| Previous Section | Home Page |
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : Does the Prime Minister agree with the Secretary-General of the United Nations who said at the weekend that the rich countries have a vested interest in seeking solutions to the problems bedevilling the poorer countries? Vested interests aside, surely we should be talking in terms of principles. Will the Prime Minister assure us that his Government will continue to defend the interests of those ACP cane-sugar producing countries, particularly in the
Column 663
Council of Ministers at Brussels? Some of the member states of the European Community seem to believe that they have no obligation to defend those interests.The Prime Minister : In answer to the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant), I set out the position on the ACP countries and the difficulties that they face over bananas under the GATT round. I made it clear that we were keen to protect their position. They have no other obvious source of income in the short term, or even in the medium-term, and we wish to preserve their position. Clearly it is right to talk about having a general interest in the remarks of the Secretary- General. That is why so many of the developed countries have such large aid programmes.
Mr. Chris Smith (Islington, South and Finsbury) : Judging from his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), the Prime Minister appears to be unaware of the fact that, when a commercial bank writes down a debt in this country and claims corporation tax relief as a result, it does not at the same time have to cancel the debt to the developing country concerned. [Hon. Members :-- "That's it."] As a result, the British taxpayer is subsidising the bank rather than the people of the developing world ?
Does the Prime Minister not realise that, unless a far more serious approach is made to tackling the problem of debt than anything dreamed of in the Trinidad terms or beyond, we shall not achieve environmental progress or sustainable development throughout the developing world?
The Prime Minister : In so far as I could hear the question over the yapping coming from the Opposition Front Bench below the Gangway, the banks are writing off debt and we have put considerable pressure on them to make sure that they do write off the debt. It is important that they should continue to do so, and we shall certainly see that they do.
Ms. Hilary Armstrong (Durham, North-West) : Given the Prime Minister's statements on population control, I wonder whether it is true that his Government have cut their contribution to the United Nations fund for population control by 63 per cent.
The Prime Minister : I do not believe that that is the case, and I think that the hon. Lady will find that out.
Column 664
Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : How does the Prime Minister justify the role of the Secretary of State for the Environment, who lectured other nations at Rio on the need to improve the environment and to reduce emissions of poisonous fumes into the atmosphere, when at home he allows the use of orimulsion, the dirtiest means of generating energy? He has allowed its use without any restrictions on cleaning its emissions. Will the Prime Minister undertake to stop the use of orimulsion because of the damage it is doing to the atmosphere in this country?
The Prime Minister : As the hon. Gentleman may know, all that is subject to Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution. He will also know that the United Kingdom has a comprehensive strategy for the environment, as set out in our White Paper, which is rolled forward annually. It is an open process with a commitment, a report, a review sequence and a public right to information on a scale that no other country has yet managed to equal. I must say that I find it extraordinary that Labour hon. Members are so often ever ready to run down what is done in this country rather than to acknowledge the lead that is so often given by this country, not least by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) : As the Prime Minister knows, I spent a week in Rio, and I was fully aware of the build-up of hope and anticipation during that time. It was fuelled by the constant briefing of the press and media by Ministers and PR men. Did not the death of the Prime Minister's supposed good intentions take place in the meaningless platitudes, weasel words, caveats and smell of back-room fixes cobbled up by him and his aides at Rio? Is it not true that the failure to agree a target date for achieving 0.7 per cent. of GNP by the year 2000 can only mean that the burden of shouldering the environment and development crisis has been left to the world's poorest countries and people? Is not the message from the United Kingdom Government, "It's business as usual--carry on polluting, and carry on dying"?
The Prime Minister : If that is so, perhaps the hon. Lady can explain why the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) would not commit himself to any extra money whatsoever for that purpose. It is about time that the Opposition looked at their position before criticising the growing British aid programme.
Column 665
Points of Order
4.26 pm
Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask whether you have received a request from the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for Social Security to make a statement on the revelation that the Government had intelligence information in the years before Maxwell's death that he was acting dishonestly. As those intelligence data were collected before 1989, the House needs to know why the Department for Trade and Industry granted an investment licence to two Maxwell companies in April 1988, which he later used to pillage those pension funds.
As those intelligence data were also presumably collected after 1989, how can the Goverfment, including the Department of Social Security, not have known that Maxwell was dealing dishonestly with the pension fund moneys and therefore have been in a position to stop the plundering? Above all, we need to know why the Secretary of State, a week ago, misled the House--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman must rephrase his statement. He knows that no Minister misleads the House, and I should be glad if he would withdraw his statement.
