Spring 2002 Vol.4 No.4

Democracy on the cheap
House of Commons Reform
House of Lords Reform
Civil Service Reform
Patronage
Party Funding
Participation and Voting
Freedom of Information
Citizenship
Devolution
Scotland
Wales
English Regions
Local Government
London
Human Rights
Europe

Directory

The renewed debate about whether political parties in Britain should be funded directly by the state has been underpinned by two basic facts. First is that the operation of modern political parties is far more expensive than in the past, and around 80% of their expenditure is routine, rather than focused on general election campaigning, when income is at its highest. The second, countervailing fact is that income from a shrinking membership is falling.

The problem which has most interested the media has been the link between lobbying and donations to the governing party. Only the disclosure by Labour of the identity of its donors before even before the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act came into force has enabled the public and the media to track more clearly the relationship between donations and lobbying. Lobbying is a legitimate and important part of our democratic process for business, unions, NGOs and other interested parties. It should be conducted transparently, which is why any tightening of the regulations governing how meetings are recorded is to be welcomed.

As we are frequently reminded, Britain has some of the least corrupt politicians in the world, although this axiom of British politics is hard to test given the lack of regulations until recently. But the relationship between lobbying and party funding is becoming more problematic for two reasons. The main political parties are becoming increasingly reliant on a small number of large individual donors. It is sometimes argued that this will lead to a neglect of grass-roots membership and skewing of policy towards the interests of the small number of large donors. However, the expanding role of the private sector in the delivery of public services also means that lobbying itself becomes more problematic, whether a company donates money to a political party or whether they have a relationship based on exchange of people and ideas.

State funding of political parties could help to counter some of these problems. As we know from abroad it is not a panacea for corruption. However, we should not allow press thirst for sleaze scandals to dominate the debate. We should also focus on some of the more positive benefits which further reform of the regulation of parties could bring. State funding can be used to encourage parties to recruit and retain more members, increase participation from under-represented groups, and could reinforce the importance of activities like education and policy research, already accepted in principle with the Electoral Commission’s new policy development grants. The Committee on Standards in Public Life rejected direct state funding in 1998, although its recommendation that tax-breaks on small donations should be introduced was not taken up by the Government.

There is, of course, an irony which makes the case for state funding of political parties more difficult - the more the conditions which make state funding desirable intensify, the less inclined the public may be to fund a state alternative. Although opinion has clearly shifted recently on the issue, the public still needs to be convinced about increased state funding. If they are honestly told the extent to which the state already funds party activity, as well as how it could direct parties away from the activities it dislikes and towards more positive ones, support may increase further. Alternatively, the current system of expanding support for parties in Parliament and through the Electoral Commission could continue, providing state funding by stealth. This might plug some of the financial holes in the party machines, but would hardly help to convince voters of the openness of the political debate at Westminster. A combination of carrots and sticks for the parties including stricter limits on what money they take, how much they can spend, what they can spend it on, as well as encouragement to reach out to a wider pool of support, might actually convince the public that parties were a benefit to democracy, not a blight on it. Political parties remain part of the glue of our democratic process, and perform functions which no modern polity claiming democratic status has been able to dispense with. The price of funding the main parties, even at present levels, is minuscule in national terms. Given their importance, can we continue to expect democracy on the cheap?

Modernisation Committee Report

On 12 February the Modernisation Committee published its report on Select Committees [2001-2002, HC 224-I]. This had been prompted by the episode in July when Government Whips had attempted to remove two Labour MPs, Gywneth Dunwoody and Donald Anderson, from the select committees which they chaired. MPs voted to restore them to these committees, and subsequently Robin Cook agreed to examine the procedure for nominating MPs to sit on select committees. In the previous Parliament the Liaison Committee published two reports recommending radical reform of the system, which were rejected by the Government.

The new Report makes a number of recommendations to reform the system for nominating MPs to select committees with the aim of making the system more ‘transparent and will enhance the independence of the select committees’. Direct election to select committees by the House was rejected as not providing a balance in terms of geography, gender, experience or range of political opinions.

However, the Committee recommends establishing a Committee of Nomination under the Speaker (as Chairman of Ways and Means) composed of ten other senior MPs, larger than the three-person panel proposed by the Liaison Committee. The Committee would have the power to amend lists submitted by parties, and the final decision would rest with the House as at present. Casual vacancies would be filled by the Committee, taking account of the views of the parties and also of representations by individual MPs.

The Report also recommended important reforms to the working of committees to enhance their effectiveness and status:

• committees need more access to independent specialist advice;

• they need to be able to access expert advice on financial scrutiny;

• there should be more funding for sufficient support staff and administrative costs;

• there should be a review of the limited powers to require witnesses;

• an agreed statement of the core tasks and principle objectives: to consider, form and amend Government policy, pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills, examine and report on financial matters, monitor public service performance against targets, take evidence from Ministers at least annually, and from independent regulators and inspectors, to consider major Government appointments, and to examine treaties;

• investigative select committees should be renamed ‘scrutiny committees’, and the value of a parliamentary career in scrutiny marked by an additional salary for the chairs of the principal investigative committees;

• a standard membership of 15, consideration of reductions in the size of the membership and of the quorum in some committees where these have been a problem;

• reports should be produced in a more modern, accessible and attractive way;

• debating reports: Committee reports should be available for debate in Westminster Hall after the elapse of two months for the Government response, whether or not a response has been tabled.

• an annual report should be submitted by each committee to the Liaison Committee detailing how it has met its targets for the Session;

• an indicative two term upper limit on service as chairman;

• action taken over poor attendance on Committees.

The Report can be found on the Committees’ website at: http://www.publications.parliament. uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmmodern/224/22402.htm

Liaison Committee Report

On 19 March the Liaison Committee published its response to the Modernisation Committee’s proposals for reform of select committees. It gave strong endorsement to most of its recommen-dations, whilst adding a few notes of caution. It emphasised the fact that much responsibility would continue to rest with the Government, parties and the House as a whole to make sure a reformed system worked in the way that was intended. The report can be viewed on the Committee’s website at: http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/cmliaisn/692/69202.htm

New Commissioner for Standards

On 13 February the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards was announced as Mr Phillip Mawer, former General-Secretary of the General Synod and chair of the Archbishop’s Council, the highest lay post in the Church of England. He had earlier in his career been a civil servant at the Home Office and Cabinet Office, including acting as assistant to Lord Scarman’s inquiry into the Brixton riots.

It was revealed by Stuart Bell MP that Mr Mawer would be working three days a week from May, but would initially begin on one day from the beginning of March. This reduction in the hours of the Commissioner, particularly in the period until May, was heavily criticised by some MPs including David Winnick (Lab: Walsall North), Kevin MacNamara (Lab: Hull North) and Angela Browning (Con: Tiverton and Honiton). Debate on the announcement, however, moved quickly to discussing more details of departure of the previous Commissioner, Elizabeth Filkin, with many MPs, including Peter Bottomley (Con: Eltham), praising her assiduity, and criticising her treatment by the House of Commons Commission.

