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.