Kevin Hollinrake
MP for Thirsk and Malton · Conservative · United Kingdom
“That issue is one of the many things that the people who signed the petition are concerned about, Dr Huq. One of the big things that the Government promised, which I agree with them about, is the need to encourage faster growth in our economy. Of course that is right, but look at where that growth is.”
“The UK economy went through many challenges, of course, some of them caused by Brexit; the reality is that a change like that was bound to have a short-term effect—but only a short-term effect. The country grew faster than Germany and France during that period of time.”
“As I said before, governing is not easy; we had many challenges ourselves, and we did not get everything right, but what we did during that difficult period of time—those 14 years—was get 1.2 million more people employed in our economy. Unemployment was halved during our time in office.”
“Of course, many Government Members supported his leadership challenge. We are here now, looking forward to a general election coming down the track. We are ready for a general election when the Government are, because, unlike them, we have a strong leader—against their weak leader.”
“I was, absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) for his excellent opening speech. He made so many good points, not least about the level of support for this petition.”
“Members on the Government side of the House also feel betrayed and angry with their own leadership, for marching them up to the top of the hill and marching them back down again on many of these issues, but they do not feel as betrayed as the businesspeople in this country in particular.”
The complete record
Every one of 3,516 lines we hold for Kevin Hollinrake, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 71.
“These are her actual words: “It is important to recognise that, in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.” —[ Scottish Parliament Official Report , 16 January 2024; c. 14.] Does the hon. Lady not believe that in that situation, her Parliament should act to overturn these convictions?”
“I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. I have met the Scottish justice Minister twice online; the reason I met the Northern Ireland Ministers physically is that they came here to Parliament to meet us. May I push back on something that the hon. Lady said a few moments ago? She said that this Parliament is sovereign. Absolutely, it is sovereign, but on these matters, her Parliament is also sovereign. [ Interruption. ] Clearly, as she said earlier in her remarks, there is legal controversy on these matters—she has admitted that herself. This Parliament is taking the legal risk in that area, but is the hon. Lady aware of her Lord Advocate’s position on this particular matter?”
“I thank the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) for her remarks and her engagement. It has always been a pleasure to work with her both in the Chamber and in other areas. Yes, we have worked cross-party, and I have been very keen to do that all the way through on these matters, but that does not of course mean we always agree. I was very grateful to have the opportunity to meet the hon. Lady earlier with the Scottish postmasters she referred to. I am sorry that they have not been able to attend this debate. However, at that point I was able to explain to those postmasters why the Government oppose this motion, as our position remains unchanged that this Bill should not be amended to include Scotland.”
“He is reported, in The National on 27 March, to have said that he wanted “to make sure that people who have genuinely committed a crime…do not then have access to…compensation.” We have been clear from the start that there is a real risk of that happening with our approach.”
“I listened to the postmasters very carefully, and of course they would prefer us to legislate in the way the hon. Lady describes. I set out very clearly the reasons why we would not do so, and I think they heard the concerns we raised about how we think we should proceed. Scotland has a historically separate legal jurisdiction, and the Lord Advocate and the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service have a unique role in prosecutions in Scotland. We feel it is more appropriate for the Scottish Government to bring forward proposals to address prosecutions on this matter in Scotland, and for those to be scrutinised by the Scottish Parliament. The First Minister has previously made public comments suggesting that the UK Government’s approach to the criteria in our legislation was too broad in relation to the convictions it would quash.”
“These are difficult political choices, which we have taken in defining the cohort criteria, and it is right that responsible Ministers remain accountable for those decisions. The buck stops here, and it must also stop with the Scottish Government.”
“I thank the hon. and learned Member for her point, and I heard the points she raised earlier. It is very clear that all that is required for someone to access the compensation is the overturning of a conviction, and that can be done by means chosen by the Scottish Parliament or the means that have been chosen by the UK Parliament. There will be identical access to the compensation schemes: it makes no difference by whatever mechanism those convictions are overturned. As I said earlier, the Lord Advocate has said very clearly that “It is important to recognise that in Scotland, there is an established route of appeal in circumstances such as this…and that due process must be followed.” —[ Scottish Parliament Official Report , 16 January 2024; c. 14.] She is of course entitled to that view.”
“As I said earlier, Scottish Ministers have the responsibility and the means to be able to form this legislation. We think it is important that they take responsibility for their decisions in this area, given the nature of these issues.”