Several hon. Members rose --
Madam Speaker : Order. I am on my feet.
Mr. Meacher : Of course I withdraw that phrase.
We need to consider why the Minister said :
"nor is there any question of Government accepting
responsibility".-- [Official Report, 8 June 1992 ; Vol. 209. c. 23.]
In the light of that revelation, the Government clearly have a responsibility. Will you, Madam Speaker, secure an early statement so that we can have a full inquiry into the matter?
Madam Speaker : The first question that the hon. Gentleman raised was a matter for me. The point of order that he raised with the Chair was whether any Minister had asked to make a statement. The answer to that is no. That was a direct matter for me but, the other matters which the hon. Gentleman raises are for those on the Front Bench, who no doubt have noted his comments, and not for me as Speaker.
Mr. David Winnick (Walsall, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Have you received a request for a statement from the Secretary of State for Social Security about a conference on the Maxwell fund apparently to be held on Wednesday in Liechtenstein? I ask that question because I telephoned the Swiss embassy--it looks after that country's interests--to ask what is happening, and was told that such a conference is to take place in two days' time. I want to know from the Minister whether United Kingdom representatives will attend, bearing in mind that public money is now involved in trying to help the victims of that swindle. I have also been in touch with the pensioners who are affected--
Madam Speaker : Order. The hon. Gentleman puts a point of order to me. He cannot put a question to a Minister through me. I have received no information from the Government that they seek to make a statement on the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman.
Column 666
Dr. Norman A. Godman (Greenock and Port Glasgow) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This concerns a matter that I have raised with you before, and that you treated with your characteristic courtesy. This afternoon, during Question Time, we had to suffer lengthy replies from those on the Front Bench. I know that you have commented before about these overlong answers to Back Benchers' questions. Could you impress upon those on the Treasury Bench the fact that many Back Benchers like to get in to ask questions, and that these overlong answers, these mini-statements, go down very badly with us?
Madam Speaker : I have already made a statement on that matter. Whether it is those on the Front Bench or those on the Back Bench, I think it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Mr. Bennett.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish) : I was not actually going to raise a point of order.
Madam Speaker : In that case, it was my mistake. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. If I heard you properly, you said that, as far as you were aware, no Minister had asked to make a statement about that crook Maxwell and the fact that the Government knew of some of his activities years ago, through GCHQ? Can we get this matter resolved? If the Government do not want to make a statement, which is scandalous, has anybody asked that a statement be made? If nobody has yet made that request, I am doing so now.
Madam Speaker : I have already made a decision on that matter, and those who have been interested and involved in it know the decision that I have made.
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Last week, I raised with you a point of order about the work of the Select Committee on Social Security looking into the Maxwell affair. You undertook, on behalf of the House, to get together those on the two Front Benches so as to ensure that the Select Committee meets at an early opportunity. Today, the Financial Times reported that the intelligence services had information on the sort of activities that our Select Committee could examine. It could also bring the Secretary of State before it at the earliest opportunity to see what part the Government played in keeping from the public gaze the intelligence information about Maxwell's fraudulent behaviour.
Madam Speaker : If the hon. Gentleman refers to the statement that I made last week, he will see that I have already made known my views on the establishment of the Select Committee. I shall leave it at that.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney). During the investigations by the Select Committee on Social Security into the affairs of the Maxwell pension fund, the Government gave no evidence about any security information on Robert Maxwell that they might have had. If they withheld that information, what sanctions can be taken against the Ministers who were responsible for those Departments at that time?
Column 667
Madam Speaker : I have already on one occasion made it clear that that is not the type of advice that I am prepared to give across the Floor of the House.STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
Madam Speaker : With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to Statutory Instruments.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments. &c.).
Revenue Support Grant (Scotland)
That the Rvenue Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
Licensing (Northern Ireland)
That the draft Licensing (Validation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.-- [Mr. Kirkhope.]
Question agreed to.
Column 668
Orders of the Day
Boundary Commissions Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
4.33 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Clarke) : I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time The purpose of the Bill is to facilitate the work of the parliamentary boundary commissioners so that their reports can be presented in good time. The issue, as we all appreciate, is whether the next general election is likely to be fought on up-to-date boundaries or on boundaries that are nearly 20 years out of date. The Bill makes no changes in the rules for boundary revision that we adopt in our democracy because it is generally acknowledged that those rules work well. It gives effect to a timetable that hon. Members on both sides have been expecting the boundary commissions to follow for some time. The only arguments for opposition to the Bill will be arguments in favour of delay and of fighting a general election on out-of-date figures on population distribution. I trust that such arguments will not be advanced too strongly.
Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West) : Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke : I will, but I want to make some progress before I do so.
The essential background to the Bill is as follows. Since the current boundaries were drawn up, population changes have caused wide disparities in constituency electorates. Perhaps I may remind the House of how wide those disparities are. In England the figures range from just over 42,000 to more than 100,000. There are similar, although not quite as marked, disparities in the other parts of the United Kingdom. Northern Ireland has a span of 24,000 electors between the largest and smallest constituencies. The gaps between largest and smallest for Wales and Scotland are 41,000 and 55,000 respectively.
Obviously in Wales and Scotland geographical features combine to mean that some constituencies can legitimately remain smaller, but most of the disparities, including many that have developed in recent years, are simply the result of today's mobility of population which the previous statutory timetable did not recognise. The disparities in the numbers of voters in each constituency are unacceptable and they can increase extremely rapidly.
Mr. Tony Banks : I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for giving way so early and I understand the point that he is making--but it is not just a matter of numbers. They may be the concern of the boundary commissions, but it is also a fact that in constituencies such as mine, where the electorate is down to 46,855-- [Hon. Members :-- "Bye bye!"] I can assure Conservative Members that it will not be "Bye bye" to me. The problems generated by those 46, 000 people, however, are considerably greater than those of the 90, 000 constituents in a Tory, rural, affluent area. Surely there ought to be some consideration of that.
Mr. Clarke : I would not attempt to deny that the borough of Newham suffers from a wide range of social
Column 669
problems which impose a considerable burden on the constituency work of its Members of Parliament. But it is a novel proposition to say that in deprived parts of the country a vote should be given twice the weight of that in another English constituency because of the workload imposed on the Member of Parliament or the problems faced by constituents. That proposition has never been taken into account before, and I am sure that the House will not want to introduce it in this Bill.But for the proposals in the Bill there would be a serious risk of an election in 1996--a perfectly feasible date to contemplate--being fought on electoral figures that would be 20 years out of date. By that time the disparities that I have just described will have grown even greater. The Bill therefore sets a statutory deadline of 31 December 1994 for the completion of each of the four commissions' next reviews.
So as to ensure that these deadlines are achievable, the Bill also includes provision for the payments of commissioners. It sets out clearly the local government boundaries of which account must be taken in their reports. These two provisions are linked closely to the first provision, and between them they represent almost the entirety of what the House will be voting on this evening. I have no doubt that our debate will range a little more widely than that, but the Bill is a very narrow measure, mainly designed to make sure that the boundary review takes place within the reasonable time that we always expected.
Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness and Sutherland) : Many of us will take the view that the contents of the Bill are not as surprising as the manner of its introduction. As Madam Speaker is the chairman of the four commissions, did the right hon. and learned Gentleman inform her, before introducing and publishing the Bill, of the Government's intentions--and what reply did he receive?
Mr. Clarke : Madam Speaker, like her predecessors in office, is indeed chairman of the commissions and, like her predecessors, she will take no active part in their work. Below her is a High Court judge in each of the four countries. He is an active commissioner sitting with two other commissioners appointed by the Government after consultation, usually with- -among others--the Opposition parties. I am sure that the role of the Speaker of the House is to ensure that if there ever were--there never has been--an allegation of impropriety in the conduct of the commission, the Speaker might become active. The Speakership has not been active hitherto, and it is not contemplated that it will be so as a result of the Bill. As a matter of courtesy, I informed Madam Speaker about the introduction of the Bill. She noted that and thanked me for my courtesy. Beyond that she has taken no part whatever in the drawing up of the legislation. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) that there is anything surprising about the introduction of the Bill. It has appeared in the House so quickly after being mentioned in the Queen's Speech because of the timetable which sets a statutory deadline of 31 December 1994. The Bill must be enacted reasonably quickly to make sure that no practical reasons get in the way of that deadline.
Column 670
Mrs. Marion Roe (Broxbourne) : Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that there is widespread dissatisfaction in England and Wales about the over-representation of Wales and Scotland? People feel that it is undemocratic. What action would he need to take to ensure that the same basis for representation applied to Scotland and Wales as applies to the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Clarke : Primary legislation would be required to change the legislation setting out the number of seats available to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. We have decided not to do that because the disparity about which my hon. Friend complains has been in our system for a long time, although it may have widened a little in recent years. As we all know, from time to time, there is lively debate about the constitutional position of Scotland, in particular, and, to a certain extent, that of Wales. The Government's view is that a proposal that solely determined the number of seats in Scotland and Wales would not be helpful to the debate.
