|
Mr. Heath: I have no problem with the intent behind the clause, which deals with the correction of procedural errors. However, the law as it stands, and as it will stand, is a quite draconian imposition on returning officers, who will be guilty of a criminal offence if they make an error in executing their duties. The import of the clause is that if they correct that error, even after they have been charged with an offence, they will not be guilty of that offence. The
Column Number: 126
Minister is nodding, but that makes nonsense of their being charged with the offence in the first place.
There is no time scale for correcting the procedural error; it can even be corrected post-election, when the damage will already have been done to the chances of one or more candidates. If proceedings are taken against the officer, he can still, as far as possible, correct the procedural error. He will then not be guilty of an offence, which does not sound very sensible. I am sure that the intent is good, and I do not quarrel with it, but this seems an odd way of doing things.
David Cairns: Clause 44 allows returning officers to correct errors or omissions that arise during the preparation for and conduct of a UK parliamentary election or local elections in England and Wales. It will also allow returning officers to direct that erroneous acts and omissions made by other persons involved in administering elections be corrected. That includes presiding officers, electoral registration officers and their staff, and those supplying goods and services to the administrators. For example, electoral documents such as ballot papers printed with incorrect details could be corrected.
The clause also provides that a returning officer will not be found guilty of an offence for an act or omission that is in breach of his official duty if he can demonstrate that he has corrected that error in full by taking steps under subsection (1), as the hon. Gentleman said.
I may have nodded a bit precipitously earlier, because I thought that the hon. Gentleman was heading in one direction with his question, but then he went off in another. We have been assured by the parliamentary draftsmen, however, that the clause is phrased in the way that it should be.
When I was looking into this issue in preparation for the Committee, I was amazed by the number of things that are not allowed to be corrected, including the declaration. Should the returning officer simply read the numbers out wrongly when declaring a result, that declaration will be the result. Clearly, that is absurd, and the clause would allow such things to be put right.
The clause is intended to give returning officers a degree of flexibility. Mistakes happen, and although serious ones would obviously have to be dealt with elsewhere, minor inadvertent mistakes by the returning officer or those under his charge could be corrected. Currently, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, they are not, and that is what I was nodding at.
I do not entirely share the hon. Gentleman's fears about the way in which the clause is phrased, but we share the same intent. The clause is clearly a common-sense provision. If people can correct minor mistakes and demonstrate that they have done so, they should not be prosecuted. I hope that that gives the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful. I am not entirely convinced that we should prosecute returning officers for errors and omissions that are made neither with intent nor through recklessness. In any case, to revisit debates that have been held elsewhere, and as the
Column Number: 127
Minister says, people make mistakes. However, they are not usually hauled before the courts for it. They should be allowed to correct an innocent error; but if an error or omission was made with intent to pervert the course of an election, it should be prosecuted irrespective of whether it was subsequently discovered and corrected. The offence is described wrongly. Innocent errors and acts of omission should not be dealt with as if they were criminal offences, but deliberate errors or acts of omission ought to be dealt with seriously even if they are subsequently corrected.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 45 and 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Political party description
Mrs. Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in clause 47, page 54, line 28, leave out 'up to five'.
The amendment continues with an issue first raised on clause 23 by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon at Tuesday afternoon's sitting—descriptions of independent candidates. I shall not repeat the arguments made two days' ago, as the Committee properly considered the matter then.
The amendment would remove the Government's new limit on the number of variations allowed on a political party's description. The clause would thus read, ''A party's application under section 28 may include a request for the registration of descriptions to be used on nomination papers or ballot papers.'' The limit of ''up to five'' would be unfair to political parties; independents would be able to call themselves whatever they wished, yet candidates from political parties would be prevented from using regional variations.
David Cairns: Then what is the point of being an independent?
Mrs. Laing: Surely there can be nothing wrong with a member of a political party being attached to a particular region or area—or even a village. Given that subsequent provisions allow returning officers to prevent confusing or mischievous descriptions, I see no reason why the number of variations should be limited.