“The UK Government remain committed to supporting the Scottish Government to progress their own approach to their legislation. I have met Scottish Government Ministers multiple times since this Bill was introduced, and officials at the Department for Business and Trade and the Ministry of Justice hold weekly meetings with officials in the Scottish Government to discuss these issues. In conclusion, I remain of the view that the Scottish Government should introduce their own legislation to quash convictions in their jurisdiction. As such, the Government oppose this motion.”
“I will make some progress, if I may. I note that the First Minister stated on Thursday 18 April that the Scottish Government are prepared to introduce legislation to the Scottish Parliament to overturn convictions—I understand from the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that that legislation has actually been drafted—and I believe it is possible and necessary for the Scottish Government to do so swiftly. Our position on Scotland’s inclusion in the Bill is very clear. The Government made a statement on 22 February to that effect, and I have written to the Scottish Government on this point. Indeed, the First Minister’s comments, together with the proposed draft amendment to the UK Bill that the Scottish Government have published, suggest that they should be in a position to do so.”
“May I just point out that the legislation apparently has already been drafted for Scotland? There is no requirement for Scotland’s legislation to mirror our legislation; that would be up to the Scottish Parliament, and it is clear that is the case. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not just the Lord Advocate who is against what we are doing? The First Minister himself said, as I said earlier, that people with safe convictions should not have access to compensation. We are clear that the route we are taking raises that likelihood. It is therefore only right that the Scottish Parliament takes this decision.”
“I beg to move amendment 25, page 1, line 6, at end insert— “(za) the conviction took place before the coming into force of this Act,”. This amendment makes it clear that clause 1(1) will quash only convictions occurring before the coming into force of the Act.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Dame Rosie. Given the nature of this debate, in moving the Government amendments, I will also use my speech to discuss the other amendments that have been tabled. First, I will address the Government amendments in the name of the Secretary of State relating to Northern Ireland: 23 and 24, 26 to 44, and 46 to 56, as well as new clauses 1 to 3. I am grateful to the House for agreeing to the Government’s instruction motion to enable debate on these important amendments. The Government have listened carefully to representations across the House regarding the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. We recognise the unique challenges faced by the Northern Ireland Executive in bringing forward legislation to quash convictions to a similar timeframe as the rest of the UK.”
“I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words. It is a pleasure to work with him and his colleagues from Northern Ireland. We were always sympathetic to his arguments and are delighted to have been able to move forward as we have.”
“These cases are excluded from the Bill because the Government believe that it should tread very carefully where judges in the senior appellate courts have considered a case on its merits. We do not consider it appropriate for Parliament to interfere with such decisions.”
“Member for North Antrim, so I hope he will be happy to withdraw it on that basis. On amendment 1, in the name of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), I thank him for his continued engagement on the Bill and on wider Horizon matters. It is vital that we stay true to our objective of bringing justice to wrongly convicted postmasters, but it is also important to keep in mind the constitutionally sensitive nature of the Bill. We should legislate in a way that respects the separation of powers and the independence of the judiciary. This amendment would widen the scope of the Bill to include convictions that have been upheld by the Court of Appeal. It would automatically quash such convictions, thereby overriding decisions taken by the senior judiciary.”
“The amendments, which have been drafted in consultation with the Northern Ireland Executive, empower the Northern Ireland Department of Justice to implement the legislation in the same way as the Secretary of State will in England and Wales. The amendments would modify the criteria for the convictions which are overturned to ensure that the relevant convictions from Northern Ireland are captured within its scope. Specifically, they would add those secured by the Public Prosecution Service for Northern Ireland and refer to distinct Northern Ireland offences. Additionally, this group of amendments would ensure that the relevant cautions will be deleted in Northern Ireland, as they will be in England and Wales. The amendments have the same intent as new clause 1, tabled by the hon.”
“For those reasons, we have decided to put forward Government amendments which would extend the scope of the Bill to Northern Ireland. I am very grateful to have cross-party support from Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies in co-signing Government amendments, specifically the right hon. Members for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and the hon. Members for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), for North Down (Stephen Farry), for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna).”
“I am very grateful. The hon. Gentleman is right to address the point about the 23 sub-postmasters. They are why we are here and why we are keen to act in this way. We recognise that there were specific circumstances in Northern Ireland that would have delayed the exoneration and compensation to those individuals, and that is why we are acting as we are today. It is always a pleasure to work with him, as I have on many different issues over the years. Issues include the Executive’s recent restoration and additional public consultation requirements, which the House debated on Second Reading. In deciding to take this step, the Government recognised the extent of cross-community support for the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.”
