord afterwards, but he need only read Hansard. I assure him that the Government did not deny that they would pay for a substantial part of the cost by commercial use and that every use of the card would register on the NIR. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, will agree with that.

Let me quickly pay tribute to NO2ID and Liberty for the huge help that they gave this House in respect of that Bill. I also repeat what the noble Countess said about Lord Northesk, whom we all miss and who was of great use to the House in the course of the passage of that Bill, as was the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, who is not in her place now.

To come to the Bill, those of us who fought and fought the previous Bill welcome this one with huge enthusiasm. I believe that the Identity Cards Act 2006 would have affected fundamentally the relationship between the citizen and the state. It is as well to think of “citizen” rather than “subject”, because in some respects that Act would have had a deleterious effect on that vital relationship. However, I say to my noble friend, who confirmed in opening the debate that there will be no repayment of the £30, that I think that that is a serious mistake. It seems unfair to say that people should have kept an eye on what we do in this House and should have carried in their heads the fact that the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Party had made clear statements in the course of that Bill’s passage that they would repeal it if they came to power. Simple fairness should lead Government to repay those sums of £30—whether to old women or to rich hedge fund managers, I do not mind. It is not fair to abolish ID cards and not to repay that money. It is a modest sum in relation to the total costs already incurred.

I am sad that the Bill is as complex as it is. I do not know how many noble Lords have tried to read through the Bill, but it is a nightmare, even for an old lawyer like me. In Committee, I shall table a lot of amendments to attempt to make its provisions clearer. I draw attention to just a couple of clauses. In Clause 4, “Possession of false identity documents etc with improper intention”, the definition of improper intention in the second subsection does not say whether it is exhaustive. In addition, the reference to “false identity documents” is not true to the clause because it covers situations in which the documents are not false. The language of the clause is also extremely complex; I hope that we will be able to simplify it as we go along. Clause 6(1)(a) provides for an offence of possessing without reasonable excuse,

“an identity document that is false”.

That does not seem to be reconcilable with an almost exactly parallel offence in Clause 4(2)(a). I hope that that is not too detailed a point for a Second Reading debate.

Clause 10 desperately needs rewording, because it allows the Secretary of State to require various authorities to provide him or her with what is called “verifying information”. At the end, there is a nasty little subsection that states that the Secretary of State may specify by order,

“any other person … for the purposes of this section”.

That could take us right into the realms of private businesses, and we will need to look at that.

I welcome the Bill with great enthusiasm, as have my noble friend Lady Hamwee and others. I would like to think that, by the time it leaves us, the Bill will be really fit for purpose as well as fit in intent.

16:09

[Lord Stoddart of Swindon]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. I congratulate him on his exposition of what happened when this House discussed the Identity Cards Bill and improved it to the extent that it was rather better than it would have been had this House not been involved. Believe me, it would have been a very much worse Bill had this House not given it a lot of attention.

Being brought up in the Labour Party, I had always believed that identity cards were the tools of dictatorships and that the Labour Party, being in favour of individual freedom, was not in favour of such instruments that were used by dictators. I was very disappointed that such a Bill should have been introduced by the Labour Party and I am very disappointed now that it is opposing this Bill to repeal the bad Bill it introduced during 2005-06.

I am very happy to congratulate the coalition on bringing forward so quickly this Bill to repeal the Identity Cards Act. I have looked at many manifestos from both parties in my time and I had got rather cynical about them. I had thought that the coalition was against the Identity Cards Act and I had no doubt that it would be under great pressure from all sorts of interests, such as the security services, the police and the Home Department, not to repeal the Act. It deserves congratulation on being able to stand up to such pressure and, within five months, to bring forward the Bill and to take it through the House of Commons to this House almost unscathed. I therefore straightaway say that I support the Bill.

There is little to criticise in the Bill, although I have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, has said about certain aspects of it. No doubt we will come to these matters in Committee. I also hope, like him and others, that the Government will rethink their position on refunding the money to the 15,000 people who were inveigled—if I may use that word—into buying identity cards. It would cost a few hundred thousand pounds to do that, but the noble Baroness has said that we would save £800 million. Perhaps, under those circumstances, the Government will think about this. In any event, I have no doubt that there will be amendments on this matter in Committee. What supervision will there be to ensure that information contained in the National Identity Register is destroyed? It is important that the public, as well as Parliament, are given absolute assurances that the information already held is destroyed.

I understand the position of the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, which has always been his position as I understand it, but I do not understand the position that the Labour Party is adopting now. During his campaign for the leadership, the leader of the Labour Party, Mr Ed Miliband, said that it was a mistake to bring forward the identity card system and the identity register. I cannot understand why the Labour Party is not taking this opportunity to say to the House and to the country, “We were wrong and we support the Government’s Bill to put that wrong right”. I wish it would think about that between now and our further discussions on the Bill.

The Government have made a good start in this Bill to abolish ID cards and the national identity register, but there is much more to do in order to rid ourselves of many of the restraints on individual freedom and restrictions on free speech that have built up over the past few years. It is intolerable that people should be arrested, detained and questioned by the police on the say-so of some third party if they say something out of place to a friend or to someone else—even if the remarks are not relevant to that third party.

Even worse is the risk people run of losing their employment if they dare to criticise public policies or administration. I mention the recent case of a teacher, Miss Birbalsingh, who made a speech at the Tory Party conference properly criticising aspects of education. This should be a wake-up call to all of us, including all the political parties. It appears that when Miss Birbalsingh returned to her school, she was sent home like a naughty little girl and, as I understand it, has now lost her job. We have reached an awful pass when employees can be sacked for bringing legitimate concerns to the attention of the public. I hope that the freedom Bill will contain measures to ensure that this sort of thing does not and will not happen again. The Tory Party in particular, bearing in mind the eloquent speech made by Miss Birbalsingh, really should do something about it.

Finally, I join the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, in thanking the people in Liberty and NO2ID who have been tireless in their effort to keep the issue of ID cards and the national register before the public and have campaigned for the Identity Cards Act to be repealed. It is interesting to note that during the period that these groups have been active, support for ID cards has gone down and down. They used their own money and it is by their efforts that we are now in the last stages of repealing this iniquitous Act. That is a tribute to them and an indication that ordinary people working together in concert can still help to achieve great reform in this country.

16:18

[Lord Selsdon]

My Lords, I am honoured to follow my noble friend Lord Stoddart of Swindon. I apologise to him again, because the last time this issue was raised, I called him “Lord Swinton” by mistake. Along with my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, we have all spoken on identity cards enough to bore the pants off a wild boar.

This is a difficult subject for me because I have always had a crisis of identity. I do not oppose the Bill, but it is not past perfect, perfect or even future perfect. That is because the first thing you need for identity is a name, and as the prayer book says, “What are your name or names? Nomen or nomine”. For those of your Lordships who have heard me bang on about this before, the question is this: ask yourself what is your name, and then ask what is your full name, and then ask what is your legal name. Of course, as noble Lords know, you do not have a legal name because you have the right to call yourself what you like. Some of us have suffered from being put into your Lordships’ House at an early stage. I found that instead of being Malcolm Mitchell-Thomson, I became the right honourable Sir Malcolm McEacharn Mitchell-Thomson, Baronet of Polmood in the County of Peebles and Baron Selsdon in the County of Croydon.

In my travels over the years—and I have travelled much—this has led to me sometimes being registered by the first two words in my passport or birth certificate when I have tried to prove who I am. Those words may be “the right”. In the continent of Europe you take the surname or last name first and then the Christian name, so I have been Monsieur or Herr “right the”. As your Lordships know, “The” is a well-known Vietnamese Christian name. At the other end of the scale, when I have been “of Croydon”, I have been called Monsieur “Croydon of”, and “Of” is a Norwegian Christian name. I would like to be called “Malcolm Selsdon”, but this is denied to me.

If we are to have an identity card or passport, the first thing we need to do is determine the full name of the holder. In an attempt to prove myself wrong again, I asked the Whips Office if it would give me the Christian names of all Members of your Lordships’ House. I then searched through these names, only to find that many of your Lordships are called by a name that is not either one forename or another. So how do you prove who you are? And, having proven who you are, how do you use that information for your benefit?

The British passport has a reference number containing 24 figures and four letters—it is perfect—which is scanned in when you go to an airport. However, it is big, and if you try to carry it with you when you go swimming you find that you have got a problem. Over time, I have taken a copy of my passport. Is it illegal to take a copy of your passport? I am not sure that it is, but it is photo voltaic. It also has a photograph of me because, if I wish to identify myself to someone, I need to have a photograph. Almost everyone these days requires proof of identity.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, that I do not carry a pass of the House of Lords because, when I came here, I was told that I should certainly know everyone who had come here before me, their name and their face, and that the best form of security is recognition. Then, in order to get to know the security people, I was given the numbers they had on their shoulders and I learned their names so that when I went by them very quickly everyone would recognise me.

My problem is that I lose passes regularly. On my bus pass I am called Lord McEacharn, which is one of my middle names, and on something else I am Monsieur Croydon of, but I would like to have my own name and my own photograph on every card that I have. For example, I would like to have them on my bank card so that no one can steal it. I would like that freedom and that right.

Having studied the European legislation on data protection, I went to each of the countries where I worked and asked, “Will you accept this miniature of my passport as proof of identity?”. I had had it put in plastic—but not in a shop; I did it at home so that I was not breaking the law—and it is the same size as almost any European identity card; it is also waterproof. I have a miniature as well, but I am probably breaking the law. That copy has saved me on many occasions when I have lost a passport. I admit that I have two passports because of the places I go to.

