Session 2009-10
Publications on the internet
General Committee Debates
Delegated Legislation Committee Debates

Draft Representation of the People (Timing of the Canvass) (Northern Ireland) order 2010
Draft European parliamentary elections (northern Ireland) (amendment) regulations 2010
Draft Electoral law act (northern ireland) 1962 (amendment) order 2010



The Committee consisted of the following Members:

Chairman: Mr. Greg Pope

Bain, Mr. William (Glasgow, North-East) (Lab)

Carmichael, Mr. Alistair (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)

Cawsey, Mr. Ian (Brigg and Goole) (Lab)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral, South) (Lab)

Crabb, Mr. Stephen (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)

Donaldson, Mr. Jeffrey M. (Lagan Valley) (DUP)

Duddridge, James (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con)

Goggins, Paul (Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office)

Hemming, John (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)

McNulty, Mr. Tony (Harrow, East) (Lab)

MacShane, Mr. Denis (Rotherham) (Lab)

Marris, Rob (Wolverhampton, South-West) (Lab)

Robertson, Mr. Laurence (Tewkesbury) (Con)

Swire, Mr. Hugo (East Devon) (Con)

Tami, Mark (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab)

Mark Etherton, Committee Clerk

† attended the Committee

First Delegated Legislation Committee

Monday 15 March 2010

[Mr. Greg Pope in the Chair]

Draft Representation of the People (Timing of the Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Order 2010

4.30 pm

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Paul Goggins): I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Timing of the Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Order 2010.

The Chair: With this it will be convenient to consider the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 and the draft Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (Amendment) Order 2010.

Mr. Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con): On a point of order, Mr. Pope. Would you kindly confirm that it will be possible to have separate votes on the three measures at the end?

The Chair: I am happy to confirm that that is the case. As there is no objection to debating the motions together, they can be voted on separately at the end.

Paul Goggins: Thank you, Mr. Pope. I welcome you to the Chair. I am grateful to you and the Committee for allowing the statutory instruments to be taken together. It makes for a longer speech from me at the beginning, but a more manageable debate, so we are all grateful. The first of the three measures will remove the requirement for a canvass to take place in Northern Ireland later this year. This follows a recommendation made to the Secretary of State by the chief electoral officer for Northern Ireland. Before I set out the reasons for the order, it may assist the Committee if I briefly summarise the background to it.

The Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 made significant changes to electoral registration procedures in Northern Ireland to protect against electoral fraud. That Act provided for electors to register on an individual basis and to provide information such as signature, date of birth and national insurance number, as well as other information such as proof of address or residency. Those measures have proved vital in restoring public confidence in the electoral process in Northern Ireland and ensuring that the Northern Ireland register remains as accurate as possible.

However, the requirement for electors to provide the information annually through the canvass placed a significant burden on both electors and administrators. The Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2006 therefore amended the Representation of the People Act 1983 to remove the requirement for an annual

canvass in Northern Ireland. Instead, the chief electoral officer would use other mechanisms to check the accuracy of the register—in particular, using the enhanced data-sharing arrangements that had been agreed with other agencies.

The requirement for a canvass in Northern Ireland was not removed completely. Section 10ZA of the 1983 Act requires a canvass to be held in 2010 and every 10 years thereafter. The requirement for a canvass to be conducted in 2010 was included in the 2006 Act as a safeguard measure. At that time, there was still uncertainty about how successful the new methods of updating the register on a continual basis might be, but the legislation also allowed for the requirement to conduct a 2010 canvass to be removed by order. Such an order can be made only if the chief electoral officer makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State against that canvass being conducted for the purpose of meeting his registration objectives.

In October 2009, the chief electoral officer wrote to the Secretary of State recommending against a 2010 canvass. In that letter, he made it clear that a canvass would not be necessary for the purpose of meeting his registration objectives. He also noted that there had been a significant increase in the number of registered electors in recent years, but at the last canvass, there was a drop of 81,147 electors, or 7.6 per cent. of the total electorate. The chief electoral officer is concerned that there will be a similar drop in the electorate if a canvass is conducted in 2010, which could undo much of the good work that he has undertaken in recent years in increasing the numbers of registered electors.