“I thank the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) for their work. We take these matters and the independence of the judiciary very seriously. Where the Court of Appeal has upheld a conviction and declared it safe, we think that is a material concern. There will always be different opinions in these areas, but we think we are striking the right balance between overturning convictions that we believe to be unsafe in the main and ones that have been before a senior judge.”
“There will, of course, always be different legal opinions on these matters. As my hon. and learned Friend expressed, he has had two different opinions on what we should do in this regard, and I know that his view is based on further submissions of evidence that he has received. Of course, we consider these matters very carefully. My right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary is here and listening to my hon. and learned Friend’s comments. We will always continue to reflect on this legislation to make sure that we are getting to the right place, but I understand the points that he raises.”
“I understand and accept that point, but a decision has to be taken on whether to include these cases. There is definitely a difference of legal opinion on that point, because I have had different representations made to me. We recognise that this approach may leave a small number of individuals concerned about the way forward for their cases. In cases where the Court of Appeal has upheld a conviction, the usual routes of appeal remain available to them. Those affected can apply to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can review their cases.”
“Of course, and I am listening intently to the evidence before the inquiry. It is true to say there are some shocking revelations. As the right hon. Gentleman illustrated in his work with the advisory board, there was a maliciousness about some of the prosecutions, which is of great concern, as is the flawed Horizon system. Part of the reason why we are legislating as we are reflects that, but we will continue to look at the evidence that emerges.”
“Those with cautions may have already sought financial redress via the Horizon shortfall scheme or the group litigation order scheme. We will provide them with the necessary guidance to identify the appropriate route to claim financial redress, if they have not done so already.”
“Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill. These amendments would require the Secretary of State to include details of available financial redress in notifications to people who have had their convictions quashed, or cautions deleted, by this Bill. The amendments come as part of a number of recommendations by the Business and Trade Committee, to which the Government have since provided our response. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman and the whole Committee that we will include information about redress in the notifications that we send to postmasters when their convictions are overturned. Our aim is that the redress process will follow seamlessly from the process of overturning convictions—there is no need to legislate for this.”
“The right hon. Gentleman makes the point himself: as more evidence emerges, it may be that the CCRC takes a different view of cases that are brought forward. People who have presented their cases can revisit them by making an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which can make recommendations as it sees fit. Clearly, we are happy to provide any information that we possess, and the Post Office will do the same. As I say, the inquiry’s revelations may bring information that would help in some cases. The CCRC may refer cases to the Court of Appeal if it considers that there is a real possibility that convictions would not be upheld. With the constitutional sensitivities in mind, I hope the right hon. Member will agree to withdraw his amendment. I turn now to amendments 3 and 6, tabled in the name of the right hon.”
“We have tried to design the schemes in conjunction with the legal firms that are advising most of the claimants on claiming redress. We will continue to work with them, as we do with the advisory board, and there are different mechanisms that we can use to make this process simpler, more transparent and easier to navigate. Clearly, cases will differ, despite similarities, so if we go down the full assessment route, it is important that all claims be assessed individually, which obviously takes time. If there are mechanisms that we can use—for example, the tariffs that the right hon. Gentleman describes—to expedite the process, we would be happy to look at them. We will continue to work with the advisory board on that.”
“We are clear—there has been agreement across this House on this—that this exceptional legislation does not set a precedent, and I hope, especially with the reassurance provided by Government amendments 25 and 45, that he will withdraw amendment 71.”
“I will speak to amendment 70. I wrote back to my right hon. Friend about her case, and we are looking at this. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) will have something to say about this issue. We have agreed to instigate an independent review of that software. There are some fundamental differences. For example, it is not networked, so no remote access is possible, whereas that is a major feature of the issues with Horizon. I am happy to continue to engage with my right hon. Friend on the issue, and I congratulate her on the way she has dealt with it on behalf of her constituent. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst’s amendment 71 would also sunset other parts of the Bill. This would not give victims of the scandal the justice that they deserve.”
“As I said, the legislation expires on the day that the provision is brought into effect. My hon. and learned Friend is talking about the ongoing marking of the records of people who may come forward at a future date. We do not know what that date would be. I am happy to have a conversation with him about what the cut-off would be, but the effect of this legislation, in terms of quashing convictions, expires on the day it receives Royal Assent.”
“As I said, I am happy to have a continuing conversation with my hon. and learned Friend on that point. I feel that it would be a serious injustice if we set, say, a three year cut-off period and somebody came along a day later. Those are the challenges that we have to meet.”
“I also acknowledge the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation on a similar point. I assure the Committee that we are building independence into the process of making financial redress. Final decisions will, if necessary, be made by an independent panel comprising a King’s counsel, an accountant and a retail expert. The panel will have a case manager, who will ensure that cases are settled fairly, swiftly and in a non-adversarial manner. I have been clear throughout my work that we should put the victims of the scandal back in the position that they would have been in, and that we should move as quickly as possible. We feel that it would take months to set up an independent intermediary, and that it would add additional steps to the process and risk creating unnecessary bureaucracy.”
“I would welcome that discussion, and I will follow it closely in the other place. The controversial element of this unprecedented, exceptional legislation is the overturning of the convictions, because we are interfering with the courts by legislating in this way. The convictions expire on day one. All that happens further on from that is the marking of the records, which is not the controversial part. The controversial part is the interference with the courts. Again, I am happy to have a continuing conversation with the right hon. Gentleman. New clause 7, in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), would require the establishment of an independent intermediary body to administer financial redress to individuals whose convictions are quashed by the Bill.”
“My officials have spoken to other affected sub-postmasters, too. New clause 6 would require the Secretary of State to make a statement within 30 days of Royal Assent. As the Committee knows, we aim to complete the Bill’s passage very quickly, so a statement may be due quite soon. In practice, we feel it would be too soon, and time is needed to identify and appoint the right person for this role, and for the investigator to complete their work and offer an independent conclusion.”
“My apologies, Dame Rosie. I will move on with pleasure. Penultimately, I turn to new clause 6. I thank the right hon. Member for North Durham for all his work seeking justice for the former sub-postmasters and, indeed, on the Horizon compensation advisory board. My officials have been working closely with him, as have I, and he will be aware that we have set in train the process of appointing an independent forensic investigator to look into the Capture software, now that the Post Office has addressed concerns about it. Obviously, this relates to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), who is no longer in her place. This follows on from the useful meeting that the right hon. Member for North Durham and I had with a sub-postmaster and his wife who wanted to talk to me about his experiences.”
“That is not what we understand from the Post Office, but I am happy to continue our discussions, as I always do, to make sure that every relevant person affected by Horizon or its pilot systems is covered.”
“We are very happy to get into the weeds and nitty-gritty of this; we do that daily. The right hon. Gentleman said that, for whatever reason, I may not always be the Minister with this brief. I am very happy to help whoever takes over the brief when that happens, should more help be needed. Yes, we are keen to accelerate the timescales right across the piece for the GLO scheme. As I say, we are hitting our target of making 90% of first offers within 40 days, but we will come forward with more service-level agreements for other schemes. I am very happy to work alongside the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill on that.”
“I will tackle the points that have been made as briefly as possible. The Chair of the Business and Trade Committee, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), is right to say that £196 million has been paid out so far. This legislation will open the door to a lot more compensation, and it should go out rapidly to victims of prosecutions. Also, we expect that number to rise significantly with the introduction of the fixed-sum award of £75,000 for Horizon shortfall scheme claimants. To be clear, around 70% of claims submitted in time have been settled, following the final settlement for those individuals, so we are making progress, but we are determined to make more. Certainly, we are working with the Horizon compensation advisory board to ensure that that is the case.”
“Yes. The right hon. Gentleman asked about tariffs. We are keen to do whatever we can to make the process quicker, easier, clearer and more transparent. We are taking that away and looking at it right now. Of course, legal advice is available prior to the submission of a claim to the Horizon overturned convictions and compensation scheme, as it is in the GLO. It is only in the HSS, which was seen as non-adversarial, that that does not apply prior to the offer being made, but legal advice is available after that point. We are obviously keen to continue discussing the cases that are before the Court of Appeal. We will certainly respond in due course to the letter from the Chair of the Justice Committee, my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill).”
“(7) Any other regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution within the meaning given by section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954. (8) In this section “primary legislation” has the same meaning as in section 7.” —(Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause confers power on the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland to make consequential provision as a result of the Bill. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. Title Amendments made: 23, line 1, after “Wales” insert “and Northern Ireland”. This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Amendment 24, line 4, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”. —(Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.”
“(3) The power to make regulations under this section may, in particular, be exercised by amending or modifying any provision made by or under primary legislation passed or made before, or in the same session of Parliament as, this Act. (4) Regulations under this section— (a) may make different provision for different purposes; (b) may contain supplementary, incidental, consequential, transitional or saving provision. (5) The power to make regulations under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)). (6) Regulations under this section that amend any provision of primary legislation may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly.”