So, first, can the Government give a definition of what is a name? This is particularly important because if you do not start with a name you get into trouble. If you are Lord Hunt of Kings Heath and have the name Philip, the question then is whether there is one or two “ls” in Philip. If you have got a hyphen in the middle, which many of the machines cannot pick up, you get into trouble because there is a space which is filled in with a back slash, an underlining or something else. My wish, first and foremost, is to get a definition of the name. Everyone should then register their name and it should become a legal name. So, first, let us legalise names.

Occasionally you get into trouble when you arrive somewhere and find that your baggage has been stolen and you have nothing but what you stand up in. It happened to me in Rome. I said, “Please let me through. I have got to go to”—forgive me—“a Christian Democrat Party meeting”. I was asked “Do you have any proof of identity?”. I suddenly realised that I was wearing one of my father’s old suits—from the days when he could afford to have one made—and that it had written in it “Lord Selsdon”. So I took it off and gave it to the man. He went off and there was a lot of discussion. He then came back and said, “Your jacket has gone through. Can we now have the trousers?” The point that I am light-heartedly making is that I of course support getting rid of the previous Act, but I do not support the way in which the present Bill is structured. Please can somebody get round to explaining how one’s name is defined and may we in the United Kingdom end up with a right to a legal name?

[Viscount Slim]

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say that I sympathise with him, as I am sure do all noble Lords. He is not as fortunate as me. My father and I always used to say that our name is quite the best of the four-letter words.

16:24

[Lord Brett]

My Lords, I am not sure that I can help either of the previous speakers, but I would give one word of advice to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon. In seeking the identity of Members of the House, it might be more profitable if he were to ask for given names and not just Christian names.

As has already been accepted by our Front Bench, the manifesto commitments on this issue of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties give them the authority to seek repeal of the previous legislation. I am fascinated by the speed with which it has been dealt; it could be because, so far as I can see, it is about the only item that appears in both manifestos.

In the debate on the gracious Speech, the Minister said:

“This Government have a strap line: freedom, fairness and responsibility. These themes run through the Government’s programme”.—[Official Report, 27/5/10; col. 240.]

I should like to test the question raised by the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Stoddart; namely, is it reasonable, free and fair now to say to people that the ID cards which they have voluntarily acquired and which have been legally provided are now to be abolished without compensation in any form and without continuing to provide the freedom of travel across Europe that was part of the reason that they bought the card in the first place? If it were a major issue of expense, one might say that, in these straitened times, it could not be afforded.

The impact assessment looks at the number of options available. The one which I find most attractive is Option 5, the mandatory return of cards with return of fees. It states that this would be of particular advantage because:

“Under this option, current cardholders would be entitled to reclaim the £30 cost of the ID card by returning it to IPS. The benefits of this over Option 1 include … Reputational benefits for the government, in dealing with people who purchased a now-useless card in good faith”.

Are we saying that the Government’s reputation is not worth, at maximum, £400,000, which would be the cost if everybody sought a refund? The impact assessment points to reduced enforcement costs as compared with other options. It also states that,

“the administrative costs incurred in dealing with claims over and above those incurred in collecting the cards in any case will be negligible, but reductions in risk relating to outstanding cards will also be negligible”.

That adds up to a powerful case for consideration of amendments in Committee, particularly when one takes account of the fact that we are expending some £82 million on a referendum on AV and something like £50 million plus on a proposal, if it becomes law, to elect police commissioners.

So I argue that the Government’s position in respect of refunds is not an issue of freedom—it is denying freedom. The agreements were entered into voluntarily. It has been argued that it was not a contract; I am not sure that that was how people who bought the cards would have seen it. Is it reasonable and, most of all, is it responsible?

The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, quoted letters from a couple of people who were unhappy about the ID cards. Both of them talked about compulsion—if I recall them correctly—but the ID card was voluntary. I shall quote from a letter that I received from a couple in July—I am quite happy to provide the Minister with a copy. It states:

“I would like our comments to be taken into account by the committee regarding the use of this card as a TRAVEL DOCUMENT in Europe. We can no longer travel long distances this card is fantastic to use. Convenient to carry and most of all welcomed by customs officers wherever we have travelled. Now we have a travel document for Europe at a reasonable cost why should we have to pay over £70 for a worldwide passport when we cannot travel worldwide? All governments spout about value for money, but when it comes to the citizens of our own Country we are denied value for money ... The country may be in a financial mess, but we bought these cards on the understanding they lasted for 10 years. One of our laws (The Sale of Goods Act) states they need be fit for purpose and be suitable for the life span intended”.

That is a very reasonable case made for why the whole of that group of people should get at least a refund. A more prosaic description says:

“The Coalition Government states 100 days to abolition. At least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he stole money off his victims”.

So there is not a population seething on the streets and waving flags to congratulate the Government on removing ID cards; there are mixed opinions.

I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, speaking from the Cross Benches, because I do not believe that at any stage public support for voluntary ID cards was ever less than a majority of those being polled. That was the case through the piece—and compulsory ID cards got a larger support than that. However, that is not the issue. I see no point in rerunning the Second Reading debate on a previous piece of legislation. I suspect that our memories are all faulty on this occasion. When I spoke earlier about the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, I was referring to what, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, said, was the outcome of debate in this House and to what became the law, based on assurances given by the Government—I gave them from the Front Bench together with the noble Lord, Lord West—which limited very severely the kind of use to which the voluntary ID card could be put. Therefore, I rest my case on what I asked at the beginning: is it reasonable, free and fair for the Government now to refuse either to refund or to give credit against the cost of a full passport? It may be that the majority of people have full passports, but some have nothing more than the ID card and will now have to go out and buy a passport without even getting the credit for the £30 that they have already spent against the passport that they have to buy.

I hope that the views expressed by myself and from the Liberal Democrat Benches and Cross Benches will have support, because otherwise I think that this is a mean Bill, whatever the justification for the repeal in the first place.

[Lord Selsdon]

I apologise if the noble Lord misunderstood when I said “Christian”. I was referring to people who have been christened. He may want to have a debate later about the Baha’is and Patels and all the other people who have given names, which all appear in different orders. That was the point that I was trying to make.

16:32

[Lord Shipley]

My Lords, this Bill is a most welcome step by the Government. Many people have argued for many years that the introduction of ID cards and the national identity register was flawed on political, technical and financial grounds and would do very little to prevent terrorism, crime or fraud. As we have heard, a national identity register database could actually increase the risk of fraud and terrorism.

At its heart, the ID card and database proposals would, if proceeded with, change irrevocably the relationship of the state with the individual. It is one thing to have some form of personal identification during wartime, as we did 70 years ago, and quite another to create a massive national identity database for which identity cards themselves are simply a means to an end and not an end in themselves. Every swipe of the card could be recorded, as my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury pointed out.

Why did the previous Government want such a database? Why did the obvious flaws not stop them? Why was the attack on individual civil liberties not seen as an issue? Why did the cost not seem to matter, given the serious structural weaknesses of the national identity register, which would have devoured far more money than the Government suggested? This Bill will stop the trend to a society in which private information becomes available on big databases that are accessible to large numbers of people, the vast majority of whom have no need of the information to which they would get access.

Never, since 2002, when the proposal for identity cards and the national identity register was first discussed, have I understood the justification for it. I cannot recall any reasoned, logical analysis of the need for it; that is because the proposal was never properly thought through. The official rationale seemed to be that the cards and the register would help in the fight against terrorism, but when terrorists are UK nationals entitled to an ID card or when they hold valid identification, as in the Madrid bombings, the case does not stand up to scrutiny.

Another ostensible reason was the need to prevent identity fraud, except that that is much more likely if you place lots of personal data in one place on one big database. Proponents of ID cards began to change the emphasis of the grounds of their arguments as the arguments were so convincingly won by those opposed, so we were told that there would be a convenience factor for young people when going to a pub or buying alcohol. As Liberty has pointed out, however, it is a very weak argument that we should construct a massive state database containing billions of biometric and other data, at a cost of several billion pounds, so that people can secure entry to a pub. Then we had the suggestion that ID cards might replace the concessionary bus pass for pensioners. Just imagine it: a multibillion pound scheme for identity cards being used to produce bus tickets.

The whole sorry exercise would have cost around £5 billion, at least—and that for a project that began life as a solution to a set of problems that were never clearly defined. Once the reasons were examined, they were found to be wanting and it became a project in search of a customer for, despite the fact that the Act has been on the statute book for over four years, only 15,000 ID cards have ever been produced. Of those 15,000, meanwhile, 3,000 were given free to airside workers. It now costs £5 million a year to run the current scheme, which is a cost of £400 per head each year. One is left with the impression that the previous Government, having finally grasped the nature of the flawed system they were creating, decided to head for the long grass under the guise of a slow start.

I am still left wondering why the previous Government believed so strongly in the value of big databases in which costs were rarely controlled and the security of data was so often not guaranteed. There are two kinds of scrutiny: first, who has access to what information; and, secondly, how secure it is from hacking or loss. As we know, there have been many major lapses in big government IT projects in recent years, and it seems pretty clear that the bigger the database, the higher the number of people who will need to access it and the weaker the security will inevitably be as a consequence. We should take note of some research undertaken by the Centre for Technology Policy Research at the London School of Economics, which tells us that,

“Despite a spend of as much as £21bn”,

a year,

“on public sector IT, it is difficult to find any compelling examples of direct productivity gains and improved public services”.

This is not just about waste on ID cards, but much more—not least the NHS database.

This Bill will stop the waste on ID cards and the national identity register, and stop the substantial erosion of civil liberties that was promoted by the previous Government. It is part of a broader rejection of intrusion by the state into people’s daily lives, for when the state acts it should be proportionate to the problem that needs resolution. The Bill will now prevent the second generation of passports, which would have added fingerprints to the facial biometric data already present on the biometric chip in UK passports. The previous Government’s plans for ID cards and a national identity register have been described by the director of Liberty as a grand folly. Well, that must be right; follies are created by people who have access to large sums of money and who have a fondness for frittering it on grand gestures. That seems to sum it all up.

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, may I beg the indulgence of the House and be permitted to speak in the gap?

16:38

[The Earl of Erroll]

My Lords, I think I am the last speaker before the gap, unless the Cross Benchers have finally achieved the status of being a recognised bloc with the right to have a speaker after the gap. That would be a wonderful way forward, because we might get further rights as well.

I have a few comments about the Bill. I welcome it very much, particularly because it perhaps indicates that this Government are taking a much more libertarian approach than their predecessor. Many people have asked why it all came about. The trouble is that socialists believe in central control because the state should be running everything while capitalists like to know everything about their customers, and to both the individual is a bit of a nuisance. Out of that grows the idea that we can sort it all out centrally.

To me, the national identity register was the objectionable part. I did not have a problem with a bit of plastic with a picture on it, replicating the “chip page”, as I think of it—that bit in the passport. It is rather sad in some ways that, having started issuing those, you could not have just that to slip into your pocket when you go over to France. It would have no greater authenticity than a passport, but you could use it for countries that did not have a visa requirement or need to stamp something in your pages; it would be waterproof, which would solve the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon; and it need not cost very much more because no other information would be gathered to produce it—it would just be a bit of plastic, produced in quantity for probably an extra £3 or £5. But we will not worry about that for the moment.

Everyone has said pretty much everything that can be said about this topic, so I would like to reinforce a couple of points and think about wider purposes and other points, so the Government might see where they could improve things elsewhere. The real problem that I have with all these great central databases is simple; Hitler was elected and got into power quite legally. Someone said to me years ago, “How do you break into Fort Knox?”. The answer is, “You steal the key”. If you get yourself elected to power in a democracy, eventually you have all the power to get at these things and there is no way of resisting it. Parliament has total sovereignty, and so some future Parliament can open up whatever security locks and controls you put on a database—unless, fortunately, you have some disobedient civil servants further down who ensure that the greater powers do not get to know about it or destroy the thing first.

I shall start the other way around. You may think that you have nothing to hide, but how accurate is the information? I do not have a problem with the powers in Clause 10 on credit checking, credit reference agencies and other things like that, but my one caveat is that the data are not accurate. But then the government data in these large databases are already inaccurate; when they have been audited, they have often been found to have a lot of errors in them. This is one of the troubles, and it is my lesson for the Government elsewhere; it is difficult to link up and reconcile large government databases. That is why the process gets very expensive, and then certain large consultancies—the usual big seven, eight or nine of them, which are generally American-owned, so they remove British taxpayers’ money to give it to their owners in America—will make an awful lot of money advising us on how to do it and the job will spin on for ever, as we have seen with certain other database projects.

The other thing about the cancellation of the scheme is that the Government have learnt a lot so far in trying to introduce it, and that knowledge has been useful. At the end of the day, the Government have a requirement for strong authentication of people’s identity in certain areas—think of simple things like security at the Ministry of Defence or access to government establishments all over the place. That will need to be retained, but you do not need a national ID card scheme to do that; that is just normal business practice. One of the groups that I sit on at the moment, an offshoot of a parliamentary group, is looking at the interoperability of identity card schemes among allies and internationally, as well as just in the UK. That is the sort of thing that we should be doing because therein can lie some cost savings, although there are a lot of complications with that, which I am not going to go into here.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has produced an excellent report, its second of the 2010-11 Session: Legislative Scrutiny: Identity Documents Bill. It has some extremely good analysis in it. I draw attention to the section on non-EEA biometric immigration documents; perhaps we could save some money there, too. I realise that we need to have a biometric system to “deduplicate” people who make repeated applications to enter, or who try to falsify and get other people in under their original documents and so on, but are we actually gathering more information than we need? Do we think that we are trying to build this into a database of foreign residents because we think that more terrorists come into this country than we grow at home? We ought to look at the effectiveness of this before we gather too much information.

I also get worried about the exchange of information with other countries on how much is needed and how much is not. Is there some vulnerability regarding travel?

I should like to say something about purpose, in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Maxton. Identity cards are not designed to work online, so they will be useless when it comes to making transactions over the internet. There is a huge liability issue; if you use the card for financial or contractual purposes, where does the liability lie? The Government certainly were not going to accept liability, and other organisations will not accept a contract if there is not some liability in the proof of identity. This is what organisations such as the notaries—the notary public—and the scriveners provide.

Credit card fraud, which is often called identity theft but really just involves the theft of a credit card to try to steal money, is very different from impersonating someone. It is up to the banks to sort it out—it is their liability. They could easily increase the security of those tokens if they wanted to. They have chosen one of the cheaper routes—they use even less expensive routes abroad—because there is a balance between the cost and the amount of money they lose. They should really be using two-factor, preferably two-channel, authentication, and some are beginning to do it. It is not difficult to do, and if the incentive is there they will do it, but we must not confuse financial liability with the Government’s identity card scheme or passports.

Another issue that sometimes comes up is counting people in and out of the country. This is the great dream of the UK Border Agency—the passenger name record. We count everyone in and we count everyone out, and we prove who went in and who went out. Some people say that we need the identity card for that, but so what? At the end of the year we tot it all up and find that 100,000 people have stayed. We might even know who they are or what they are called because they have foreign passports. How do we find them without having to do a cordon and search and without rounding them up? How do we then get them back home? Where will we keep them in the mean time? We know all these problems, and it is not realistic. Maybe we could save a bit of money on not counting people in and out of the country. It is a pretty pointless exercise; we get very gloomy when we see how many people want to stay. If incentives are in the right place, people will go abroad while good people will stay and help the economy. We do not want to discourage people from moving across borders. That issue is for a debate on immigration at a later time, but it crosses over into the identity debate.

Like others, I have reservations about the duplication of the provisions of the Fraud Act 2006 on possessing identity documents that belong to other people. We must be very careful that we do not simply create more powers. There is great confusion between the different Acts, and those powers will get misused if there is any ambiguity at all. I am not sure how necessary they are.

I think that we should probably offer the £30 refund to all people who have cards already—it would be a good PR exercise. I would advise a lot of them not to return the cards but to keep them; they will be worth some money one day as a collector’s item—unless, of course, it is illegal under the fraud provisions.

16:48

[Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws]

My Lords, I now see the gap and hope that I will be permitted to step into it.

I opposed the ID card policy from the outset, seeing it as an affront to fundamental liberties in this country. So I am glad that the coalition Government have acted so expeditiously to abolish the scheme. I have always made it clear that I do not have any problem about enhancing the information contained within a passport for border control purposes. However, I objected to the ID card scheme and I particularly objected to the central multipurpose database. That is what makes it different from other identity cards; it is a sleight of hand when people say, “We in this House have identity cards for other purposes”. They are very different from the one that connects you to that all-powerful central database.

The ID card was presented very differently from the way in which it is now being presented. It was presented as a tool of empowerment and as a voluntary programme. I say to my noble friend Lord Brett that I have no false memory syndrome about this. It is too close to my heart. I remember only too well that ID cards were presented as the answer to a maiden’s prayer when it came to terrorism, crime, illegal immigration and abuse of the benefits system. We all pointed out that they would not be capable of doing any of that successfully. I also remember that they were going to be compulsory. Even after all the efforts in this House and the campaigning outside, and although our Government conceded to voluntariness, I always feared that, given the direction of travel, compulsory ID cards were waiting for us somewhere down the line.

The reason for my objection is that I believe ID cards create a different kind of relationship between the citizen and the state. That is what we have to hold on to. Inevitably, it would have meant the police being able to require a person to produce their identification on the street, which goes against the way in which our nation has worked. We have a common-law system. It is a great source of pride to us all that we are able to say when we are brought before a court: “Prove it”. When stopped by the police, we are able to say: “Do you have reasonable cause to stop me?”. Those things make for the British characteristic of not being supine or a compliant citizen, but somebody who knows who they are. We must always remind ourselves that the state is here at our behest; we are not here at the behest of the state. The ID card system was taking us down a very unfortunate road.

I say briefly that, while there may be an old guard on these Labour Benches that cannot accept that in government our party made some mistakes, happily there is a new generation now in leadership which takes a very different view.

16:52

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am not sure where I would categorise myself in my noble friend’s interesting description of the opposition Front Bench. We have certainly had an interesting debate on the Second Reading of the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Bach said, we recognise that the proposals before us were contained in both the Conservative and the Liberal Democrat manifestos. We certainly do not seek to oppose the Bill. However, as we have heard from this debate on Second Reading, there are several important matters that we will want to scrutinise thoroughly when we move into Committee.

First, I will respond to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, and others, in suggesting that the previous Government’s approach to ID cards indicated what has been described as a cavalier approach to the rights of the citizen. My party well understands the importance of the individual liberty of our citizens. It was the previous Government who signed up to the ECHR. We passed a series of equality Bills which added to the individual rights of our citizens. We brought forward freedom of information and data protection legislation. We were and are committed to the individual rights of our citizens. We also understand the responsibility of government to protect the security of citizens. As my noble friend Lord Bach suggested, we saw ID cards as a potentially valuable contribution to our national security. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, is extremely experienced in these matters. At one time she, too, saw the advantages of ID cards. Will she explain, when she responds, how she thinks the Government can effectively protect identity in today’s circumstances?