Having considered the chief electoral officer’s recommendation, I am satisfied that the public interest does not require a canvass to be conducted in 2010 for the purpose of the chief electoral officer meeting his registration objectives. In particular, I would be very concerned that a 2010 canvass might result in a significant reduction in the number of those registered to vote shortly before the Assembly and district council elections due to be held in 2011. For those reasons, I have brought this order before the House to remove the requirement to conduct a canvass in 2010.

However, I should make it clear to the Committee that the removal of the requirement for a 2010 canvass does not mean that there will be no canvass until 2020. A canvass may be conducted in any intervening year if the chief electoral officer makes a recommendation in favour of one for the purposes of meeting his registration objectives, and if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the public interest requires one to be conducted for that purpose. Furthermore, the law provides, crucially, that a canvass must take place in 2016 if one has not been conducted between now and then, and that cannot be removed. That must happen in 2016 if there has been no canvass in the intervening years.

The other two measures before the Committee amend the method of filling casual vacancies arising in both district council and European parliamentary seats in Northern Ireland. The draft Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (Amendment) Order 2010 will amend the method of filling district council vacancies. The current rules for filling district council vacancies are set out in section 11 of the Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962. That Act provides for replacement members to be co-opted at a specially convened meeting. A successful

co-option cannot take place if one or more of the remaining councillors present at that meeting object to it. If the meeting fails to co-opt a replacement member successfully, a by-election must be held.

District council elections in Northern Ireland are held using the single transferable vote form of proportional representation—PR-STV. As Opposition Members and others may know, I remain firmly of the view that by-elections are undesirable in PR-STV elections, because they have the potential to distort the careful party balance that would have been created at the election. The co-option method has worked well in many councils, particularly in those where there is agreement that a co-option should be supported when the proposed replacement belongs to the same party as the vacating member. However, there has been increasing concern that the requirement for unanimous support for a co-option sets too high a threshold and allows individual members to object and force by-elections against the wishes of the vast majority of the council.

The Committee will be aware that plans are currently in hand to reduce the number of councils in Northern Ireland from 26 to 11. The 11 councils would be much larger than the current councils, each one typically consisting of between 40 and 60 members, which would make it even more difficult to secure unanimous support for a co-option. For that reason, I launched a consultation in October 2009, setting out several options for reform. The consultation paper recommended that vacancies be filled by nomination by the party to which the vacating member belonged when elected. It was further proposed that those elected as independent members should be replaced using a list of substitutes submitted to the chief electoral officer by that member prior to the vacancy arising.

I am pleased to report that the consultation demonstrated overwhelming support for those proposals. Therefore, the draft Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (Amendment) Order 2010 will amend section 11 of the 1962 Act to give effect to the proposed changes. Under the proposed new procedure, when a vacancy arises the chief electoral officer would determine whether the vacating member had stood in the name of a party or parties, or as an independent, when elected. If the vacating member had stood in the name of a party when elected, the chief electoral officer would write to the nominating officer of that party to request that they nominate a replacement. The nominating officer would also be required to submit a declaration, signed by the person nominated, containing specified information, including their consent to being nominated and a statement that they have made the declaration against terrorism, as set out in part II of schedule 2 to the Elected Authorities (Northern Ireland) Act 1989.

If the vacating member was elected as an independent, they would be able to submit a list to the chief electoral officer containing the names of up to six people, in order of preference, who have indicated that they would be willing to fill the seat in the event that it becomes vacant. If such a vacancy arises, the chief electoral officer will contact those included on the list, in the order specified, to ask whether they are prepared to fill the seats. If they are content to do so, they must respond to the chief electoral officer accordingly. Again,

they must include other relevant information in their response, including the declaration against terrorism contained in the 1989 Act.

Concerns have been raised recently, in the House and elsewhere, about representatives in Northern Ireland holding more than one elected position. Indeed, that topic was mentioned in the Chamber only last week, when we were debating the Northern Ireland Assembly Members Bill. Of course, detailed discussion of that matter is well beyond the scope of the legislation before the Committee. However, the Committee may wish to know that many of those who responded to the consultation on district council vacancies noted that implementing the proposed changes to the method of filling vacancies would encourage those councillors holding other mandates to resign their council seats safe in the knowledge that the seat would not transfer to another party.

I remain of the view that it is better for the parties in Northern Ireland to reach agreement on how to address the question of multiple mandates. If possible, I am happy to facilitate or encourage such agreements, and the procedures proposed today will assist in that. I believe that the proposed method of filling vacancies in district councils, in addition to the method of filling vacancies already existing in the Northern Ireland Assembly —we have already made those changes in relation to the Assembly—will provide further encouragement to those seeking to end the practice of holding more than one mandate.

The draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 will make similar changes to the method of filling vacancies in the European Parliament. Elections in Northern Ireland to that body are also held under the PR-STV system. However, current legislation provides for vacancies to be filled only through by-elections. Earlier, I stressed that it remains my view that by-elections are undesirable in PR-STV elections, because they could distort the balance achieved at the previous election. Northern Ireland returns only three MEPs at European elections, and it is particularly important in that context to ensure that the balance at the election is maintained if one Member vacates his seat mid-term.

There was widespread support following consultation in 2008 for the existing legislation to be amended to allow for replacement by party nomination or substitution. However, the obligation to hold a by-election was specified in section 5 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, and can be amended only by primary legislation. Section 26 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009 amended the 2002 Act to allow for regulations to be made to provide for replacement by party nomination or substitution, and those regulations are before the Committee today.

The provision for filling vacancies contained in the regulations mirrors those contained in the district councils order, with some necessary technical adjustments to deal with the differences in procedures for being returned to the European Parliament. The Committee may be aware that a similar procedure for filling vacancies in the Northern Ireland Assembly has been administered successfully by the chief electoral officer for the past 12 months or so.

A key difference between the Assembly procedure and that proposed for European parliamentary and district council vacancies is that legislation providing

for the latter contains substantive provisions to cater for those that stand in the name of two or more parties in Northern Ireland. The need for such provisions has arisen only recently, with the prospect of two parties sponsoring the same candidate at an election. It was not mentioned when we were considering the matter of vacancies for the Assembly, but it is something that we now anticipate. If it becomes a problem in relation to filling Assembly vacancies, we may need to return to the House to make further changes.

In summary, the statutory instruments make sensible changes to electoral law in Northern Ireland. They are supported in Northern Ireland by parties, councils and administrators. I hope that the Committee will agree that there are strong reasons for removing the requirement to hold a canvass in 2010. I hope that the Committee is reassured that the law contains safeguards to provide for a canvass to take place in subsequent years if needed, and no later than 2016.

I hope that the Committee is also satisfied that consultation has demonstrated a strong desire in Northern Ireland to amend the method of filling vacancies in district council and European parliamentary seats. The proposed changes will ensure the maintenance of the party and community balance achieved at an election and ensure consistency in the method of filling vacancies in all elections in Northern Ireland held under the PR-STV voting system.

Once again, Mr. Pope, I am grateful to you and to the Committee for permitting me to make one speech on all three instruments, which I commend to the Committee.

4.45 pm

Mr. Robertson : Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Pope. I believe that this is the first time that I have had the pleasure of serving under your chairmanship.

I have no serious objections to the first order. I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation of why the canvass need not take place this year, but I have one question. I think that I heard him say that he felt that carrying out a canvass this year would lead to a reduction in the number of people registered to vote. Will he explain why? It was rather a worrying statement.

I have considerably more concerns about the other orders, which will change the rules for replacing councillors who cease to be councillors for one reason or another and for replacing MEPs. I listened carefully to the Minister and—again, Hansard might prove me incorrect—I do not think that I heard him refer to the electorate. He used a phrase contained in the explanatory memorandum, saying that a by-election held under the PR-STV voting system might upset “the careful party balance”. I rather think that it is up to the electorate, rather than any of us in this room, to decide what the party balance should be. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Clegg), who leads the Liberal Democrats, said this weekend—I cannot remember his exact phrase—that not he but the electorate should decide who is in government. I agree entirely.

Of course, I understand that the system is designed to share power, but although that is perhaps relevant in the Assembly, I do not think that it is relevant in European elections. I understand that if, for example, a Sinn Fein

MEP stopped being an MEP for whatever reason and a by-election were held in the whole of Northern Ireland, the seat might well go to the Unionists, who might then hold three seats out of three. I understand that that might be uncomfortable, considering that we are trying to achieve power sharing in Northern Ireland.

In many Committees, I must accept that logic goes out the window when we are trying to achieve certain aims. Only a couple of weeks ago, I spoke strongly against the extension of 50:50 recruitment in the police, but I voted with the Government. I was persuaded that we must, because we are trying to achieve 30 per cent. Catholic representation in the police force. I would not use the method that we are using to get there, but in the end, I supported it. However, when we get to the point of dispensing with democracy, no matter what the goal, that is a step too far. It is unacceptable.

The Minister said that councils would become larger. He is correct. Therefore, they will have more responsibility, which is why it is even more important that the electorate should decide who sits on such councils. I do not think that that is for the nominating officer of a party to decide. It will not be the nominating officer who actually decides, of course; it will be the party hacks. In other words, to get on a council at a by-election, people must serve the party rather than the electorate. That is not a good system. We have the PR system in Britain, and I am sorry that we do. Our MEPs in the south-west, who I am sure work very hard, have to represent not only the Scilly Isles, but Gibraltar; that is the kind of system that has been put in place.

On replacing councillors, the Minister talked up the proposed changes, as against the existing situation, which is not very good because the council itself has to decide who will serve on it. That is unacceptable, but the present proposals are also unacceptable. The Minister says that by-elections are not desirable under the PR-STV system, but all that I can say in response is that the Conservative party did not design the system. I have looked at the orders carefully and discussed them, and I understand what we are trying to achieve, but I am afraid that I have come to the conclusion that dispensing with democracy is a step too far and will have the reverse impact from the one that we are trying to achieve.

Mr. Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con): What is my hon. Friend’s understanding of a situation in which, as a result of some tragedy, we may need to replace more than one Member of the European Parliament or more than one councillor in Northern Ireland—in other words, a number of people—at any one time? Would there not be a huge democratic deficit if all those vacancies were filled automatically without consulting the public?

Mr. Robertson: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point that had not occurred to me. Of course, the situation that he describes would be unusual and tragic, but not impossible. It would, indeed, be totally unacceptable, but if it happened, we would be stuck with laws that required such steps to be taken. The parties would decide who the three MEPs would be or who would make up the bulk of a council, which is totally unacceptable. The public would not, of course, know in advance who those people were.

In the south-west of England, the list of candidates is known, and although the system is still a bad one, we would at least know who No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 were. In this case, we would not know that until the party itself had decided, so it could put in anyone. Somebody could stand for a seat in Europe or on the council but have no intention of completing the term of office for which they would be elected; they would be standing only to get somebody else in, who might be less electorally popular, or rather unpopular, if they stood under their own banner. That is totally unacceptable; it dispenses with democracy, which, as I said, is going a step too far.

I have to support some of the orders on Northern Ireland that come before such Committees—I really do not like myself for doing so, although I understand the bigger picture—but I am afraid that I cannot bring myself to do so on this occasion.

4.53 pm

John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD): It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr. Pope.

On the rolling register and the canvass, my colleagues and I support the Government. I do not know whether the Minister has any figures about the completeness of the 2009 register or the numbers on it, but the proposals are clearly sensible. There are lots of difficulties, one of which is that when we have a complete canvass, we wipe the slate clean and develop a new list. That does not necessarily prevent fraud; indeed, to take one case in my constituency, certain names keep popping up, even though the people do not actually live there. I must admit that I have some sympathy for extending the Northern Irish system for preventing fraud to the mainland. In Birmingham, we have lots of people who are on the electoral role in two places; they vote in one place and have a postal vote in the other. That sort of thing can be picked up by using personal identifiers and the like.

My colleagues and I share the concerns about the transparency of the process for completing casual vacancies for local authorities and the European Parliament. The difficulty, however, is that the electoral process is designed to represent minorities. Obviously, my party works with the Alliance party, which is in a minority in Northern Ireland. Similarly, there may be a minority Unionist and a majority Sinn Fein-SDLP seat. If there is a vacancy for the Alliance or the Unionists, the difficulty is that they will almost certainly be replaced by Sinn Fein or the SDLP. That is not democracy but the tyranny of the majority operating, to the extent that the minorities get squeezed out of the process. Such a situation indicates that if we wish to have a system in which minority viewpoints are represented through the political process, which is particularly critical in Northern Ireland, there must be some mechanism whereby minority representation can come through. Perhaps there could be a by-election for the whole seat, so that we can see what comes up—although that stance might be a little too complex.

