What steps he is taking to improve food safety. [42720]

We are setting up what will be a powerful, effective and independent Food Standards Agency operating across the whole food chain, clearly focused on protecting consumers. In the meantime, I have already ensured that public health is our first consideration in matters of food safety.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that, after 18 years of Tory Government and a disastrous record on food safety, there is still widespread concern and anxiety about food safety, and especially about genetically modified food? Does he agree that it is important that we give consumers real choice in the consumption of such foods, and that labelling genetically modified foods would be an important step forward in giving consumers that choice? What progress has my right hon. Friend been able to make in persuading other countries to agree with us on that important issue?

My hon. Friend is right to say that there is still a high level of public concern about food safety. We must continue to be vigilant in protecting the public and in bringing to them the best available scientific advice on those matters. On genetically modified food, the British presidency recently negotiated an agreement in the Agriculture Council that will ensure that food is clearly labelled. The labels will say either that food contains a genetically modified product or that it does not. There will therefore be absolutely no doubt in consumers' minds. I was very pleased to be able to negotiate that outcome in the Agriculture Council.

In looking at the issue of food safety, will the Minister consider, too, the issue of vitamin safety—and, in particular, the safety of vitamin B6? The United States Government allow over-the-counter sales of 100 mg of vitamin B6, whereas the Government are proposing to restrict such sales to 50 mg. The US is the toughest regulatory authority to the world. Is not the British restriction therefore simply another case of the Government acting as nanny state and knowing better than their subjects?

To the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's assertion, the answer is no, it is not. Neither is it the case, as he asserts, that the United States necessarily employs the toughest regulations. The United States allows, for example, hormone growth promoters, which are banned in the European Union. So the hon. Gentleman is wrong on that point, too. We are still consulting and considering responses to the work on B6 being undertaken by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Will the Minister bear in mind the fact that the farmers in my constituency reckon that it costs them 38p a pound to raise lamb, which they can sell at only 43p a pound at Ashford? They see lamb on sale at Sainsburys, Tesco or Asda at £2.78 a pound. Is there a chance that, within the Foods Standards Agency, we could consider having a regulator for supermarkets?

The answer to that is no.

If he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the level of farming incomes. [42721]

The Government are working to create the conditions that will enable farmers to develop their businesses and maximise their income by pressing for market-oriented reform of the common agricultural policy.

I should be very interested to know precisely what those conditions are. The fact is that farming incomes have fallen by well over 40 per cent. Farmers have been hit again today, by a sixth rise in interest rates. Those who can no longer afford farming and want to get out have been devastated by the abolition of retirement relief on capital gains. Meanwhile—all this time—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is building up a war chest for the next general election. Will the Minister ask for some of that money now, while we still have a farming industry?

The Government have helped the hardest-hit sections of the industry with £85 million of aid for the sheep and suckler sector and by absorbing £70 million of start-up costs. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might ponder the enormous overspend on BSE aid to renderers by the previous Conservative Administration. Some of that money could have gone to farmers.

May I bring my hon. Friend back to a point that I made in a recent debate about the damage done on the hills by overstocking? The only way for hill farmers to increase their income is by increasing the number of sheep and cattle on the land, which is doing serious damage. Is my hon. Friend considering ways of compensating those farmers to reduce the number of animals on the hills?

My hon. Friend is right that overstocking and overgrazing are serious problems in some hill areas. We need to address that as part of the structural changes and negotiations for Agenda 2000 and potential reform of hill livestock compensatory allowances.

Has the Minister seen the well-researched and well-documented evidence that appeared recently in Farmers' Weekly of the number of farming households that have to claim family credit, income support and other social security benefits? Is that not a sad indictment of the present plight of many in the farming community? Given that the Government have obstinately refused since last May to access the European funds that could be available, will the Minister take the opportunity to promise to set up an interdepartmental analysis of whether withholding that money, when set against the money being claimed from the Department of Social Security, will cost the British taxpayer—as well as the farmers, their families and their communities—more in the long term than help is received in the short term?

We are not withholding compensation. We have accessed nearly all the available resources for the beef and sheep sector. Farming incomes have been under pressure in the past year, but that agrimonetary compensation would not benefit the pig, horticultural or poultry sector. Some sections of the industry have had a difficult time, but others have successfully targeted their customers, broadened their customer base and diversified.

Does my hon. Friend appreciate the dismay of farmers in my constituency, who have seen farming incomes decline while a supermarket chain such as Tesco claims that it makes no money on selling meat? Will he join me in commending the investigation by the Welsh Affairs Committee and its recommendation that the matter should be referred to the Office of Fair Trading?

I accept that there is concern in the agricultural sector about certain aspects of the role of retailers. However, retailers have also played a positive role in developing markets and driving up standards.

The answers that the Minister has given so far on this serious issue of falling farm incomes—particularly in the light of the Government's failed inflation policy, which has now led to a sixth increase in interest rates—are nothing short of complacent. Does he accept that today's announcement on interest rates will increase borrowing costs for farmers and lead to further reductions in farm incomes? Will he come clean on whether he has sorted out the level of arable area payments and livestock payments in the agrimonetary arrangements—or is he content for another £400 million disappear from farming at the end of the year?

Surveys show that, because of three exceptionally good years of farm income, almost 50 per cent. of farmers have no borrowing with the banks. The right hon. Gentleman should also be aware that the UK taxpayer has to find 71p of every pound of agrimonetary compensation. I presume that that is why the Conservative Government voted against the setting up of the agrimonetary scheme.

If he will make a statement on the Agenda 2000 proposals on reforming the common agricultural policy. [42722]

The Commission's proposals broadly reflect the direction of reform that the Government have advocated, but, in some respects, they are insufficiently radical or discriminate against United Kingdom interests, and, therefore, need changing accordingly.

I thank my right hon. Friend for that rather optimistic answer. It is my understanding that the Agriculture Council is rather protectionist. Why has he been relatively successful and why has such progress been made? Is it to do with the Government's more thoughtful attitude to the single currency, as compared with that of the Conservative party?

My hon. Friend is right. We were able to secure unanimous agreement to interim conclusions on the consideration of Agenda 2000 at the Agriculture Council in May. Those conclusions will go to the Cardiff European summit later this month and be considered by the Heads of Government. The conclusions contain almost all the major points of emphasis from the United Kingdom point of view. My hon. Friend mentioned the Conservative party's position on the single currency: as it meanders aimlessly further to the right and further into a hopelessly anti-European stance, that party abandons not only the interests of the United Kingdom in general but of farmers in particular.

If, as part of reform of the common agricultural policy, the Government return to some efficiency payment system, will they ensure that they do so on a national basis so that we support British farmers and not farmers in foreign countries?

If the hon. Gentleman is really asking whether we will oppose proposals that may take financial support from British farmers and reallocate them to the benefit of farmers in other European member states, the answer is yes, we oppose any such proposal.

If he will make a statement on progress of the cattle traceability scheme. [42723]

We are making good progress in implementing the cattle tracing system, and we are on course to launch it and go live on Monday 28 September.

I thank my hon. Friend for that information; progress in setting up the British cattle movement service is most welcome. Will he assure the House that reports that the system will be so bureaucratic as to require farmers to register the twice-daily movement of cows to the milking parlour are completely false?

