---

House of Lords

19. Mr. Simon Burns (West Chelmsford) (Con): If he will make a statement on the future of reform of the House of Lords. [180753]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government remain committed to reform of the House of Lords, but to proceed now in the face of current opposition in the Lords could jeopardise the wider legislative programme. However, the Government are determined to take this matter forward and to find a consensus that defends the Commons supremacy and the proper revising role of the second Chamber.
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 148
 

Mr. Burns: Does the Minister accept that, just as no one has been able to find a solution to the West Lothian problem, there is growing concern that a similar problem will arise with reform of the House of Lords, because no one can come up with a credible solution to altering the balance of power between the two Chambers, and to the consequent problems? In order to provide a solution once and for all, why do the Government not support the Prime Minister in his preferred option and just continue appointing Members of the House of Lords?

Mr. Leslie: I am not quite sure that that is the Prime Minister's total view, but I always support him in all eventualities, as all Members are well aware by now. However, the hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point in part, in that it is possible to square the issues of improved legitimacy for the second Chamber and maintaining Commons supremacy. There is a consensus that we want this House of Commons to be the final decision maker. At the same time, it is important that we find a way to improve connection with the public so far as the second Chamber's composition is concerned, while ensuring that it continues in its revising role.

Tony Wright (Cannock Chase) (Lab): There is a view in some quarters that it would be better to have a half-baked scheme than no scheme at all. Will my hon. Friend resist that view and remember that it has taken us nearly a century to come up with House of Lords reform that has some chance of working? It would be better to get it right in a form that can command widespread support.

Mr. Leslie: That was a cryptic question from my hon. Friend, but I shall not demur from answering it. He is correct to say that it is better to get a solution that works well. As I said earlier, it is possible to square Commons supremacy with improved legitimacy for the second Chamber, and we will continue to press ahead in looking for a consensus on that point.

Mr. Douglas Hogg (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con): Does the hon. Gentleman understand that many of us are very concerned about the influence and power of the Whips in this House and therefore want to extend the powers of the second Chamber? Does he also understand that in order to do that, he has to give greater political legitimacy to the second Chamber? That would involve either a complete or very substantial election process by a direct franchise from the people.

Mr. Leslie: Of course, the whipping system already exists in the second Chamber. The right hon. and learned Gentleman comments on the situation whereby those who are elected might be more prone to the persuasions of the whipping system than others, but I am not convinced. Each individual takes a decision according to their own conscience—just as the right hon. and learned Gentleman did not always necessarily obey the Whip when it was waved under his nose.

Mr. Graham Allen (Nottingham, North) (Lab): May I urge my hon. Friend to continue his search for a consensus and a scheme for the reform of the second Chamber? It would be unacceptable to go into the next
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 149
 
election without a clear manifesto commitment from our party on that question. I therefore urge him to meet, if he has not already met, Mr. Billy Bragg, who proposes one form of a scheme that may command a consensus. Will he undertake to meet Billy Bragg and many others who have views on how best to take a step forward with this knotty problem?

Mr. Leslie: I have already met Mr. Billy Bragg and hon. Members who advocate the secondary mandate scheme, as they term it. That proposal is designed to improve the legitimacy of the second Chamber without direct election. My hon. Friend's point about our manifesto is correct. I believe that we should develop proposals and he should wait and see what appears in the manifesto.

Freedom of Information Act

20. Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD): What progress is being made in implementing the Freedom of Information Act 2000. [180754]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): The Government are making good progress on implementation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. An extensive programme of work is taking place in Whitehall and beyond, and we are confident of full and effective implementation by 1 January 2005.

Norman Baker: Has the Minister had a chance to consider early-day motion 1269, tabled by the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Tony Wright), which has secured the support of 151 MPs? It expresses grave concern about the massive increase in projected costs for accessing information under the Freedom of Information Act. Does the Minister recognise that charging £575 for a piece of information is likely to deter people from using the Act? Is it simply a matter of petty Treasury money-grabbing policy, or is it something more sinister—an attempt to ensure that people do not exercise their rights under the Act so that it is not effective in its operation?

Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that we will bring forward our plans for the fee regime later in the autumn. He will also know that the Government are aware of their previous commitment that the fees should reflect appropriately on the public purse.

Electoral Roll

21. Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West) (Con): What assessment the Department has made of the integrity of the electoral roll following the postal ballots in the recent elections. [180755]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The new powers given to electoral registration officers in 2001 have helped to safeguard the accuracy of the electoral register. Further security improvements, including individual rather than household registration, are being actively considered as part of an ongoing review, but not specifically related to one election.
 
29 Jun 2004 : Column 150
 

Mr. Swayne: Does the Minister accept that the robustness of the register is vital to minimising fraud? Does he agree that confidence in our electoral system is not so much determined by a relatively low number of proven cases of fraud as by the perception that our systems largely exclude the possibility for it?

Mr. Leslie: I agree with the hon. Gentleman in respect of the electoral roll. The accuracy of the register is vital as the foundation of our democratic system. We have made improvements by giving new powers to electoral registration officers to demand information and to be able to ask for specified evidence of age, nationality and so forth. Of course, they also have the power not to include people on the electoral roll. In this country, we largely operate on the basis of trust and believe that citizens will fill in their forms correctly, but we have to ensure that we always improve security whenever possible.

Mr. Alan Duncan (Rutland and Melton) (Con): As the Minister said, the electoral roll is the foundation of any smoothly functioning democratic process. If that is distorted, everything that follows risks becoming polluted as well. Suggestions have been made that some electoral rolls are overstated with ineligible names, particularly in urban areas, to the tune of 10 or even 15 per cent. That has serious implications for all-postal voting and for the setting of boundaries for seats in the House. Will the Minister confirm that he will accelerate the introduction of individual voter registration and that, when it is introduced, it will require the person's name, address, date of birth, national insurance number and signature to authenticate genuine voters and remove the ineligible ones?

Mr. Leslie: That is something that we are discussing, not least with the Electoral Commission, which has proposed individual registration for some time. One problem that needs to be overcome is the extra burden that individual registration would place on citizens. Instead of each household filling in a form, each individual would have to fill in an extra form. That may be necessary and it may have merit, but a possible consequence is that people might fall off the electoral roll, and we would not want that to happen. We must make sure that individual registration is accurate, and that it legitimately enfranchises as many people as possible. I think that we can get that balance right. We are trying to solve the problem and we will bring forward proposals in due course.

---