That underlines my argument that the Bill, which in a sense is a modest constitutional measure to be debated on the Floor of the House, where it should achieve as wide a consensus as possible, is restricted to what is necessary to achieve the timetable. We have deliberately eschewed the suggestion to enter upon larger issues. The number of seats allocated to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a wider issue and should not be taken as part of the legislation. I emphasise the extent to which the Bill leaves untouched the mechanisms of the boundary commissions. Some reports have suggested that we are gerrymandering or doing something like that. Such things are said in the heat of the moment, but that is a preposterous suggestion, because the Bill goes out of its way to leave the rules and the mechanism untouched, precisely because I am not aware of any serious complaint about the impartiality and fairness of what is done at the moment.
Mr. Ian McCartney (Makerfield) : The issue of gerrymandering could have been resolved at the outset if the Minister had followed historical precedent and called inter-party talks before producing the Bill. Why did that not happen either at a Speaker's Conference or in some other forum to enure that the Bill could be supported by all parties and that there would be no suggestion of gerrymandering?
Mr. Clarke : If the Bill's time scale is to remain practical, we must enter quickly on the legislation. I clearly recollect politicians of all parties speaking and writing articles in the expectation that the timetable that I am describing would be realised. We are merely making sure that the statutory deadline matches the expectations of most hon. Members. If we had suggested changing the rules or the distribution of seats, or anything of that kind, we would probably have required the historical precedent of a Speaker's Conference. Unless something surprising arises in the debate, an argument, if there is one, about the statutory deadline of 31 December 1994 is hardly the red meat of constitutional debate that would justify a Speaker's Conference.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Clarke : I shall give way once more and then I should like to make more progress.
Column 671
Mr. Bob Dunn (Dartford) : First, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the boundary commissions are impartial? Secondly, will he resist any accusations that are made by Labour Members about gerrymandering? I remember that in 1969 the then Labour Government refused to implement the recommendations of the commissioners because they felt that they would lose up to 30 seats if they did so.Mr. Clarke : Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. I have never heard it seriously suggested that the work of the boundary commissions is anything other than impartial. Our system must be the envy of many of the major democracies of the western world. It is implemented by a High Court judge and I do not think that there can be any claim of partiality.
This is the fourth revision since the system started, as I shall briefly describe. The two reports that were made during periods of Labour Governments gave rise to considerable controversy. In 1969 the then Home Secretary, now Lord Callaghan, went to considerable lengths to avoid implementing the boundary changes before the 1970 general election. My position is slightly ambiguous, because, had it not been for Lord Callaghan's gerrymandering on that occasion, I probably would not have been elected to the House in 1970. I had been selected to fight a constituency that was next door to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) which was due to be redistributed out of sight following implementation of the report. Lord Callaghan was so anxious to see my right hon. Friend and myself in the House that he delayed the process and I was elected to this place to represent a constituency that was subsequently redistributed.
When we last had a review nobody claimed that it was anything other than impartial. We behaved perfectly properly in our response to it and we propose to do so again. It helps no one to claim that reviews are not impartial.
Several Hon. Members rose --
Mr. Clarke : I shall explain how we have reached the present position and then I shall give way.
Over nearly 50 years we have had four reports from boundary commissions. They are required periodically to produce reports on all the constituencies in their respective parts of the United Kingdom. This will continue to be the case. In addition, the commissions are able to conduct interim reviews should they consider that the need to alter constituency boundaries is so pressing that they cannot wait until the next general review. This option, too, will continue to be open to the commissions.
On reaching conclusions in any given area, each commission publishes its proposed changes with its reasons for arriving at those conclusions. It then waits for a statutory period of at least one month for representations to be made. If objections are raised by a body of 100 or more electors or by an interested authority, the commissioners are obliged to hold an inquiry in the area concerned. They may choose to hold an inquiry even if these conditions are not met. I have never heard it suggested that such inquiries are anything other than full and fair. Detailed reasons are given for whichever course of action the commission eventually decides to follow. The procedures via which the boundary commissioners arrive at their conclusions are an essential part of our
Column 672
democratic system. There is no compelling need for any changes in the rules which I have outlined and no changes are proposed in the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) has underlined, the boundary commissions are an invaluable part of our constitution and one which the Government have every intention of maintaining.Mr. William O'Brien (Normanton) : How does the Home Secretary align his immediate remarks with the information that was sent to Members in the newsletter from the boundary commissioners? The commissioners wrote :
"It is too early to estimate when the report will be completed but it is unlikely to be before mid-1995."