[HC Deb. Cols.224-270, 13.2.02]

Keith Vaz MP suspension

On 8 February the Commons Standards and Privileges Committee published its report on allegations against Keith Vaz MP (Lab: Leicester East) in response to the memorandum submitted by the outgoing Commissioner for Standards, Elizabeth Filkin [2001-2002 Fifth Report HC 625]. Although it cleared Mr Vaz of most of the allegations against him, except relating to registration of interests, it was heavily critical of his conduct during the inquiry towards witnesses and the Commissioner, and recommended his suspension from the House for one month. After a debate on the Report, in which Mr Vaz denied any wrongdoing, and other MPs, including Sir George Young (Con: Hampshire North West), chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, supported the conduct of Mrs Filkin, the House voted to endorse the suspension

[HC Deb. Cols.213-224, 13.2.02].

Wicks Committee Inquiry

The Wicks Committee on Standards in Public Life has announced an inquiry into standards of conduct in the House of Commons. The inquiry will focus on ‘the present arrangements governing standards… and whether they and their implementation are sufficient to assure the public that the highest standards of propriety are being upheld’. The Committee last examined these issues in its first report in 1995. The closing date for submissions is 3 May 2002. An Issues and Questions Paper for the inquiry can be found on the Committee’s website at: http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/
Eighth%20Report/parliamentary_i&q.pdf

PASC Report

On 14 February the Public Administration Committee published its report on House of Lords reform, Continuing the Reform [2001-2002 Fifth Report, HC 494-I]. The Committee, denying the implication that the wide range of opinion on composition for the second chamber made reform impossible, unanimously recommended a chamber composed of 60% directly elected members, 20% party appointees and 20% independents appointed by a Commission. It refuted the Government argument that a majority-elected chamber would challenge the primacy of the House of Commons, and argued that only with such a chamber would members have sufficient legitimacy to use its delaying power. It also outlined a timetable by which its proposals could be implemented before the next election, even taking into account the need to use the Parliament Act in the face of obstruction by peers. The full Report can be viewed at:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200102/cmselect/
cmpubadm/494/49402.htm

Other recommendations included:

• retaining the power of veto over secondary legislation;

• formal convention to prevent members carrying out constituency work;

• elections using STV or open regional lists;

• elections to be held at the same time as general elections;

• single two-Parliament terms, ban on members seeking election to the Commons for ten years;

• Appointments Commission make final selection from party nominated lists. If this is unacceptable to the Government, this 20% should be redistributed among the elected and independent members;

• law Lords and bishops to leave the Chamber;

• size of chamber to be 350;

• improvements in joint scrutiny to be made with the House of Commons;

• remaining life peers to be selected by election to reduce numbers by stages to zero.

Response to Government’s White Paper

In response to questions from Fiona Mactaggart (Lab: Slough) and Chris Bryant (Lab: Rhondda) on 19 March, Robin Cook revealed that there had been over 1,000 submissions made to the Government’s White Paper on House of Lords reform. He acknowledged that the great majority of these supported a predominantly elected second chamber. Mr Cook also confirmed that the Government would respond to the PASC report on House of Lords reform by the end of April.

[HC Deb, cols. 163-165, 19.03.02]

Lords debate public awareness of Parliament

On 13 March, Conservative peer, Professor of Government and chair of the Lords Constitution Committee, Lord Norton of Louth, introduced an adjournment debate on the case for raising public awareness of the work of Parliament. He said that the problems fell into four categories: structural; attitudinal; behavioural; and societal. He shared the blame for the decline of Parliament between individual parliamentarians, the Government, media as well as the structures of Parliament and the way in which it communicates with citizens, devolution and the European Union. Lord Norton supported

a number of reforms including a Commons Petitions Committee, greater use of the internet, more debates on select committee reports and better dissemination of information.

Among other speakers, Liberal Democrat Lord Holme pointed to the inadequate broadcast coverage of Parliament, which he hoped would improve. Labour peer Lord Campbell-Savours criticised those peers who demeaned the House by appearing only to vote on rare ocassions, for example against the Community Charge in 1989, or possibly now over fox-hunting. Liberal Democrat Lord Goodhart advocated the lowering of the voting age to sixteen in order to capture the interest of young people while they were still learning about politics. Conservative spokesman Lord Saatchi suggested that the public were, in fact, wise to the decline in Parliament’s importance in the context of the European Union and globalisation.

[HL Deb., cols. 828-865, 13.3.02]

Special Advisors - PASC Hearings

As part of its inquiry into the role of Special Advisers, PASC has taken evidence from a range of witnesses during February and March, given added topicality by the controversial departures of Jo Moore and Martin Sixsmith from the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions (DTLR).

On 28 February the Committee heard from Mike Granatt, Head of the Government Information and Communications Service (GICS). Mr Granatt denied suggestions that political appointees, including Alistair Campbell, influenced appointments to heads of information in government departments. He also revealed that 40, or around half, of special advisers were involved in presentational media work.

Mr Granatt was followed by a panel of witnesses comprising Jonathan Baume, Secretary-General of the First Division Association, BBC Political Correspondent Nicholas Jones, and Professor Stuart Weir from Democratic Audit. Mr Baume said the recent DTLR episode was a rare one and reflected the bullying tactics of one individual, Jo Moore, both at DTI and DTLR. He said senior managers had perhaps been reluctant to challenge the behaviour of someone who had the confidence of the Secretary of State. He argued for early publication of a Civil Service Bill to make clear lines of accountability and roles for permanent civil servants and special advisers.

Professor Weir insisted that trust in Government relied on access to impartial information about government, and the public did not have trust in the spinning of political media advisers. This was being exacerbated by the weakness of the new Freedom of Information Act and increased resort to commercial confidentiality. He and Mr Jones insisted that press officers should all be career civil servants.

On 7 March the Committee heard evidence from Sir Richard Mottram, Permanent Secretary at DTLR, who revealed his unease at being obliged to make a personal statement intended to clarify the circumstances surrounding the departure of Ms Moore and Mr Sixsmith. Sir Richard said ‘I think it is inappropriate for constitutional reasons for permanent secretaries to make personal statements’.

Sir Richard Wilson, Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Home Civil Service, gave evidence to the Committee on 14 March. Sir Richard declined to be drawn on the details of the events surrounding the departure of Moore and Sixsmith from DTLR. However, he strongly supported Sir Richard Mottram’s statement. He agreed that it was highly unusual for a Permanent Secretary to make a personal statement, but argued that it was now more common for senior civil servants to speak in public on a range of matters.

Sir Richard announced that the Prime Minister had authorised him to make a speech setting out the case for a Civil Service Act in the week before Easter, at which time he expected an Issues Paper to be published as well. He also revealed that the process of selection of his successor was well advanced, and the Prime Minister had decided not to split the post in two.

