---

Mr. Hain: I do not accept that interpretation. Paragraph 6.22 of the Patten report, although it did not go into as much detail as the Bill, made it clear that

"the Chief Constable remains fully accountable for the involvement of police in matters involving national security, even though his or her main accountability in such matters is to the Secretary of State rather than to the Policing Board."

There will therefore continue to be a direct line of accountability by the police for whatever they do, including about matters of national security, ultimately to the Policing Board and through the devolved Ministers.

I understand the concerns of the Social Democratic and Labour party about the matter, given its wider long-term political objectives. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that there is no way that the Security Service could continue to do the important job that it has done for a long time, especially now and in the foreseeable future, without the changes being put in place and consistency with the rest of the United Kingdom. I believe that the result will be to strengthen the overall imposition of security and policing in Northern Ireland rather than to undermine it. If there were any danger of undermining it, the Chief Constable would have been the first to warn against that. He most emphatically has not done so—indeed, he supported the changes.

Several provisions deal with the democratic process. There are concerns about taking a power to bring forward the May 2007 election, but I need to be ready to move quickly if the circumstances are such that an early election is needed to cement success on the political front. That is necessary so that we do not face any obstacle.

Lembit Öpik: Will the Secretary of State respond to the concern of Liberal Democrats about the opportunity to change the date of the election quickly? We will set a dangerous precedent if a Secretary of State can alter the date of such a profoundly important event as an election, effectively by decree.

Mr. Peter Robinson (Belfast, East) (DUP): What does the hon. Gentleman think has happened on previous occasions?

Lembit Öpik: Does the Secretary of State accept that if he and the Government are acting reasonably, they will get the support of the lower and the upper Houses, but that both Houses should have the right to approve any such recommendation?

Mr. Hain: I note the outrage that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) expressed when he said that Secretaries of State had adopted such a practice for some time. Rather than creating the obstacle of having to come back to both Houses of Parliament, it is better to get Parliament to agree now that, in such special circumstances, with the political process proceeding and the negotiations intensifying, we take a power, which may or may not have to be exercised, to bring forward
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1173
 
the election date if, by agreement, we need to do that to make the progress that we all desire and that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) has long supported.

Sir Patrick Cormack: Will the Secretary of State give an undertaking that he would not arbitrarily determine the date of an election if the democratically elected and participating parties in the House were all against it?

Mr. Hain: It is not something that I would want to do except with consent. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. We are not considering some diktat by the Secretary of State. It is crucial that that does not happen in the timing of elections, of all things. In practical terms, it is sensible to introduce the provision, whether or not it is exercised.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Liberal Democrats previously supported the changes that were made to election dates. I do not remember any great tussle in the House, with a few Democratic Unionists fighting for their political lives and everybody else saying, "Yes. We mustn't let the Secretary of State change it." If it was changed before, I do not know why the Liberal Democrats have suddenly been converted. I would like to know the road that they travelled.

Mr. Hain: I shall leave the right hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) to sort out his differences with the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire in his usual peaceful manner.

John Bercow (Buckingham) (Con): The assumption of an order-making power as a matter of prudent proportion is one thing, but the manner of its exercise is another. I was mildly perturbed—I put it no more strongly—by the Secretary of State's response to my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) when he challenged the right hon. Gentleman about circumstances of resolute opposition by Northern Ireland parties to the proposed exercise of the power. The provision does not make it explicit, so will the Secretary of State clarify whether the order-making power would be exercised by the negative procedure or its affirmative counterpart?

Mr. Hain: I am taking a power to do this because it is important to have that option available. I am not planning to make such a change; this would be unlikely to occur unless it was part of some political negotiation to get a power-sharing Executive up and running. Frankly, there would be no reason for doing it otherwise.

John Bercow: I am sure that the Secretary of State did not mean to glide over the specific point of my question. I am still seeking to ascertain whether, in the event that he decides that going ahead with his order-making power has become unavoidable as the least worst option, would it be debated in a delegated legislation Committee upstairs for an hour and a half or would it not?
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1174
 

Mr. Hain: I am sorry if the hon. Gentleman felt that I had not answered his question. Of course this would be done by affirmative resolution, but special emergency procedures might also apply, and those procedures are in the Bill in case they are needed. That is the point that I am making.

The provisions on electoral registration and political donations, which form a large part of the Bill, are also key to moving Northern Ireland forward. We want to modernise still further the registration arrangements in      Northern Ireland, safeguarding the dramatic improvements in the accuracy of the register while ensuring that as many people as possible are registered to vote. In allowing us to do this, the registration clauses of the Bill go to the heart of increasing trust and engagement in the political and democratic process.

The Bill will remove the requirement for the Northern Ireland electorate to register annually to vote. The Northern Ireland Electoral Office will therefore no longer conduct an annual canvass. Instead, in order to ensure that the register is updated and expanded, the chief electoral officer will be given enhanced powers to access data from other public sector bodies to help him to track when individuals change address or become eligible to vote. These reforms will allow resources to be diverted towards raising the number of people registered and, in particular, to targeting groups that are currently under-represented on the register.

Mr. Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I understand the objective that the Secretary of State seeks to achieve, but I do not understand why a different registration mechanism from that of the rest of the United Kingdom should exist in Northern Ireland. Will he explain why it is not deemed necessary for the residents of Northern Ireland to register annually, as is required elsewhere?

Mr. Hain: This has arisen partly out of the consultation with the Northern Ireland political parties. It is designed to achieve the much more effective focusing of the electoral officers' resources on getting more people on to the register all through the year, including by accessing other databases, rather than putting all the resources into an annual canvass.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is it not also the case that we are not comparing like with like? The registration process in Northern Ireland is different from that of the rest of the United Kingdom in that it is much more complex. There are many more questions to be filled in, for example, and applicants must supply their national insurance number. That makes the exercise much more difficult to repeat as part of an annual cycle.

Mr. Hain: Perhaps I should enlist the hon. Gentleman to help me on the Front Bench to answer these questions from his own political experience.

To underpin confidence in the register, the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power to conduct a canvass if the chief electoral officer thinks that it is necessary to refresh the register. A canvass is scheduled for 2010 as a safeguard, but it could be cancelled, with the consent of Parliament, if the chief electoral officer recommended that it was unnecessary. Otherwise, a full canvass will take place every 10 years.
 
13 Mar 2006 : Column 1175
 

In addition, the Bill provides for the introduction of an anonymous registration scheme and a new late registration window. The measures broadly mirror changes being introduced in the rest of the United Kingdom by the Electoral Administration Bill, as the Government believe that it is right that the citizens of Northern Ireland should enjoy the same rights as those of the rest of the UK. The measures will, however, reflect the differences in electoral law and practice between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, and the particular circumstances in Northern Ireland, including those highlighted by the hon. Member for Belfast, East.

The reforms to the rules on political donations will increase public confidence by injecting greater openness into party funding and setting Northern Ireland firmly on the road to complete transparency. It is right that donations to Northern Ireland parties should be subject to scrutiny, just as donations to other parties in the House are.

---