The desire to maximise the opportunity for independents to describe themselves in any manner they wish seems highly inconsistent with a clause that radically restricts the ability of political parties to do the same. Parties will be limited to five different types of description, although I appreciate that the number can be varied by the Secretary of State. Perhaps the Minister would give an undertaking that the Secretary of State would be willing to make such variations. Independents could therefore run as '''Independent for Liverpool''; but a registered party could not nominate itself as ''Liverpool Labour'' or ''Liverpool Conservative''. [Laughter.] I appreciate that that would not bring in a large number of votes for my party in that area, but there are some Conservatives in Liverpool
Column Number: 128
Mr. Jim Devine (Livingston) (Lab): Name them.
Mrs. Laing: I probably could name them, but it would not take long. I must be careful, Mr. Conway, to treat Conservatives in Liverpool with respect. They are a fine and courageous band.
Why is it wrong to be ''Liverpool Labour'' or ''Liverpool Conservative''—or even ''Liverpool Liberal''? Surely, it cannot be right that independent candidates will be free to use any description they wish but each political party will be limited to one of its five registered descriptions. It seems counter-intuitive that political parties will not be allowed to use the descriptions that they wish to use. It would not be reasonable to amend the Bill as we suggest except that checks are already in place to ensure that descriptions are not misused and do not cause confusion among the electorate. If the Minister does not accept the amendment, he will be advocating simplicity for political parties but diversity for independents. That would simply be unjust.
Mr. Heath: There is nothing that I can possibly say on this that I did not say on Tuesday, with the possible exception of the Welsh and Gaelic that arose on that occasion. We have made the arguments, but the Minister does not agree. I imagine that he has not changed his mind since Tuesday, but we live in hope.
David Cairns: Mr. Conway, you will recall our long and magnificent debate on a related theme a day or two ago. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State said then, the Government are in listening mode. We have made that clear all along. No doubt the hon. Gentleman might wish to revisit the issues that we discussed the other night during later stages of the passage of the Bill. However, clause 47 permits a registered political party to register with the Electoral Commission up to five descriptions for use on ballot papers. That would implement the Electoral Commission's recommendation on standing for election in the United Kingdom, published in June 2003, allowing one description each for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and the UK as a whole, and would simplify the use of party descriptions for the benefit of candidates and returning officers.
Following the commission's recommendation, we feel that five is a reasonable number of descriptions, particularly when one bears it in mind that the limit for the central register of emblems is three. As part of the consultation, there was a move to limit those descriptions, also, to three, but the commission thought that allowing five would give flexibility for all the nations of the United Kingdom and provide one for the UK as a whole.
I can see the attraction of the hon. Lady's position. A number of years ago, the Conservative party in Scotland rebranded itself the Scottish Conservative and Unionist party. I have to tell the hon. Lady that that has not done it an awful lot of good in terms of attracting more voters in Scotland—
Mrs. Laing: rose—
David Cairns: The hon. Lady is now champing at the bit.
Column Number: 129
Mrs. Laing: I myself stood as a Scottish Conservative and Unionist candidate, and I received 5,420 votes.
Kevin Brennan: A remarkable achievement.
David Cairns: And on that basis, the hon. Lady is now the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. What a wonderful thing democracy is; we live in such happy times.—[Interruption.] I am sorry that I did not catch what the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) said from a sedentary position, but I am sure that it was very witty.
I understand the arguments that were made on Tuesday and do not intend to revisit them at this stage. None the less, we have a reasonably clear understanding that allowing the political parties up to five descriptors addresses the main concerns that they had at the time of the consultation. They should be allowed some flexibility but not an open book—that would take the focus away from what we are trying to do, which is to have a centrally held register of such things and put the onus back on individual returning officers, who would have to make to make decisions about the appropriateness of such descriptions. It was felt that taking a national approach, with a fixed, centrally registered, number of descriptions would remove possible confusion and give a degree of certainty.
I say that without prejudice to any further discussions that may take place about the independent descriptions. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
2.30 pm
| 