Wicks Committee Inquiry

The Wicks Committee on Standards in Public Life has also announced an inquiry into the relationships between ministers, special advisors and civil servants. Called ‘Defining the Boundaries within the Executive’ the inquiry will examine, according to its Chair Sir Malcom Wicks, ‘a number of "live" issues… including the revised Ministerial Code and the new Code for Special Advisers’ as well as drawing on the relevant parts of the ‘stock-take’ of previous Reports which the Committee announced in September. The closing date for submissions is 31 May. The Issues and Questions paper can be viewed on the Committee’s website at:

http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/Ninth%20 Report/executive_i&q.pdf

PASC has also published an Issues and Questions Paper for its inquiry into Patronage and Public Appointments. The paper draws together a number of questions from previous reports on quangos and public appointments, and asks for comments on issues including how fair the present system is, the possibility of expanding elections to public bodies and the role of Parliament and ministers. The deadline for submissions is Friday 3 May. The paper can be found on the Committee’s website at:

http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/pasc_info.htm

PASC Hearing with Billy Bragg

On 7 March PASC took evidence from singer-songwriter and activist Billy Bragg, who, sporting a Clash T-shirt, berated politicians for turning young people off politics by wearing suits and failing to talk in a way which sounded relevant to them. He criticised Tony Blair for appointing people from his own circle, and not taking action on issues like fox-hunting which people cared about.

Associate Parliamentary Group on the Constitution and Citizenship

On 20 March the Associate Parliamentary Group on the Constitution and Citizenship met in Portcullis House to discuss the future of party funding in the UK. The meeting was chaired by Dr Tony Wright (Lab: Cannock Chase) and the speakers were Dr Justin Fisher (Brunel University) and Martin Linton MP (Lab: Battersea).

Both speakers spoke broadly in favour of state funding of political parties. For Dr Fisher the primary reason for state funding was the necessity of political parties in a democracy, posing the question ‘Do we want democracy on the cheap?’ Martin Linton MP believed that the primary motive for the introduction of state funding was to counter perceptions of sleaze. It was acknowledged that the public wanted the removal of sleaze from public life, but did not want to pay for it, especially if tax payers money was spent on advertising campaigns. Possible ways of getting round this paradoxical situation included: earmarking money for constructive research and policy development; state funding in kind rather than cash (e.g. by providing advertising space in the same way as party political broadcasts); and introduction of state funding by stealth, gradually increasing the amount of state funding and the purposes for which it could be used.

Other measures discussed included the impact of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000, the possible benefits of limiting the size of individual donations and the relationship between electoral success and the level of spending by political parties. For more information contact Andrew Holden at Charter88: andrew@charter88.org.uk

Independent Commission on Alternative Voting Methods

The Commission, established by the Electoral Reform Society, published its Report in February. Whilst it rejected the idea that making voting easier through alternative methods in some way harmed democracy, the Report cautioned against moving too fast. Arguing for further experimentation, it said that voting should be more convenient, but that confidence in the electoral process must not be damaged.

The Report’s main recommendations were:

• that a Technology Taskforce be established prior to any online voting pilots to evaluate and challenge the system;

• that Elector Cards be used in conjunction with PIN numbers in telephone and online voting to limit the potential for ballot fraud;

• that additional information such as dates of birth should be required on the electoral registration form to limit the problem of ballot fraud in postal voting;

• that the current experiments into all-postal ballots, telephone voting and electronic voting and counting taking place in local council elections should be extended to some European regions and Parliamentary by-elections before being considered for national use.

MPs debate young people’s participation

In a Westminster Hall debate on 5 March Vernon Coaker MP (Lab: Gedling) began by outlining the problem for democracy of the alienation of young people from the political process, comparing the low turnout especially of young and first-time voters in the 2001 election with the ‘Pop Idol’ competition. He quoted the Charter88/YMCA Poll result showing a decline in enthusiasm for voting between 16-17 and 18-22.

There was some discussion about introducing new voting methods, and considerable support was expressed for lowering the voting age to 16, but the central problem was agreed to be to convince young people of the relevance to them of engaging with the political process. Speakers agreed that young people were concerned about many issues dealt with by politicians at all levels, but did not see political institutions as relevant to their concerns; there was ignorance, distrust and little idea of civic responsibility. Where the young engaged with a particular, often local, issue they would participate in action. There was support for civic education in schools, and the point was made that giving the young responsibility, e.g. budgets for Youth Parliaments, would give them real involvement.

BBC Political coverage

On 11 March the House of Lords had an Adjournment debate on the BBC’s political coverage, tabled by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was concerned about bias in the Corporation’s coverage of Europe. However, many others, notably Labour peer Lord Lipsey, were more concerned that in its attempt to reach a broader, younger audience for political programmes, the BBC would ‘dumb down’ its broadcasting by dropping its current in-depth, quality programmes. Liberal Democrat Baroness Mitchie and Ulster Unionist peer Lord Laird were concerned at the range of BBC coverage in Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively. [HL Deb. cols.653-676, 11.3.02]

Electoral Commission

In March the Electoral Commission launched an advertising campaign to encourage people to use the new system of rolling registration. Forms and more information can be found on the Commission’s website at: http://www.electoral commission.gov.uk/rollingregistration/page1.html

On 15 March the Commission announced that, following the MORI findings which pointed to large numbers of people claiming not to be registered to vote, they would be reviewing the system of registration. The Electoral Commission will be consulting with electoral registration officers and others, particularly seeking the views of voters amongst those groups less likely to be registered, to examine what further improvements need to be made to ensure the effectiveness and accuracy of registration. A consultation paper will be published later this year and in spring 2003 a report will be submitted to Government, with recommendations on best practice and, where appropriate, proposals for changes to legislation.

On 13 March, in response to a question from Roger Berry (Lab: Kingswood) Phillip Whitehead announced that the Commission’s budget for promoting electoral and democratic systems would be £7.5m per year, an increase from £1.5m.

Freedom of Information

Department of Health Official Suspended

On 5 March it was announced that an unnamed official at the Department of Health had been suspended, pending an investigation into why more than 400 written parliamentary questions over the past year had not yet been answered but answers had been recorded as having been supplied.

[HC col.275W 5.3.02]

Government accepts Sharman Report

On 13 March Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Andrew Smith, announced that the Government would accept all the main recommendations of the Sharman Report, ‘Holding to Account’, on audit and accountability in central Government. He said that the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) would now audit the accounts of all non-departmental public bodies. This would affect organisations such as the Environment Agency, English Heritage, English Partnerships and the Housing Corporation, he stated. Subject to legislation, Mr Smith went on, companies such as the Student Loans Company, the National Consumer Council and the Film Council would now also be audited by CAG.

The Chief Secretary told the House that CAG would be given statutory access to documents needed for audit work. This referred specifically to registered social landlords, train operating companies and PFI contractors, Mr Smith explained. The Government accepted that the information underpinning programmes against PSA targets needed to be validated, Mr Smith stated. CAG would now be responsible for validation of data systems, he told MPs.

Finally, the Chief Secretary explained that the Government had accepted the Sharman recommendation relating to strong management in the public services. Outlining his plans to consult all relevant parties before implementing these recommendations, Mr Smith insisted that these measures would increase audit, accountability and transparency in the system.

Following the statement MPs generally welcomed the move, with Adam Smith (PC: Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) pointing to contracts under the Private Finance Initiative. However, there was reservation from Opposition MPs including David Rendel (LD: Newbury) and William Cash (Con: Stone), that the BBC would continue to be excluded from the scope of CAG.

[HC Deb, 13.3.02, cols.889-900]

The statement was repeated on the same day in the House of Lords by Treasury spokesman Lord McIntosh of Haringey. Responding to the Statement, Lord Saatchi complained that there were still large holes in the auditing and accountability of central government. Other peers, including several former members of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, welcomed the implementation of long-made recommendations from the Committee.

[HL Deb, 13.3.02, cols.865-877]

The Sharman Report can be found on the Treasury website at: http://www.hm-treasury. gov.uk/mediastore/otherfiles/Holding%20to%20Account.pdf

The Government’s response in full can be found at: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media store/otherfiles/CM5456_Sharmans1.pdf

Palmer ID Cards Bill

On 23 January Nick Palmer (Lab: Broxtowe) introduced a Private Member’s Bill to make provision for the introduction of an ID card for British citizens, its stated main objective being ‘to reduce low-level crime and disorder, to help prevent inappropriate purchase … and to discourage all fraud based on impersonation’. Carrying the card would not be compulsory, but the bill would also authorise the police to request identification if a person were considered to be behaving suspiciously and producing the ID card would satisfy this.

Speaking against the Bill, Roger Casale (Lab: Wimbledon) argued that the introduction of ID cards must be considered within a broader debate about citizenship and the effect on human rights, and would require ‘as Charter88 has said… a level of trust in authority that is notably lacking in this country’. He pointed out that the Bill referred to benefits to residents but would apply to citizens.

The bill was defeated by 106 to 77.

(HC Deb. 23.1.02, Cols. 905-910)

Announcement of Consultation on Entitlement Cards

On 5 February 2002, responding to a question by George Howarth (Lab: Knowlsey North and Sefton East) the Home Secretary announced that the Home Office would publish a consultation document on entitlement cards later this year, and was seeking wide discussion with interested parties before publication. The cards would ‘allow people to prove their identity more easily and provide a simple way to access public services’. It ‘could help to combat illegal working and… reduce fraud’. He said that the Government had already ruled out making failure to carry the card an offence.

On 7 February former Secretary of State for Social Security Peter Lilley (Con: Hitchin and Harpenden) put down EDM 833 which stated:

‘That this House is concerned by proposals to make ownership of a state identity card compulsory; believes that, since cards would be largely pointless unless everyone carried them, there would be inexorable pressure to make it compulsory to carry them or to empower police to arrest anyone without a card and escort them to wherever it was kept and that even then it would be of little use on tackling crime since police rarely have problems identifying suspects against whom there is evidence; also believes that any attempts to control illegal immigration by requiring people who ‘look like immigrants’ to prove their identity would be intolerably divisive and that forcing people to put personal information on their card would put their privacy at risk; further believes that it would give the state excessive power which could be abused and that the estimated £1 billion cost would be better spent on more police; and further believes that such a compulsory identity card is different in kind from voluntary cards which enable people to exercise a personal entitlement such as access to their bank account or club premises.’

By 15 March it had attracted 70 signatures.

Nationality, Immigration and Asylum White Paper

On 7 February the Home Office published its nationality, immigration and asylum White Paper entitled, Secure Borders, Safe Haven Integration with diversity in Modern Britain (Cmd.5387) available at: www.official-documents. co.uk/document/cm53/5387/cm5387.pdf.

The White Paper covers citizenship and nationality as well as:

• working in the UK;

• asylum;

• people trafficking, illegal entry and illegal working

• border controls;

• marriage/family visits and war criminals.

Consultation on the White Paper ends on 21 March. This report deals only with the proposals on citizenship and nationality.

The White Paper stresses the importance that the Government places on citizenship both for existing nationals and for those seeking naturalisation arguing that ‘to ensure social integration and cohesion in the UK, we need to develop a stronger understanding of what citizenship really means.’ (p.10 para.8) To this end, citizenship education has already been made part of the national curriculum. For those seeking naturalisation however, ‘becoming a British citizen is a significant step which should mean more than simply obtaining the right to a British passport’ (para.2.6) and the White Paper outlines a number of proposals for achieving this.

• The Government intends to require applicants for naturalisation to demonstrate that they have achieved a certain standard in English (or the Welsh language or Scottish Gaelic) and an understanding of British society. Suitable learning and educational resources are to be made available with a view to ‘a simple examination for citizenship applicants similar to that which exists in many other countries.’ (p.11 para.9)

• The Government intends to make provision for ‘a citizenship ceremony to be held as an integral part of the naturalisation/registration process.’ (para. 2.20) It is envisaged that this will be carried out by registration offices in Register Offices and other suitable places. The ceremony may be held either individually or as part of a group.

• The Government intends to extend the existing oath of allegiance to the Queen to ‘make clear the fundamental tenets of British citizenship: that we respect human rights and freedoms, uphold democratic values, observe laws faithfully and fulfil our duties and obligations.’ (para. 2.21)

In the debate following the Home Secretary’s statement on the White Paper, also on 7 February, Oliver Letwin (West Dorset) for the Conservatives and Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey) for the Liberal Democrats both welcomed the Government’s proposals on citizenship. Mr Letwin said, ‘We strongly welcome the Home Secretary’s moves towards ensuring that all those entering the country as migrants should be proficient in English and should acquire and early understanding of our constitutional arrangements.’ Mr Hughes said, ‘…we welcome a preparation process, a pledge and a ceremony of citizenship.’

[HC Deb, cols. 1027-1041, 7.2.02]

House of Lords Committee on the Constitution

The House of Lords Committee on the Constitution is conducting an inquiry into the working of devolution, examining inter-institutional relations in the United Kingdom. The purpose of the inquiry is to ‘assess the system of inter-institutional relations as it presently is; consider how well it works and how it is developing; and suggest what changes might be made, particularly at United Kingdom level, to improve its working and how well it might respond to future challenges’. The inquiry is examining relations between administrations, the role of Parliaments and Assemblies, the European Union and the Crown service. They will therefore be looking at the roles of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Also being considered are the working of the Barnett formula and the working of the Sewel convention in legislating for devolved matters at Westminster. The deadline for submitting evidence has now passed.

John Prescott (Deputy Prime Minister) gave evidence to the Committee on 27 February 2002. When questioned by Lord Holme on the role of the respective Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, Mr Prescott stated that they ‘certainly do a useful role’. In response to a question from Baroness Gould concerning the Barnett Formula, the Deputy Prime Minister confirmed that the Government does not have any intention to change the arrangements at this stage.

When questioned by Lord Morgan, who was seeking clarification of the pressure for primary legislative functions in Wales, Prescott asserted that this had not been a problem. He noted that the people of Wales endorsed the arrangements that they have through a referendum and argued that their legislative needs have been served by Westminster in the form of the Children’s Commissioner (Wales) Bill and elements of health and education legislation. He also agreed that the Assembly could expect to see its powers extended in the future.

Fifth Periodical Review of Parliamentary Constituencies in Scotland

The Boundary Commission for Scotland published its recommendations for reductions in the number of Scottish seats at Westminster on 7 February. The Scotland Act 1998 required that for the first periodical review following the Act, the electoral quota for England (69,934) must be used to establish the appropriate number of Scottish seats. Applying the electoral quota for England would have reduced the number of Scottish seats from 71 to 57, however, the Boundary Commission recommended that there should be 59 Scottish seats at Westminster. The Commission used the local government electoral wards, which came into effect at the local elections in May 1999, as the basis for its provisional recommendations. Proposed Parliamentary constituencies comprise groups of whole local government electoral wards.

For full details of the recommendations see the Boundary Commission for Scotland website at http://www.bcomm-scotland.gov.uk/.

The period for responding to the formal consultation paper on the future number of MSPs ended on 29 March 2002. The consultation paper, published in December, can be found at: http://www.scottishsecretary.gov.uk/consultations.htm.

The Labour Party’s Scottish Executive Committee have agreed to recommend a change in legislation to ensure the number of MSPs remains at 129. The SNP has also announced that it supports the numbers of MSPs remaining the same.

Joint Ministerial Committee

The Joint Ministerial Committee (JMC) was established as the main forum for bringing together the three devolved governments and the Westminster government. Richard Lochhead (SNP: North-East Scotland) tabled the following written question on 12 February 2002 regarding the number of JMC meetings: ‘To ask the Scottish Executive how many Joint Minister Committees and Sub-Committee meetings have been convened since July 1999, where each meeting took place, which minister attended, and what was discussed’. The answer, provided by Patricia Ferguson, Minister for Parliamentary Business, revealed that there had been two plenary meetings and 11 functional meetings of the JMC since July 1999. Of the functional meetings, two were of the Europe Functional Committee, five of the Health Functional Committee, two of the Knowledge Economy Functional Committee and two of the Poverty Functional Committee. There has not yet been a JMC meeting in 2002.

Secretary of State for Scotland

After revelations in the Daily Telegraph on 5 February 2002 about the light work load of the Secretary of State for Scotland, Pete Wishart (SNP: Tayside North) put down an Early Day motion (number 806) at Westminster which has so far received 5 signatures. The motion states that ‘this House notes the extremely light ministerial engagements of the Secretary of State for Scotland, as revealed by a report in the Scottish edition of the Daily Telegraph on 5 February; and believes that this reinforces the case for abolishing the Scotland Office and transferring its resources to the Scottish Parliament for spending on health and education’. The role of the Secretary of State for Scotland is one issue which the Constitution Committee of the House of Lords will be investigating as part of its inquiry into inter-institutional relations in the United Kingdom (see above).

Public Appointments

The Scottish Executive published a consultation paper on its Public Appointments and Public Bodies (Scotland) Bill - A Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments on 14 February 2002. The creation of a Scottish Commissioner is central to the Executive’s plans, first made public on 15 January 2002 (see Central Lobby February 2002). The main proposal is that the Bill will provide for the creation of a Scottish Commissioner for Public Appointments (SCPA). The SCPA’s role will be to regulate public appointments by: publishing a Code of Practice; monitoring compliance with the Code; appointing, training and evaluating Independent Assessors; auditing appointment policies and practices; conducting ad hoc inquiries into appointing policies and practices; and investigating complaints. The SCPA will also have a role in promoting diversity. The SCPA will be appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of the Scottish Parliament.

Responses to the paper must be sent to Ms Marion Kenmure at the Public Body and Executive Agency Policy Unit by 11 April 2002. The consultation paper can be found at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/consultations/government/Sccr.pdf

In addition to creating a SCPA, the Bill will provide for the abolition of a number of statutory Public Bodies not covered elsewhere in the legislative programme. Consultations on the individual bodies earmarked for abolition, as outlined in Public Bodies: Proposals for Change (21 June 2001), are being taken forward separately by individual departments within the Scottish Executive following the then Minister for Finance and Local Government’s statement on the Review of Public Bodies on 21 June 2001.

The annual report on Appointments to Non-Departmental Public Bodies was also published on 14 February 2002 and can be found at: http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library3/government/ndpb-00.asp

SNP MSP Alex Neil’s Public Appointments Bill, which proposed that all public appointments must be scrutinised by Parliament and that MSPs must have the power to interrogate, and possibly veto, nominees, has been defeated. The Scottish Parliament debated the general principles of the Bill on 7 February 2002. After a lively debate where opposition members accused the Labour-Liberal administration of cronyism, the motion was defeated by 50 votes to 63.

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Bill

On 4 March 2002, the Justice Minister Jim Wallace revealed the provisions of the Executive’s proposed Freedom of Information Bill, in particular the cost of obtaining information. People who want to obtain information from public bodies will be charge, at most, 10 per cent of the costs of supplying it if the costs exceed £100. It was also announced that under the Executive’s plans if the cost to the public authority is below £100 (the vast majority of requests are expected to be below this figure) then the information will be free. Under the Executive’s original proposals applicants would have been expected to meet the full cost to the public authority of supplying the information if that was above £100 but below the cost ceiling. The cost ceiling is likely to be £500 or £550.

The Bill is now at Stage 2, the Committee stage, and is being considered by the Justice 1 Committee.

Ogmore by-election

The Ogmore by-election on 14 February 2002 saw Labour hold the seat with a reduced majority of just over 5,700 compared to 14,574 at the 2001 General Election. The new MP is Huw Irranca-Davies, 38, a Swansea Institute lecturer. The turnout was 35.3% compared to 58.2% at the 2001 general election.

The result in full:

Freedom and Responsibility in Local Government - A Policy Statement from Welsh Assembly Government, 1 March 2002

The Welsh Assembly has produced a consultation document setting out fully its policies and intentions for local government in Wales and its vision of the future of local government.

The policies aim to produce local authorities which:

• provide clear leadership for their communities;
• deliver and secure high quality services for their local communities;

• are open, accessible and accountable.

To deliver these aims some of the expectations that the Welsh Assembly Government have of local authorities are to:

• work in genuine partnership with others in the public, voluntary and private sectors to deliver better results;

• work with all parts of the community to develop an understanding of their different needs and tackle discrimination and disadvantage;

• represent a more typical cross section of their own population;

• make the best use of information and communications technologies to serve, inform and communicate with the public.

