| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right that we need more nurses in the community setting, and we want to see more nurses going from training into that area. We are in close touch with NHS employers about the problems faced in some parts of the country by nurses coming out of training school, but that is in part due to the fact that the Government have increased the number of nurses in the NHS by 85,000 since we came to office and we have a better balance between supply and demand.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, what is being done to track the SHOs who are unable to find employment and are therefore leaving the UK? They cannot enter the specialist registrar grade because they have not served enough time in the SHO grade and therefore they are caught by being unable to secure the job that they need to progress in their own training.
Lord Warner: My Lords, there has always been a degree of competition for specialty training. Nothing
20 Jun 2006 : Column 633
has changed under the present arrangements, other than that we have a lot more doctors under this Government than we had before.
Conventions
3.06 pm
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos) rose to move, That notwithstanding the Resolutions of this House of 25 April and 22 May 2006, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on Conventions that it should report by the end of this Session of Parliament.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, when this House and another place agreed to establish a Joint Committee on Conventions, the committee was set a deadline of 24 July by which to report. However, during discussion in both Houses, the Government were clear that any request by the committee for more time would be viewed sympathetically.
At the committee's first meeting on 23 May, its members agreed to request that the deadline be extended to the end of the current Session. This Motion would implement that request. If the House agrees the Motion, a similar Motion will be tabled and considered in another place. I beg to move.
Moved, That notwithstanding the Resolutions of this House of 25 April and 22 May 2006, it be an instruction to the Joint Committee on Conventions that it should report by the end of this Session of Parliament.—(Baroness Amos.)
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the present deadline for submitting evidence to the committee is 21 June. Will that deadline be extended, too?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, that is a decision for the committee. I am not aware of its having extended the deadline.
On Question, Motion agreed to; and a message was ordered to be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.
Armed Forces Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Drayson): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to which the Armed Forces Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 53, Schedule 1, Clauses 54 to 113, Schedule 2, Clauses 114 to 163, Schedule 3,
20 Jun 2006 : Column 634
Clauses 164 to 168, Schedule 4, Clauses 169 to 180, Schedule 5, Clause 181, Schedule 6, Clauses 182 to 205, Schedule 7, Clauses 206 to 271, Schedule 8, Clauses 272 to 275, Schedule 9, Clauses 276 and 277, Schedule 10, Clauses 278 to 319, Schedule 11, Clauses 320 to 347, Schedule 12, Clauses 348 and 349, Schedule 13, Clauses 350 to 354, Schedule 14, Clauses 355 to 363, Schedule 15, Clauses 364 to 371, Schedules 16 and 17, Clauses 372 to 378.—(Lord Drayson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Wireless Telegraphy Bill [HL]
The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee (on Recommitment). Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the order of recommitment be discharged.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill
Read a third time, and passed.
Electoral Administration Bill
3.08 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons reason be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to. LORDS AMENDMENT
[The page and line references are to HL Bill 58 as first printed for the Lords.]
20 Jun 2006 : Column 635
"REGISTRATION: PERSONAL IDENTIFIERS
(1) The 1983 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In section 10 (maintenance of registers: annual canvass), after subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) Subject to subsection (4B) below, the information to be obtained by the use of such a form for the purpose of a canvass shall include—
(a) the signature of each of the persons in relation to whom the form is completed, and
(b) the date of birth of each such person.
(4B) The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapability of his or because he is unable to read."
(3) In section 10A (maintenance of registers: registration of electors)—
(a) after subsection (1B) insert—
"(1C) Subject to subsection (1D) below, an application for registration in respect of an address in England, Scotland or Wales shall include—
(a) the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates, and
(b) the date of birth of each such person.
(1D) The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapability of his or because he is unable to read.";
(b) in subsection (5), at the beginning insert "Subject to subsection (5A) below,";
(c) after subsection (5) insert—
"(5A) A person's name is to be removed from the register in respect of any address if—
(a) the form mentioned in section 10(4) above in respect of that address does not include all the information relating to him required by section 10(4A) above; or
(b) the registration officer determines that he is not satisfied with the information relating to that person which was included in that form pursuant to that requirement.";
(d) in subsection (6), after "above" insert "or his name is to be removed from it by virtue of subsection (5A) above,"; and
(e) in subsection (8), after "5" insert ", (5A)".
(4) In section 13A (alteration of registers), after subsection (2B) insert—
"(2C) Subject to subsection (2D) below, an application for registration under subsection (1)(a) above in respect of an address in the United Kingdom shall include—
(a) the signature of each of the persons to whom the application relates, and
(b) the date of birth of each such person.
(2D) The Chief Electoral Officer may dispense with the requirement mentioned in subsection (4A)(a) above in relation to any person if he is satisfied that it is not reasonably practicable for that person to sign in a consistent and distinctive way because of any incapability of his or because he is unable to read.""
The Commons disagree to this amendment for the following reason—
8A: Because it is not appropriate for personal identifiers to be collected as part of the registration process for all purposes
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 8A.
20 Jun 2006 : Column 636
I was re-reading in Hansard my contribution at the previous stage of the Bill when we talked about why we were dealing with personal identifiers in the way that we were, and I start today by going back over the reasons that I gave in your Lordships' House on that occasion. We all accept that the passage of this Bill has been an enjoyable experience in terms of our ability to work together in Parliament to tackle issues of electoral administration. We all agree that our democracy is very precious and that, when looking at the changes that we might make in electoral administration, we must do so with great care.
We considered personal identifiers, and noble Lords will recall either from our previous debates or from reading Hansard that we looked at two possibilities of what might be done about the issue. First, we considered whether to pilot; we talked about the possibility of piloting some form of personal identifier in up to 10 areas. There were many discussions, both in your Lordships' House and in another place, and in the end it was felt that there were significant difficulties, which noble Lords accepted, so the idea was dismissed and removed from the legislation.
We also considered the transitional arrangements and the idea that individuals could determine whether or not they wished to give additional information. I noted in my last speech on this subject that there were two significant difficulties with that proposal. The first was that it would make the form that had to be filled in potentially more difficult to understand. People would be given a choice: "Do you wish to give this information or not? You do not need to". We felt that that could create more difficulties for people in understanding what they were filling in. The second and significant problem with a transitional scheme is that only those people who choose to will give information. Although you may learn something about that self-selected group of people, you learn nothing about the people who do not give the additional information. Our concern is that that would lead us into difficulties in making sure that the register was as up to date and accurate as possible, and that people were not deterred from registering, which is a significant issue.
We were then presented with an amendment, which originally came from all sides of your Lordships' House but was eventually tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder, who is in his place. That enabled us, through taking forward the postal voting proposals, to have a universal test bed of a personal identifier, which would give us the opportunity to see what happens when we ask people for additional information. All members of your Lordships' House agreed that this was a useful proposal, and from the Government's perspective it enables us both to look at the security around postal voting, which is an issue of grave concern, and to have a real test bed around personal identifiers. I am delighted that the consensus in your Lordships' House and outside, as we had the opportunity to discuss this at length, was that we should take this forward.
20 Jun 2006 : Column 637
The difficulty with the amendment that was presented and accepted in your Lordships' House, but which has now returned to us from the other place, was what would happen if we made personal identifiers universal. The Government feel strongly that that must be considered with enormous care. The only information, as I said before, is experience in Northern Ireland. I shall not reiterate all that I said before, except to say that we know that there were significant issues about what happened to the numbers on the electoral register. Indeed, legislation is currently going through Parliament to deal with some of the concerns that were raised.
That is the only experience that we have and it shows that there were difficulties. To move directly to a system of universal personal identifiers is something that we must consider very carefully. The Government believe that we should do so only when we have the knowledge and experience that can be given to us by the amendment that was passed in your Lordships' House and accepted in the other place, and which was tabled by my noble friend Lord Elder, and, I know, supported and probably drafted by both the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham and the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I think that I described them as a significant trio, which indeed it is.
We are in the right place in this set of circumstances to have a test bed. I say that because I believe that we should move carefully with our democracy to make sure that we do not cause difficulties by chance. Of course there are security issues about which noble Lords are worried. I reminded myself that in the Bill there are 10 ways in primary legislation and five more that will come in through secondary legislation. We need to test the effects of all the proposals. They are significant and are designed to tackle some of the issues that noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, have raised as concerns.
3.15 pm
We are also, as my honourable friend Bridget Prentice made clear in another place, keen that discussions of what happens as a consequence of this Bill do not end with the passage of the legislation. Rather, we have said that it is absolutely right for some sort of post-legislative review: the opportunity for both Houses of Parliament to carefully consider the consequences of the legislation and to revisit and review how effective it has been.
My honourable friend Bridget Prentice talked about the role of the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee, and we will be picking this matter up with the right honourable Alan Beith as chair. I would be keen to see Members of your Lordships' House take part in that. There is no reluctance on the Government's part to involve all parties in discussions about how this legislation works. Our democracy belongs to all of us. We would want to take that
20 Jun 2006 : Column 638
forward as quickly as possible, and we hope that it will in some way ensure that noble Lords understand the relevance and importance of this legislation, and the commitment of the Government to work across parties to determine that we have the best possible legislation in place to tackle all the issues that we have discussed at all stages.
I am conscious of the amount of work that already exists for administrators within this legislation. We have had to look carefully at ensuring that the burdens that we put on them to implement everything in this legislation are appropriate. I am mindful of ensuring that we do not add to them.
I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about time, because there is an issue with getting this legislation on to the statute book so that we can bring in everything within it. I do so in the spirit of giving information—nothing more than that. However, it is important that, when noble Lords make decisions on this Bill today, they understand the consequences of delaying the legislation. It effectively means that measures that we would have brought in later this year will not be brought in until 2007.
I have said everything that I want to say, because I am conscious that noble Lords have heard many debates on this subject. I hope that your Lordships will accept the good will and intent of the Government. We are clear that we wish to see the opportunity, through the amendments of my noble friend Lord Elder that have been accepted, to look at the question of personal identifiers. We wish to involve Parliament in the process of examining everything in this legislation, which will help to keep the votes secure and ensure that people can exercise their democratic right. I hope that noble Lords will also accept that to add something untried and untested is potentially difficult and dangerous, and could damage our democracy. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will accept the Government's view.
Moved, that the House do not insist on its Amendment No. 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their reason 8A.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.)
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |