|
David Cairns: We are returning to one of the great thematic issues in any Committee—the may versus must debate. The second new section created by clause 61 provides for the Electoral Commission to require relevant electoral officials to provide them with reports on how they have met the standards that have been set and published. It would seem odd, given that the Electoral Commission has been pushing for that—and given that that has the support of everyone in the House—if that were not pursued vigorously. I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I take his point, which
Column Number: 141
was well made—but I am not minded to go any further at this stage, because we would be in danger of fettering the Commission.
I shall finish on the point raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome about Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland Office colleagues are obviously actively looking at those issues. They are considering their position because, as we all know, there are circumstances prevalent in Northern Ireland that are not necessarily prevalent here. They may wish to provide a different set of guidance on this issue. However, I am sure that there would be a large amount of duplication.
3.15 pm
I do not want to accept the amendment at this stage, because I want to allow colleagues in Northern Ireland and others who deal with the politics of Northern Ireland every day to reflect upon whether they wish to be part of the scheme. Northern Ireland electoral legislation is, of course, planned for the relatively near future, so they may wish to incorporate into it all or part of what we have discussed. We have not yet seen the guidance, so we do not know what it will say.
This is not a matter of not considering that guidance should be issued for Northern Ireland. It is a question of saying that, given the circumstances, it might be best to allow the people there to come to a decision on how they wish to proceed.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister, but he might have misunderstood the point made in the amendment by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe. It is clear that the council would produce a report to the Electoral Commission, not that the Electoral Commission would produce a report to us.
David Cairns: I said that the second new section provided for the Electoral Commission to require the relevant electoral officials to provide it with reports on how they have met the standards that have been set and published. The only point on which we are at variance is how often that should happen, and who should trigger it. It is clear that the power is there. I do not think that I misunderstood.
Mr. Heath: I am grateful to the Minister. I will look carefully at the Official Report to see what was said and come to a view. I do not want to press him on the matter, because there is no difference of intention between the two.
On Northern Ireland, I hear what the Minister says. I hope that his right hon. and hon. Friends in the Northern Ireland Office will not unduly delay their consideration of the matter. I would accept it at face value a little more easily were it not for the fact that we need only turn the page to clause 63 to find that
''A local electoral officer must have regard to any guidance issued by the Electoral Commission''.
Later in that clause we find that a local electoral officer is an electoral registration officer whose duties include dealing with elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly, as well as one who deals with
Column Number: 142
''local government elections in England and Wales and Northern Ireland'',
so another part of the Bill is already making that connection, regardless of the deep cogitations that are happening in the Northern Ireland Office, and is already insisting that the electoral registration officers in Northern Ireland have regard to the advice of the Electoral Commission. It seems rather perverse for the Government to say that the Electoral Commission may issue instructions, but that it is out of the question for it to have any regard as to whether they have been carried out.
David Cairns: Indeed it would have been perverse had that been the position that I took. Had I said, to quote the hon. Gentleman, ''It will be out of the question'' for the Electoral Commission to have dealings with Northern Ireland, that would have been perverse. What I said was that colleagues in Northern Ireland who deal with the issues every day are considering how best to ensure that such standards apply in Northern Ireland—where there is, after all, only one electoral registration officer. I did not say that it was out of the question for the measures to apply in Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman has now mischaracterised my position.
Mr. Heath: The Minister is unnecessarily defensive. If I am not allowed to launch into a little hyperbole on the margins of my comments, it will be much more difficult for me to make my points. I am sure that he understands that although he did not say that it was out of the question, it is certainly not out of the question for the Electoral Commission to provide guidance to the registration officer in Northern Ireland; it says so in clause 63. The problem is simply that clause 61 does not relate to clause 63. Let me say, without any exaggeration, that it is slightly odd that one clause should gallop off in one direction and another should gallop off in a direction that is not identical, although they relate to two parts of the United Kingdom.
I hope that the considerations to which the hon. Gentleman referred will be swiftly concluded, and that on Report we will be able to unite clauses 61 and 63 in a common purpose and ensure that we have a degree of parity between the different parts of the country in terms of the performance of the electoral registration operation.
Mr. Betts: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his mainly helpful response to my amendments. It was very helpful indeed that my hon. Friend spelled out the fact that there will be consultation on the guidance on performance standards that will be laid down by the Electoral Commission, and that there will be an opportunity for both Back Benchers and Opposition Front Benchers to comment. We can get a lot of consensus on those matters, and many good ideas will come from people's personal experience and practice. My hon. Friend's response on that matter was helpful.
In relation to my point about the requirements for the various officers, including the electoral registration officers, to produce reports for the Electoral Commission, I still feel that if Members of Parliament think that something is required, they
Column Number: 143
have a right to require that in the legislation. The Electoral Commission is a body set up by Parliament to do the will of Parliament, and to give us advice on a whole range of matters, so there should be at least an annual report. The wording of the clause could be tightened up, so that we do not fetter discretion for the Electoral Commission to require reports at other times, but at least we should have an annual report from local authorities.
Perhaps I could help my hon. Friend the Minister out by suggesting that if he is prepared to have another look at this matter, he could indicate that it was one of the matters that he would like to see the Electoral Commission include in the standards of performance. One of the standards of performance could be a requirement for officers to produce at least an annual report. Perhaps the matter could be addressed in that way so that there was no need for a specific provision in the Bill, which might be difficult to change in the future. That would mean that something was clearly laid down, on which we in Parliament would have a chance to comment before it was finalised. That would be helpful to hon. Members.
David Cairns: I am strongly attracted to my hon. Friend's solution; it is an imaginative way forward. However, he will know that I am not in a position to give a firm undertaking that that is what will happen. However, it is an imaginative way forward out of the impasse that we have got ourselves into. I hope that I can give him some reassurance on that matter.
Mr. Betts: I am reassured that the Minister is still considering those matters, and I appreciate the way in which he has approached them. With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 62 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 63
Encouraging electoral participation
Mr. Henry Bellingham (North-West Norfolk) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 65, in clause 63, page 66, line 3, at beginning insert
'Following receipt of written notification by the Electoral Commission of the intended steps to be taken,'.
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 66, in clause 63, page 66, line 3, leave out 'he thinks appropriate' and insert 'are reasonable'.
Mr. Bellingham: I have not proved to be a very efficient Whip, because I have lost my two Front-Bench spokesmen and all my Back Benchers. However, I understand that these amendments were tabled by the official Opposition, and I will explain briefly what they seek to do. To some extent they follow on from the discussion that we had on clause 61, in which the hon. Members for Sheffield, Attercliffe and for Somerton and Frome pointed out that there is huge disparity in the performance of local electoral officers.
Column Number: 144
Amendment No. 65 would insert at the start of clause 63(1):
''Following receipt of written notification by the Electoral Commission of the intended steps to be taken.''
In other words, the process would only be triggered on receipt of written notification from the Electoral Commission. That makes sense, because if we have a more uniform approach, that should ensure higher standards across the country. That is very much in line with the theme that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe was putting forward a moment ago.
Subsection (1) says that
''a local electoral officer may take such steps as he thinks appropriate.''
Amendment No. 66 would replace the phrase ''as he thinks appropriate'' with the phrase ''as are reasonable''. That makes more sense, as ''reasonable'' has a clearer definition in law. There are plenty of definitions of ''reasonable''. It is wider, more objective and less subjective. Saying ''as he thinks appropriate'' could lead to confusion. Trying to interpret what the electoral officer's subjective reasoning might be could be a lawyer's dream. The reasonable test would be clearer and more in line with other legislation.
| 
