| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Prescott: I thank the hon. Member for her remarks of support. She is right that we are not just concerned with the Thames. I know that she is readily informed on matters of the Ouse and the York and vessels that ply them. It is important to do that. That is why we have made it clear that not only the Thames but all rivers will be looked at. It is important for us to take the opportunity to do so.
Looking at the design of vessels is important. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), mentioned that the Bowbelle had been involved in about 50 per cent. of such incidents. It was also clear that all those incidents involved vessels that had restricted visibility--namely, the launches that the Bowbelle collided with in one form or another. All investigations showed that there was restricted visibility. It is tragic that, over 20 years, nothing was done about restricted visibility, which contributed to the Marchioness disaster. What happened with the Marchioness has happened a few times over the 20 years, and reports were made under those circumstances. Frankly, nothing was done. It is an important issue and we shall look at it.
Sir Brian Mawhinney (North-West Cambridgeshire):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Because of the significance of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, I slipped out after he had made it, only to be told by the Library that it does not have copies of Lord Justice Clarke's report. I am not accusing the Deputy Prime Minister of deliberately misleading the House, but would you undertake, on behalf of Members on both sides of the House, to look at the arrangements for the delivery of such documents either to the Vote Office or to the Library when statements are made, so that Ministers do not mislead the House and Members have a chance to read the documents?
Madam Speaker:
As the right hon. Gentleman says, no Minister or Secretary of State has misled the House today. However, in recent times, there have been examples of Ministers saying, in all good faith, that a document is available, only for hon. Members to find that that document is not available.
I hope that all Departments of State will heed my comments today and see to it that those who are responsible for serving Ministers do their job. They must see to it that the documents that should be available are made available, and that the Minister is properly supported. It is rather disappointing to me that, of late, that has not been the case.
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise if any discourtesy has been done to the House. I made my statement in good faith, and you can be sure that I shall ask why my instruction was not carried out.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn (Islington, North):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on the subject of General Pinochet and what is or is not sub judice as far as the House is concerned.
You will recall that when, during oral questions this afternoon, I questioned the Home Secretary about a letter that his Department had sent to Pinochet's lawyers on 5 November, he said that he was unable to answer because it now formed part of the legal proceedings; however, he made a statement to the House that was derived from the exchange of letters at that time. Given that he made that statement, I should have thought that the Home Secretary must answer hon. Members' questions on the matter. I realise that there is a court case in which a decision is expected imminently. Then, will we be able to question the Home Secretary on the details of that correspondence?
Madam Speaker:
As the hon. Gentleman knows, if he goes to the Table Office and attempts to table a question, he will be given guidance. I am concerned to ensure that hon. Members are able to ask questions about that issue in respect of the medical evidence and the policy of the Secretary of State. However, I am also concerned to protect our proceedings in respect of the sub judice rule.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood):
Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. May I point out that "Erskine May", page 383, makes it clear that there should not be
Madam Speaker:
The staff of the Table Office are, of course, rightly cautious, but I know that they are very helpful to hon. Members when approached on the tabling of questions. I know, too, that the Home Secretary is concerned about the sub judice rule and about the role he plays in the House. Today, he was certainly in perfect order when answering the questions put to him on that matter.
Mr. Michael Fabricant presented a Bill to establish a Parliamentary Commission to investigate and report to Parliament on the potential costs and benefits of membership by the United Kingdom of the North American Free Trade Agreement: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 67].
(Clauses 1 to 18 and 95 to 120, Schedules 1, 2 and 11 to 14, and New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Parts I and VII)
Considered in Committee.
Ordered,
Clearly, if we support the Neill report, we must support the basic tenet of clause 1, which is the establishment of the Electoral Commission. However, we have a number of concerns with regard to clause 1, on which we seek reassurance from the Minister.
Recommendation 77 in the Neill report states:
At paragraph 11.27, Neill reports:
The second and more probing question concerns timing. The establishment of the commission seems to be a relatively straightforward procedure. However, a letter sent
by the Home Office constitutional and community policy directorate on 17 January to the nominating officers of all registered political parties states in paragraph 6:
Those 100 registered political parties are to be made aware of the Bill's provisions--the commission will have to make them aware--in a short period so that by March 2001 all the procedures will be completed and the scheme will be up and running. What are the timetable's implications for a possible election in spring 2001? I hope that the Minister will give us some guidance on that.
"reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings"?
The proceedings in the matter we are discussing are continuing: the three High Court judges have deferred judgment until tomorrow or Wednesday. Germane to their deliberations is the question of whether or not the Home Secretary was correct to withhold the findings of the panel of medical specialists whom he appointed. Notwithstanding your letter to me of 10 February about early-day motion 340, in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), will you ensure that, on the matter of questions, the staff of the Table Office are extremely careful to make quite certain that no prejudice is caused to proceedings currently in train?
4.19 pm
That the order in which proceedings in Committee of the whole House on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill are to be taken shall be: Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clause 2, Schedule 2, Clauses 3 to 18, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part I, clauses 95 to 103, Schedule 11, Clause 104, Schedule 12, Clauses 105 to 111, Schedule 13, Clause 112, Schedule 14, Clauses 113 to 120, new Clauses and new Schedules relating to Part VII.-- [Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
Mr. Robert Walter (North Dorset):
I hope that in our deliberations in the Committee of the whole House, the spirit of co-operation that existed in Committee upstairs will persist. As I stated on a number of occasions in that Committee and on Second Reading, the Bill is based on the Neill report, the spirit of which is strongly supported by the Opposition.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
"The Commission should consist of five part-time members".
However, the clause states that there should be at least five and up to nine commissioners. Therein lies a deviation on the part of the Government from the Neill report.
"It was suggested to us in evidence that the Election Commission should, among other things, assume the responsibilities of the present Boundary Commissions. This proposal falls outside our terms of reference, and we have neither taken evidence bearing on the point nor considered it in detail. We would only offer the thought that the existing system for the revision of parliamentary boundaries seems to work reasonably well and that to transfer it to the Election Commission might seriously overload that body, whose responsibilities, it seems to us, will be onerous enough as it is. We are not inclined to recommend change."
Why have the Government felt it necessary to deviate from Neill's inclination not to recommend change?
"Subject to when Royal Assent is given to the Bill, we aim to have the Electoral Commissioners appointed and Electoral Commission functioning by November 2000. As soon as possible thereafter (and we are tentatively looking at December 2000)--
that is key--
"it is proposed to bring Part II into force so that the transitional arrangements set out in clause 30 can come into play. There will then be a six-week period during which existing registered parties will need to notify the Commission of the name of their registered treasurer and deposit a scheme setting out their financial structure. Following this six-week transitional period (ie. in February or March 2001) the accounting requirements and the controls on donations and on campaign expenditure, set out in Parts III to V, will then come into force."
The next paragraph is telling. It states:
"This is a demanding timetable, not only for the Home Office in establishing the Electoral Commission but also for all registered parties, who will need to prepare themselves for these significant changes to the way they operate."
The Electoral Commission, which clause 1 sets up, will be responsible only a few weeks after its establishment for taking over the register of political parties. I have a copy of the register, which shows that there are approximately 100 political parties in this country. Many of them have fanciful names, ranging from the Alternative Labour List and the Caring party to small groups such as the Hull Independent Labour Group, well-known names such as the Official Monster Raving Loony party, and a couple that appealed to me: the Tax-Avoid for the Self-Employed party and the Walked-Over-Women party.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |