Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(8 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Grayling
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is important that police forces do not simply concentrate on the urban areas. They need to remember the impact of crime on villages, and especially on rural businesses. One thing I sought to do as Justice Secretary was to ensure that the voice of business was more clearly heard in our justice system by allowing businesses to make clear statements in court about the impact of what might seem to be trivial crimes on their businesses, but which can in fact be hugely disruptive. My hon. Friend might look to the Backbench Business Committee for an opportunity to have such a debate, because this is a matter that affects MPs on both sides of the House.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I am sure that Members on both sides of the House will have noticed the complete absence in the business statement of any time for debates on subjects nominated by the Backbench Business Committee. Will the Leader of the House please allocate us at least some time before the recess, and use his influence to extract the names of nominees for the Committee from the Conservative party? Names from the Labour party and the Scottish National party are already in place. Can we please have those other names so that the Committee can convene and, hopefully, get some time allocated to take up the interests of Members, particularly those sitting behind the right hon. Gentleman, for nominated debates from the Backbench Business Committee?
Chris Grayling
I am keen to see all Select Committees, including the Backbench Business Committee, set up as quickly as possible. The hon. Gentleman talks about the delays in getting names, but the problem is not limited to the Government side of the House; some elements still need to be brought forward from all parties in the House. As soon as we can get these Committees up and running, we will.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
My hon. Friend always states his case very clearly and moderately. I explained earlier the time constraints on this, and that such regulations cannot be made—they can be laid, but not made—before 2 March. No decision has been made on how both Houses of Parliament consider the regulations—both will need to do so. That can be done on the Floor of the House or in Committee; a decision will have to be made about that in due course. Decisions about whipping will of course be made by other authorities sitting not far from me.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House earlier expressed concern about the welfare of children around the world, in places such as Nigeria. Last Friday, the Home Office deported to Nigeria two people who lived in my constituency, a Mrs Bola Fatumbi and her five-year-old son, Rafeeq Atanda. When they landed in Nigeria, they found that the cash card with which they had been provided did not work, and they were stranded in the airport for two days before trying to walk into the city. I know that there are rights and wrongs in this situation, but for the life of me I do not know what a five-year-old child, who has never set foot outside this country, has done to be treated like that by this Government. We need an urgent debate in Government time about the rights of children in deportation cases.
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman says, without much more detail none of us can know the merits of individual cases, but he is clearly concerned about this case, and he could pursue it with Home Office Ministers, not only through correspondence but at questions. The next Home Office questions will be on Monday 9 February, so I encourage him to raise it directly with them, but I will inform Home Office Ministers of the concerns that he has expressed today.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(9 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hague
As the hon. Gentleman knows, that decision has been determined by the independent reconfiguration panel and the Secretary of State has accepted its advice. That is what it is for—it is independent. This is the end of a long battle on that particular issue and all of us who were involved have had to accept that. I think that in all such cases the Secretary of State takes its advice. It is very important that there is a strong future for Friarage hospital in Northallerton. We are getting into constituency matters here, but I would encourage the clinical commissioning group and South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to set out a very strong and ambitious future for that hospital.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I welcome the Leader of the House to his position. Given the location of his very scenic and beautiful constituency, he may be aware of the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure on the prospects for local economies. Given that Northern Rail and Network Rail do not have an investment programme in the next five-year control period for anywhere north of York, may we have a debate on the importance of transport infrastructure expenditure in generating economies, particularly in places like the north-east of England?
Mr Hague
These are, of course, very important issues. It is one of a long list of issues on which hon. Members have asked for debates today. It is evident to the House that it is not possible to agree to debates on all of those subjects. The hon. Gentleman gives his opinion. It is also true that the Government are investing more in the roads than at any time since the 1970s, and, with HS2, more in rail than at any time since Victorian times. Important announcements about transport infrastructure across the north of England have been made recently by the Chancellor and the Transport Secretary, so it is important to have a look at those.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(9 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. He might want look for opportunities to raise the matter himself, perhaps in an Adjournment debate. In any case, I think that it is an important subject for all of us to be aware of. Wherever we are engaged in public policy making, I hope that it will be evidence-based and objective. One of the Nolan principles is objectivity. That should be as true for those who seek to influence policy as it is for those who make it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
Last night I attended a function organised by the all-party group on rail in the north at which Northern Rail set out its future investment programme. Unfortunately, it will only go as far north as York. At another recent meeting, Network Rail outlined its proposals for the next control period, none of which will go beyond York. The current disparity in public infrastructure spending between London and the north-east is 520:1. May we have a debate on when this Government will put that right?
Mr Lansley
The hon. Gentleman will be aware, not least from the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s speech at the beginning of last week, of the importance that we attach to the further promotion on infrastructure that enables all parts of the United Kingdom to have maximum access to the economic growth being generated by this Government’s long-term economic plan. High-speed rail will clearly make a significant difference, but there are many other projects being promoted by Network Rail. I will draw the attention of the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Transport to the point the hon. Gentleman makes as we approach the publication later this year of the infrastructure plans for the next 10 years.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Ian Mearns Excerpts(10 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ian Murray
It absolutely would. Given the evidence of blacklisting that has emerged over the past few years, particularly in relation to the inquiry by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, it would be perfectly reasonable to assume either that someone might not wish to join a trade union, or that an existing member might wish to leave, on the ground that their membership could affect their employment prospects. That matter has not been dealt with in the Bill, as a result of the slapdash way in which it has been put together and placed before the House.
The Data Protection Act imposes strict conditions for processing sensitive personal data. Anyone processing such data must satisfy one of more of the conditions for processing that apply specifically to such sensitive data, as well as one of the general conditions that apply in every case relating to non-sensitive data. It is arguable that the Bill does not satisfy those conditions, which merely emphasises how incompatible it is with the Data Protection Act.
The conditions in schedule 3 of the Act for processing sensitive personal data are as follows. First, it is necessary for the data subject to have
“given his explicit consent to the processing of the personal data.”
The members would therefore have to consent explicitly, meaning that the assurer would have to contact all the members on the membership list, should they require the data. That would surely be impractical and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) said earlier, a requirement that the assurer contact everyone to obtain their explicit consent would impose an onerous burden of cost and bureaucracy on the trade unions.
The second condition in the Act states that the processing should be
“necessary for the purposes of exercising or performing any right or obligation which is conferred or imposed by law on the data controller in connection with employment.”
Unless I am mistaken, however, the proposal in the Bill has nothing to do with employment law. The third condition states that the processing must be necessary
“(a) in order to protect the vital interests of the data subject or another person, in a case where—
(i) consent cannot be given by or on behalf of the data subject, or
(ii) the data controller cannot reasonably be expected to obtain the consent of the data subject”.
That should not apply in the case of a trade union member. The processing must also be necessary
“in order to protect the vital interests of another person, in a case where consent by or on behalf of the data subject has been unreasonably withheld.”
I would imagine that, in relation to trade union membership, those conditions could be satisfied fairly easily. It is not clear that any of the proposed process is designed to protect the individual. It could therefore be argued that the Government have failed to tell us what problem they are trying to resolve, and what process they are trying to protect.
The fourth condition states that the processing must be carried out by a not-for-profit organisation and should not involve disclosing personal data to a third party unless the individual consents. Extra limitations apply to this condition, in that individual consents are required for disclosure to a third party. Will the Minister tell us whether the assurer or the certification officer are third parties? Would any investigator appointed by the certification officer be deemed to be a third party, given that they are deemed in the legislation to be independent? That would not be compatible with the responsibility of the data controller in the trade union.
In addition to those conditions in the Data Protection Act, regulations set out several other conditions for processing sensitive personal data. Their effect is to permit such processing for a range of other purposes—typically, those cases that are substantially in the public interest and that must necessarily be carried out without the explicit consent of the individual. The Government would have to put up a strong argument to convince us that checking a trade union’s membership list was substantially in the public interest, and I cannot see how the provisions in part 3 of the Bill can be deemed to be fulfil those conditions. It is difficult to construct a public interest test in relation to the annual membership list of a trade union. The nature of the consent required to satisfy the condition for processing sensitive data must be explicit. The Act particularly mentions the word “explicit”, yet it is not mentioned in the proposed new clause.
We have tabled amendment 108 to ensure that the assurer is a person of suitable calibre. The Secretary of State should explicitly set out regulations to ensure that the assurer can demonstrate a strong knowledge of and previous compliance with the Data Protection Act and other regulations relating to data protection. Our amendment 109 provides for the removal of an assurer if they are in breach of any of the confidentiality conditions, or if the trade union has any reason to believe that it would be inappropriate for them to remain in post. Amendment 118 would raise the bar on confidentiality, requiring the assurer to take “all steps necessary”, instead of the present “all reasonable steps”, to secure obligations under the Data Protection Act and other legislation.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The inherent reason for legislation and regulation of trade unions seems to be that some of those unions donate money to the Labour party, but can my hon. Friend find any provisions within this Bill that impose similar regulations on organisations such as the United and Cecil Club or the Royal Automobile Club, which donate money to the Conservative party? Given that the RAC is a membership organisation, would it be covered by this legislation?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend makes an interesting observation. No, the RAC would not be covered by part 3, which deals exclusively with trade union membership. In our lengthy debate on the preceding group of amendments, we found that the Conservative party will not even tell us how many members it has, despite the fact that it could well be argued that it has a major vested interest in public opinion and how the laws of this country are determined. Should not the Conservative party therefore be obliged to tell us how many members it has and whether or not its membership lists are accurate? That seems to be falling on deaf ears with the Government. I pressed Members from across the Committee to provide a figure on Conservative party membership, but it has still to come forward.
The Temporary Chairman (Jim Sheridan)
Order. I remind the Committee that we must stick to debating clause 37; we seem to be wandering away from it.
Ian Murray
That is a legitimate point. I do not know whether my hon. Friend was present during the last debate, but I can tell him that the certification officer figures are pretty stark. There have been 10 determinations since 1987, none in the last eight years and six between 2000 and 2004, of which five were dismissed and the sixth did not even constitute a formal determination. A new, erroneous part of the Bill could easily cause a certification officer to be dragged into a position that affected his neutrality—which, incidentally, trade unions and their members respect. Unions and certification officers work closely together, and certification officers are always keen to make the point that they are not opposed to each other, but share the aim of ensuring that unions operate correctly and within the law.
Let me now deal with the proportionality issue that arose from the case relating to article 11 of the European convention on human rights. Liberty states that the current regime satisfies the requirement that scrutiny be undertaken to ensure public confidence in the status of any register, and that the current measures to undertake that scrutiny are proportionate.
The increased powers of the certification officer are also disproportionate. First, it may invoke its increased powers if it thinks there is good reason to do so. That is very broadly drawn, and what constitutes a good reason in any case? Might it be a vexatious claim from a national newspaper to the certification officer to have a look at a particular membership list? That was the driver behind our amendment 103 to the previous clause, which the Government have just rejected.
Secondly, the certification officer can view not only the register, but any other document that may be relevant to determining whether there is a breach of section 24(1) of the 1992 Act and it can require people to give explanations.
Thirdly and ultimately, under clause 37 as currently written, the certification officer does not owe a duty of confidentiality to the union. The addition of a third-party inspector would be particularly intrusive and that inspector owes a duty of confidentiality only to the certification officer, not the union.
Liberty rightly concluded:
“These measures clearly go beyond what is necessary and proportionate to achieve any legitimate aim behind the proposals, if indeed there is one at all, and as such constitute a breach of Article 11 of the Convention.”
There is, indeed, a compelling argument to be made that clause 37 breaches article 11. The justification for that claim arises from the fact that there is already legislation in place to deal with many of these issues.
Amendments 111, 112, 166 and 115 are intended to clarify the need for a trade union to take “all reasonable steps” to ensure membership lists are accurate. We discussed some of that language in our debate on the amendments to clause 36. This is completely consistent with obligations under the 1992 Act to take all reasonable steps. That language and responsibility should be reflected in clause 37. There will be an inconsistency of language if we remove the reference to taking reasonable steps in the 1992 Act and replace it with language that is more stringent on the trade unions.
The primary responsibility for the alterations to any membership list lies with the individual. That is already set out in section 24(1) of the Act. However, all too often a union member may move house, change jobs or even pass away and those details will not be passed on to the union membership officer for recording in a timely fashion. In some circumstances, it cannot be reasonable for a trade union to be held wholly responsible for every part of a membership list. People can take a complaint to the certification officer resulting in an in-depth investigation at great cost to both the public purse and the trade unions, when the 1992 Act clearly states that the responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of an individual’s data on a trade union membership list lies with the individual, not the union. If the union has taken “all reasonable steps” to make sure that list is accurate, such a matter should not fall within the remit of this Bill.
It should be the case that the assurer can make a determination that the union has, in so far as is reasonably practicable, ensured the entries in the membership register are accurate. That is what amendments 111 and 112 would achieve. They would give the assurer the power to qualify the membership audit certificate to say that information from employers or members has not come forward in a timely fashion and the union has taken all steps to ensure the information is accurate.
The issuing of any membership certificate will be based on information for just a snapshot in time of that particular moment and day. We have learned from the—late—impact assessment that about 9% or 10% of trade union membership flows in or out of a trade union at any given period. For a major trade union, that amounts to an awful lot of people to keep track of. If a union has taken “all reasonable steps” to ensure their membership list is accurate, it should be taken into account that the list will only be a snapshot of a particular moment in time. It should be possible to clearly state on the audit certificate that any inaccuracies are not the fault of the trade union and therefore the audit certificate is issued with that qualification. The clause as currently drafted would not allow for that.
Importantly, for that process to operate correctly the employers also have a duty of responsibility to the trade union membership audit certification process. Amendment 115 would give the assurer the right to access reasonable information from employers if it was determined that that information would be necessary for the performance of the assurer in determining the accuracy of a membership list. It would also allow for access to data that may satisfy the assurer that the trade union has taken all reasonable steps in compiling the membership register. Many unions have indicated that a lack of information from employers provided in an efficient manner is the main cause of the vast majority of inaccuracies in their membership lists. Giving the assurer the powers to make reasonable requests to employers for information means that there can be confidence that membership registers are indeed accurate. If anything comes out of this process and this bad part of the Bill, it might be that the assurer, as an independent person, could help the trade unions with some of those relationships with the employers, to ensure that the data coming from the employers make the lists that trade unions have far more accurate.
Ian Mearns
One wonders what thought is driving the Government to ask trade unions to do what the Bill requires. I cannot for one moment see a situation where the Government would ask for the same accuracy in electoral lists held by returning officers in particular areas at any given time. It would be almost impossible to provide. The amount of bureaucracy and administration required to keep such lists up to date would be beyond the financial capability of most local authorities.
Ian Murray
That is a good comparison to make, because I would bet that every one of the 166 trade unions registered with the certification officer in this country has far better membership records than any electoral register held by an electoral office. That is not a criticism of the valuation joint boards or local councils; it is simply because people are transient and move in and out all the time, so it is impossible to keep a 100% accurate record. I would guess that the trade union membership lists are far more accurate than such electoral registers.
Finally, I wish to deal with the rather unusual terminology used in clause 37. The word “satisfactory” appears in the proposed new section 24ZD(3) whereas the term “not satisfactory” appears in the proposed subsection (4). The use of that incredibly strange terminology could result in a lack of consistency and direction for assurers. It only fuels the fire in terms of us thinking that that this proposed piece of legislation is designed either to create additional casework or additional case law as some of these issues are taken through the courts, or to keep trade unions busy in the courts trying to justify what is “satisfactory” and what is “not satisfactory”.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines satisfactory as either
“satisfying demands, expectations, or requirements; adequate”
or “atoning” for one’s sins. I hope that the Liberal Democrat Minister will satisfactorily atone for her sins before the next general election—[Interruption.] I would be more than satisfied if she atones for her sins by accepting our amendments on this part of the Bill or, indeed, deletes the clause altogether.
Just how badly this Bill is drafted is shown by the fact that it contains such wide definitions of a term that relates to its fundamental objective in terms of the production of a membership audit certificate. Will the Minister, or indeed the Secretary of State, be determining by guidance what “satisfactory” and what “not satisfactory” means in this context? Will the definitions of and guidance on those two terms have them as exact polar opposites? It is important that that is made clear.
I would term this entire clause 37 as not satisfactory, in sympathy with what is not a very satisfactory Bill. I will be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the Data Protection Act, the significant and real concerns about blacklisting, and the responses from lawyers from Liberty and various other organisations about the inadequacies of this clause in respect of the European convention on human rights. I ask hon. Members to support our amendments.
Ian Lavery
Of course it is. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
What qualifications will the assurers—classed as independent under these provisions—need? What will make them qualified? Will it be that they are thoroughly decent people who dislike certain things or like other things? We should remember that it will be incumbent on the trade union to do this under its rulebook.
Ian Mearns
My hon. Friend is asking about the requirements of the job specification and person specification for an assurer. It seems to me that they must include the spite and vindictiveness reflected in the Government’s attitude to trade unions as seen in the Bill.
Ian Lavery
Although I fully agree with my hon. Friend, there are probably better ways of doing it. I fear that again I am repeating myself, but everything the assurer is supposed to do is carried out under the TULR regulations.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(10 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
My hon. Friend is a great cheerleader for mid-Wales, and he is absolutely right to suggest that there are some great businesses helping the UK to compete in the global race by investing and expanding their operations. I will draw his comments to the attention of the Secretary of State, but if he is in his place next Thursday when the Secretary of State is responding to questions, he might have a further opportunity to raise the matter then.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
The Leader of the House will have noted that IPSA is back in the news. May we have a statement on what IPSA is going to do to improve its cumbersome IT systems, which waste an awful lot of MPs’ staff time, and to address the fact that the organisation remains incommunicado for large parts of the day?
Mr Lansley
I will not promise a statement at the moment but, if I may, I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s point to the attention of my colleagues on the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I know that the Committee has raised a number of issues with IPSA as a consequence of its examination of the organisation’s estimate. We will take the hon. Gentleman’s point on board when we further consider some of these IPSA issues.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(11 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Lansley
Clearly, my hon. Friend may seek opportunities for a debate, but it would be inappropriate for the Government to do so when we are in the midst of the further review undertaken by Howard Davies, which will provide an interim report next year and a final report in 2015. As my hon. Friend and the whole House knows, these are immensely complicated issues that it is not easy to resolve in a short period of time.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
This year in Manchester two people have been arrested, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned for abusing police officers, and in South Shields in the north-east of England an arrest has taken place for a similar offence. May we have a debate on policing, prosecutions and sentencing as a matter of urgency, as it is very topical?
Mr Lansley
I think that members of the public watching our discussion might wonder whether it would not be better for Members to devote themselves to the interests of their constituents and new issues rather than constantly trying to contrive new ways of returning to an issue that, frankly, was closed weeks ago. The Chief Whip apologised and that apology was accepted, and on that basis the matter was closed.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
The precise wording that I think I used on Tuesday was “in the autumn”. I have announced the business for the first week back. We are sitting for two and a half weeks in September, and I would very much hope that by the time we rise for the conference recess I will be able to give the House further information about our proposals for the Bill.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
One of the particular pleasures that I have had since being elected in 2010 is to welcome parties of schoolchildren to this place from my constituency, and many hundreds of them have benefited from that. One unintended consequence of the decisions taken last night could well be that those opportunities are curtailed somewhat, particularly for parties having to travel many miles to get here. Will the Leader of the House use his best endeavours to try to maximise the opportunities for such school parties in future?
Sir George Young
This refers to a debate that took place yesterday when the Deputy Leader of the House mentioned that specific consequence. The House has made a clear decision when to sit on Tuesday, but we will look at the consequences for tours and see whether we can find some way through to make sure that those who want to visit the House are able to do so.
Business of the House
Ian Mearns Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sir George Young
I admire what my hon. Friend has just done in defending one of her predecessors—a man with whom I served in the House from 1974 to 1983. As she said, so far only one side of the story has been put into the public domain, and it is imperative that the other side also be put forward, in the interests of the friends and family of Ray Mawby. I would like to make the appropriate inquiries to see how we might get the full story into the public domain, so that we can find out exactly what happened to him in the years to which she referred.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
I convey to the House the apologies of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, who cannot be with us today owing to unavoidable personal business.
We are grateful for the time allocated to us by the Leader of the House and business managers, but it is still difficult managing demand. Having said that, we were grateful for the opportunity to suggest to him that the debate on the House’s sitting hours be on 11 July. However, we are still struggling with demand for the time allocated. Will he please reconsider the amount of time allocated to the Backbench Business Committee?
Sir George Young
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and to the Backbench Business Committee for collaborating with the usual channels in enabling the House to have a proper debate about sitting hours in the relatively near future. I take to heart what he has said about both the quantity of time and the predictability. We are committed to providing at least 27 days in the Chamber for the Backbench Business Committee, and I will use my best endeavours to give the hon. Gentleman adequate notice of time and do what I can to find more time, if possible, between now and the end of the Session, when I would expect, in any event, to have the usual pre-recess Adjournment debate.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Ian Mearns Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Allen
I do not think that any science was involved in coming to that figure; the Committee felt that it should be pitched at a reasonable level. If it were pitched lower—at a parking or traffic-offence level—it might be regarded less seriously. Where it is actually pitched is a matter for debate and for the Government, but I hope that they will listen to people who say that, on the very rare occasions when a prosecution takes place, such offences should be met with an adequate fine.
I am not suggesting that everyone who fails to register should be fined £500. We heard that in a whole year in this country, people were prosecuted for non-registration only 67 times. That is not quite one in a million, but such prosecutions are a very rare occurrence. However, we need the power to fine so that people understand how seriously we take the matter.
I congratulate the Government again on how they have moved on a number of these issues. I am delighted to be joined by a member of my Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who participated in our debates and made sure that so many of our proposals were put in a way that allowed the Government to accept them and take the Bill forward.
Like the other Committee members, my hon. Friend will remember the early days when it appeared that our electoral system was almost being marketised or commodified by some of the phraseology around at the time. Our right to vote—our democracy—is, in the Committee’s opinion, a civic duty and I am delighted that the Government have reaffirmed that. It is not a consumer choice; it is not a punt, a bet or going down the shops—it is about how we run our society. There are alternatives to democracy; it is important that it is healthy and strong and that everybody participates in it.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)
From my hon. Friend’s perspective, would the £500 represent more of a preventive measure, that would hopefully garner so much registration that it would never have to be used? A lower figure might mean that many more people would not register and would be taken to court.
Mr Allen
My hon. Friend makes an important point. If someone is fined for failing to register, that is a symbol of failure for us all—Government and non-Government Members, those on Select Committees and those who are not. We want everybody in our democracy to participate. Many of us have said on visits to schools and other places, “Yes, of course, in a partisan way we care about the way you vote, but we come and do these things because we feel you’ve got to exercise your rights in a democracy and as a citizen.” The lessons that we give to our children, particularly teenagers, when we talk to them in those terms apply to everybody.
It would be a failure if we fined people every time, but as my hon. Friend said, there needs to be a preventive, deterrent effect that encourages people to vote who might otherwise say, “Well, nothing will happen if I don’t, so I’m not going to bother.” If the thought that something might happen is in the back of their mind, a lot of people will be encouraged to register who otherwise would not do so. If they then choose not to vote or decide to go to the polling station and spoil their ballot, that is their decision, but they are enabled to make that decision by the very fact that they are on the register, and disabled from doing so if they are not on the register or encourage others not to be on the register.
Mr Shepherd
I stand for a complete register. I do not know that I would go as far as to force people to register, unless it was for census purposes. I see the failure of the census as often as not.
Ian Mearns
Will the hon. Gentleman muse on the new Boundary Commission rule that a minimum number of electors has to be found in a ward, and that if the number is even one short, a whole other electoral ward must be brought in to make the constituency up to the correct size? We could therefore have a situation in which that happens because of the non-registration of one person. That is how the rules are written, as I understand them. In that scenario, the registration of one voter becomes vital.
Mr Shepherd
I would think that the truth of the matter is that the rough must be taken with the smooth. It is the particularisation that I do not like.
I agree that having a correct census is fundamental to a democracy, and yet that is not universal. There are not many fines in relation to the census and we still do not have a complete one. However, I am very cautious about the idea of forcing anyone to do anything in their relationship with the democratic process, whether it is voting for parties or anything else. Australia has a fine for not voting, in theory, but I do not think that that is appropriate for us. It would be an inhibition on liberty. If I do not wish to be part of a process, as a free-born Briton, surely I have that right. That is the essence of what being British was about once upon a time.
I am not going to get excited, because I have been here a long time and I have heard all the passing nostrums. I am not saying that this is a nostrum, because the hon. Member for Nottingham North is trying to address a genuine worry; I do not doubt that. However, I have the sense that I am free born and that I may do what I wish, with my view of public officials, because that is entirely a matter for me, and that I should not be required to register with the possibility of a penalty if I do not vote. That seems to me to be the other side of the coin to liberty.
Ian Mearns
The variation around the country makes it difficult to draw a comparison. There is little preventive or deterrent measure within the level of fines suggested; otherwise, these parking tickets would not be issued on a day-to-day basis.
Wayne David
That is right. A balance has to be struck. We had hoped to debate whether the Government had struck that balance, but unfortunately we cannot come to that decision. Perhaps before the end of the debate the Minister will tell us what level of fine the Government have in mind.