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman is saying that the procedures of consultation, a public inquiry and everything else will be carried out and the date is to be brought forward 12 months, how can what he is saying and what the commissioners have said be reconciled?
Mr. Clarke : The date will be brought forward six months before the estimate to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. Before the Bill was introduced no one was quite sure when the process would be completed. The modest extra resources that the Bill will enable us to put into the exercise of providing remuneration for the commissioners will enable them to speed up their work. The Bill provides clarity about the impact of any local government changes on the revisions and provides a cut-off date after which local government changes will not be taken into account. That, too, will enable the commissioners to meet the statutory deadline of 31 December 1994. If, by any chance, they slip beyond the statutory deadline, that will not invalidate the conclusions. I believe that, following the Bill's enactment, the statutory deadline will be hit.
Timing is the only issue. Looking back over the process, as I have briefly done, the only drawback that has caused controversy in modern times is the time that has elapsed between each review. The disparities between the sizes of electorates have become intolerable. A vote in Kensington is now worth twice as much as a vote in Peterborough. There is no logical reason for that, but it is not an isolated example. The constituency of Eastleigh has more than 91,000 electors on the 1991 register ; it had only 70,000 on the 1976 register. Similarly, during that time my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's constituency electorate has risen from 65,000 to 91,000 ; Hampshire, East has risen from 67,000 to 91,000 ; The Wrekin from 65, 000 to 91,000 ; and Swindon fromn 68,000 to 90,000. I could go on. Such dramatic increases have been matched by similar decreases in electorates compared with the time when constituencies were given their individual Members. Chelsea had an electorate of 63,000 in 1976 ; that is now down to 42,000. Indeed, the smallest constituency is, surprisingly, Surbiton. Such swings in population of almost a third of the electorate in some constituencies over a 15-year period show that the current time scale is too protracted for today's mobility of population.
The House has made several efforts to get the interval between reporting times right. In the 1950s, a reporting time period of between three and seven years was found to be too short. There was considerable controversy about the haste of the report in the early 1950s. We subsequently found that a reporting period of between 10 and 15 years is too long for the 1990s. For those reasons, the Bill
Column 673
proposes a time scale of between eight and 12 years between general reports of the boundary commissions. By that means, we should avoid some of the past difficulties.In 1939, constituencies ranged in size from 15,000 to 150,000 electors. That was recognised as unsatisfactory, so four permanent boundary commissions were set up in 1944, one for each component part of the United Kingdom. The brief of those commissions was to produce comprehensive proposals for the redistribution of parliamentary constituencies every three to seven years. There was an initial report in 1947 and the commissions reported again in 1954 on a periodic review that had lasted little over 18 months. That caused controversy, so the time scale in which they had to report was extended by legislation in 1958 to between 10 and 15 years. That framework for review, consolidated by the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, is largely that which remains with us today. However, for the reasons that I have given, the procedure is thought to span too long a time.
Mr. Robert B. Jones (Hertfordshire, West) : Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the problems is that the quota year is not the year in which the report is presented? There is already a built-in obsolescence in the electorates. Should not the time scale run from the year of quota rather than the year of the report? That would ensure that that problem was minimised.
Mr. Clarke : The quota year must be set before the process starts and it must be adhered to throughout the general review as it continues or it would be unfair to those countries dealt with in the early stages compared with those dealt with in the later stages. The quota year is 1991, which the English Boundary Commission is using. As it has already produced its proposals for a number of counties, it would not be practicable to change the quota year. The timetable for review should be based on the gap between general reviews, which is what we are proposing, rather than on a new timetable starting from a quota year.
Mr. Harry Barnes (Derbyshire, North-East) : The quota year is 1991, but there is a shortfall of 1.88 million electors in the estimated relevant population of people entitled to be on the voting register. Although some of those are overseas visitors, there is still a shortfall of 1.5 million electors in England, Scotland and Wales--but not in Northern Ireland. Therefore, it would be sensible to get the electoral register correct and then to move quickly into the quota figure and the reviews.
