| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in relation to the cost of treatments or appliances, does the same division arise between NHS provided services and social services provided services? Are some means tested and others not? What is the situation?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I suspect that the noble Baroness is referring to community equipment services. The Audit Commission report suggested that they should be brought together between health authorities and local authorities, and we agree with that. We have set targets for community equipment services to be integrated by 2004. As to charges, only a small amount of social services expenditure on equipment is recovered through charges. We will ensure that local councils retain the right to charge for disability equipment because it is within their current powers so to do, but we would also ask them to consider whether it would be cost effective to do so within the new integrated community equipment services. I take the noble Baroness's point, but, ultimately, it will be for individual local authorities to decide.
Railtrack
2.58 p.m.
Lord Burnham asked Her Majesty's Government:
- By what date they expect to set up the successor company to Railtrack.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is for the administrator to put a proposal for a transfer scheme before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State based on any propositions he receives. The timetable for this process is a matter for the administrator. He shares the Government's view that it should be completed as quickly as possible.
It is in everyone's interest that at least one viable bid is submitted to the administrator for him to judge alongside any other serious bids that are made. To this end, a bid team has been established under the sponsorship of the Strategic Rail Authority to develop
a robust proposal for a company limited by guarantee. The bid team is up and running under the leadership of Mr Iain McAllister.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I have no doubt that the decision has indeed been delayed by the absence of the Minister's right honourable friend the Secretary of State. Are not the actions of his right honourable friend in robbing so many people of their savings both ill considered and, indeed, immoral? Does the noble and learned Lord consider that the fact that so many of the people affected are railway workers may well have had an effect on the current situation on the railways?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, "No" to the first part of the question. There was no such delay caused by the Secretary of State's holiday. "No" as regards the implication that the shareholders were "robbed". The placing of Railtrack into administration was a necessary and sensible act done in the interests of rail users; and "No" to the third part of the question.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, who is ensuring that the people maintaining the railway at present—that is, the contractors who are contracted to the administrator—are actually delivering any sort of value for money? We keep hearing about the need to spend large sums of money on the railway; we have no measure whatever of whether we are getting any return for taxpayers or railway users in terms of value.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the responsibility for ensuring value for money on those contracts obviously lies with Railtrack. Railtrack is presently in the hands of the administrator. The administrator has appointed Mr John Armitt, who commands widespread respect as the chief executive. His job, among others, will be to ensure that the vital value for money to which the noble Lord refers is being obtained.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, by what date does the noble and learned Lord expect a result in this situation? Can he say whether we shall have a solution in weeks or months?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it will not be weeks. This matter will take a considerable time. I cannot say precisely how long it will take. It will involve a process of selecting a long-term future for what is currently Railtrack. I do not think it would be right simply to give an answer that would provide some spurious deadline when these matters take time—and it is right that they should.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the successor company to Railtrack must pay proper heed to the network licence under which the original company operated; namely, that it operates safely, looks after its assets and pays due heed to the interests of its customers and its regulator? Is he aware that virtually every train
operating company, virtually every maintenance contractor, every passenger group and every other organisation that dealt with Railtrack felt that the contemptuous way in which that company dealt with them contributed enormously to its destruction and that many of its problems were self-inflicted?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the question; namely, that those matters to which regard should be had are certainly matters to which those operating the track should have regard. As to the precise role of Railtrack in terms of contributing to its being placed into administration, I do not want to comment at the present time. The right thing to do is to look forward.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord remember that when the Secretary of State put Railtrack into administration he said that the process might take three to six months? It has now taken three months and we have heard from his department in the past few days that the process might take between nine months and a year. If that is the case, will the noble and learned Lord give the House an assurance? In order for the private sector to have an opportunity to bid, when will the Government announce what public sector funding will be available to the railway industry?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as to the first part of the question regarding the timing, yes, I recall the remarks referred to by the noble Viscount. The time that these matters take is very difficult to estimate, and I believe that everyone in the House recognises that. I am quite sure that the right thing to do is to ensure that a proper period of time is taken in order to ensure that the correct answer is reached. Rushing into things may not necessarily be the right course in a situation such as this.
Secondly, so far as concerns the process, it is for the administrator to decide on the basic process to be adopted. It is for the administrator ultimately to come forward with a specific proposal on which the Secretary of State will then express his consent or not. So far as concerns government funding in the future, to some extent that will depend on what proposals come forward.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend give the House an assurance that the organisation of Mr John Armitt—whom we all welcome as chief executive of Railtrack plc and whose job it is to keep the network going—is now completely separate from that of the Railtrack group headed by Mr Robinson and Mr Marshall—who appear to be continuing to plough their furrow to look after shareholders' interests, which at the moment is diametrically opposed to running the railway?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, Mr Armitt's job as chief executive is to run the Railtrack part of the business. It has nothing to do with the Railtrack
group, which owns various properties and has various property rights, and which is entirely separate from what Railtrack is doing.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, is the Minister content, in view of the sad history of the past few months, that private money will be given to the new successor company?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am content that the arrangements that will be made will be such as to attract private money. As to what they are, that is a matter to be developed in the next few months.
Religious Offences Bill [HL]
3.5 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to abolish the common law offence of blasphemy and certain other offences and create an offence of religious hatred. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Avebury.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
Disability Discrimination (Amendment) Bill [HL]
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Ashley of Stoke.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.
Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill
3.6 p.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
In recent years there has been growing concern at the perceived level of electoral malpractice in Northern Ireland. It is apparent that some individuals and groups have been abusing their right to vote and defrauding the poll.
Since the Belfast agreement, people have seen more than ever that peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland must lie with the political process. Therefore, we cannot allow the Northern Ireland electorate to become disillusioned with the political process because they may feel that elections are not fair. If there is a high level of electoral abuse—or even if it is only that
people fear that there is such a high level—the democratic process in Northern Ireland will be under threat.However, we have tried to bear in mind that any measures intended to prevent electoral fraud must be set against the effect they will have on legitimate voters. It would not be right in our judgment to impose unreasonable burdens on the majority of the electorate in Northern Ireland, who simply want—rightly—to exercise their franchise as their entitlement.
The Bill gives effect to the proposals in the White Paper, Combating Electoral Fraud in Northern Ireland, which was published in March last year. It provides the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland with additional powers to address the problem of electoral fraud.
The Bill builds on the work carried out in recent years by the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee, the Northern Ireland Forum committee on electoral malpractice and the Northern Ireland Office review of electoral administration. I want to pay tribute to the work of the former chairman of the Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, both on that committee and for his significant continuing contributions to the search for peace and prosperity in Northern Ireland.
We have tried to think through the Bill carefully and to produce proportionate remedies. If there are any suggested improvements to the Bill which are consistent with its purpose and policy, I shall personally be more than happy to give them careful scrutiny.
First, the Bill enables the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland to collect additional identifying information from voters at the point of registration. Those applying for registration will be required in future to state their date of birth and to sign the form for the annual canvass, as well as giving their name and address as at present.
This information will not appear on the published version of the electoral register but will be used at the electoral office for the purpose of making checks against the name of an elector when he or she applies for a postal vote or to vote by proxy, and at polling stations when electors attend to obtain a ballot paper.
We continue to reflect on the suggestions made that national insurance numbers be used in the registration process. We are exploring too possible ways in which data held by other organisations might further be used to combat electoral fraud. The chief electoral officer may use his discretion to dispense with the requirement for a voter to supply a signature in certain circumstances, such as physical incapacity, illiteracy, and so forth.
The Bill also empowers a presiding officer to ask a third question, namely: "What is your date of birth?" He may do this if he has reasonable doubt that the person's date of birth provided at registration does not correspond with that on the prescribed document, or with his or her apparent age. If the voter does not answer to the satisfaction of the presiding officer, he can refuse the voter a ballot paper.
Clause 3 of the Bill amends provisions which have effect only in Northern Ireland and which relate to absent voting—that is, voting by post or by proxy. Such applications to vote must be signed and state the date of birth of the applicant. The signature and the date of birth on the application must correspond with the signature provided to the chief electoral officer on registration. He may refuse to grant an absent vote application if he is not satisfied that the signature or date of birth on the application corresponds with the signature and date of birth held on his records.
It is important that the chief electoral officer "may" refuse an application rather than "shall" refuse one to ensure that legitimate voters, such as the elderly who may have difficulty signing consistently, are not denied their vote. It is proper that the CEO can carry out checks, such as speaking to the individual, so that he takes a decision on the basis of the full facts. Similarly, a postal ballot paper shall not be deemed to be duly returned unless the declaration of identity accompanying it has been signed by, and states the date of birth of, an elector and the signature and date of birth correspond with those supplied by the elector on registration—unless there are exceptional circumstances that justify the registration officer in dispensing with the requirement of a signature.
Clause 4 is an important feature of the Bill. It provides for a photographic electoral identity card to be issued free of charge to those persons entitled to vote but who might not otherwise have satisfactory proof of identity. It is proposed, in due time, to replace all the non-photographic identification on the list of specified documents acceptable at the polling station in Northern Ireland. Our target date for this is May 2003, the date of the next Assembly elections—
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page