I also suggest that several speakers have rather overlooked some of the benefits of the voluntary ID card scheme as a convenient, reasonable and affordable way for citizens to assert their identity, as well as being a lightweight and easy-to-use valid travel document in Europe. I should have thought that that is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon—on the practicalities at least, if not on the substantive question that he put to the Minister. I look forward to hearing the response.

My noble friend Lord Maxton clearly described the divide between those who carry ID information and those who do not. I think he was suggesting that the technological gap matches the wealth gap in our nation. It is unfair to scrap the cards immediately with no capacity to offer compensation. A number of noble Lords have referred to that matter, and it was also discussed at length in the debate on the Bill in the other place. On Report, the Minister, Mr Damian Green, said that offering compensation or credit to the value of £30 against the purchase of a new passport would be unfair to taxpayers. One has to set that alongside the answer given by the Home Secretary, Mrs Theresa May, who said:

“People knew well before the election what would happen if a Conservative Government were elected”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/6/10; col. 346.]

That will not do. Is it really suggested that members of the public should plough through each party’s election manifesto, determine that their investment is at risk if a certain party is elected and estimate which party is likely to be elected? I have the three manifestos with me. I would not describe them as a good read but they are weighty documents. Are we seriously suggesting that members of the public have to plough through them? I do not think so. As someone who has lost a few votes in your Lordships' House, I say to the Minister that if ever an issue united the House against her, I suspect that this is it. I should have thought that this matter warrants further consideration between now and Report.

I ask the Minister to clarify the costs. We are told that £835 million will be saved. However, if you delve into the facts of the case, you discover that this figure arises from a total cost figure and that it was planned to recover the costs through future fees to ID card purchasers. My reading of the documentation is that after year three there will be no benefit to the taxpayer and that the actual savings are far less than £835 million. I ask the noble Baroness to clarify that point further.

I should also like the noble Baroness to reassure me about the destruction of the data on the national identity register. Whatever the debate about that register, the fact is that Mr Damian Green said in the other place that destruction would take place—indeed, I think that the Bill makes it clear—

“within two months of Royal Assent”.—[Official Report, Commons, 15/9/10; col. 946.]

I should like to hear from the Minister exactly how that destruction will take place. It is right that the House should have that information. I do not think that the matter is as simple as it might sound. I should also like to know what independent verification there will be so that Parliament can be assured that the data have indeed been destroyed. My understanding is that the identity register is on two separate databases and that each database also contains other information for other purposes which will need to be retained. How the information will be deleted and how this process will interact with other material stored on the relevant databases are points of detail which merit further clarification.

I noted what the noble Baroness had to say regarding biometric passports. She said that the UK’s progress towards biometric passports of a standard comparable to those in the rest of the EU and, increasingly, other countries is clearly in jeopardy. The Government’s decision to scrap the NIR and halt development of the UK passport will surely leave British citizens out of step with much of the rest of the world. Is that the case? What are the implications of that in the longer term? As a result, will it not be harder for British citizens to travel with ease? The British passport is one of the most respected documents in the world. Can the noble Baroness reassure me that this policy will not put that at risk? I thought that my noble friend Lord Maxton spoke eloquently about that issue.

As I and my noble friends Lord Bach and Lord Brett have said, we will not oppose the Bill. However, we will join other noble Lords in carefully scrutinising this legislation, and we will certainly press the case for compensation for current holders.

17:01

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

My Lords, we have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate. My first point is that the various speeches have shown a philosophical divide in the House between those who think that it is a good idea for the state to amass information about citizens and that this is somehow empowering, and those who think that it is a good idea for the state to have as little as is necessary for the discharge of its duties and functions. That is one of the things that divide us regarding the national register and it lies at the heart of the way in which this scheme was constructed.

The Benches opposite challenged me personally on why I had changed my view. I will tell them. My reasons were expressed more eloquently than I can put them by the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, who raised all the charges that one could about the flaws in the system, and he was right. This national register would have contained up to 50 items about individuals. That is a very large amount of information and would have included ephemeral details such as one’s address. A constant process of change would need to have taken place and there would have been a penalty for failing to provide the information.

Some noble Lords mentioned the view of Microsoft. It was Jerry Fishenden, an expert in this area, who said that bringing together in a single place all this information about the citizens of this country was a great honey pot and that the likelihood of it being invulnerable to attack and hacking was zero. Those were the moments when I began to have very serious doubts about the wisdom of this scheme, and the more I saw of it the less I liked it. It is partly for practical, but also for many philosophical, reasons that I concluded that the scheme was a bad idea.

The history of the way in which the previous Government’s thinking evolved was spelt out by other Members of the House, and I will not go into that again. Various arguments were put forward and eventually the scheme turned from being a good security precaution into being a good entitlement route. Part of the difficulty shown in defending this was the fact that the previous Government had constantly to change their justification for this extremely expensive scheme. I repeat that it is extremely expensive and it is quite right to say that it was to be the only one of its kind. One could have imagined that every time a swipe was made and the register had to incorporate a transaction—because it was going to be used in that fashion—the number of transactions would undoubtedly have crashed the system.

The design had many flaws. It also has limited validity and limited use because, as was rightly pointed out, the area of online fraud and losses, which increasingly is where identity authentication is needed and where fraud is taking place, would not have been helped at all by the existence of this register. So the design did not deal with one of the main areas where identity authentication was needed.

The noble Lord opposite asked how we would deal with identity issues. I entirely take the point that they are very serious and that further work and protection are needed. However, I am quite clear that the national register as it was constructed, with its associated card, was not the route to go down to get that degree of identity assurance.

Some noble Lords also raised the question of whether we would retain any of the technology that has been developed in relation to second-generation passports. As I said, the Government take the view that it is not necessary for the security of the British travel document, which we all agree is of high-quality, that it should incorporate second biometric data. Most Schengen countries are going down the route of asking for fingerprints. We are not going to do that and a large number of other countries are not going to, either. We do not take the view that there will be any barrier to the acceptability of our document. We also believe that other ways of increasing the security of the biometric data such as facial imaging, which we can certainly do at much less cost, are the way to go. Having said that, we will retain the technology in the Identity and Passport Service to ensure that, should we need to use it or should it be useful, we will have it available. However, we do not consider that it is needed as things stand.

Several noble Lords asked about how the destruction of information would be done and whether we could be sure that it would be done. It is a very important issue. As has been said, all biometric data and the vast majority of the personal data will be destroyed within two months of enactment. We have shared our approach with the Information Commissioner's Office, which is satisfied that all areas have been covered. The data destruction will be handled in accordance with the decommissioning guidance issued by the Cabinet Office and by the information assurance arm of GCHQ, the CESG. I believe that I am right in saying also that my honourable friend the Immigration Minister in the other place said that he would report to the House. I, too, am very happy to report to this House on the destruction process. We entirely agree that if we say we are going to do that, the public must be assured that it is happening. That will be a systematic process. We will not allow data that should no longer be legally held to be held by the Government.

Some noble Lords also raised the question of the power under the Act to sell data. Perhaps I may clarify that. Section 12 of the Act provides for the Identity and Passport Service to provide information to third parties for verification purposes. This permits the Secretary of State, under that power, to supply information to a person registered under the Act. The provision of this information requires the consent of the individual: at least that is a relief. For example, they may be applying for goods and services, which is why the information about them is required. Section 35 allows for a fee to be charged for the application of this provision, so one can see the intention potentially to make this a profit-making possibility for the Government. Our anxiety would have been about whether the information being provided was always accurate.

Some noble Lords asked whether there was an anomaly between our desire and intention to abolish the identity cards system and register and our continuation of biometric permits for foreign workers in this country. In fact, the latter is an EU requirement and, obviously, we undertake to continue to maintain our EU obligations. These are residence permits; they are not identity documents.

On costings, I cannot supply an immediate answer to the question raised by the noble Lord opposite. Our figures are very different, but I will write to him on that subject, as I realise that it is important to have clarity.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

The point is that most of the long-term cost would have been met by people paying the cost of the card. It is rather inaccurate to give a globalised figure and to say that that is the total cost.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The fact is that there is significant sunk investment and there would have been future costs if we had operated the system. Those future costs will now not be incurred.

Here is more precision on the point that the noble Lord has just raised. In October 2009, the cost report provided the figure of £835 million for future investment. Noble Lords will be aware that fewer than 15,000 cards have been issued, which has been against an investment of £292 million. The difficulty is that one cannot be as confident as the noble Lord that the costs would be recouped from fees. Irrespective and independent of the attitude of the Opposition at the time, which I am sure acted as a dampener on the general public’s enthusiasm to purchase a card, it was clear that the public were voting with their feet. A total of 12,000 cards is not a large number of applicants.

[Lord Brett]

The point has been made about the restricted areas—one in Manchester and one in London—but there was also a general inquiry register, to which members of the public from other parts of the country could apply so that they could have access to their cards when the cards became available. That is a rather different issue and a rather different figure.

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I hope that the noble Lord will acknowledge that, at the end of the day, this was not going down a bomb.

If the question of refunds is the only complaint that the Opposition can find, that shows that there is not a great deal to object to in the legislation. Several points were raised. I was asked about refunds and whether we could supply discounts against other documents or at least allow the documents to have their full-life validity. As I pointed out, full-life validity would mean keeping the system open, which would probably cost an extra £60 million to £80 million. We simply do not think that that is justified or sensible. Noble Lords have said that this would involve a small sum of money, but we believe that £400,000 can be spent to the benefit of the general public in a rather more useful fashion than on a refund of £30, which is rather less than probably most people pay for a monthly subscription to Sky. We have to have a sense of proportion about this.

One or two noble Lords said that they found the Bill unnecessarily complex. In fact, when one gets into the detail of the Bill, there are quite a large number of complexities to unwind. However, I am happy to talk to them about the issues that they have raised and, if the Bill can be simplified, I shall be most delighted to do so.

A point about fraud was raised. The National Fraud Authority and the National Fraud Intelligence Bureau have produced a strategic threat assessment of the harm impact of identity crime—a matter with which I think we in the House are all concerned. It will lead to an action plan, which will be overseen by the Home Office. We have started work on it and the first meetings have begun to take place. I am personally very interested in this subject. The House probably shares the view that identity, and its protection, is something that we have to get right. It relates to issues such as how we combat crime that takes place through cybernetworks, so I do not underestimate the importance of getting this right. As I said earlier, we do not believe that the national register is the way to tackle it. However, we have a great concern about the need to protect victims of crime relating to people’s identities having been swiped.

In conclusion, we believe that the Bill is in the public interest and we are pleased to have brought it forward this soon. We believe it is right to start getting the balance that we think should pertain between the citizen and the state more where we would like to see it, and of course other legislation is coming forward which will swing further in the direction of the liberty of the citizen. I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I asked two specific questions. If she does not have the answers to them now, will she assure me that she will write to me with them?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

The noble Countess is quite right. I do indeed have some information and apologise for not having given it. I think that one of her questions related to the UKBA. She asked about provisions within Sections 5 to 15 of the 2007 Act. We comply with the EU requirements and we have complied ahead of the 2012 deadline. I realise that the noble Countess raised one or two other aspects, but I am not in a position to answer them at the moment and so shall write to her.

[Lord Selsdon]

Before my noble friend sits down, can she help me? Would she be willing to share with the House her full name and her legal name?

[Baroness Neville-Jones]

I know a trick question when I see one. I shall certainly share my name as registered on my birth certificate. It is Lilian Pauline Neville-Jones.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Divorce

Monday 18th October 2010 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

17:18

Tabled By

[Baroness Deech]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they will introduce legislation to ensure that financial provision on divorce is determined on fair and settled principles.

[Baroness Deech]

My Lords, it is fortunate that I am asking this Question of the Government today about financial provision. Not only is this an issue of great importance that has not been addressed by Parliament for some 40 years but on this very day it has also been announced by the family law review project that, in an effort to save legal aid and reduce antagonism between parents, mediation will have to be attempted before parties are enabled to litigate about their children after divorce. One of my themes is that mediation and changes to procedure to reduce litigation cannot succeed if the substantive law is uncertain and unfair, as I shall explain. Moreover, we will receive very shortly the judgment of the Supreme Court in its first case on the validity of prenuptial contracts. This, too, is highly significant as a method of reducing conflict on divorce.

Your Lordships may wonder why I am addressing this issue. It is because of a lifetime spent teaching and lecturing on divorce law and being in receipt of the views of the many who write to me about it whenever I speak in public. If, by any chance, your Lordships regard some of my views as idiosyncratic, that is the privilege of a Cross-Bencher. I assure your Lordships that I have a solution to the problems that I outline, one which is tried and tested, and widespread. I emphasise that I am speaking not in my capacity as chairman of the Bar Standards Board but in a purely personal and academic capacity.

London’s reputation as the divorce capital of the world is deserved. It has prompted a surge in divorce tourism such that one in six divorces has an international element because of the high-profile financial settlements among wealthy divorcing couples where generous awards are made to ex-wives. However, the majority of families going through the courts to settle their financial disputes on separation face very different challenges in the quest for fairness. English law relating to financial provision on divorce has proved to be unfair, uncertain and expensive. It is based on out-of-date stereotypes. It is out of step with the laws of other European countries; it is out of step with divorce law itself; and it has remained largely unrevised by Parliament for decades. Its deficiencies are obstacles to a more consensual and cheaper resolution of financial issues on divorce. This is especially important and damaging in its effect on the welfare of children after divorce. Moreover, reform would save legal aid and costs.

Successive judgments in the House of Lords and the Supreme Court have reflected the judicial view of changes in family life but have brought about confusion in the law and in principle. This makes firm legal advice leading up to settlement almost impossible in wealthy cases and racks up the cost of litigation. A case called White v White was thought to have pointed towards a yardstick of equality of division but that has moved away again. Subsequent judgments have emphasised the themes of needs, compensation and sharing, although it remains unclear how they interrelate with each other and with the statute. All the circumstances and all the assets are available for consideration but some recent cases have suggested that there may be a category of assets that should remain with one spouse in certain conditions. No wonder that spouses resort to illegal seizure of financial documents from the other—a practice castigated in the Imerman judgment. Yet how else might some wives find out what their husbands earn? Our judges mean well but the price of flexibility and micromanagement is delay, uncertainty and expense.

There are cases where the costs of litigation have exceeded the value of the assets in dispute. Mr and Mrs White spent £500,000 in costs to settle the ownership of £1.5 million. Mr Miller is taking the Government to the European Court of Human Rights on the ground that divorce laws are so uncertain that they infringe his human rights. The statutory principle of a clean break between spouses has faded. There are cases when spouses come back to court after a quarter of a century of living apart to seek a change in the maintenance level. Quarrels can never be put to bed. There is enormous public anger, especially among those who have been involved in divorce. They find this state of affairs unjust and immoral. They do not see why maintenance continues to be paid to an ex-wife who is pregnant by, or living with, another man, or why conduct is not taken into account. The theory of divorce is that it arises from irretrievable breakdown of the relationship without fault but in reality this is not how it is seen in most cases by the parties.

Well-off wives—a new category—especially those with high earnings of their own, do not see why they should have to transfer their assets to an ex-husband whom they regard as having treated them badly. Let me quote from one or two of the many letters that I received after lecturing on this. One is from a divorcing wife:

“the law is supporting his efforts to take away my home”,

and savings in order to support him, his girlfriend and child.

One is from an ex-husband:

“a complete travesty of natural justice being foisted on me by the present law”.

Poor ex-wives will hardly get by and maintenance for children is a vital issue for which, unfortunately, there is no time this evening. The law rewards most significantly the non-working wife of a wealthy man—almost regardless of the length of the marriage, children and contribution. The message given out to young women is that their life’s success has to be tied to finding—and, perhaps, divorcing—a man of means, rather than working to support themselves. Awards worth millions of pounds are made to the ex-wives of pop singers and footballers. Many divorce awards are sums greater than a working woman will earn in a lifetime of salaried employment.

The law does not even recognise prenuptial agreements as legally binding. The judgment on that in the Granatino case is imminent, but at the moment we have the worst of all worlds. It has been hinted that they might be binding, but a court can only decide agreement by agreement whether that is so or not, so more litigation may ensue in determining whether the contract is to be upheld.

It is high time that English spouses, like those on the continent of Europe, were treated as adults, able to bring certainty to their financial affairs on divorce and avoid litigation by deciding for themselves what to do. It would be ironic if our law refused to recognise prenuptial contracts entered into voluntarily while we are considering imposing a matrimonial financial regime on cohabitants who have not consented to it. The law is in any case not fit to apply as it stands to cohabitants.

It is time to move to a European law for the division of matrimonial assets, commonly known as community of property. The courts of most European states have less flexibility. Awards are lower and there is more certainty because the principles have been laid down in advance and agreed to. Most European and some North American states have community of property schemes that apply to divide post-maritally acquired property equally on separation. Assets owned before marriage are excluded. Couples may agree to keep their property separate if they prefer. Maintenance awards are lower because it is assumed that wives will work, and inheritances remain with the inheritor. However, the UK is resisting the moves to harmonise European matrimonial property law. The rest of Europe seems to take the hard-won principles of feminism and equality rather more seriously than we do. Even in Scotland, there is a very different approach. Maintenance awards are normally for three years only, unlike lifetime awards in England, and the matrimonial property is split.

The Law Commission tried to find consensus, with attempts at formulating a law about sharing homes and another about cohabitation, but has failed, in that there is no national agreement about what to do. The Government have to take the initiative on this for the sake of children and costs. They should legislate for the introduction of the European system of community property and the validity of contracts about these issues made between spouses and other adults. That would also have the benefit of removing the temptation for European divorcees to come to England for dispute resolution in our courts. It is not a perfect solution; it is a blunt instrument, which will not universally be seen as fair; but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and no better solution has been proposed. It would save money and reflect real equality between husbands and wives.

It is time for the Government to allow time for debate to face up to the resolution of modern ways of living in families and easy divorce. It is time to call for reform, not by judges struggling to cope, but by our legislators.

17:29

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I speak with a large amount of trepidation since I have very little knowledge and no expertise on the subject. I reflect that for many people caught up in the experience, divorce is something that they did not want or expect and that they are unwilling participants in the process. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, whose words on the subject resonate most with me. The disagreements on the merits of differing contentions reflect the uncertainty surrounding financial dispute resolution—FDR—as legal teams, in seeking to provide advice, are compromised between interpretations of recent cases. It is an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I should like to support and give oxygen to the noble Baroness’s voice and to thank her for her perseverance in raising this matter, which affects, sadly, far too many of us.

I learn in today’s Telegraph that last year there was a 16 per cent increase in divorce. I also support the noble Baroness’s call for legislation. Surely it is for Parliament to pass legislation and to set the framework for the judiciary to interpret. I am sure that there are judges who are uncomfortable with the present position. For a person not to know to any degree where a case will settle or to be subject to the lottery of what view the judge attached to the case will take places unnecessary strain and leads to participants taking extreme positions in an endeavour to tilt the landscape. It will be difficult to define fairness in the present contentious climate. Fairness is an overclaimed parameter today. It is one of those motherhood and apple pie attributes against which no one can contend. I am reminded of the Bob Dylan song of my youth, “With God on Our Side”.

That London is described as the divorce capital underlines the fact that the UK is out of step. It draws one side to precipitous action rather than reconciliation and inevitably therefore to higher cost. I am left to reflect that divorce is seen by most high-value cases as a one-way bet for wives and that invariably the husband better agree to everything as he is only going to pay anyway.

I shall speak to only one feature: prenuptial agreements. This, more than any other feature, would be instrumental in dissipating the heat in FDR, would immensely simplify the process and largely negate the need to value assets. Thus it would reduce costs. It should not be necessary to have to await the slow progress of disputed cases setting case law to correct this anomaly. I will take my own advice and refrain from voicing further thoughts on what is indisputably the most dramatic aspect of life for far too many today.

17:32

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise to give strong support to the case for reform so well presented by my noble friend Lady Deech. For the past 20 years or more I, and no doubt pretty much everyone I know, have watched friends, colleagues and relatives go through the divorce process, spending tens of thousands of pounds and more on legal fees and ending up with a settlement that seemed grossly unfair to one side or the other. The law on divorce, now 40 years old, was drafted when women typically remained at home to look after the children for many years and when the male parent had overwhelming power over the financial resources of the family. I ran the campaign for the Child Poverty Action Group in 1971 as part of a national debate that resulted in the establishment of child benefit. At that time I received more than 2,000 letters from women of all social classes, including the wives of doctors and vicars—the most extraordinary people, I have to say; I was very surprised by those letters—and many others who told me that the family allowance, as it was then, was the only money on which they could completely rely. No wonder that the divorce law passed in 1973 was based on the assumption that women were the helpless victims.

The world today is very different. It is now assumed that women work. The welfare benefits legislation passed this year assumes that mothers on benefits begin planning their return to work when their youngest baby reaches the age of one. Work-related interviews, followed by work-related activities, all prepare mothers for the world of work as soon as they can turn around after the birth of a child. I and other noble Lords argued at the time that for all sorts of reasons—the ill health of young children, disability and so on—the legislation expected mothers to return to work too soon. I still hold to that view. From the point of view of this debate, the essential point is that the benefits regime makes clear that our British state no longer expects mothers to remain at home once children are settled even in nursery.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, explained so well, Europe and Scotland now have divorce laws fit for the 21st century. These laws are based on some very important principles. Probably the most important point is that the principles should be clearly elaborated and established so that both sides in a marriage, right from the start, can anticipate what a divorce would mean for them. The fair point has been made that there are young women today who literally see that the best thing to do is to marry a very rich man. Those women will undoubtedly end up in a divorce court.

In my view, the principles should include the principle that only the property acquired during the marriage should be divided and that inherited wealth should not be included, as the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, has said. Future earning streams should not be taken for granted; lifetime awards are unfair and unacceptable and, in my experience, have led to men, fathers, living in tiny bedsits while they fund the home of their ex-wife. This cannot be right. That both men and women have earning power is an essential assumption that should lie behind these laws. This assumption lies behind the case for time-limited awards. As has already been mentioned, Scottish awards are for three years. Any award should support the family at least until a child reaches and is settled in school. However, that is very different from a lifetime award. Both men and women can be assumed to earn when a child is settled in school. I feel very strongly that the conduct of the parties will continue not to be taken into account. This is essential to avoid the evils of allegations and counter-allegations forming the basis of lengthy and sordid court hearings.

I welcome the plans to overhaul family justice and to move to a system where divorce will be substantially resolved through mediation or, in more complex cases, through “court-lite” shorter and simpler hearings. The drive to reduce the £1.6 billion cost of the family justice system will undoubtedly drive reform. I appeal to the Minister to press for a reform of the law on financial provision in divorce at the same time as the reform of divorce proceedings.

Finally, on the matter of prenuptial agreements, which again has already been mentioned, the Appeal Court judges made plain their view that the existing law under which prenuptial agreements are not enforceable is patronising and outdated. This country surely must come into line with Europe in providing for prenuptial agreements to be enforceable. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on the need for reform of the law on financial provision in divorce, and on the particular point on prenuptial agreements.

17:37

[The Lord Bishop of Blackburn]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for this debate.

Love has always been recognised as the most costly emotion, and traditionally it has been valued in terms of personal commitment rather than economic obituaries.

“How priceless is your unfailing love”,

the psalmist wrote of the God whose love is so great that it “reaches to the skies”. The recent valuing of love—or, rather, its failure—in multimillion pound divorce settlements, in which a significant number of those listed had earned their fortunes in the entertainment industries, ranged from the reputed £7.5 million to £12.5 million paid by one celebrity when their 22 year-old marriage foundered, to the £75.5 million an American rock star settled on his former wife. When a famous film director paid his former wife £50 million, he was believed to retain a further £50 million for day-to-day necessities.

This surely goes to the heart of our debate today, for I understand that this settlement began as a prenuptial arrangement. The cynic could argue that failure was costed into the price of this couple’s original devotion. Such settlements, no doubt much loved by legal and financial professionals who profit from them, are in danger of reducing marriage to the economic bargaining of historic marriage contracts and of cheapening sacred commitments into balance sheets. Let us override cynicism with Christian realism. Of course we encounter a strong objection to the tenor of such requested legislation, for in a Christian understanding of marriage such prenuptials weaken and dilute our marriage vows of lifelong commitment, where sacrificial love forms the bedrock and the core. The established church’s marriage service includes this moving, mutual commitment:

“All that I am I give to you, and all that I have I share with you”.

This states the deepest possible giving and gifting, with nothing held back in personhood or economics. These commitments, made before God and all those attending a Christian wedding service, look confidently towards a new, positive and progressive relationship in the unfolding history of human love. There is no suggestion here of an economic breakdown kit, poised for use if dreams fade or demands surmount expectations.

But let us be clear: this is not to deny that, tragically, many marriages fail and that, as the noble Baroness requests, “fair and settled principles” should safeguard legally required settlements. Nor is it to deny claims that marriage may be limited among older people unwilling to formalise relationships without agreements safeguarding responsibilities to family members from former marriages.

But such considerations, valid as they are, can also detract from a more demanding duty of this House: that of supporting the primacy of marriage rather than legislating for its dilution, and leading our nation in reasserting positive principles rather than writing provision for failure into a sacred institution created for lifelong blessing and support.

Perhaps the problem with this requested legislation is that, like much current policy and resources, it concentrates on the ending of relationships rather than on supportive foundations for their future. Like the prenuptial agreement, it raises the spectre of relationship disease, with all the consequent emotional and economic costs of family courts, mediation, child support and associated issues, rather than hoping, planning and praying for the emotional health of marriage and offering significant support.

In a society deeply wounded by divorce, the balance of resources should be devoted to relationship education and marriage preparation, and to supportive healthcare for marriage rather than ambulance-chasing after divorce settlements. If more attention was given to this area of our nation's life, we would not have to spend so much time debating what happens when relationships end, and our society would be stronger and more stable as a result.

[Baroness Deech]

Is the right reverend Prelate aware that in many Catholic countries in Europe, where the divorce rates are much lower than they are in this country, the sort of system that I have recommended prevails? I refer to France, Italy, Spain and so on. They have much lower divorce rates, but they also have the system that I have proposed, which might support rather than diminish the institution.

17:45

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, I am no lawyer, and I really do not know much about divorce law, but I have been through a divorce, which has led me to observe what happens in the courts. It was a long time ago, before the case of White v White in 2000, but it led me to think about how the law treats marriages and what we might do about it. I have a great deal of sympathy with the ideas expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, on how we might move forwards.

On “Desert Island Discs” recently, Kirsty Young asked Fay Weldon how she felt when her husband of 30 years left, and she said,

“I thought I would go mad”.

That captured for me the exact sense of disorientation, disbelief, anguish and despair that I felt when it happened to me—an infinitely greater loss than bereavement, it seemed to me, since you lose your entire notion of who you have been for 50 years. The rather disdainful approach that I had previously taken in a secure marriage, as I thought it, to people whose marriages had collapsed naturally disappeared very quickly. If I can talk about this subject now with equanimity, it is because it all happened more than 13 years ago and I have had the good fortune to marry again.

I sought out the very best divorce lawyer I could, as did my husband. He was a businessman, and our affairs were very complicated with businesses and homes abroad as well as here. I was the joint owner of some of them and not others, so noble Lords can imagine that it was a very difficult matter to tease out the ownership of these various possessions. But we were both very determined from the outset that we would remain close friends and stay close to each other’s families. Did the lawyers help? They were the very best, nicest people and were even personal friends with each other, but several weeks down the line the adversarial system had us both with barristers lined up and cocked at the ready, ready for the courts to proceed. We were both getting more desperate, not less. We had a chat about it and said that we thought we could probably do a better job ourselves, so we went off to the pub and went line by line down all our assets and decided how to divvy them up. Some of the assets, of course, had more financial value but less emotional value, while others had more emotional value and less financial value. We simply went back and sent a joint letter to both our solicitors saying, “Please get on with that—that is it, please”. We were not very popular with our solicitors, but I know that any more fighting would have destroyed our future relationship. Having dealt with the separation agreement to our mutual satisfaction, we could then start to deal with the rest.