The answer to my hon. Friend's question is yes. Reports in one of the Sunday newspapers last week were wholly inaccurate; farmers will not be required to record those daily movements. The cattle movement service is, I admit, a complex operation, but we are very confident that we will be able to make it work and track the estimated 20 million cattle movements a year. That figure compares to, say, the 16 million Visa cards in this country. We shall also issue 3 million cattle passports every year, which is double the number of new pension and child benefit books issued by the Department of Social Security.

Notwithstanding the Minister's statement in the House on 21 May, livestock producers in the west country are still unclear—as are we all—about what will happen to the over-30-months scheme once there is a date-based scheme. Surely the Minister of State understands that beef finishers need to know now whether they will be able to market animals in February next year which are reaching 30 months of age. They are already having to plan their food regimes for the summer and the autumn. Given the continued failure of the Minister to visit the west country to answer questions personally, will the Minister of State take this opportunity to answer them clearly and without equivocation?

I will do my best, although the hon. Gentleman's questions do not relate to the question on the Order Paper. The cattle-tracing system that will go live in September is not connected to the date-based scheme; the two are quite separate and must not be linked—otherwise, success of the date-based scheme will be more difficult to achieve. We have said repeatedly in the House that, for the foreseeable future, the over-30-months scheme will remain in operation. It will definitely remain in operation as long as the advice from the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee is such that it is required to be in operation.

If he will make a statement on the progress of the selective beef cull. [42725]

The selective cull is progressing very well. We have now slaughtered over 71,000 animals in the United Kingdom. The cull of animals in Northern Ireland is already complete.

That progress is good news, but does my hon. Friend agree that nothing better illustrates the 18 years of Tory misrule than the BSE scandal, and that, although the Tories have now walked away from it, the rest of the country will pay a heavy price for it in future?

My hon. Friend is right. The cost to the taxpayer of the selective cull—that is, of the 71,000 animals slaughtered so far—is more than £100 million. We have also slaughtered 2.25 million cattle under the over-30-months scheme, and 1.25 million calves under the calf processing aid scheme, otherwise known as the Herod scheme—all healthy animals—in addition to the 172,000 cattle identified as having BSE. It is a financial disaster.

Given the serious and sad nature of the scheme, does the Minister agree that it has been effectively carried out? Will he pay tribute to the work that is being done under the scheme, and will he also send a message of good will to the world congress of the Sussex Cattle Society, which opens next week at the Ardingly showground? Does he agree that Sussex cattle, like all the other native breeds, have a heroic place in British agriculture?

Yes, I am happy to do that. I am also happy to pay tribute to the work involved in the selective cull. It is extremely difficult and complex, as some Opposition Members will appreciate, simply because we are dealing with animals which, by definition, are several years old and will never enter the food chain—any of those that are not found, that is. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, farm records were not as good as they are now, but we estimate that we are on course for finishing the selective cull this autumn.

Will the Minister tell the House when he expects the National Audit Office report of its investigation into the costs of the cull to be published? Did he hear, on the "Today" programme just before the Whit recess, the former Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), admit that, without going out to tender, excess sums of public money had been spent on the cull, and that the large rendering companies and some large abattoirs had profited at the expense of farmers and small abattoirs? Can he confirm that that is the case, and can he tell us when the NAO report will be available?

Not only can I not confirm any of that, I cannot even comment on it. None of the papers that the NAO has looked at are available to my right hon. Friend or me; they date from the previous Administration. I do not know when the NAO will publish its report; that is not a matter on which it would consult the Government. However, we all await the report with great interest.

I welcome the fact that the cull is now complete in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister accept the thanks and appreciation of the farmers of Northern Ireland now that the beef ban has been lifted there? May I add that we also greatly appreciate the £2 million that has been given to help with marketing, to get the beef back into the foreign countries? Thank you very much.

I am happy to say, for once in a while, thank you for a thank you.

If he will introduce an audit of the volume of forms which need to be completed by farmers. [42727]

We already have systems in place to keep the number of forms that farmers need to complete to the minimum consistent with our obligations to observe legislative requirements and to safeguard health and public funds.

I thank the Minister for that answer, but I think farmers will find it rather complacent, especially as the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), admitted a week or two ago that farm incomes have fallen by 43 per cent. over the past year, and the increase in interest rates will mean a further drop in incomes as the green pound rises. What will the Minister actually do to reduce the burden of form filling by farmers who are already hard-pressed enough?

I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we have actually done: we have introduced changes that have so far saved the equivalent of £5.4 million in the reduction in time spent filling in forms. A further £1.1 million in savings is to be found in the coming year, by rationalising forms, pre-printing names and addresses, introducing bar codes and trying to minimise the costs and the burdens for farmers.

Am I right in believing that most of the forms that farmers fill in were introduced by the previous Administration? Does my hon. Friend agree that no one in the farming community minds filling in forms if they are for a purpose, which surely must be to help the small and medium farmers to make a good living? The more encouragement they receive to specialise in niche markets such as organic farming, the better, as that is the way forward.

My hon. Friend is right. It is also the case that most of the forms are related to European Union subsidy schemes.

Will the Minister now accept that farmers are not concerned only about more subsidy—or even any subsidy? More than anything else, they want to believe that they are being treated fairly in comparison with producers from all the other countries from which we import food. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the Ministry will set up a study to examine the application and enforcement of rules and regulations placed on British farmers and on farmers in the countries from which we import food, so that British producers can be sure that the hygiene, animal welfare, pesticide and other regulations that affect them are being applied elsewhere, and the British consumer can know that, if she buys imported food, it is being reared or produced to the same standards as apply in Britain?

It is important that European rules are applied equally and fairly across all member states. When the industry brings us complaints, we have on occasion asked it to provide information on what it regards as a deficiency in the uniformity of enforcement. The Government will not hesitate to take action in such matters. For example, under Britain's presidency, we have brought forward new measures in the Fisheries Council to improve cross-European enforcement to ensure that the same standards are applied in all member states and that there can be confidence in all countries.

What submissions did the Minister or his colleagues make on the new integrated administration and control system form and its ridiculous notion of having to remove outcrops from acreage, which is a rather time-consuming and stupid measure?

We have considered the IACS form, which is an example in which there has been some simplification, both in pre-printing and in the fact that we are not asking farmers to resubmit full details if there has been no change in the acreage. We are always willing to consider representations on future improvements and the structure of forms—we shall obviously be pleased to look at any such representations from the hon. Gentleman or from farming organisations.

What assessment he has made of the impact of the level of the pound on the ancillary services in agriculture. [42728]

We fully recognise and understand the concerns of those industries providing ancillary services in the agricultural sector about the recent level of the sterling exchange rate.

The chamber of commerce in Hereford and Worcester estimates that for every job in agriculture there are 15 in ancillary industries, so does the Minister accept that today's announcement of an increase in interest rates is a bitter blow not only for agriculture but for the wide range of industries that serve it?

There is no denying that an increase in interest rates is bad news for many sectors, particularly those involved in manufacturing and export. However, we should remember that an increase in inflation or a challenge to the strength and well-managed stewardship of the economy would be even worse news. The economy is being managed for the long term, not—as happened under the previous Administration—for the short term.

Will my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the dramatic fall in sterling since the successful launch of the euro—in stark contrast to the predictions of most Conservative Members—which has been welcomed across the whole of the agricultural industry? Does he agree that we can achieve a realistic and stable exchange rate only by being in the euro, which is why the National Farmers Union and now the Country Landowners Association support the Government's policy on the single currency?

It is true that there has been a welcome decline in the pound in recent months. In relation to Opposition Members' criticism, membership of the euro is one of the ways to stop the swings in currency exchanges which damage many sectors of industry, including agriculture. Unlike the Conservative party, we judge membership of the euro by only one criterion—whether it is in the best interests of our country and not whether or not it should be ruled out for purely ideological reasons.

When agriculture is doing well, the whole rural community is doing well—which is exactly the opposite of the present situation, as there has been a 43 per cent. drop in farming incomes. Is the Minister aware of the problems facing agricultural ancillary industries—the feed merchants, the markets, the machinery merchants and the haulage industry, to name a few? What does he propose to do about them?

First, it should be remembered that two thirds of the rise in the level of the pound took place under the previous Government. Secondly, agriculture and ancillary industries have been hit—no one is denying that. However, it is worth pointing out that rural unemployment has fallen by 4 per cent. in the past year.

Does my hon. Friend recall that interest rates were nearly 15 per cent. under the Tories? Does he also recall that when he and I spoke from the Opposition Front Bench on agriculture in the early 1990s, we saw a steady stream of farmers complaining about very high interest rates under the Tories—rates which are double those of today?

I do recall that, and I am confident that the management of the economy under the Government is in the best long-term interests of agriculture and industry in general.

If he will review the ban on the sale of beef on the bone. [42729]

The Beef Bones Regulations 1997 are being kept under review, as is the case with all BSE-related control measures. Any future decision will be taken in the light of scientific developments and progress with the eradication of BSE.

Does the Minister not think it rather odd that in Northern Ireland beef can now be exported, but beef on the bone cannot be eaten?

It is not odd at all because it cannot be exported on the bone.

Could there be a generous word to mine host at Carfraemill and the sheriff who so dramatically acquitted him?

Since the case to which my hon. Friend refers is sub judice and the subject of an appeal, I shall not comment one way or the other.

If, however, the law is found to be defective in Scotland, can the Minister guarantee that any English prosecutions will be withdrawn?

No, because the law in Scotland does not affect the law in England, and this case has no relevance to England.

What steps he is taking to prevent the use of low-level antibiotics in animal feed as a prophylactic. [42730]

Low-level antibiotics are simply not authorised for prophylactic or preventive use in animal feeds. However, certain low-level antibiotics are authorised as growth promoters, but only under the terms of EC directive 70/524.

The Government moved swiftly last month on the Agriculture Committee's recommendations of 22 April. However, we are very close to witnessing some kind of biological Armageddon—and that is not overstating the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come off it."] Well, perhaps it is overstating the issue. But, seriously, what can we do to persuade farmers to return to more traditional methods of animal husbandry? People are sick to death of all the food scares, of the fact that we seem to have been poisoned year after year and of the fact that farmers are congenitally incapable of producing food that is safe to eat.

For the record, the Government did not move quickly after receiving the Agriculture Committee's report. We are still considering our response. A week earlier, the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology reported on antibiotics for human beings and included a chapter on animals. That will also be carefully considered.

We are taking a range of measures to encourage farmers to produce food without lots of chemicals. We have a rigorous surveillance programme for pesticide and veterinary medicine residues. We shall publish brand names when people exceed limits in future and we are giving more aid to organic farmers.

Will the Minister accept from me, as someone who perhaps has a slightly longer memory of farming practices than the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), that there were no good old days of animal husbandry before some of today's wonderful medicines were developed? The matter of concern is not medicines, but how they are used. If today's agriculture did not have access to a range of antibiotics and other medicines developed by the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, the standard of animal welfare would not be the highest in the world, which it is. Will the Minister ensure that all farmers are given sufficient guidance to ensure that medicines are not inappropriately used and that there are no high residues in food to cause unnecessary concern?

I am happy to pay tribute to the work of the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge, which is a world-class organisation. Last year, it examined 34,000 samples of residues in meat, fish and honey. Only 0.01 per cent. of samples proved to be over the limit, which is a tiny proportion. In future, we will even publish brand names. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right that there never was a golden age, and it is a mistake to assume that there was.

The Minister will be aware of the House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee's report on antibiotic resistance and of the alarming rise in methicillin-resistant staphylococcus aureus caused by it. The agriculture industry has rarely taken responsibility for that, but it is an urgent problem. Should not the Food Standards Agency, which is responsible to the Department of Health, investigate that problem in detail?

Yes, except that the Food Standards Agency will not be up and running until the second half of next year—and we are not waiting for that. The independent Veterinary Products Committee, which advises the Government, is to hold on 18 June a meeting on antibiotics in animal feedstuffs, and we await a report later this year from a sub-committee of the Advisory Committee on the Microbiological Safety of Food.

What steps he is taking to ensure that the revised common agricultural policy takes account of the opportunities for novel crops. [42731]

In recent Brussels discussions, the Government have argued that the common agricultural policy should take full account of the opportunities for novel crops, which we strongly support.

Will the Minister bear in mind the importance of ensuring that novel crops for foods and animal feeds are treated equally by CAP regimes and are not discriminated against if they have agronomic or technical advantages? Will he also bear in mind the importance of new developments in biomass production and non-food crops, which can benefit farmers with difficult land and which may increase farm incomes and help to reduce global warming?

I accept those points. The first biomass power station will open shortly and will encourage development of the crop involved. How the CAP treats crops is a serious point as, under the existing regime, there is a penalty for farmers who want to develop novel crops. We want that to be rectified.

May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to this week's report from the first citizens panel on food and biotechnology, which was horrified that new crops had been introduced without the Government doing anything to stop them? When considering CAP reform, will my hon. Friend put sustainability at the heart of agriculture policy, particularly for genetically modified food?

Yes. Two issues are involved first, novel crops, such as biomass, which are generally welcomed, and, secondly, genetically modified organisms. It is important that any crop of that sort is exposed to the proper procedures. We are ensuring that that happens and that there is proper scientific evaluation of any such crop.

Does the Minister agree that the Central Science Laboratory has a role to play in developing novel crops? Will he make a statement on the laboratory's future and, in particular, where it will be located?

That announcement has been made by my right hon. Friend the Minister.

What steps are being taken to prevent the spread of the Varroa Jacobsoni mite into British bee colonies. [42732]

A statutory infected area was declared in 1992 to control the spread of varroosis. Movements in and out of the affected area are possible only under licence and imports of bees from third countries are restricted.

I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does he also recognise that the licensing of only one treatment for varroa—Bayverol—is likely to lead to immunity gathering in the mites that spread it? If that happens, the bee population of Britain could decline sharply, with serious repercussions for food growing and agriculture. Will he consider licensing at least two treatments so that they can be used alternately, therefore avoiding immunity gathering and reducing the threat of a serious plague in the bee population of the British isles?

My hon. Friend refers to the bee population. I can inform the House that I had no idea about its size. Every hon. Member has beekeepers in their constituency, I think, to judge from the amount of representation that has been made on the matter. The population is actually 10 billion, and it produces some 4,000 tonnes of honey. My hon. Friend raises an important point. In many ways, we are governed by our membership of the European Union. Authorising veterinary products simply cannot be done on the nod by one state alone. I am well aware that some beekeepers use other preparations. By and large, as long as they do not end up as residues in the food, they are acceptable. Nevertheless, we are seeking information about some of them.

The Minister came close to admitting that the reason for one product being used is some Eurocrat's recent definition of bees as food-producing animals. Will he now admit that that is unfair European interference in the traditional British way of life and will he make representations to the European Union to turn round that definition and, by that means, allow British beekeepers to return to using tar and icing sugar, which are perfectly good ways to deal with Varroa Jacobsoni?

The Department spends a considerable amount of money to ensure that we have a viable United Kingdom honey programme.

What steps he has taken to inform other EU Agriculture Ministers of progress on British cattle tracing systems. [42733]

I demonstrated the cattle tracing system to other EU Agriculture Ministers during the informal Agriculture Council in Newcastle upon Tyne on 11 May. I am glad to report to the House that they were impressed.

I note that the informal Council of Agriculture Ministers took place in Newcastle upon Tyne and believe that it has been reported as being highly successful. My right hon. Friend has to be congratulated on that. I am also aware that he dedicated a large part of that event to demonstrating the traceability of British cattle from birth to supermarket shelf. Does he agree that that shows that British beef is safe to export anywhere in the world?

Yes, it does. My hon. Friend is right to emphasise that, as I did again yesterday when addressing the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament.

The right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors have told EU Agriculture Ministers in the past what we were doing to eradicate BSE. Did he get assurances from his European Union colleagues that once the traceability system and the other measures that have been taken are working, they will immediately allow us to export British beef?

I understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to be constructive, but the answer is no, because having the Workington centre operational is not a condition for lifting the ban. We expect a proposal from the Commission before the operational date of 28 September.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that consumers have adequate labelling and information on genetically modified foods. [42734]

European Community regulations require all foods containing genetically modified materials to be clearly labelled. In addition, we have taken a number of initiatives to ensure that consumers have information about these types of food.

I thank the Minister for that response. I understand that there are already several controls in place. Can he assure me that they are strictly monitored and updated in the light of new technology?

Yes. None of the crops involving genetic modification can be planted unless they are approved by the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, which reports to the Department of the Environment, not to the Ministry of Agriculture. On food production, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes has to examine and license every product that comes on to the market. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said earlier, we have taken steps with our European partners in the past few days to ensure that labelling will be more precise than ever contemplated by our predecessors.

What guidelines he has given to HM Customs and Excise as to when they should seek his consent before initiating a prosecution. [42751]

The circumstances in which Her Majesty's Customs and Excise is required to seek my consent before initiating prosecutions are prescribed by the statutes that create the offences. I also exercise superintendence over prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanction breaches on a non-statutory basis. A paper outlining those arrangements was placed in the Library by my predecessor on 17 June 1996.

I am grateful to the Attorney-General. I understand that, in Scotland, Customs and Excise cases are run under the aegis of the Lord Advocate. Has the Attorney-General considered that such cases in England and Wales should be run under his aegis?

As Attorney-General for England and Wales, my responsibility is confined to England and Wales. I have another responsibility as regards Northern Ireland. That is the extent of my responsibilities.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend explain the circumstances in which his non-statutory supervision of Customs and Excise comes into effect and how it works in practice?

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Under the supervision arrangements, I am answerable to the House for action taken by Customs and Excise on individual prosecutions relating to defence exports and sanction infringements, other than those involving strict liability. Treasury Ministers continue to be answerable for general enforcement and prosecution policy, and remain responsible for investigation of such offences. Under the arrangements for consultation, the Commissioners of Customs and Excise will consult me in all prosecutions of defence export offences where intention is an ingredient of the offence and will keep me generally informed of activity in this area. I am also consulted by the commissioners on any proposals to change prosecuting policy. That may meet some of the fears of the hon. Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett).

Can the Attorney-General help me resolve a case involving two constituents of mine, whose son was tragically killed in a collision with a vehicle driven by a Customs and Excise driver who, I understand, was involved in a high-speed chase during an investigation? Because of complications under the Fatal Accidents Act 1976, the fatal accident inquiry has been delayed and the case has not reached a conclusion. Can he use his good offices to expedite its conclusion?

If the hon. Lady gives me the name and the details, I shall forward them to the appropriate agency.

What steps he is taking to ensure that the Crown Prosecution Service adopts common standards across England and Wales. [42753]

The CPS issues guidance to staff to facilitate the consistent application of national standards on prosecution decisions, the consistent application of charging standards agreed with the police and agreed standards for victim and witness care.

Why is it that in some parts of England and Wales prosecutions take place that criminalise children who have been caught soliciting, and children exploited in that way are given a criminal record, whereas in other parts of the country the CPS and the police do not take any action, but do what they should do and go for the evil people who manipulate those children?

My hon. Friend has a long-standing interest in home affairs generally and in this issue in particular, which he has raised in the House from time to time. I appreciate his continued concern.

I should explain that prostitution is not in itself a criminal offence; loitering or soliciting for the purposes of prostitution is a criminal offence. The overriding principle in cases involving young people is that they should be protected from harm. In such cases, the public interest may require the prosecution of a young person who persistently and voluntarily returns to prostitution; but each case is considered on its merits. If there is any particular divergence apart from that, or if my hon. Friend draws my attention to a particular case, I shall refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Attorney-General will know that the Glidewell report on the CPS referred to the widespread, but inaccurate, perception throughout England and Wales that the CPS constantly downgrades criminal charges and it said that a further study is required, but the CPS has already had to cope with a year's uncertainty waiting for the report. What does the right hon. and learned Gentleman intend to do about that recommendation and how much would a further study cost?

As the hon. and learned Gentleman, whom I welcome to the Opposition Front Bench in his new capacity, knows, the Government have accepted the broad thrust of Glidewell, which contains 75 recommendations in all. Unhappily, the CPS and Court Service statistics and, in some instances, the Home Office statistics, do not correlate, so further work is needed to get the basis of concern right. Sir Iain and his colleagues expressed concern and advocated further study.

Sir Iain noted that there were variations in discontinuances as between different offences. The Government as a whole, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and I must consider how we approach the matter. We have invited anyone concerned to make representations by 31 July and I invite the hon. and learned Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) to do so. We shall take all the representations into account when determining the best means of proceeding, because there is a great deal of concern about the matter.

Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell me whether, as part of the reorganisation following the Glidewell report, it will be possible for judges who are concerned about particular aspects of cases that come before them automatically to have the right to report that information, over the head of the CPS, to Ministers?

The appointment of judges is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor and I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to his attention. Judges have always been forthright in bringing into the public domain their criticism and concern about cases, from the highest to the lowest.

What percentage of cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police resulted in (a) prosecutions and (b) convictions in the last year. [42754]

During the year ending March 1998, the Crown Prosecution Service dealt with cases in respect of 1,354,208 defendants in the magistrates courts. It proceeded with 1,097,147 of those cases, amounting to 81 per cent. of the total. Convictions for the same period totalled 953,753 defendants, representing 98.1 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing.

In the Crown court, proceedings were completed in respect of 105,083 defendants, of which 95,721 were proceeded with. That amounts to 91.1 per cent. of the total cases. In the Crown court, 87,273 convictions were recorded, representing 90.6 per cent. of all cases proceeding to a hearing.

I thank the Attorney-General for that detailed reply. Does he accept that there is concern among beat officers in the Staffordshire police and, I know, in other forces throughout the country that those high conviction rates—98.1 per cent. and 91.1 per cent., representing an average of over 90 per cent.—could be leading the Crown Prosecution Service to continue with prosecution only if it thinks that there is a high possibility of conviction? Is he aware that many beat officers who suffer assaults, albeit minor ones, feel that their cases are not proceeding to court simply because the CPS wants to maintain a high conviction average, rather than ensure that justice is done? Will the Glidewell report improve the situation for those police officers?

There is concern and, over the years, my postbag has, like the hon. Gentleman's, contained correspondence about the concerns of victims, families and the police. I have given the House general figures, which include the high number of uncontested cases. For contested cases, in the year ending March 1998, convictions were recorded in 74.5 per cent. of contested hearings in magistrates courts and 59.8 per cent. of contested hearings in the Crown court. The hon. Gentleman may want to reflect on that, because those are the figures with which we should be particularly concerned.

It was not clear whether the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was referring directly to discontinuances; perhaps I might ask my right hon. and learned Friend about what the Glidewell report says about discontinuances. Is he alarmed that in the past separate statistics for discontinuances have not been kept and that there has been no significant analysis of regional variations in discontinuation rates? Should not the public be reassured that cases that should be prosecuted are prosecuted and that those that should not are never even started?

Sir Iain Glidewell and his team were very disappointed that they were not able to reach conclusions about that because of the problem of the variety of statistics, to which I referred earlier. Obviously, my hon. Friend will examine the details in the report, as will the House. On discontinuances, the report noted that there was a variation between offences. For some offences involving violence against the person, there was a higher rate of discontinuance than for offences such as motoring offences. That variation caused concern, and the team reflected on the matter and suggested that there should be a further study, as the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) mentioned, and that in cases of doubt and difficulty a second opinion should be obtained within the prosecuting authority.

Does the Attorney-General agree that the percentage of convictions in contested cases in the Crown court could and should be improved by simple measures? First, there should be higher salaries for CPS lawyers. Secondly, and most important, there should be less form filling and paperwork for those involved in the service. Thirdly, wherever possible, the CPS headquarters should be near the courts where the service operates.

I know of the hon. Gentleman's experience, both judicially and in practice. What will help is a better interface between the CPS and the police, and Sir Iain makes detailed suggestions about the best way to integrate the two. The Home Secretary and I must study them carefully. The views of the Association of Chief Police Officers and the police will be very important in that respect. They have said that they welcome the move to the 42 areas, in which there will be a chief Crown prosecutor who will be akin to the chief constable. I very much appreciate their reaction.

On form filling, Sir Iain found that there was over-centralisation, undue bureaucracy and insufficient autonomy to the chief Crown prosecutors. I hope that, with the appointment of a chief Crown prosecutor in each area, and with real devolution and a slimming down of headquarters, we can achieve what the hon. Gentleman and I agree is necessary.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The Bill is designed to improve the fairness of our democratic process. Before I deal with the detail, as this is the first occasion on which the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) will respond to a debate in his new place on the Opposition Front Bench, I congratulate him on his further elevation to the esteemed position of shadow Home Secretary. The right hon. Gentleman and I have debated issues several times, although perhaps less often than one might have thought, given the time that we have both spent in the House. I look forward to the future, in which we shall have that opportunity in greater measure.

The Bill will help to prevent the use of misleading candidates' descriptions on ballot papers at elections, thus helping to protect the identity of political parties and, therefore, the integrity of the political process. In addition, the Bill will allow, for the first time, a registered party's emblem to be printed on the ballot paper as a way of helping to distinguish as clearly as possible between candidates from different parties.

The Bill introduces no criminal sanctions against non-registration. It does not make the registration of political parties compulsory, but it creates strong incentives for them to register. Any serious party that intends to put forward candidates at an election would be well advised to register so as to be allowed to do the following four things, which otherwise would not be permitted under the Bill.

First, a party will be able to protect its name from misuse by others. Secondly, it will be able to put forward lists of candidates for the additional member system for election to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly, and, within Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland, for the regional list system of election to the European Parliament. We have had many fascinating debates on that system, and I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield has missed them.

In view of the Conservative party's new-found attachment to the algebra and algorithms of electoral processes, I shall send him a full briefing from the Home Office on the difference between the D'Hondt divisors, Sainte-Lague pure and Sainte-Lague modified. He may then wish that he had taken on a different job.

I bet you do.

No, not at all.

The third incentive for parties to register is an important new one—so that a party's emblem can be printed alongside a candidate's name on the ballot paper. I find it relatively easy to vote for the appropriate Labour candidate in parliamentary elections, because, for the last five elections, that has been me, so I have no difficulty spotting the name. However, when faced with a long list in the three-member local government ward in which I live, I have wished for emblems so that I could immediately spot the names of the excellent Labour candidates alongside them.

Fourthly, the Bill will ensure that only those parties that are registered will be eligible, but not entitled, to be offered a party political broadcast—unregistered political parties will not be allowed that benefit.

Any organisation, large or small, will be able to register. The way in which a party is organized—or, as I should say to the Conservative party, whether it is organized—how it selects its candidates and its aims and objectives will remain for each party to determine individually in accordance with its rules or constitution.

The key condition for inclusion in the register is that a party intends to put forward one or more candidates at a relevant election. If hon. Members turn to clause 2(2)—as I am sure that they have in preparation for the debate—they will see set out the relevant elections for these purposes, which include parliamentary and local government elections, and elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, the New Northern Ireland Assembly and the European Parliament.

What will happen if a registered party does not put up candidates for an election?

Nothing, except that the party will have wasted the registration fee, as no benefits from registration could apply unless the party has put forward candidates at an election. Parties may want to register and then not put forward candidates, but we shall certainly not make that a criminal offence—"tough on crime" does not include such behaviour.

We need a register of parties to cope with lists of candidates representing the same party that will be put forward for the additional member seats in the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and in the regional list seats in the European Parliament. As the House knows, those seats will be allocated on the basis of each party's share of the votes in the region. For the system to work fairly, there has to be a simple and effective arrangement to ensure that the voters and the returning officers are clear which list of candidates is being put forward by each party.

Apart from the other mischief with which we want to deal, the Bill's main purpose is to cope with the additional member and regional list systems, whatever their merits—I accept that they are controversial—which require a register of political parties. The Bill spells out the details of the registration scheme required for the new electoral systems, as requested by Opposition Members during the debates on the Scotland, Government of Wales and European Parliamentary Election Bills.

This Bill follows extensive consultation with Opposition parties, so I hope that, although there may be many points to be made in Committee, it will receive support from both sides of the House. I have raised the issues with spokespeople for the other political parties in the House—last summer, in the case of the main political parties. I wrote formally to the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Scottish National parties and Plaid Cymru on 18 February and again on 23 April, setting out the plans for registration and giving them an opportunity to comment both orally and in writing. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has kept the Northern Ireland political parties informed of our proposals on registration.

Under the Bill, if one does not register, one does not qualify for a political broadcast. Does that mean that if Sinn Fein does not register as a British political party—giving its name also in English—it will not qualify for a political broadcast in Northern Ireland?

The final clause—clause 26—makes it clear that the Bill extends to Northern Ireland; it applies without exception to every political party putting forward candidates anywhere in the United Kingdom. Paragraph 2 of schedule 1, which deals with the names of parties, requires that, whenever a language other than English or Welsh is used, a party should give a translation of its name. There is not a requirement for the translation to be shown on the ballot paper. The registrar simply needs to know what the words mean. That will not apply to Sinn Fein—the phrase has been used in common parlance for as long as the party has been in existence. Everybody knows what it means.

These days, we are a multicultural, multi-ethnic society. Many of my constituents have a first language that is not English, but Gujarati, Urdu or Punjabi. There are similar groups across the country. If they put forward a name, it is important that there is a translation attached in English so that the returning officer can make a judgment on whether the name is consistent with the criteria in the Bill.

I want to make it clear that the requirements on the translation being given in English have nothing to do with Ireland, because all the names there are well known. They were much more concerned with languages used by minority groups in Great Britain. In some languages, the same word may have different meanings—that is also true in English—and it is important that we know which meaning is being used.

My right hon. Friend mentioned that he had written to Plaid Cymru, which recently decided on a—quite accurate—translation of its name as "the party of Wales". Clause 3(1)(a) refers to a name

"likely to result in the party's being confused by voters with a party which is already registered".

The party of Wales is the Labour party. We have 34 of the 40 Members of Parliament, yet Plaid Cymru chooses—

Order. This is a very long intervention.

I shall try to be brief. Is clause 3(1)(a) relevant to this misleading translation?

Under paragraph 2(2) of schedule 1, there is no requirement for a translation when the name is in Welsh. We do not need to argue what Plaid Cymru means—it means what it says in Welsh. Those of us whose knowledge of Welsh extends to a few words, and who do not presume to get involved in Welsh politics, will not require a translation. Welsh is separately identified in the schedule because Welsh is a separate statutory language under the Welsh Language Act 1967.

There are other languages in common use in other parts of the UK, including Gaelic and a number of languages from south Asia. Some might say that more people use Urdu every day than use Welsh. I could not possibly offer a view, but that is not the point. The point is that Welsh is the only language with statutory status, apart from English.

Would the same rules apply to Mebyon Kernow in Cornwall?

No. I respect the fact that there is a vibrant Cornish language, but Cornish is not statutorily provided for; Welsh is. If someone wishes to register a name in Cornish, he or she would need to provide the registrar with a translation of the name. The words used on the ballot paper will be the Cornish words, provided they are in Roman script. However, the registration officer might not be versed in Cornish—or Welsh, Scots Gaelic or Irish Gaelic—and will need a translation in English so that he can check the name against the others being used, and against the prohibitions in respect of obscenity, for example. A party supporting Cornish nationalism, or a Gaelic language party, can stand not only in Cornwall or Gaelic-speaking parts of Scotland. They can stand where they like in the United Kingdom. It does not automatically follow that if a Cornish nationalist wants to stand in, say, Scunthorpe, the registration officer will know Cornish all that well.

The Home Secretary has revealed a wide flaw in the Bill. There are bound to be differences of opinion over what constitutes a rightful name for a political party. The Bill has no provision for third party involvement in making representations or appeals against registration.

The scheme is similar to that for the registration of company names, although it is not the same. It makes use of the registrar of companies, which has had decades of experience of dealing with similar names and people trying to pass off one name against another. The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) seems to have volunteered to serve on the Standing Committee, which will surely come as a great relief to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield. There are many ways to pick through the Bill, saying, "What if this, or that." The ingenuity of people who are interested in British politics knows no bounds. However, I suspect that, in practice, the difficulties will not be as great as the hon. Gentleman expects.

Before the Home Secretary leaves that point—I am not quite sure what it was—will he touch on a matter of interest to Members on both sides, which is the number of candidates at the last election, and in recent years, who have been guilty of passing off? They have called themselves Conversatives or Literal Democrats in a deliberate attempt to mislead the electorate. I welcome the thrust of the Bill, but will the Home Secretary explain whether it will assist in the striking out of that sort of candidate? Returning officers have powers now, but do not often use them. In my constituency, at the last election, a man—

Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.

The Bill deals directly with misleading descriptions of parties. If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain the provisions in detail.

The Home Secretary referred to the fact that some languages, particularly south Asian languages, have different meanings for the same word. Although the Bill requires an English translation to be published, it does not appear to provide for which English translation that should be. Do the Government intend to make sure that an appropriate and accurate representation of the meaning of names is given?

South Asian languages are not alone in having words of the same spelling and different meanings. Invalid and invalid is one example. When people move on from the usual Christmas parlour game of naming 10 famous Belgians—I can help the House with the first name: Victor d'Hondt—they can move on to lists of homophones, homonyms and homographs, with which we have whiled away many a happy hour in my household.

As the House knows, we originally intended to use the Bill to introduce regulations on funding of political parties, as I said last October. At the request of Lord Neill of Bladen, the chairman of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, those provisions have not been included in the Bill. His committee is in the middle of an inquiry on the wider funding of political parties, so I agreed with him that it would be wrong to pre-empt its conclusions. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I am glad to hear that that has the approbation of Opposition Front-Bench Members.

As was spelt out in our manifesto, the Government remain committed to requiring details of all donations to political parties above a set figure to be published and to introducing a ban on the foreign funding of political parties. Therefore, we remain committed to legislation in that area, but will bring forward our proposals only in the light of the Neill committee's recommendations.

On further and wider legislation, is it also the Government's view that we need to bring all aspects of the conduct of elections, including funding, together under some sort of electoral commission, as is often proposed outside the House? The Bill will clean up particular problems, but are we finally moving in the direction of such a commission to pull it all together?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), is chairing a working party that includes representatives of all the main political parties and their organisation departments, to look into electoral practice. For many years, an electoral commission has been proposed, which could merge the work of the two boundary commissions—parliamentary and local government—with some of the work currently undertaken by the Home Office. I understand the arguments in favour of such an electoral commission and we are certainly open to argument about such an idea, but we have no proposals to put before the House for the moment.

The Bill provides for the register of political parties to be maintained by the existing Registrar of Companies for England and Wales based at Companies House in Cardiff. I am sure that the House will agree that it is much better to base the register on an existing tried and tested organisation, which is used to providing a highly efficient service both to companies needing to register and to members of the public seeking information from the register.

The register of political parties will be quite separate from the companies register and much smaller. More than 1 million companies are registered at Companies House, whereas we expect that no more than 100 or so parties will seek to register, although that, of course, is a matter for the parties that choose to do so and it is only our guess.

The expertise of Companies House staff in providing public access to the register and deciding whether a company may use a particular name will prove invaluable and the Government believe that it is right, therefore, to have a single register of political parties for the whole of the United Kingdom.

Before a party can be registered, the registrar will need to make sure that its name is not likely to be confused with a name that is already registered. That would mean, for example, that if the "Conservative Party" were to be registered, the registrar could refuse to allow another party to register the name the "Tory Party", in case it was confused with the party led by the Leader of the Opposition.

Under the Bill, the name of a registered party will have to be six words or fewer, to ensure that it meets the existing rules governing the candidate's description for nomination and ballot papers. The Bill provides that the party's name should not be obscene or offensive and must not include words that would be unlawful, in the sense, for example, of an incitement to racial hatred.

The Bill also contains an order-making power in clause 3(1)(f) to allow any word or expression to be prohibited. In case hon. Members are worried about that, I should explain that it is there to prevent certain words, such as "Royal", from being used in the title of a party. It will also help ensure that certain generic words or phrases, such as "Independent" or "Residents Association" are not registered by a single party so as to prevent their being used widely by individual candidates. It would be possible to use that power to require any party wishing to use such a term to qualify it with a geographical area, for example—choosing one entirely at random—the "Blackburn Residents Association Party", or the "Revidge Independents". That is the ward in which I live in Blackburn.

Clause 9 requires each party to provide the names of two "responsible officers" as the "registered leader" and "registered nominating officer", who, together, will be responsible for authorising any change to the registered details of the party. In addition, the nominating officer is to be responsible for authorising use of the party's name by candidates at elections, either directly or by someone acting on his or her behalf.

To keep the register up to date, parties will have to confirm their registration annually. There will need to be a fee, set by regulations, both for initial registration and for the annual confirmation of registration. Although the exact amount has yet to be determined, we think that it will be about £100 for initial registration. That is not likely to be onerous, even for the Conservative party. Parties will be able to register an emblem.

Would the £100 figure apply to a local council candidate standing for, say, the Redbridge residents association?

Yes, but only if he or she decides to register. There is no requirement to register. If such people decided to register, they would have to pay a fee, but I do not think that it is onerous.

As I understand it, there is nothing to stop a local man standing in a general election as a Local Conservative or Loyal Conservative, even though he would be misleading the electorate into thinking that he is the official Conservative candidate. The Bill does not deal with that, so he could stand—just as at present. Are the Government thinking of adding something to help in those circumstances?

The Bill provides for precisely that. In paragraph 2 of schedule 2, we have reworded rule 6 of the election rules. Rule 6A states:

"A nomination paper may not include a description of a candidate which is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with a registered political party unless the description is authorised by a certificate—

• (a) issued by or on behalf of the registered nominating officer of the party, and
• (b) received by the returning officer during the period for delivery of nomination papers set out … in rule 1."

If a party's description is registered, a non-registered party cannot use a name that seeks, or is likely, to mislead voters about the identity of a party. We anticipate that the use of names such as Literal Democrat or Conversative or Conservatory party, all of which have been tried, or, just possibly, New Labour will not be permitted for a non-registered party.

As I read it, rule 6A merely clarifies something that was not too clear, while leaving the onus on the returning officer during a general election to make a decision. If he decides against someone, that person would have go to the High Court, and the whole thing would become so extended that the general election would be over. Is there any new procedure whereby the returning officer would not have to go down that track if someone does not agree with his finding that a new or alternative name is not misleading?

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for a long time, I do not believe that he has quite followed the true meaning of the provision.

Quite likely.

It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to say that. He has not followed the true meaning of the reworked rule 6A. It is possible, in extremis, for electors to challenge a decision of the returning officer and to seek judicial review of decisions. That is important for any person exercising such a key function in our democracy. Returning officers carry out their jobs to a high standard of integrity and professionalism, but there are sometimes controversial decisions. It is important that there should be a safety valve of supervision by the courts, which will examine only the reasonableness of a returning officer's decision. They will consider whether the Wednesbury test applies: that is, whether the decision is manifestly unreasonable, rather than considering its positively reasonableness.

The Bill does not deal directly with the issue of misleading candidates' names. It is a matter of record that, at the last general election, the courts showed themselves ready to grant injunctions to prevent that sort of passing off. That was the case in respect of the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) and of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon). The right hon. and learned Gentleman was faced with a candidate who had adopted the name "Sir Nicholas Lyell" and, in the same vein, my hon. Friend was faced with a candidate calling herself "Alice Mahon". [HON. MEMBERS: "Himself."] As I recall, there is provenance for men calling themselves Alice, but that is a very different point. We believe that there are remedies already available in law to deal with such cases.

Having lived through such an experience twice in the past 12 months, I know that one of the difficulties is the period of time in which one is allowed to challenge these processes. What the Home Secretary suggests is fine, but what is not fine is the period of time in which the controls can be put in place. Has he any plans to extend that period from the current rather hurried 24 hours and so ensure that proper legal process can take place?

The process of registering will take place in a relatively relaxed period, as any sensible political party—which category will, in my judgment, include all those that are currently represented in the House—will register at the first opportunity after the Bill becomes law. Once that happens, Liberal Democrats will be protected from, for example, people trying to apply the description "Literal Democrat", which produced a quite undemocratic result in an election during the 1994 European elections; and the Conservative party will be protected from the twist of using the words "conservatory" or "conversative", which has also caught out electors and tricked them into voting for one candidate when they wanted to vote for another.

No one should underestimate the huge difference that the use of emblems on ballot papers will make. The Bill will ensure that, for the first time, emblems will be included on ballot papers. There is an illustration in the appendix on page 10 of the Bill. Only parties that are registered and have registered their emblem as a trademark, as it were, will be able to use that emblem. Given that party emblems are so widely known these days, that in itself will provide a major protection.

In order to ensure the smooth introduction of the register, there will be two transitional registration phases, each lasting six weeks. The first phase will apply to all parties that have at least one Member of the House of Commons. The second phase will apply to any other party, but will require the registrar to defer any registration until the end of the period, so that he can consider any competing claims for the same or similar party names or emblems. In making a decision at the end of the second phase, the registrar will be able to take account of the history of parties with competing claims.

In making decisions on similar names, the registrar will need to ensure that voters are not likely to be confused. In case of doubt, clause 10 allows the registrar, before deciding an application, to seek advice from a Committee of Members of the House of Commons, appointed for that purpose by the Speaker. We thought long and hard about how we could best ensure that the registrar would not be left in the awkward position of having to make a judgment in an area where his expertise currently does not lie. We decided that the best approach was for him to be advised by a Committee of the House appointed by Madam Speaker.

We initially took into account the remote possibility of the advice from the Speaker's Committee being unclear, confusing or contradictory. Therefore, clause 10(2) provides that if the registrar disagrees with the advice of the Committee, he must give the Committee his reasons in writing. However, there is no question but that the registrar will be expected to follow the Committee's advice.

I recognise that there is a degree of impertinence in expecting a Committee under Madam Speaker to make a decision but allowing for the possibility of that decision being overturned by the registrar. Having considered that question further in consultation with Madam Speaker, I now think that the most appropriate course would be for the registrar, in circumstances where he is unhappy with the advice received from the Committee, to go back to the Committee for further clarification, but then, in the final analysis, to follow its advice. Therefore, in my judgment, there is no need for the final part of clause 10, and I propose to table amendments on that point in Committee. Once the two transitional phases are complete, any application to register a new party will be considered simply on its merits.

Clause 14 deals with party political broadcasts. Once that provision comes into force, any party that is not registered will not be able to benefit from the opportunity of having a party political broadcast. That does not affect the existing arrangements for the allocation of party political broadcasts. In particular, it will not entitle registered parties to broadcasts, but will merely bring them into the group of parties that may be eligible.

Schedule 2, which we have already discussed at some length, amends the parliamentary election rules to enable returning officers to refuse a nomination with the name of a registered party, or with any description that is likely to lead voters to associate the candidate with that party, unless the nominating officer has authorised the use of the party's name. As I have explained—I hope to the satisfaction of the House—I believe that that will deal with the long-standing problem of misleading candidates' descriptions.

The Bill will return some of the sense and fairness to our democratic system by removing the anomaly of candidates who are able to exploit loopholes in the current electoral rules and who use such clearly misleading labels. The Bill may be a technical measure, but it is an important one. It introduces for the first time provisions allowing parties' names to be registered and party emblems to be shown on ballot papers and prevents misleading candidates' descriptions. I hope that the House will agree that the Bill is a positive step forward, and I commend it to the House.

Listening to the Home Secretary, it seems to me that, in some ways, we have regressed on the question of rules for elections. In the debate on proportional representation, the right hon. Gentleman mentioned a former Member of Parliament for my home town of Chelmsford in Essex, the late Sir Hubert Ashton. He reminded the House of Sir Hubert saying that his job was to represent Chelmsford at Westminster and not the other way around.

As the Home Secretary revealed, we are both Essex-educated men: I at the local grammar school; he, rather more grandly, at the posh public school down the road, but I do not hold that against him. He will know from those earlier days that, for many years, there was no description of party at all on the ballot paper. In Chelmsford, one voted for Ashton or for Millington—the Liberal candidate did not really count; nothing really changes in Chelmsford. In those days, when class sizes could be more than 40, let alone 30, the people were sufficiently politically aware to work out for whom they should vote: they had received the election address; they had seen the posters; they were capable of remembering the allegiances.

Now, with the Bill, the Government are introducing a system whereby not only will the party of the candidate be set out on the ballot paper, but symbols will be printed on it, so as to make even clearer the party position. In his press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that casting one's vote will become even "simpler" as a result of the Bill, but I am not sure whether the illustration on page 10 of the Bill proves his case. My feeling is that the net effect of the symbols is to make a more crowded and rather bizarre ballot paper that is more likely to confuse than to inform. I remain deeply sceptical as to whether that change is necessary.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that complexity arises out of the electoral changes that the Government either have already initiated, or have in prospect, which will make the whole business of voting and the ballot paper so much more complicated that we might require such symbols in order to find out where we stand?

My hon. Friend takes me, in an almost seamless flow, on to my next points.

We have moved on a long way from the 1947 committee report on electoral law reform, which said,

"we think the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause".

The Home Secretary set out some of the events that have led to confusion among the electorate and, at times, deliberate attempts to deceive them. That is the one good reason for supporting the Bill on Second Reading, and that is why we shall not be pressing for a Division.

There is no question but that confusion has been caused by candidates deliberately seeking to deceive and take advantage by getting on to the coat-tails of a well-recognised party or personality. I shall come to that later. The Bill is at least an intention to improve the position concerning the name of the party.

At the last general election, my former colleague Rod Richards, was opposed by a candidate who stood not only as Rod Richards, but for the so-called Conservatory party.

Although Rod Richards obtained an injunction on the misleading person or name, the candidate was still able to stand for the Conservatory party under his real name. There have been other well-known cases, including the case in the European elections in which a Literal Democrat stood. All parties have suffered as a result of those deceptions. I am on record as having sought a change in the position, which is why I give one cheer, at any rate, for the Bill and welcome its intention to prevent the confusion of the electorate.

However, we should be in no doubt about why the Bill is being introduced. It is not, first and foremost, to prevent the confusion that we have had in the past. The Home Office has seen many such problems. The Bill is being introduced because of the demands of proportional representation and, in particular, of a list system whereby parties, not candidates, are voted for. In the first sentence of the press release announcing the Bill, the Home Secretary said:

"A formal register of political parties is essential for the smooth operation of the proposed PR systems for the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the European Parliament."

The Bill has been introduced for the wrong reasons: to enable the introduction of a list system and an additional member system, which I and, I suspect, the Home Secretary find objectionable.

In Scotland, there will be 73 members elected by first past the post and 56 additional members. In Wales, there will 40 members elected by first past the post and 20 additional members. The additional members will be based on the old European constituencies, which will, in any event, disappear next year. We shall then have a new regional system of members without constituencies for the European elections. If ever there was an example of the Government making it up as they go along, it is this. The position may be bad enough already, but it would be worse if such a system were adopted for Westminster. On that point, I have hopes of making common cause with the Home Secretary.

Up to now, as the Home Secretary said, we have had a rather vicarious political relationship that dates back to the last time that I was in the shadow Cabinet. That was in Margaret Thatcher's first shadow Cabinet, when I was shadow Secretary of State for Social Services. I know that I do not look that old. The Minister opposite me was the then Barbara Castle, a left-wing, self-avowed socialist—all the words that today induce a collective wince on the Government Benches. The Secretary of State's special adviser at that time was none other than the left-wing, socialist gentleman who is now the Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw). Politically, they were so close that he inherited her seat.

The reason that I mention that—apart from being gratuitously offensive—is that in my first debate on pensions, which the Home Secretary may remember, the then Secretary of State, supported, I presume, by her adviser, hastened away from the Chamber for a press conference on the referendum on Europe. She, perhaps with the right hon. Gentleman's support, was passionately opposed to entry into the European Community. Never mind the single currency—they did not want to go into the Community at all.

Hear, hear.

I know that I am carrying at least one of my hon. Friends with me.

At that time, the Cabinet had decided that Ministers could campaign on either side of the question. As we look ahead, therefore, we know that with the right hon. Gentleman's experience and his influence in Cabinet, he will be able to persuade his colleagues that if there is to be a referendum on proportional representation, Government Ministers will be able to follow their conscience. I look forward to the Home Secretary campaigning with us on that issue in favour of first past the post. I have waited 25 years to be on the same side as the right hon. Gentleman, and that is the fairest offer that I can make him, although I see that his natural discretion keeps him very much in his seat at this point.

Irrespective of whether that referendum happens, there are basic questions to be asked about the Bill. The first arises straight from the additional member system that the Government are introducing and has been raised by Michael Dyer, a lecturer in the department of politics at Aberdeen university. He raises the question whether political parties that are likely to receive few additional members should not create or foster surrogate parties. He uses the example of Scotland at the last general election—not, I emphasise, the next election. On that basis, Labour would have had such a high number of first-past-the-post victories that it would receive no additional members, or almost none.

Mr. Dyer goes on to offer a number of solutions. One, which he calls "a greater prize", involves Labour forging a pact with another party and delivering its list vote to that party. That would leave that party heavily dependent on continued Labour good will, rendering it less likely to desert a Labour-dominated coalition in difficult times.

The point that relates directly to the Bill is a further example that involves Labour, or its voters, forming an understanding with a so-called Independent Labour party that had received no first-past-the-post votes. Mr. Dyer estimates that if all Labour voters supported the ILP list, no fewer than 35 of the 56 additional members would be elected and, of course, the majority would be overwhelming. Equally, the spirit and principle of the change would be utterly defeated.

The question is, what can be done to prevent such a situation from arising. I am aware of the assurance given by a Minister in another place, but the question is not simply what is the Government's intention or even what is the Labour party's intention. We are making law. Doubtless we could create other scenarios in which other parties took similar actions, but the question is how abuse can be prevented.

The second question is even more relevant. The 1947 committee said that

"the nomination paper should describe the candidate and not the cause",

but there have been well-known examples of attempts to deceive the electorate. I mentioned the case of Rod Richards, and the Home Secretary mentioned that of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), when Peter Rubery-Hayward decided to rechristen himself Sir Nicholas Lyell. As it happened, injunctions were granted on both occasions.

In the 1983 general election, there was the famous case of a man who changed his name by deed poll to Margaret Thatcher and declared the address of his flat to be henceforth Downing Street mansions, while an associate changed his name to Ronald Reagan in order to act as his agent. In that case, the returning officer declared the paper invalid, on the grounds that it was an abuse of the right of nomination, and was an obvious unreality.

A more difficult case was that of Roy Jenkins. Unlikely as it may seem, someone had the temerity to seek to impersonate that grand figure.

Impossible.