| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 5 [Revision of procedures in light of report]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 39:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Personation: arrestable offence]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 40 to 43:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 7 [Time limit for prosecution of offences]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 44 to 49:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 8 [Other elections, etc]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 50:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 55:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 56:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, Amendment No. 56 will withdraw Clause 10 in its entirety. Clause 10 gives details about the laying of the orders before both Houses of Parliament. Noble Lords will forgive me if I am wrong, but I have not noticed that commitment being maintained by any other amendment.
I appreciate that we are now down to one order, but that order will contain the nuts and bolts of what is being proposed, and it seems inescapable that it must come for affirmative agreement by both Houses. The removal of Clause 10 will remove the possibility of an order coming to the House, or have I missed that somewhere?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness gave me a Gypsy's warning, if I can use that expression respectfully, that she wanted to make that point. I shall write to her and to the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Goodhart, but my recollection is that our position is that there is no need for the resolution process that she talks about. The order will be such an administrative and technical one that we cannot see that it will require parliamentary scrutiny. That is part of the reason why we were keen to share the policy paper with the Front Benches. It has helped to inform scrutiny of the Bill, and it gives a clear signal of the direction in which we are moving.
The hour is late, however, so I shall write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, setting out our argument. It will not give her an opportunity to come back on it, I realise, but I recollect that we felt that the
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is it not correct that the Delegated Powers Committee took the view that, in that case, it would not insist on a form of parliamentary procedure for the pilots order, not because it was unimportant but because it was assumed at that point that it applied only to two regions of the United Kingdom and only for one election? That order was to cease to have effect after 10 June. I think there is a strong case for using, at any rate, the negative procedure. I am not sure I would go quite as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, in saying that it would be appropriate here to have the affirmative procedure, but perhaps that could be considered at Third Reading.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is correct that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee did not think there was a need for parliamentary scrutiny, partly, I think, because the Bill is a one-off event. That is the normal situation. This Bill, despite the effort we have put into it, ceases to have effect after the June elections. It falls away, so what happens subsequently is open.
Given that point, buttressed by what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee said, we do not think there is a need for parliamentary scrutiny of these issues. Whether anything like that should happen in the future—whether there should be parliamentary scrutiny of future orders, were there to be further pilot orders—is an issue that will come back to the House. Therefore, I do not think we are at risk in not having parliamentary scrutiny on this.
I hope that we have demonstrated by the way in which we have taken the Bill forward that there has been a wish to try to share as much as we can with Opposition Front Benches. I will give a commitment that we will seek to continue to do that. Although there will not be a parliamentary process, I will seek to ensure that we try to share information with Opposition Front Benches so that they are aware of what is happening on these issues as we move forward on the electoral pilot. It is not simply an issue of the confidence of Parliament about the Bill; it is also important that political parties understand what is happening on the implementation of the pilots. Therefore, I give that commitment.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I have a vague recollection of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, waving a pile of papers at us in Committee and asking whether we really wanted to have all this for all the pilot areas. I am bound to say now that I do not, but an example of what the pilot order will look like would be extremely helpful.
In order for us to be able to make any progress on that if we think something in it has not been adequately dealt with, it would, at the very least, be sensible to suggest that at Third Reading we move an amendment to put it in for a negative order. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, says, that gives us a chance then to ask for the House to see it if there are omissions or additions about which we have concerns.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 57:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Schedule [Other elections, etc]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 58:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, I remind your Lordships that if Amendment No. 59 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 60 or 61 because of pre-emption.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 59:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will seek to keep this relatively succinct. Included in the schedule to the Bill is a provision preventing Westminster by-elections as well as other elections, by-elections and referendums taking place within a window of time around the European parliamentary election in pilot regions. The Bill states that no Westminster by-election is to take place either on the same day as the European parliamentary elections or at any time within three weeks before or after that date. The intention is that undue complexity and confusion is avoided for electoral administrators and the electorate.
The provision was raised as a concern by the Select Committee on the Constitution in its consideration of the Bill. It stated that it was aware of no direct precedent for the imposition of such restriction which would cause the electorate in the affected constituency to be without a representative in Parliament for longer than would otherwise be the case. This may be perceived as setting a precedent, with constitutional implications.
The Government tabled an identical amendment to Amendment No. 59 in Committee, but we could not reach unanimity, so it was withdrawn. This amendment would keep the current exclusion, but amend it, so that the excluded period is reduced to just the date of the European parliamentary election. We felt that that took on board the Constitution Committee's clear advice in this respect. The amendment, therefore, still prevents the by-election on the same day as the European parliamentary election and since elections are conventionally held on a Thursday, it would actually prevent by-elections during the entire week surrounding the European election. I hope that that is some, if not sufficient, comfort for the noble Lord, Lord Rennard.
The noble Lord argued forcefully in Committee that a longer period was necessary; Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 name a period of two weeks either side. I have set out why we think it is wise to keep the absolute prohibition at a minimum. However, at least for parliamentary by-elections, the relevant party Whip has the power, within limits, to determine when the election is called. One would expect all parties, without there being a statutory prohibition, apart from one day, to be aware of the issues around the election in June. I say no more than that, but what we have said gives a window that is wider than one day. No doubt any Chief Whip of a party so affected would think long and hard about whether it was wise to test the comprehension of electoral administrators and the electorate by bringing them too proximate together.
I hope we have responded strongly and clearly to what the Select Committee on the Constitution said, while still making a nod in the direction of the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. I beg to move.
"( ) The returning officer is the person who is described as such in the pilot order."
Page 4, line 13, leave out from "by" to "for" and insert "a pilot order"
Page 4, line 22, leave out "In relation to England and Wales,"
Page 4, line 23, leave out "order under section 2" and insert "a pilot order"
Page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (2).
Page 4, line 33, leave out "Subsections (1) and (2) do" and insert "Subsection (1) does"
Page 4, line 38, leave out "order under section 2" and insert "a pilot order"
Page 4, line 39, leave out "or (in Scotland) the sheriff"
Page 4, line 40, leave out "or he (as the case may be)"
Page 4, line 40, leave out "appropriate application" and insert "application by a constable or Crown Prosecutor"
Page 5, line 3, leave out "or the sheriff (as the case may be)"
Page 5, line 8, leave out subsection (4).
Page 5, line 16, leave out "An order under section 1" and insert "A pilot order"
Page 5, line 26, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"( ) A pilot order is an order made under section (Piloting conduct at European and local elections).
( ) Pilot region must be construed in accordance with section (Piloting conduct at European and local elections)(3)."
Page 5, line 33, leave out "in relation to England,"
Page 5, line 33, leave out "the Council of the Isles of Scilly"
Page 5, line 36, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
Page 5, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) Postal voting must be construed in accordance with section (Piloting conduct at European and local elections)(4)."
Leave out Clause 10.
7.30 p.m.
Page 6, line 29, after "to" insert "Scotland or"
Page 7, line 7, leave out from third "a" to "must" in line 8 and insert "pilot region"
Page 7, line 11, leave out from "2004" to end of line 13.
Next Section
Back to Table of Contents
Lords Hansard Home Page