“New Clause 3 Power of Department of Justice to make further consequential provision “(1) The Department of Justice in Northern Ireland may by regulations make provision that— (a) is consequential on any provision made by this Act, and (b) is transferred Northern Ireland provision. (2) For the purposes of this section “transferred Northern Ireland provision” means provision that— (a) would be within the legislative competence of the Northern Ireland Assembly if it were contained in an Act of that Assembly, and (b) would not, if it were contained in a Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly, result in the Bill requiring the consent of the Secretary of State under section 8 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.”
“(5) In this section— “the Chief Constable” means the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland; “the Northern Ireland criminal records database” means the names database maintained by the Department for the purpose of recording convictions and cautions; “relevant criminal records” means— (a) the Northern Ireland criminal records database, and (b) the UK criminal records database; “the UK criminal records database” means the names database held by the Secretary of State for the use of constables.” —(Kevin Hollinrake.) This new clause makes provision for Northern Ireland corresponding to that made by clause 5. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.”
“(3) Where the Department gives a direction under subsection (1) in relation to a person’s caution, the Department— (a) must take all reasonable steps to notify the person, or, if the person is no longer alive, the person’s personal representatives, that the direction has been given, or (b) if it is not reasonably practicable to give a notification under paragraph (a), must take all reasonable steps to— (i) identify some other person whom the Department considers it is appropriate to notify, and (ii) notify that person that the direction has been given. (4) For the purposes of this section, the Department must, in particular, consider any representations made to it which claim that a person has been cautioned in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence, whether or not made by that person.”
“New Clause 2 Deletion of cautions for relevant offences: Northern Ireland “(1) If it appears to the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland (“the Department”) that a person has before the coming into force of this Act been cautioned in Northern Ireland for a relevant offence, the Department must direct the Chief Constable to delete details, contained in relevant criminal records, of the caution. (2) As soon as is reasonably practicable after receiving a direction under subsection (1), the Chief Constable must delete the details of the caution.”
“Amendment 54, page 6, line 9, after “Wales” insert “or Northern Ireland”. This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Amendment 55, page 6, line 21, at end insert— “(c) Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 (S.I. 1996/3160 (N.I. 24)).” —(Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Clause 8 , as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 9 Extent and commencement Amendment made: 56, page 6, line 25, leave out “only” and insert “and Northern Ireland”. —(Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment provides for the Bill to extend to Northern Ireland (as well as to England and Wales). Clause 9 , as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 51, page 5, line 20, at end insert— “(6) In this section “primary legislation” means— (a) an Act of Parliament, or (b) Northern Ireland legislation.” —(Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 Interpretation Amendments made: 52, page 5, line 23, at end insert— “(a) in the case of England and Wales—”. This amendment is consequential on amendment 53. Amendment 53, page 5, line 30, at end insert— “(b) in the case of Northern Ireland, any caution (including a restorative caution) given to a person in Northern Ireland in respect of an offence which, at the time the caution is given, the person has admitted;”. This amendment makes provision about the meaning of “caution” in relation to Northern Ireland.”
“Clause 7 Power to make further consequential provision Amendments made: 48, page 5, line 7, leave out “an Act of Parliament passed” and insert “primary legislation passed or made”. This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Amendment 49, page 5, line 8, at end insert— “(2A) But regulations under this section may not make any provision which is transferred Northern Ireland provision for the purposes of section ( Power of Department of Justice to make further consequential provision ).” This amendment is consequential on amendment NC3. Amendment 50, page 5, line 15, leave out “an Act of Parliament” and insert “primary legislation”. This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland.”
“Amendment 44, page 3, line 37, leave out “in England and Wales”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on the extension of the Bill to Northern Ireland. Clause 4, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Deletion of cautions for relevant offences Amendments made: 45, page 4, line 3, after “has” insert “before the coming into force of this Act”. This amendment makes it clear that clause 5 applies only in relation to cautions given before the coming into force of the Act. Amendment 46, page 4, line 5, before “criminal” insert “UK”. This amendment is consequential on amendment NC2. Amendment 47, page 4, line 27, before “criminal” insert “UK”.— (Kevin Hollinrake.) This amendment is consequential on amendment NC2. Clause 5, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.”
“Amendment 38, page 3, line 20, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 35. Amendment 39, page 3, line 25, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 35. Amendment 40, page 3, line 26, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 35. Amendment 41, page 3, line 32, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 35. Amendment 42, page 3, line 36, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “appropriate authority”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 35. Amendment 43, page 3, line 37, leave out “Secretary of State” and insert “authority”. See the explanatory statement for amendment 35.”