The fact that independent European parliamentarians effectively have an electoral will gives one a substitute list, and we obviously welcome having a sequence of priority for the substitutes. One could argue that, when people stand for election, there would be merit in identifying the substitutes. The difficulty is that, two years down

the line, the personal circumstances of the people on the substitutes list will have dramatically changed. Somewhat reluctantly, I have to say that the nominating officer approach seems to be the best way of ensuring that democracy prevails, in the sense of ensuring that minorities are not squeezed out of the process and that people who are in a position to do so serve on these authorities.

One can understand how if somebody has been elected as a minority representative for a particular seat, they would be hesitant to resign their seat because it would be almost certain that the majority interest would take it. One can understand how people end up with dual mandates that they do not really want. Although I agree with the Government that the issue needs to be resolved by the parties, rather than by legislation, democracy is about people deciding who they wish to represent them. If, in the full knowledge that someone has two mandates, the people decide that they want that person, that is their decision. On that basis, I support all three orders because they provide a sensible approach, first, to maintaining the integrity of the register and ensuring that people are not needlessly excluded and, secondly, to ensuring that democracy prevails and minorities are represented.

4.57 pm

Paul Goggins: I made a long speech at the start—I hope not to speak for as long at the end. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury asked about the concerns that I expressed about the potential loss of voters from the register if a canvass were held this year. The evidence comes from the last time a canvass was held, when some 81,147 voters disappeared off the register as a result of that canvass. The chief electoral officer is particularly concerned that, after he and his staff have worked so hard proactively to encourage people to sign up, the loss of such numbers again would be bad for democracy.

We are talking about people who would be entitled to vote, but who, because of the complexity of the procedure that they have to go through—the documents that they have to provide and so on—would perhaps be disinclined to register to vote. Those of us who are used to the canvass system in England, for example, will know that it is simply a matter of filling out a form to confirm that the same people still live in the house and that they all want to vote, and then putting the form in an envelope and sending it off.

The system is much more rigorous in Northern Ireland. For those who are on the margins of caring whether they are on the register or not, there is a bit of a disincentive, about which the hon. Gentleman is concerned. That alone would not be a persuasive argument. I have to balance such a viewpoint with the chief electoral officer’s work to ensure that the register has integrity. He worked in a very proactive way and checked his data against those provided by, for example, the Department for Work and Pensions. The chief electoral officer goes out into the colleges and, because of the legislation that we passed only recently, into the schools proactively to encourage people to sign up. He demonstrates the right kind of approach to the matter. Although the hon. Gentleman might be concerned, I have looked at the issue in detail and am satisfied this is the right approach.

Mr. Swire: Will the Minister illuminate the Committee a bit more about the drop in the number of people being registered? One reason for changing the legislation

was the widespread evidence of people being registered when they should not have been. On the drop in the percentage of those who are now registered, to what degree is the new system working in cleaning up those who should not have been registered in the first place?

Paul Goggins: The system works extremely effectively, because the person who applies to go on the register must provide forms of identification, including their signature and national insurance number. Therefore, one can be absolutely confident that those who have been accepted on to the register have a legitimate right to vote. So it has cleaned up the concern that existed previously.

However, the problem with individual registration that is applied so vigorously and rigorously is that, for any number of reasons, people do not bother to apply to go on the register. Obviously, all of us have a concern to ensure that everybody who should vote has the chance to be on the register. Therefore, with our full encouragement and support, the chief electoral officer is out and about in Northern Ireland, proactively encouraging people to get on the register when they have every right to vote.

Mr. Swire: That is all very interesting. I am grateful to the Minister for those remarks, but he did not attempt to address the question that I actually asked him: to what degree can the drop in the number of those being registered be attributed to the fact that the system is now working and that it is cleaning up on those who should not have been registered in the first place?

Paul Goggins: Forgive me; I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman did not get the answer that he had wanted or expected. However, the point that I am making is that whatever happened in the past and whatever abuses existed—such as people being on the register who should not have been on it, including deceased people who other people were still voting on behalf of and so on—all those abuses have now been swept away by the new system. So I am asserting to the hon. Gentleman, quite confidently, that those who drop out under the system that is operating now are doing so because they have not bothered to apply or because they have not bothered within the canvass to produce the information that is required of them, rather than because they were not entitled to vote. In any system, no doubt, there will be some room for people to be deceptive, but that has been absolutely ironed out under the system that we have now.

I assert to the hon. Gentleman, very strongly, that those who drop off the register now are doing so because they have not bothered to apply to be on it, or because they have not bothered to follow the procedure within the canvass, rather than because they have been found out and were cheating. I hope that that response offers him some reassurance. I think that the chief electoral officer has the right balance here, and he certainly has my confidence. That is why I am happy to accept his recommendation.

We come on to the more contentious area of debate. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury and I have had robust exchanges on this in the past and it did not

surprise me that he again expressed strong views about it this afternoon. I respect his views on it; I do not agree with them, but I accept them and understand how he arrives at them. Previously, I have shared with him the view that for some people, such those of us in the Committee who are used to operating in a single member first-past-the-post system—a system that I personally support, certainly for elections to Westminster—it is very difficult to begin to comprehend the role of the by-election in Northern Ireland. In a single member first-past-the-post system, we take it for granted that a by-election will be held if a Member of Parliament dies or resigns, but the same principles do not apply in Northern Ireland and distortions can occur.

In Northern Ireland, we are trying to build up political confidence and a new approach to democracy, and that approach is working well. The hon. Gentleman used the example of the European elections. There are three MEPs from Northern Ireland. In the last European elections, Sinn Fein topped the poll. Of the other two MEPs who were elected, one was from the Democratic Unionist party and one was a representative of the Ulster Conservatives and Unionists—New Force. If something were to happen whereby the Sinn Fein representative who topped that poll were to resign or if something else were to happen and that Sinn Fein representative moved out of that European post, and there was a by-election, it is very likely that a Unionist candidate would succeed in that by-election. Three Unionist MEPs would then represent Northern Ireland.

My argument is simply that such a situation is a recipe for democratic disaster, because one side of the community loses confidence in the democratic process, as it does not feel represented. Surely, that is something that we have learned in relation to Northern Ireland over the years, and we need to retain that knowledge. So I simply put it to the hon. Gentleman that I understand where he is coming from; as I say, I respect his view, even though I do not agree with it. I ask him to consider the impact on democracy and confidence of following his suggestion and having a by-election every time a vacancy arose for a district councillor or MEP.

Mr. Robertson: Sinn Fein does not worry too much about leaving almost a third of the Province unrepresented at Westminster. How would it restore people’s faith in the political process if a named person who was elected as an MEP stepped down—perhaps deliberately—after six months or so, to allow someone who would not have been popular at the polls to take their place? I cannot see that that would restore people’s faith in the political process.

Paul Goggins: I was coming to that point, because the hon. Gentleman alluded in his opening remarks to such a Trojan horse—the possibility of the election of a palatable candidate, who would then stand down. I accept that if that were to become custom and practice in Northern Ireland the system would be corrupted and would have to be reformed, but there is no evidence that people are prepared in that way to manipulate and abuse the new system, which has for some time been used for the Assembly, and which all the political parties fully support. I accept that if that were to happen we would need to do something about it, but there is no

evidence and we accept the good faith of the political parties in Northern Ireland as to their intention to make the system work.

The hon. Gentleman put his finger on the point himself: there is no perfect solution to the question, because there is a proportional system. He said that the co-option system is not perfect, and he clearly does not think that what is proposed in the measure is perfect. I consider the by-election system the worst option of the lot. There is not perfection, but we have a system that will work in practice. We have already seen it working for the Assembly: there have already been one or two appointments, which seem to have worked well. We have the support of the political parties.

There is a responsibility on those parties’ shoulders to make sure that the arrangement works in practice. There is no question but that we have the responsibility to make sure that democracy works. Electoral law is one of the few things that is not being devolved, and we have a responsibility to make sure that it continues to work. I offer the hon. Gentleman the assurance that if it fell to me, and there was evidence of malpractice and abuse, I should certainly take action to deal with it.

There is no absolute perfection to be had in this context. It is necessary to make balanced judgments about what works best in the interest of democracy and practical politics. What we propose builds on what we have done about filling vacancies in the Assembly, and applies it to the European Parliament and—at an important time for local democracy in Northern Ireland—to district councils.

Mr. Robertson: It is a little different in the case of the Assembly, for two reasons. First, it has 108 Members, and it would be more difficult for any political party to corrupt it. In the case of MEPs, there are only three, and the names matter more in that situation—or they certainly would sometimes.

Secondly, we are, of course, as the Minister knows, trying to get a power-sharing balance in the Assembly, and that is not necessarily true of the other bodies—certainly not for the European elections, although I understand the desirability of a cross-community situation. I do not think that the analogy with the Assembly is an exact one.

Paul Goggins: There will be a balance of representation and members in any given district council, reflecting the votes cast in the ballot box on election day, and it is important that that balance—the express will of the electorate in the area—should be respected through the lifetime of that council. What we propose today would enable that to happen.

I have said that the co-option system has worked in many councils, but that has generally been in cases when the person co-opted has been a member of the same party as the departing member, and there has been an informal consensus. What we are doing with the order is formalising that system to maintain the balance. That is required for the integrity of democracy. I respect the hon. Gentleman’s view. I will not persuade him: I did not do so last time and I do not expect to now. On balance, our proposal is the best, most practical way forward.

I thank the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley for his support. He asked about accuracy. The chief electoral officer informs me that at the end of 2008 the

register was, in his view, 94.3 per cent. accurate, which is impressive, but he continues to pay close attention to the integrity of the register and it is important that he does so. Letters and comments come my way from time to time, not least in this Committee, saying that the chief electoral officer is proactive and assertive in doing his job: some of those have even been mildly critical of him in some respects, which seems fine. If he is on his toes and doing his job in that way, that gives me confidence that he is looking after the integrity of the register.

The hon. Gentleman discussed briefly the nomination of substitutes, which is the system that will be in place for independent candidates. He put his finger on one of the difficulties with such a system, which is that the substitute list can be changed subsequently, so that the substitute list on election day can be different the day before the independent Member vacated their seat and the electorate would not have known. It is the best and only system in relation to independents, but a wider application of that approach through the party system would lead to major difficulties, which is why we did not propose that for the Assembly or the other two elected offices.

The hon. Gentleman concluded by remarking about dual mandates. Although that is not directly the issue that we are discussing, it is rightly being discussed openly in Northern Ireland. Sir Christopher Kelly made a recommendation calling for the end of dual mandates by 2011 and, certainly, by 2015 in relation to the Assembly. The measure that we are discussing will make quite a difference. Quite a number of Members of Parliament are also members of district councils in Northern Ireland. It may help them and give them a little bit of confidence to vacate their seat if they know that it is able to be taken over by another representative of their party, keeping democracy intact but enabling them to focus on one mandate rather two.

James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): Would that follow for an English council?

Paul Goggins: It is for the electorate to vote for whom they want. However, there are people with not just dual mandates, but triple mandates—Members of Parliament who are also councillors and Members of the Assembly—and that reflects the history of the past 30 or 40 years in Northern Ireland and the troubles. There is a growing recognition that that is not fair to the electorate, but it is the parties’ responsibility to manage that. Where somebody is up for election to Parliament or the Assembly, or a council, they should focus on one mandate rather than three. That should not be prohibited by Parliament—the electorate should be free to vote for whichever candidate they wish to vote for—but it is recognised in Northern Ireland that the parties need to act. None of the parties argue against that: it is just a question of how it is managed over time. The measure that we are discussing will help those who are members of district councils to do that.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That the Committee has considered the draft Representation of the People (Timing of the Canvass) (Northern Ireland) Order 2010.

Draft European parliamentary elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) regulations 2010

Motion made and Q uestion put,

That the Committee has considered the draft European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010.—(Paul Goggins.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Division No. 1 ]

AYES

Cawsey, Mr. Ian

Chapman, Ben

Goggins, rh Paul

Hemming, John

Marris, Rob

Tami, Mark

Turner, Dr. Desmond

NOES

Crabb, Mr. Stephen

Duddridge, James

Robertson, Mr. Laurence

Swire, Mr. Hugo

Question accordingly agreed to.

Draft Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (Amendment) Order 2010

Motion made, and Question put,

That the Committee has considered the draft Electoral Law Act (Northern Ireland) 1962 (Amendment) Order 2010. —(Paul Goggins.)

The Committee divided: Ayes 7, Noes 4.

Division No. 2 ]

AYES

Cawsey, Mr. Ian

Chapman, Ben

Goggins, rh Paul

Hemming, John

Marris, Rob

Tami, Mark

Turner, Dr. Desmond

NOES

Crabb, Mr. Stephen

Duddridge, James

Robertson, Mr. Laurence

Swire, Mr. Hugo

Question accordingly agreed to.

5.16 pm

Committee rose.


©Parliamentary copyright 2009
Prepared 9:52 on 16th March 2010