---

Polling Stations

24. Mr. Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh, North and Leith) : If the commission will conduct an assessment of the merits of allowing electors a choice of polling stations at which to cast their vote. [180456]

Mr. Peter Viggers (Gosport) (Con): The commission has no plans at present to conduct a specific assessment of the merits of allowing electors a choice of polling station at which to cast their vote. However, the commission is committed to pursuing the goal of greater choice for voters, provided that can be achieved while maintaining the security and integrity of the electoral system.

Mr. Lazarowicz: May I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it would be a good idea for the committee and the commission to look at the proposal in a bit more detail? Does he agree that it is somewhat archaic that the only place where people can cast a vote is at the polling station for the area in which they live? Surely, with new technology it would be quite feasible for people to be allowed to vote nearer their place of work, at a railway station on their way home or even at shopping centres. Would not such a measure be simple to introduce and, in its own way, help to increase voter turnout?

Mr. Viggers: I am sure that many people would agree with the general tenor of the hon. Gentleman's comments, but the scope for offering voters a choice between several locations will of course depend ultimately on the implementation of plans for a national electronic register of voters, which the commission supports; it also supports the concept of individual registration of voters.

Sir Patrick Cormack (South Staffordshire) (Con): If the commission is truly committed to giving voters choice, does not it accept that compulsory postal ballots are incompatible with that wish?

Mr. Viggers: Certainly, all-postal voting seems to have improved turnout, but my hon. Friend's point is exactly the kind of thing that the commission will be considering.
 
28 Jun 2004 : Column 20
 

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—

Retired Clergy

25. David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op): How many retired clergy were receiving assistance with accommodation on 1 April (a) 1984, (b) 1994 and (c) 2004; and if he will make a statement. [180457]

Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The numbers of retired clergy or clergy widows occupying houses whose purchase was partly or wholly funded by the Church's retirement housing scheme as at 1 January—not April—1984, 1994 and 2004 were 1,840, 3,190 and 2,906 respectively. In relation to a statement, the Church is also giving serious thought to a scheme that will enable clergy to enter the housing market earlier in their ministry.

David Taylor: Clergy in office are provided with a house and paid a stipend, but clergy in retirement must meet their own housing costs. Sometimes, support is given by the commissioners or the pensions board. Is my hon. Friend convinced that the supply of housing remains adequate and that it will not be a disincentive to would-be priests entering the ministry? What consideration has been given to the report from two years ago, "Generosity and Sacrifice", with which he will be very familiar?

Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for referring to that report and for following its progress. I shall do the same, and I give him a commitment that I will come back to him on that. It is a fact that those clergy with insufficient capital of their own can get assistance in the shape of retirement housing schemes, administered by the Church of England pensions board and largely funded by loans to the pension board from the Church Commissioners. The availability of housing is a nationwide problem; but, of course, we would not wish it to discourage anyone who wishes to become a clergyman.

Westminster Abbey

27. Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con): What discussions the commissioners have had with the Dean and Chapter of Westminster Abbey about the builder's yard between the abbey and St Margaret's church. [180459]

Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The programme to achieve planning permission for the redevelopment of Mason's yard proceeds. The abbey has been in close contact with parliamentary estates and Westminster Abbey fabric commission, and has been supported by English Heritage. Funds are secure, and the work will start as soon as planning permission is granted.
 
28 Jun 2004 : Column 21
 

Mr. Gray: The House will have heard the hon. Gentleman's reply with some horror. How can it be that, in the centre of the world heritage site that consists of the abbey, St. Margaret's and the Palace, we will cement a builders' yard that is hideous beyond belief? Surely, we can find some place to put that builders' rubbish, other than slap bang in the middle of a world heritage site?

Sir Stuart Bell: I am always grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his questions, but I should tell him that
 
28 Jun 2004 : Column 22
 
"The Rocky Horror Show" does not begin with the Church Commissioners. He will have noticed great improvements on the north side of the path adjacent to St. Margaret's church. I should like to pay significant homage to the Dean of Westminster, who carries on his duties when not always in the best of health. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that the abbey is part of our national heritage and, no doubt, that fact will be taken into account when any planning permission is given for the redevelopment of Mason's yard.

 
28 Jun 2004 : Column 23
 

Points of Order

3.33 pm

Dr. Julian Lewis (New Forest, East) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that two major announcements that affect the New Forest have been made in recent weeks—one a couple of weeks ago about the non-development of Dibden bay as a huge container port, and one today about the creation of a national park for the New Forest. You have expressed concern on many occasions in the past that announcements should be made first to the House. I am delighted that, in the case of the Dibden bay announcement, Transport Ministers were punctilious in that respect and no one had the faintest idea of what the announcement would be until it was made at 9.30 am in a written statement. But I am sorry that, today, Ministers at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have once again fallen short in that respect, and I discover that, as late as last week, people in my constituency were being told by the BBC what the result would be and were being invited to give interviews. Indeed, there was a live interview on the "Today" programme this morning. How many times must we raise in the House the failure of Ministers to make announcements to the House, rather than leaking them to the press without the hon. Members concerned and the whole House being informed in the proper way?

Mr. Speaker: I notice that there is a written statement on the Order Paper regarding this matter. Therefore, the Minister concerned has made a statement to the House.

Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I received notice that somebody called Jill Hope, who holds herself out as the Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate in my constituency, had e-mailed the political affairs department of the Leicester Mercury along the following lines:

"Someone I know has just heard Harborough MP Edward Garnier's Conservative party agent Margaret Richards on a local radio station saying how brave the MP is for carrying on even though he has cancer."

I have not got cancer; I have not even got a common cold. However, is there some procedure that is available to us as Members of the House and to you as Speaker that will deal adequately with this sort of allegation? My agent has been defamed because the e-mail suggests that she has told lies about me or has breached my confidence in speaking about my health on a radio programme. She has certainly done none of those things. It is, of course, also a malicious falsehood about me.

I understand that it is not uncommon for members of that particular party to behave in this sort of way and I dare say, in the excitement of a by-election in my neighbouring constituency and with a general election likely within the next 12 months, we will get more of this from members of that party. However, can you, Mr. Speaker, advise me whether this sort of behaviour is contempt of the House that should, for example, be referred to the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges or is it something that we just have to live with and deal with on the campaign field? I look forward to your considered advice on this matter.

---