To help achieve these aims the Welsh Assembly Government will:

• continue to set overall strategic direction, making national priorities clear;

• continue to work in partnership with local government in policy; development across the board;

• work towards a simpler, consistent and coherent framework for setting objectives and monitoring outcomes;

• cut back red tape;

• promote improvement;

• give local authorities as much freedom as possible to manage their own resources.

Further details and the full document can be found at: http://www.wales.gov.uk/subilocalgov/ content/freeresponse-e.html

There are some consultative elements in the statement and the National Assembly welcomes comments on the proposals. The should be sent to Lisa James, Local Government Finance, National Assembly for Wales, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF1 3NQ or email: lisa.james@wales.gsi. gov.uk. The deadline is 17 May 2002.

Student Grants

The introduction of a ‘Learning Grant’ for students in February 2002 confirmed the divergence of Welsh education policy. The introduction of the grant worth up to £1,500 per person a year for students in higher education follows the elimination of league tables for school examination results and the commissioning of a pilot study for a new Welsh baccalaureate qualification.

Cabinet changes

A few changes in ministerial responsiblities took place on 26 February 2002. Andrew Davies was moved from his position of Business Manager to take over the Economic Development Portfolio while Carwyn Jones continued as Minister for Rural Affairs but combined this with the post of Business Manager. First Minister Rhodri Morgan is therefore no longer overseeing the Economic Development Portfolio as he had been doing since the police investigation into Liberal Democrat AM Mike German began in July 2001.

Review of Assembly procedures

The final report of the Assembly’s Review of its procedures was published in February 2002. The review was launched in July 2000 when the First Minister announced in plenary that agreement had been reached on an all-party review of the Assembly’s procedures working within the framework of the Government of Wales Act. The review group was chaired by the Presiding Officer and comprised party leaders and business manager, and was supported by officials from the Cabinet Secretariat and the Cabinet Office.

The main themes which emerged during the consultation exercise were:

• corporate body v. separation of the ‘executive’ and ‘legislative’ arms - roles and relations;

• protecting the interests of all Assembly Members;

• seeking to ensure that the National Assembly for Wales delivers for Wales;

• improving policy development;

• improving scrutiny;

• greater focus on legislation.

Specific recommendations made in the report include:

• that bills affecting Wales should be published in draft form;

• that Assembly Ministers make a formal written response to committee reports;

• that the House Committee looks favourably on an increase in resources for committees.

The plenary debate on the report was held on 14 February 2002.

The final report can be found at: http://www. wales.gov.uk/subiassemblybusiness/procedures/assemblyreview.htm

Independent Commission

As part of the Partnership Agreement which established the Lib-Lab coalition a commitment was made to set up an independent commission to review the powers and electoral arrangements of the National Assembly. The membership of the commission is expected to be announced by the First Minister before Easter. The review is expected to last from Easter until the Autumn of 2003.

Assembly Building

The Minister for Finance, Local Government and the Communities, Edwina Hart, has been accused of misleading the Assembly on the findings of the adjudicators report on the dispute with Richard Rogers Partnership, who had been sacked from the project to design the new Assembly building. Her interpretation given to the Assembly Members was that Lord Rogers had underestimated costs of the new debating chamber in Cardiff Bay. Members had been unable to see full copies of the adjudicator’s report as it came under commercial law’s confidentiality rule. After the RRP refuted Mrs Hart’s claims, AMs demanded that the full adjudicators report was made public. This was done the following day, Friday 15 February, at 7pm when the Assembly Members were leaving for a week’s break.

Adjournment debate on RDAs

Ian Lidell-Grainger (Con: Bridgwater) secured this Westminster Hall adjournment debate on 12 February. He was forthright in his criticism of RDAs in general and the South West RDA in particular saying, ‘If I were asked what the South West RDA stood for, I would say a ‘really dreadful agency that removes democracy absolutely’, which is ‘RDA’ twice.’ Mr Lidell-Grainger went on to argue that ‘money has been spent badly on behalf of the people in the south-west’ citing administrative costs of £10 million and spending of ‘£41 million safeguarding 602 jobs and creating a further 1,000’. In the course of his comments Mr Lidell-Grainger called on the Minister to make Sir Michael Lickiss, the chairman of the South West RDA, resign (Col 62WH) and ended his comments by arguing that the South West RDA should be scrapped. Hugo Swire (Con: East Devon) also criticised RDAs and referred to the forthcoming White Paper on regional government saying, ‘I hope that the Government are not moving too quickly to replace RDAs with regional assemblies. I hope that the replacement is nothing to do with the fact that the Tories won 17 counties while Labour emerged with only seven at the last county council election’.

In response Alan Johnson, Minister of State at the Department of Trade and Industry, drew a distinction between decentralisation and devolution saying, ‘None of the White Paper’s proposals will involve the replacement of RDAs. We are talking about regional assemblies - or the subject of democratic accountability….’ He went on to stress the benefits that RDAs have brought and to welcome the close links between existing Regional Assemblies and RDAs: ‘Assemblies can play a key role in scrutinising the plans and work of the RDA in their region. Although they are not directly elected, they contain a significant majority of local authority members who are, of course, elected, with the rest of the membership made up from social and economic partners in the region.’

[HC Deb, 12.2.02, cols. 60-68WH]

Speculation on White Paper

There has been much press speculation about the timing and content of the expected White Paper. In an upbeat report in The Guardian on 5 February it was reported that ‘a once-sceptical Downing Street has dropped its oppostion to devolution after being assured that referendums will tackle head-on Tory arguments of an unwanted layer of extra bureaucracy being imposed on England. Voters will probably be told in referendums…that support for devolution will lead to one tier of local government being abolished.’ On 28 February the Financial Times reported that the White Paper would be delayed until after the May local elections. It was also reported that the Prime Minister had rejected a draft of the White Paper ‘insisting that regional referendums must make clear that the county councils would be abolished if elected assemblies went ahead.’

Peter Mandelson (Lab: Hartlepool) raised the issue at Business Questions on the same day asking the Leader of the House to comment on the Financial Times report and whether he would ‘give an undertaking to the House that that will not mean that the Government’s legislative timetable, whatever it is, will not slip?’ In reply Robin Cook said: ‘Of course, no date was ever given for publication of the White Paper on the regions, so it is difficult to understand the allegation in the press that there has been a delay in a publication date that was never set. The bottom line is that all in the Cabinet want to introduce a White Paper on the regions. As my right hon. Friend, who follows these matters closely, will know, there are difficult issues to be resolved; they are being actively worked upon in repeated meetings. As soon as we can produce a White Paper, we shall do so.’

[HC Deb, 28.2.02, Col. 851]

Lords debate local government and the regions

Plans for regional government were raised in the context of a debate on local government secured by Lord Hanningfield (Conservative) on 6 March. The issue was raised particularly by those opposed to regional government for England. Lord Hanningfield himself spoke about regions in relation to the Green Paper on planning arguing that ‘the Green paper proposes that those county powers should be sucked up to the regions.’ He went on to say that ‘if regions were to be based on genuine historical units with a coherent identity - as they are in Europe - and if they were to be given real power, devolved from central government, we might support the concept…. If we are to have regions then let us have real regions based on counties.’

The former Conservative Home Secretary Lord Waddington referred to the ‘threat of regional government’. Regional government, he argued, was not a satisfactory answer to the ‘West Lothian question’, would not increase spending on public services and would not bring government closer to the people. On the contrary the transfer of power away from County Councils, as he saw it, would move power in the opposite direction. He also challenged the argument that regional government is necessary in order to bring accountability to existing regional bureaucracies saying, ‘The last thing an elected assembly would do would be to bring the bureaucracy under control. As the bureaucracy does more and more to justify itself to the assembly, the more self-important and pleased with themselves will the assembly members become.’ In conclusion he argued that regional government will ‘bring us one step nearer to a Europe of the regions and put another nail in England’s coffin.’

Similar sentiments were expressed by Lord Bridges (CB) and Baroness Hanham (Conservative). However Lord Bradshaw (Liberal Democrat) supported the idea of democratically elected regional government but voiced the ‘strong fears that we shall end up with appointed assemblies and that the real decisions about land use and sensitive issues such as housing numbers will be taken not through those assemblies but by central government through their regional offices.’ Winding up for the Government, Lord Filkin referred to the debate over the consequences for local government of the introduction of regional assemblies saying, ‘there will have to be a process - which I am confident will be fair and not pre-judged.’ Referring to comments by Lady Hanham ‘that we do not need regions, we have counties’ Lord Filkin replied ‘the public will have the right to make that judgement rather than central government.’

[HL Deb, 6.3.02, cols. 270-304]

Lords Debate on Local Government, 6 March 2002

Lord Hanningfield (Con), Vice-Chairman of the Local Government Association and leader of Essex County Council) opened the debate on local government structures, powers and responsibilities. He expressed serious doubts that the reforms outlined in the Local Government White Paper would make a positive difference to the communities that local government serves. In his opening speech, he criticised the government for the increase in the proportion of ring-fenced money the government gives to councils. He said that it was a further example of ‘creeping centralisation’. Lord Hanningfield also criticised the performance assessment by the Audit Commission that the government is proposing calling the categorisation ‘offensive, crude and fuzzy’. Baroness Maddock (Lib Dem), Lord Woolmer (Lab) and Lord Dixon-Smith (Con) shared similar sentiments. Lord Filkin (Lab, Government Spokesperson on Transport, Local Government and the Regions) replied to these criticisms arguing that the proposed inspection and assessment regime will be more comprehensible, is objective in its judgements and is taken independently of central government. It ‘seeks to focus on an action plan aimed at bringing about improvements in the best interests of the public’.

A number of speakers went on to raise their concerns about the lack of financial independence of councils. Baroness Maddock welcomed the opportunities the White Paper provides of allowing local authorities more freedom in the way they give leadership to their local communities but stressed the need for this freedom to be coupled with wide-ranging financial independence. Baroness Scott of Needham Market (Lib Dem) claimed that successive governments have used the financial power that they have over local government to control the way local government goes about its work. She expressed her concerns that increasing centralisation represents ‘a very real assault on local democracy which should worry us all.’ Baroness Hamwee echoes these comments stating that ‘local authorities should be answerable first and foremost to local people and have autonomy by right, not as a reward from central government.’

Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) suggested that something needed to be done about adjusting the age balance of local authority councillors. He spoke favourably of the executive/scrutiny split implemented in the new local government structures. In his experience as a backbench councillor he claimed that the split had led to greater transparency. Baroness Hanham (Con) disagreed; she contended that the cabinet system enables a small number of people to take control of an elected council and that there is not much of a role left for the two thirds of councillors not in the cabinet. Furthermore, acting as a ‘scrutineer’ of policy decisions was not going to engage the hearts and minds of these councillors or of potential candidates.

Lord Filkin wrapped up the debate for the Government by announcing that central government have launched a process to examine how the White Paper will be implemented. The Government is also undertaking a major study between the Office of Public Services reform and the DTLR examining how the government behaves towards local government.

[HL Deb, 6.3.02, cols. 258-305]

Elected mayors

Since the last edition of Central Lobby was published 3 more results for mayoral referendums have been announced.

*This was the highest turnout yet in a mayoral referendum on a postal ballot. Watford, Doncaster, Hartlepool, Middlesborough, Lewisham, North Tyneside, Newham and Bedford have so far voted for a directly elected mayor in referendums and 15 councils have voted against.

Forthcoming referendums:

Newcastle-under-Lyme, Hackney, Mansfield - all 2nd May, Stoke-on-Trent - May/June to be announced.

New guidelines for mayoral referendums

On 7 March Nick Raynsford, Local Government Minister, announced that the Government will be reviewing the guidelines for mayoral referendums together with the Electoral Commission and others. The wording of the mayoral referendum question and the rules on promoting the referendum in the 28 days leading up to it could both change. On 1 February the Commission produced a report Reinvigorating Democracy? Mayoral Referendums in 2001 which raised questions about the standard wording of the referendum question deemed to be biased and misleading by some. The rules prohibiting councils from undertaking proactive information campaigns within 28 days of a referendum were seen as restrictive.

Full copies of the report are available on the Electoral Commission’s website at http://www.elect oralcommission.gov.uk/publications.htm

Councillors Census

The Improvement and Development Agency (IDeA) carried out a National Census of local authority councillors covering most of the 410 local authorities in England and Wales and discovered that the average age of a councillor is 57, 70 per cent are male, almost 38 per cent retired, while just 2.5 per cent come from an ethnic minority.

The agency launched a Fast Track Scheme in Birmingham in February to encourage councillors under 35 who have the potential to become local political leaders to rise through the ranks quickly.

Further information can be found at www.idea.gov.uk/member/census.htm

Doncaster Council bribery scandal

On 12 March Alan Hughes, a Doncaster property developer, was sentenced to five years for earning £2.25 million by bribing two influential councillors to support a large housing development. Peter Birks former chairman of the council’s planning committee was jailed for four years. He had received a £160,000 farmhouse for pushing through the application. Gordon Armitage, Hughes’ financial adviser was jailed for twelve months for aiding and abetting corruption. Ray Stockhill, a former deputy council leader and mayor was given a two year suspended sentence for receiving payments of more than £30,000 from Hughes. The scandal triggered tougher Labour procedures for selecting local councillors.

Mr Justice Hunt told the court that the scandal had betrayed the public’s trust, undermining the previously honest and hard-working elected representatives. He said ‘Public life requires a standard of its own. Power corrupts and corruption in government by those elected by the public strikes at its integrity and at the root of democracy’.

Glasgow council tenants balloted

On 14 March around 80,000 Glasgow council tenants received ballot papers on the proposed transfer of Glasgow’s council housing to the Glasgow Housing Association. The City Council, the Scottish Executive and the UK Treasury are supporting a ‘yes’ vote to the question, ‘Are you in favour of the proposal to transfer the city council’s housing to Glasgow Housing Association?’ Opposition comes from a group of campaigners arguing that a ‘yes’ vote will lead to big rent rises and privatisation by the back door. The result was due to be announced on 5 April.

Appointment of Chair of the South Bank Centre

Ken Livingstone, Mayor of London, has criticised the Government for its lack of consultation with London over the appointment of Lord Hollick as Chair of the South Bank Centre in March. He said ‘until the abolition of the Greater London Council the South Bank was run by, and accountable to, London’s democratic authority, but this appointment has been made by riding roughshod over London’s democratic elected bodies’.

Since the abolition of the GLC the SBC Board has been appointed by ministers. The Mayor called for the South Bank to be handed back to London government as government appointees have failed to make the required changes to the arts complex.

Private Public Partnership and London Underground

On 5 February the Transport Select Committee’s report in London Underground recommended that the government does not proceed with Public Private Partnership (PPP) for London Underground. Stephen Byers responded by saying that he will look at the Committee’s recommendations closely but he believes the modernisation proposals are the right approach.

Ken Livingstone pledged that if Stephen Byers ignores the report and tries to impose PPP, he, Bob Kiley (Transport Commissioner) and their lawyers will examine the contracts to determine what should be done, including any grounds for further legal action.

On 7 February the Government announced that it was to proceed with PPP and Stephen Byers urged the Mayor ‘not to stand in the way of modernising the tube’. London Transport Board entered into a consultation period with the Mayor and Transport for London on the details of their plans before a final decision is made. The decision was made on the back of an ‘independent’ report, by consultancy firm Ernst and Young, which argued that the proposals would provide value for money. However, it emerged that Ernst and Young are auditors for two of the successful PPP consortia - Bombardier and Jarvis. The Mayor called for the report to be disregarded, citing a conflict of interest.

GLA Budget

On 13 February the Mayor and London Assembly finally reached a compromise on the budget for 2002/2003. The Mayor had originally proposed a £1 increase in council tax for the average Londoner but reduced this to 44 pence per week in order to reach a compromise with the Assembly. The Assembly had voted for a Lib Dem/Labour motion that would have cut the increase to 30 pence per week. This compromise contrasts with last year’s budget setting where GLA members failed to coalesce around a lower figure resulting in the Mayor pushing through his original proposals.

Scrutiny of Private Members’ Bills

The Joint Committee on Human Rights published a report in March on the scrutiny of private members’ bills [2001-2002, HL 93/HC 674]. It pointed to the fact that such Bills are not subject to Section 19 of the Human Rights Act, which necessitates a declaration of compatibility with that Act, when they are introduced. It also emphasised the fact that private members’ bills rarely make significant progress through Parliament, and the Committee would have to take account of this when allocating time to scrutinising them. However, the report stated that:

‘Where questions of compatibility do arise in relation to a Private Member’s Bill, the Committee intends in general, having given the sponsor an opportunity to respond to the question, simply to report these matters for the attention of each House, rather than expecting the Member in charge to provide written responses.’

The only Bill which the Joint Committee felt raised questions of compatibility was the Tobacco Advertising and Promotion Bill, which they had addressed in the eighth report [2001-2002, HL 59/ HC 474]. The new report does discuss three other bills which it considers to raise interesting human rights questions - Religious Offences Bill, Civil Partnerships Bill, Treason Felony, Act of Settlement and Parliamentary Oath Bill.

The full report can be viewed on the Joint Committee’s website at:http://www.publications. parliament.uk/pa/jt200102/jtselect/jtrights/93/9302.htm

Care Homes and the Human Rights Act

On 18 March, in response to a question from Shaun Woodward (Lab: St Helens South), Jacqui Smith (Minister of State, Department of Health) said that after 31 March responsibility for registration and inspection of care and nursing homes would be transferred from local councils and health authorities to the new National Care Standards Commission. Ms Smith said that under both regimes these bodies worked to the standards which were fully compatible with the Human Rights Act.

[HC Deb, col.167W, 18.3.02]

Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission

On 18 March the House of Lords debated the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. The debate was tabled by Ulster Unionist Lord Laird, and he and another Ulster Unionist made strong criticisms of the Commission’s work, which ranged across the original appointments made to the body by former Secretary of State Mo Mowlam, its abuse by a republican cabal, and its concentration on nationalist interests at the expense of those of the Unionist community. Conservative Baroness Park of Monmouth focused on the Commission’s work on a Bill of Rights. Whilst she welcomed some of the elements of this, she was concerned that it concentrated too heavily on state oppression at the expense of violence by paramilitaries against their own communities.

The work of the Commission was defended principally by Lord Archer of Sandwell (Labour) and Lord Smith of Clifton (LD). Lord Smith emphasised that the Commission was poorly resourced, and was doing a very good job in a difficult milieu. He hoped that the Commission would prove an interesting pilot study for the development of a human rights culture throughout the UK.

[HC Deb, col. 1586W, 1.03.02]

MPs debate the European Parliament Elections

Westminster Hall debate,

[WH, cols. 90-109, 6.03.02]

Paul Tyler (LD: North Cornwall), opening the debate, said that the Government had promised a review of the system of election for the European Parliament before the next election, and that this was essential given the 23.1% turnout. For the Government Dr Alan Whitehead said that the Manifesto commitment was for a review of the Jenkins Commission findings, and that the closed list system had had only one trial. There was no evidence that the closed list system was a significant factor in the turnout. This was generally, though not universally, accepted in the debate. Andrew Stunell (LD: Hazel Grove) pointed out that in the Leeds by-election on the same day both polls recorded 19.1%, suggesting that the voting system was not the problem. Several speakers suggested that the even lower turnout for this European Parliament election had to do with people having less idea what they were voting for than in national or local elections. The connection was also made with closed lists and very large electorates distancing MEPs from those they were meant to ‘represent’.

European Constitutional Convention

The inaugural sitting of the European Constitutional Convention was held on 28 February in Brussels. The Convention, whose President is former French head of state Valéry Giscard D’Estaing, will consider the long-term development of the European Union and its structure. It comprises not only the 15 present member states and the European Commission, but also applicant countries. Like the Convention on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, its membership is divided among representatives of national Parliaments, Governments and MEPs. The Convention will meet in public and publish all papers from its proceedings as well as future work plans. Parallel to the Convention is a Forum for contribution and debate among civil society. The Convention website is at: http://european-convention.eu.int

The Convention Forum website is at: http://www.europa.eu.int/futurum/forum_convention/index_en.htm

Policy: 020 8880 6088 policy@charter88.org.uk