| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Clergy Terms of Service
21. Mr. Ben Chapman (Wirral, South) (Lab): If he will make a statement on clergy terms of service. [151913]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The McClean report on clergy terms of service recommends conferring through Church legislation a new package of rights and responsibilities for clergy. These include access to employment tribunals to claim unfair dismissal; legal entitlement to the rights covered by section 23 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, except for the right not to work on Sundays; a new form of tenure, known as common tenure, under which appointments for clergy without the freehold would normally be made until retirement; new clergy terms of service regulations which would clarify the responsibilities of clergy on a national basis; and a capability procedure to be invoked where clergy are failing to reach minimum standards.
Mr. Chapman : I very much agree with my hon. Friend that the first report of the McClean commission represents a step forward. However, the final decision on employment rights for workers with atypical working arrangements rests with the Department of Trade and Industry. Given that, and other factors, what time scale does my hon. Friend envisage for the culmination of this somewhat drawn-out process?
Sir Stuart Bell: I repeat my gratitude to my hon. Friend for the tenacity with which he has pursued this matter throughout his term in Parliament. I think that he would agree that the Church has acted with considerable speed on the issue. It has produced an extensive report on the first phase of its work within a year of being set up. Subject to the views of the Synod, that report will go out for further consultation throughout the Church. We will then liaise with the DTI to reach a conclusion.
ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
Postal Elections
22. Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab): If he will make a statement on the postal voting pilots. [151914]
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): Postal voting pilot schemes have taken place at various elections since 2000. In September last year, the Government introduced the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill to provide for electoral pilot schemes at the June 2004 elections. At the same time, the Government asked the Electoral Commission to recommend up to three regions in which it would be suitable to run pilot schemes. The commission submitted its report on 8 December 2003.
Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman will know that the evidence shows clearly that when there has been one all-postal pilot scheme in an area, turnout is increased, and when there have been two, turnout is boosted further. He will also know that in Wales there
has been a single all-postal ballot in one community council. Does he therefore share my disappointment that Wales has not been fortunate on this occasion? Does he agree that we must try to be innovative, while taking on board the concerns of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) and others? Otherwise, Wales risks being the also-rans in terms of trying to increase democratic turnout.
Mr. Viggers: The commission's evaluation of pilot schemes has identified that turnout has been higher when all-postal voting is used, and the effect is sustained when postal voting is used for the second or even third time. The hon. Gentleman is therefore correct. As to the June 2004 elections, the commission concluded that too high an element of risk would be involved in a pilot in Wales, as the combination of European elections and local government elections in every local authority created greater complexity than in other areas under consideration. As to the longer term, however, the commission has already recommended that all-postal voting be made widely available in England and Wales, for all local elections, subject to certain security measures.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire) (Con): Has the commission considered the rules under which these postal votes will take place? What is the position in relation to supplying information to political parties during the return of ballot papers via the postal system?
Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission has expressed concern about the very point that my hon. Friend has made. It issued a statement on 23 January, in which it called on the Government to abandon plans to provide pre-poll information in the pilot areas. In the event that the Government are unwilling to do so, the commission has called for the introduction of a number of safeguards. I am therefore grateful to my hon. Friend for that question.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire) (Lab): What evidence does the Electoral Commission produce as to who made use of the postal votes? If the vote of young people has increased, are we sure that those votes were not exercised by their parents or some other dominant influence in their community? Do we not need to watch that, because ultimately postal votes might come to be treated like another piece of junk mail?
Mr. Viggers: The commission takes seriously the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. It has recommended a wide range of measures, including replacement of the current declaration of identity with a new security statement; inclusion of new secrecy warnings on postal literature and ballot papers; more effective tools for prosecutors; a new police power of arrest on reasonable suspicion of personation at any location, not just at polling stations; a marked register showing who has cast a vote by post; and tighter controls on the handling of postal ballot papers. The Electoral Commission is therefore seized of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed.
Election Broadcasts
23. Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): If he will make a statement on reforming party election broadcasts. [151915]
Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport): The Electoral Commission published recommendations for the reform of party election broadcasts in January 2003, following a formal review of party political broadcasting arrangements, and submitted them to the Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The commission supported the continued role of party election broadcasts in the democratic process, but made a number of detailed recommendations for changes to the legislation and practice regarding the allocation of broadcasts to political parties.
Chris Bryant: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that free party political broadcasts, which have been a tradition in this country for many decades, are an essential part of British democracy? The system, however, is now ripe for reform, to allow, for instance, shorter, pithier party political broadcasts, especially on all digital channels, not just on some, as is the case at present. Has he had an opportunity to see the submission of the Conservative party, which, alone among all the parties, it has kept secret until now?
Mr. Viggers: I have not been involved in discussions with the Conservative party. The main recommendations of the Electoral Commission were that the ban on paid advertising should be retained and that there should be a statutory duty to determine rules that would govern party political broadcasts, which are not currently on a statutory basis. As to the specific point made by the hon. Gentleman, he has on other occasions recommended that party political broadcasts should be shortened to as little as 30 seconds. The view of the Electoral Commission is that it would be better if
broadcasts were shortened to not less than 90 seconds, thereby clearly distinguishing them from ordinary commercials.
Mr. Andrew Mackay (Bracknell) (Con): Would it not be in the public interest to scrap all these party political broadcasts, which would have the added benefit of avoiding the electricity power surge when everyone goes out to the kitchen to put the kettle on?
Mr. Viggers: The Electoral Commission formed the view that the broadcasts should be continued. There is a technical point, in that human rights legislation might bite and require us to have paid advertising if we were not to have party political broadcasts.
CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
Church of England's Pension Fund
24. Mr. Michael Jack (Fylde) (Con): What assessment the commissioners have made of the cumulative impact on the Church of England's pension fund of the ending of the payable tax credit. [151916]
Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): Once the transitional arrangements have come to an end in April 2004, the commissioners' income will have reduced by around £12 million per annum. Furthermore, the funded scheme responsible for pensions arising from service after 1 January 1998 had to increase the pension contribution rate as a direct result of the tax credit changes, and it is estimated that this additional cost to the Church is £5 million per annum.
Mr. Jack : Should not the Government revisit this matter, given the difficulties that the Church of England will have in replacing income of that order through the collecting plate or through other means?
Sir Stuart Bell: The figures that I have given are our contribution to the state, thanks to the Treasury. We are always happy to make submissions along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman suggested for the next Budget.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |