Lobby Briefing with the Leader of the House, Robin Cook - 9 May 2002

Forthcoming Business
The Leader said that the second reading of the National Insurance Contributions Bill would take place on May 13. On the following day, the first half of business would be devoted to a motion to approve the 1st Report of the Modernisation Committee on select committees. He believed it would go through with a warm welcome in many quarters. He had spoken yesterday to the Liaison Committee, which universally welcomed the content of the report. It would give select committees more transparency, independence in nominations, a clearer focus with specific tasks and additional resources through specialist staff. Taken together with the Prime Minister's historic decision to give evidence to the Liaison Committee, he believed the package showed the Government's commitment to ensuring strong scrutiny through the select committee system. On May 15, the Liberal Democrats had chosen the subject of post office closures and the Royal Mail delivery services for debate until 7pm. It would be followed by a debate on the environment. On May 16, the House would start to debate remaining stages of the Adoption and Children Bill, which would be completed on May 20 and include the free vote on the issue of adoption by unmarried couples. The House would meet for three hours on May 24 to debate a motion for the Whitsun recess.

STEPHEN BYERS
Asked about a parliamentary opportunity being available to debate the Opposition censure motion, the Leader said it would be unprecedented, as far as he was aware, for him to provide the time. When he was previously in opposition, there had been many discussions about such motions. He noted that the Opposition was seeking to reduce the Secretary of State's salary by the full £68,861. He suggested that, if they were serious about debating the particular motion, it would be for the Opposition to table it for one of their Supply Days. The next Supply Day would be on May 21. From their viewpoint, he believed that it would not be sensible, since the earlier exchanges in the House had shown the extreme, increasingly arcane character of the parsing of words on the matter. It was entirely about the internal arrangements of the news department at the DTLR and on which day Mr Sixsmith had resigned, he believed. He said the issue was not connecting with the public or constituents. If the Opposition wished to debate transport policy, they should table such a motion. He pointed out that he had warned often that the reason why the House was losing respect and attention of the public was due to the perception that MPs were more interested in scoring points and not sufficiently in the public services. The Leader said he believed that, if the Opposition continued to engage in party points scoring rather than use Parliament to advance the interests of constituents, they would continue to lose the debate.

Questioned on whether he believed the statement by Mr Byers had been necessary and if the Secretary of State had successfully drawn a line in the sand on the issue, the Leader said that, firstly, he personally did not think it had been necessary for the Opposition to become so excited about extremely detailed issues of 'the parsing of the word', as he had described it. Mr Byers correctly decided to take it head on and make a clear statement to the House. The Leader said that, in his view, there was nothing left new to say on the issue, as he had previously indicated to Lobby journalists in February. Asked if there was a possibility that the Liberal Democrats might use their Supply Day next week to return to the issue, the Leader said he doubted if such circumstances would occur. Asked about the reference by Liberal Democrat MP Paul Tyler to it in the House earlier, the Leader said he had reported what the party had listed for debate and he had received no contrary instructions from them. It was pointed out to the Leader that at least one newspaper had used the term 'liar' in relation to the Secretary of State. He was asked whether he believed Mr Byers had now disproved the allegation and whether he was happy to be a Cabinet colleague. The Leader said he was very happy to be so. Mr Byers, in his view, was working diligently and assiduously to provide the basis for a successful public transport system. He did not think, frankly, there was any substance to the allegation. He pointed out that, on 25th February, the permanent secretary at the DTLR had written that Mr Sixsmith had agreed to resign. On 26th February, Mr Byers repeated exactly the same formula to the House of Commons, having been given the information by the permanent secretary earlier in the month. The statement, which had been agreed with Mr Sixsmith earlier in the week, confirmed that, in good in faith, the permanent secretary and Mr Sixsmith appeared to have had different recollections of the meeting. None of that made Mr Byers a 'liar', the Leader added.  

Regional Government White Paper
Asked if the publication implied that there would be a lengthy process ahead, the Leader said that he never announced in advance the programme for the next session. However, the first step - whether it was in the next session or later - would be to put a Bill forward to pave the way for referendums on regional assemblies. Then it would be for those regions, which wished to do so, to hold a referendum. In parallel, there would be a need for legislation on what shape the subsequent regional government might take. Questioned whether anyone outside was talking about regional government, the Leader said that a recent opinion poll - he believed it had been conducted for the BBC - showed a majority support for elected assemblies across England, although in one area - the South East - it had dropped below 50pc. This was quite encouraging.

Public Services
The Leader, in response to a further question, said that, across a whole range of public service issues, there was an improvement, as indicators on education and health demonstrated. He said that there might well be more evidence of that soon. Those were the issues on which the Government's standing with the public would turn. He said that, in the local government elections last week, there had been a remarkable result for a government, which had been in office for five years. He pointed out that he had visited Newham to observe the conduct of the electronic voting experiment. In response to a further question, the Leader said he had not been disappointed by the turn out for the electronic voting. Typically, it had been 4pc higher, which he accepted was modest. In Liverpool, where it had been used only in some wards, the evidence was that it had produced a higher turn out in them. The Government had never said that the sole reason for the electronic voting pilots was to increase turn out. It was also for the convenience of the elector and the efficiency of the system. Results in Newham, where there had been a double election for a council and for a mayor, had been produced by 10.45pm when previously it would have been an overnight declaration. The Leader said that the exciting point about the pilots had been the remarkable impact on turn out through the use of postal voting. In the case of Chorley, it had been 60pc, which was very encouraging. Ministers would wish to explore further whether the use of postal voting could increase the rate of participation in the electoral process.

In response to further questions, he said the Government had to provide leadership on the issue and he was not aware of any other party, which had adopted stubborn resistance to the pilots. At the end of the day, there had to be a solid basis of consensus for voting methods, although no immediate changes were being contemplated. He accepted that there had been some opposition in Norwich. The Leader said there was not necessarily a connection between the use of postal voting and a breach of confidentiality of the election process. It was still possible to trace the elector in any inquiry of alleged fraud. It was important to retain the integrity of the system. The point of the pilots was to discover if there was any problem. Postal balloting appeared to have doubled the turn out. To the suggestion that, in some cases, there had been allegations of 'bulk votes', the Leader said he was unaware of any double voting. There might be a need to examine whether any additional safeguards were required.

Adoption and Children Bill
The Leader, asked if he expected controversy, said the measure was intended to provide for unmarried couples to provide adoption services. It reflected the reality that, within society, there were now a large number of very stable relationships, which could provide a very secure home for children and which were not a marriage. That was the nub of the issue, to ensure that adequate homes were available to provide security and stability. The Leader said that the millions of people, who did not have a marriage certificate, should not be excluded. He expected a debate, which ministers welcome. He personally expected that the Commons would recognise that, in the 21st century, unmarried couples should not be excluded from adopting. He also accepted that 'gay' relationships were an element, but he said they were a small part of the picture.