I realise that many couples will not be able to negotiate in this way. Often one spouse is much stronger than another and sometimes there are few feelings left for the other person. Anger turns to revulsion very quickly. People will behave badly if they can get away with it, and men and women are equally to blame for bad behaviour. Yet I believe that if we had had a skilled mediator in place, we could have solved many of these difficulties from the outset. I particularly liked the introduction in 2003 of the collaborative legal practice arrangements, where people sit down with their lawyers, outside of court, and do it together in a low-key way, still having joint conversations and avoiding the expensive court battles. It seems to me that people ought to go through that first, as a sort of obligatory phase.

Where children are involved, it seems to me that an adversarial court situation is, frankly, bonkers. It is expensive, detrimental to the health of children and leaves scars between the parents that are unlikely ever to heal, meaning that children, in effect, often lose one parent entirely. Frankly, I do not see why legal aid should be available to allow unhappy people to continue mutual squabbling over the possession of their children—and how often have we seen that?

The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and I share an office with the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, who is the chair of CAFCASS. The horrific stories that she tells of the sort of things that children are subjected to in courts while being fought over makes your hair stand on end. As one American lawyer said, the parents declare war and then draft the children. Disputes should be settled out of court through mediation and dispute resolution by non-adversarial professionals. We have an edifice of family courts whose raison d'être we should question. I understand that 95 per cent of divorces in the US are now completed through mediation and/or legal collaboration. Surely, we should aim for that here.

However, what about the very wealthy and the underlying principles? It seems to me that the basic premise of White v White in 2000 is right. The law on the needs basis had not kept up with changes in society. In most cases, the courts were trying to satisfy the needs of both parties with limited resources. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead, emphasised that there could no longer be gender discrimination when determining the allocation of ancillary relief. He said,

“If, in their different spheres, each contributed equally to the family, then in principle it matters not which of them earned the money and built up the assets. There should be no bias in favour of the money-earner or the child-carer”.

The House of Lords also recognised that, by being at home and looking after young children, a wife may lose forever the opportunity to acquire and develop her own money-earning qualifications and skills. To a great degree, that is still so. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Nicholls, also said that the judge,

“would always be well advised to check his tentative views against the yardstick of equality of division”,

and that it seemed to him that equality should not be departed from, apart from with good reason. All of that seems absolutely right.

What do we do about foolish men with large fortunes who get hitched to gold-diggers, then find themselves divorced a few years later? My heart does not bleed for them very much; no, men and women will always be fools in love and there is surely scope within the principles of White v White for adjustments to be made. As Simon Cowell—he is the one on the other side when the rest of us are watching “Strictly Come Dancing”—recently said:

“Marriage is an outdated contract … I don't believe in marriage, certainly not in this business”—

I suppose that he means show business. He said:

“The truth is that you get married and in a year or two they clean you out”,

so he is wisely remaining single for now. He is engaged instead, which seems to be an end point rather than a plan to do anything else in the future.

I am rather ambivalent. I am very attracted to the right reverend Prelate’s view that once you marry someone, you are forming a partnership more than a temporary arrangement. You are making a life and committing yourself to that person. On the other hand, we must recognise that there is a force to be had in saying that in the modern era, having some sort of premarital arrangements or commitment would probably be more sensible. So the answer is for us all to have prenuptial agreements when we embark on the journey, however wealthy or impoverished we start out. Making them legal would at least be a partial step towards the sort of reform that the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, is advocating.

My final point is about the no-fault divorce system. It must be sort of right; we cannot expect the courts to weigh up all the various causes and hurts between individuals. Rather than a no-fault divorce, though, I would like to see the notion that it is everyone’s fault—in other words, that the two people have somehow contributed to this failure overall, and that ought to be recognised when people are going before mediation and the collaborative legal system.

My solution for the moment is a universally legally binding prenuptial agreement, but I still rather like the idea that we have to take on the notion that when we marry, we do so for life.

17:53

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

My Lords, having heard the lucid and persuasive speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, I wanted to take the opportunity to rise in support of what she said. We all know that the divorce law at present is complete chaos. From time to time, what has appeared to emerge from the jurisprudence as a guiding principle, like the 50:50 rule or the clean-break rule, has for some reason subsequently been set aside at the next judicial decision, so there is simply no clarity. The present system could hardly be better engineered if it were designed to maximise uncertainty and, therefore, legal costs. Some cynics would say that there is a certain category of humanity that would be very attracted to a model of that kind, but far be it from me to make such a comment myself.

The present situation with general divorce law seems to be difficult. The solution must be, as the noble Baroness has suggested, to look for some guiding principle. Perhaps we should look for that guiding principle in the Roman law examples on the Continent. I think I am right in saying that in some Continental jurisdictions, parties have a choice of regime: they can choose communauté de biens, which rather corresponds to what the right reverend Prelate was talking about a moment ago—“Everything I have, I give you”—or séparation de biens. In Scotland, we have an example of a Roman law jurisdiction that has adopted the séparation de biens principle, which is that when you enter into a marriage you keep separate everything that you bring to it, and the only assets or revenues that can subsequently be divided are those that have been accumulated since the marriage. That needs to be looked at; I understand that it is a model that works reasonably well north of the Border. I do not want to decide today what the solution should be, though; I merely urge that it is our responsibility to find one.

With regard to prenuptial agreements, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her brilliant timing: we are expecting a judgment this week from the Supreme Court on this matter. The situation with regard to such agreements is equally confused and equally unacceptable: we have a divorce law that takes one view about prenuptial agreements but which is overridden by the Appeal Court, and then we might have a third view from the Supreme Court. That is not the ideal model of the rule of law that we in this country are committed to. Some years ago in the House of Commons I introduced a Private Member’s Bill that would have given legal force to prenuptial agreements, and as a result of today’s debate I am inspired to see if I cannot relaunch an initiative of that kind with similarly minded colleagues in this House.

It has been overwhelmingly demonstrated by today’s debate that it would be a clear abdication by Parliament not to look at this matter again. After all, we are responsible if a law is chaotic, if the jurisprudence is unclear and if judges find it impossible to give judgments that have any degree of consistency or continuity or that would give the jurisprudence some degree of predictability and understandability. That is clearly the case, and that is when the legislature needs to intervene. It is why we have a legislature; it is why we come to this place and why people go to the House of Commons. I hope that before long it will be possible for us to take another look at this, to examine it in the round and to give it the deep attention that the subject deserves. I hope to do a good day’s work by Parliament in that context as a result.

17:59

[Lord Bach]

My Lords, it is not only this House that should be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this subject today, but society in general. This debate is not just interesting, it is significant, because of where it stands in relation to a campaign for reform that now has the push and impetus to make it, in my view, unstoppable. The timing of this debate is crucial in seeing this forward.

I speak with the experience of having been legal aid Minister in the Ministry of Justice until five or six months ago, where obviously this issue, in one particular form, came across my desk many times. I was convinced by the time I left that post that there was need for reform, and considerable reform, of our system of divorce in this country. The latest available figures show that in the United Kingdom, more than 136,000 people were divorced in 2008. That is a declining number in percentage terms, but it always remains an inevitable emotional and financial impact for the individuals and families concerned. Deciding how to divide property and assets and settle the financial arrangements is and always has been one of the big challenges to our system of justice. Few can genuinely say that this system is working and is satisfactory in any real way.

I hope the House will forgive me if I return to the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which sets out the principles that the court has to take into account when deciding in each individual case on the division of assets. These include, as many noble Lords will know better than I, whether there is a child; the income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources which each of the parties to the marriage has; financial needs, obligations and responsibilities; the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown; the age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage; any physical or mental disability; the contribution each party made, including family welfare; the conduct of each party if it is inequitable to disregard it; and the value to each of the parties of any benefit, such as a pension, brought to the marriage which, by reason of dissolution, the party will lose the chance of acquiring.

These principles also help to guide decisions by parties for out-of-court settlements too. However—and it is a big however—the extent to which the principles are useful is affected hugely by the court’s overriding discretion under Section 25. Under this section, the court is required to take into account all surrounding circumstances of the case. Therefore, each case is dealt with on an individual basis according to the facts. Some may say that that is great, but the truth is that it leads to such uncertainty that people end up in court when really they should not.

Let us look at examples from overseas. In many comparable countries, the statutory starting point for dividing matrimonial property on divorce is 50:50. In New Zealand, for example, any departure from the 50:50 rule would apply only where there was, interestingly, an enforceable prenuptial agreement, if it was a marriage of very short duration or there were extraordinary circumstances. The New Zealand system recognises that a person may have separate property that is not subject to the sharing formula unless it merges and becomes matrimonial property such as a family home. In the United States, where each state seems to have its own system, there seems to be a general move towards a simple 50:50 split.

Many couples who get divorced in this country are able to agree on financial arrangements and simply apply to the court for a consent order to be granted. For others, financial arrangement decisions on divorce, as we have heard, are long, expensive and painful. This obviously has a damaging effect on family life in the future when there is a need for parties to stay in long-term contact where children are concerned. Children are often caught, as we have heard, in the middle, with a potential impact on their development and relationships with one or both parties. Allowing the court to have a broad discretion recognises that not all disputes are the same. I will quote, not in the original Russian but from a well known translation, the first lines of Anna Karenina:

“All happy families are alike; each unhappy family is unhappy in its own way”.