Mr. Clarke : We go to considerable lengths to make sure that people register. We have compulsory registration, which we back up with expenditure, advertisement and effort to get people on to the register. We achieve about 95 per cent. registration, which is a little lower than the historic level. The discrepancy has widened a little, but that pre-dates the community charge. We have achieved considerable success in getting people on to the register. The Government will continue their efforts to make sure that registration is maintained at a high level.
Column 674
Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster) : Does it not appear that some local authorities have been over-successful, in that it appears that at the last election there were about 11,000 dual entries in some constituencies? I do not know what one can do about that.
Mr. Clarke : The rules are clear. It is for the electoral registration officer in each area to make sure that the job is carried out satisfactorily. We hear complaints from time to time about dual registration--about people who have not been removed from the electoral register because it is assumed that they are still in the constituency, despite the fact that they have not sent in the form. One hears allegations that universities send in lists of everybody who is supposedly in residence, including people who are not British citizens. By and large, however, despite all the anecdotal complaints that one receives from individual constituencies, I think that our registration process is better than that achieved in most parliamentary democracies, if not all. We achieve a success rate of about 95 per cent.
I intend to describe what the Bill aims to deal with. The number of interventions shows that the Government have been modest about what they have chosen to do. We have given the Bill a very narrow compass. It contains three main provisions, designed to put the position over the time scale to rights. Clause 1 provides that commissioners can be paid for their services. It has to amend schedule 1 to the 1986 Act to do so. At present, members of each commission give their services free of charge. However, assistant commissioners are paid for the work that they do in holding local inquiries where these are warranted and in preparing reports of the inquiries for the commission to consider.
That is an anomaly nowadays. Each commission employs eminent people from the legal profession and public administration to undertake its work. It is only fair that the reward of such people should recognise, as far as possible, the skills that they bring to the task.
Mr. Jeff Rooker (Birmingham, Perry Barr) : Is not one of the reasons for the delays, particularly as the commission undertakes the reviews, the fact that the Lord Chancellor allows the judge the chance to work as a commissioner only every six weeks? That is probably because his work is unpaid. Is there any provision in the Bill that would allow the Lord Chancellor to be more reasonable about allowing a senior High Court judge time off to get on with the work of being a commissioner?
Mr. Clarke : Lord Chancellors are always reluctant to release High Court judges from their duties for excessive periods. However, before the Bill was produced I consulted the Lord Chancellor. He knows what the statutory timetable is. He will therefore have to ensure that the commission's work is not delayed. The hon. Gentleman is right, however. One of the biggest reasons for delay is that the commission tends to meet only once every six weeks to continue its work. The High Court judge will not be paid over and above his High Court salary, but remuneration of the other commissioners will make it fair and reasonable to expect more frequent meetings to be held, if necessary.
Clause 2 refers specifically to the timing of the general reviews of constituencies that the commissions are periodically required to undertake. It has no bearing--this is an important point--on the interim reviews that may be
Column 675
undertaken at any stage, where the need arises. Clause 2 states that the next reviews of all four commissions are required to be submitted by 31 December 1994. On the present time scale, the report of the Northern Ireland commission would be due, under the statutory limit, in 1997. Those in England, Scotland and Wales would be due in early 1998. I have already made it clear why we cannot wait for those ultimate statutory deadlines and that they have to be changed. The new deadlines will set an achievable and practicable target. The English commission started its general review in February of last year. The Scottish commission started its review in February of this year. Both commissions should be able to complete their reviews in time, given adequate resources. The remaining two commissions have yet to start their reviews, but they are confronted with smaller tasks. Furthermore, there is a provision in the Bill, which I have already mentioned, that failure to submit a report on time will not serve to invalidate the report subsequently submitted. That takes any undue pressure off the commissions and ensures that their democratic procedures will not be circumvented to abide by these deadlines, if it is unavoidable that their reviews come in late. It also provides a safeguard in the event of delay because of unforeseen and unavoidable circumstances. As I have said, in addition to the deadline for the next review, the length of time between subsequent reviews will be reduced to between eight and 12 years.Clause 3 clearly sets out the local government boundaries that the commissions should take into account when completing their general reviews. The extent to which they are required to consider local government boundaries will remain as set out in the 1986 Act. Clause 3 simply specifies the latest date by which the commissioners can reasonably be expected to take account of changes in local government boundaries. It is necessary to include that provision because, as we know, local government boundary changes are in the offing in all parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Richard Tracey (Surbiton) : Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
| Next Section
| Home Page |