The current law has led us to a growing feeling that there is just too much uncertainty for parties who are attempting to create financial settlements on divorce. This takes an enormous emotional toll on parties, as well as being extraordinarily and unnecessarily expensive. The longer it stretches on without being settled, the more stressful it can become. The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, whom I praise for the frankness and honesty of her speech, gave good evidence of this. Of course, it then does more damage for the vital future.

We on these Benches are very interested in the Government’s plans for changes in this area of law. Do the Government plan to change the principles that guide the court and the parties in determining whether a financial settlement is fair and reasonable? To what extent would they retain courts’ discretion to take into account the individual—but not exceptional—circumstances of parties? How will they calculate a fair formula for maintenance payments where a party is young, with years of future earning potential; or older, following a joint marital decision for one party to forgo their career to care for the children of the relationship instead?

When we were in government we recognised the complexity of financial settlement on divorce. That why we initiated the fundamental review of the family justice system in January this year. We are delighted that the new Government decided to continue with that review and issued their call for evidence in June 2010. I invite the noble Lord, in responding to this debate, to give us what information he can about any preliminary findings from this review. I know it closed only on 30 September but any information that he can give us would be gratefully received.

An amicable divorce is indeed a rare thing. Often there are harsh words, and even deeds, between parties to a divorce, with negative outcomes. That is why the family review looked at the best methods for avoiding confrontational court hearings and encouraging the use of mediation to deliver fairer and less acrimonious settlements that place the needs and interests of children and the parties at the heart of the system.

We are proud of our system here as far as criminal law is concerned. It says that there should be two parties and they should fight it out in court. For criminal law there is a strong argument that that is a better system than systems elsewhere. However, in the sensitive field of family disputes, is it really to be argued that confrontations in court should be the rule, rather than the exception? Is it not much better to look at alternatives to confrontation in court? One of those alternatives is mediation, which has been around for a long time. However, there is—I have heard lawyers say this themselves—a belief that some lawyers in the industry have from time to time merely paid lip service to the option of mediation. In some ways, one cannot blame them because the incentive is to keep the case going. However, if you do that it is unfair to clients and other lawyers, the vast majority of whom make every effort to ensure that cases are not brought to court unnecessarily. I pay tribute to Resolution, a body with 5,500 members comprising solicitors and others committed to using non-adversarial processes with their clients, including mediation and collaborative law, as we have heard.

The question is whether and how we can enhance the use of these processes to improve the family law system. These are very difficult issues. I pay tribute to all those, whether litigators or advocates, who carry out family work. It is a very hard job, which is sometimes difficult and uncomfortable and, on the whole, they do it with enormous skill and probity, and not always for the greatest reward. We on this side of this House think that change must come. I very much hope and believe that the Government are of the same opinion. Our present system is not an option. It is not working satisfactorily for anybody in the system—parties, lawyers, courts or the state. However, change must be thorough, thought out, discussed and, we hope, agreed by consensus.

18:11

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for initiating the debate. The fact that she has done so is fully justified by the quality of the contributions. I start at the end, as it were, by responding to the noble Lord, Lord Bach. I am well aware of his work and concern in this area. I do not think that there is any break in the approach as between the two Governments. We shall build on what the noble Lord did under the previous Government. He has already reflected on there being no silver bullets or quick-fix solutions to this matter and said that it has to be thought through, listening carefully to experience and advice on all sides. As he rightly said, we are dealing with extremely complex financial and emotional issues.

As the noble Lord knows, the justice review to which he referred is conducted by an independent panel chaired by David Norgrove. It will publish an interim report in the spring of 2011, when we will get the first impact of its thinking. The Government will await the outcome of the family justice review before making any firm decisions on comprehensive divorce law reform. However, dissatisfaction and complaints have emerged from all sides in this debate, from those who have gone through divorce and from divorce practitioners. I was not shocked by the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, as I had seen the letter that she had sent to colleagues, in which she outlined her approach to these matters. I certainly do not consider her views idiosyncratic. I would be a brave man to do so in any circumstances, but particularly so as regards the field we are discussing.

As the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said, we live in an age when there are many divorces. The timely intervention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn and the contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, were right. In all but a few cases, we enter marriage in the belief that it is for life. When it sometimes does not end up like that, it is very traumatic. I am not sure that we are all like the girls in a Manchester school who, when asked in a recent television survey, said that their ambition in life was to marry a footballer as a way to fame and fortune. The implication was that a marriage in those circumstances would be fairly short. However, the right reverend Prelate’s speech resonated for most people in terms of a moral approach to marriage—a determination to try and make it work. The law’s job when breakdown occurs is to try and help as much as it can in ensuring a civilised break.

I listened to the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech and Lady Meacher, and I agree that the independence of women has recently increased enormously. However, I am still not sure that the balance in divorce cases is quite as equal as they imply. As the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, implied, it can often be unequally weighted against the woman in terms of being able to maintain standards or build a career after divorce. As we know too well from some of our crime statistics, far too many women in this country have to manage dysfunctional families long after the male has gone.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally]

I thought that I might have provoked the noble Baroness.

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I am responding to the noble Lord’s indication that we were implying somehow that the positions of men and women are equal. My concern—and perhaps that of my noble friend Lady Deech, though I should not speak for her—is simply that things have changed a great deal in the past 40 years, and the law was written at a time when the position of women was very different from what it is today. Situations vary. There are occasions when the woman is the all-powerful and rich earner, and others when it is the man. All situations have to be judged on their merits. I did not want the Minister to take that as a suggestion of equality.

[Lord McNally]

I fully understand and accept that. Things have changed a great deal in the past 40 years, but a lot of things have stayed the same. We have to take both realities into account. In terms of divorce, the lower down the social scale—if that is the right description—the less things have changed. I can quite imagine that the qualified professional woman is able to re-establish herself very quickly. The woman who has been holding a family together but is very much dependent on a male breadwinner is in a very much different situation. I just make the point that when we are looking at reform, we have to ensure, as our system does, that judges consider three principles—need, compensation and sharing, shaped by the overarching requirement for fairness. Each party is entitled to an equal share of the assets of the partnership unless there is good reason to the contrary, but the yardstick of equality is to be used as an aid, not as a rule. Any decision will be based on individual circumstances and needs. The court does not impose a one-size-fits-all solution. Consideration will be given to the potential earning capacity of both parties. Spousal maintenance orders can be conditional and time-limited, ending in any case if the recipient marries again. One-third of divorced couples make an application for ancillary relief, but a large majority of them seek simply a consent order.

Mention was made by, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, of prenups. We await with interest Wednesday’s ruling of the Supreme Court in Granatino v Radmacher. At present, the courts can take into account prenuptial agreements as part of the balancing exercise that judges must undertake in ancillary relief proceedings under Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The judges can still apply discretion—

[Lord Davies of Stamford]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has read out a list of the various arguments and considerations that the courts, under the Matrimonial Causes Act, can take into account, including—to the extent to which they may wish to do so—the existence of a prenuptial agreement. Would he not agree that the problem is that because there is such a range of criteria, principles and precedents, it is impossible in any one case to give professional advice or predict what the likely outcome, or weighting between those considerations, will be? Would he not agree that a law that is not clear is a bad law?

[Lord McNally]

Certainly, a law that is not clear is a bad law. That is why we will consider carefully the outcome of the Supreme Court decision, and then the recommendations of the Law Commission, which will look at reforming the law. I hope that we will be able to do that with some urgency.

Another issue raised was that of “the divorce capital of the world”. The term has gained traction mainly because of some high-profile cases with large sums involved. However, I noted a comment by Lord Justice Thorpe, who said:

“There are only 17 judges of the family division”—

of the High Court—

“whose primary responsibility is to justice domestically. There they operate under great pressure of work. I question whether there should not be a more stringent allocation of judicial time to cases such as this where the parties have slender connection with our jurisdiction”.

As I said, there has been criticism of the system by the judiciary as well as by those who have to go through it.

Another point made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Deech, Lady Meacher, and Lady Murphy, concerned the issue of mediation. My colleague in the other place, Jonathan Djanogly, said the other day:

“Too often people in family breakdown situations use court as the first answer when they shouldn't. Often it's dealing with contact with children or intimate personal relationships that really shouldn't be going before the courts”.

The Government's view, which is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is that there is a prospect of putting forward mediation as an alternative to expensive and emotionally charged court proceedings. It is an interesting fact that about 70 per cent of publicly funded cases in which mediation is attempted end up with a successful outcome reached away from the courts, and 60 per cent of publicly funded parties who learn about mediation end up with a successful outcome reached away from the courts. The figures for self-funding parties are similar if not higher. In looking at reform, the Government and many outside experts believe that we should publicise mediation and encourage it to be used much more than it is at the moment.

The contributions from all sides have indicated that our law is in need of examination. That examination is under way: the Supreme Court is considering prenups, while the study group and the Law Commission are also looking at the issue. We hope that, in 2011, those findings and studies will come together, which may be an opportune time to look at a range of reforms to our divorce law, so that it meets real needs and many of the criticisms that have been voiced today.

Again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, for raising this issue. I cannot give a snap answer to the question that she has raised in this short debate, but I hope that I have given a sense that we are continuing the initiatives of the previous Administration with a sense of urgency and that we shall look at the matter when the various studies come to fruition.

House adjourned at 6.26 pm.