Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I ask Members to show some time restraint, because, as they can see, a lot of Members want to speak to the amendment.
Dr Huppert
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Although I am not sure that we agree on everything, I think we do on some things. There have been some interesting discussions between Front and Back Benchers.
I want to focus on some of the amendments. I am pleased to see the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I used to have the pleasure of serving on. I pushed a number of those proposals during the Bill’s Committee stage and we had interesting debates and votes on a range of things. I do not plan to go through every single aspect, because we rehearsed them thoroughly. I am delighted to see that a number of the amendments that I tabled and supported in Committee have come back.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the position on habeas corpus. Indeed, I would be happy to take an intervention from him, because it is a very important issue. I was happy with his clear answer of no. If he can stick to that, it would be fantastic; if not, we should be clear.
I welcome some of the Government’s good amendments. One that has not really been mentioned—it was tabled in the Lords and accepted by the Government—is that which changes “must” to “may”, allowing discretion to the judge, rather than the Minister. That is very welcome and has made a significant improvement. I am pleased that the Government have stuck to it.
I am also pleased that the Government have agreed to amendments on equality of arms to achieve true symmetry. They were recommended by the JCHR and I spoke to them at great length in the Bill Committee. We lost the vote, but I am glad that the Government have now come around to them. Symmetry is important, because one can think of a number of examples where an ex-employee of MI6 may not be able to raise publicly a document that is important to a case that they may wish to bring. In such circumstances, they may wish to have a CMP themselves so that the document can be debated without putting other things at risk. Such cases may be relatively rare, but ensuring pure symmetrical equality is absolutely the right thing to do.
I am also pleased to see reinstated, at least in the text of the Bill, the role of public interest immunity. There is a debate about whether it goes far enough and about what it does, but including it in the Bill is extremely good. I share the view of those who think that PII is not a perfect process. I do not like the secrecy involved, and there is certainly not a great case for it—we have seen, for example, some of the concerns in the Litvinenko case.
There is an issue with regard to last resort. I would like to see closed proceedings as a last resort. I do not think that this is entirely about openness; it is also about fairness and the principle that both sides should have the chance to see the same evidence. I think that it would be accepted everywhere that a CMP can never quite get to that point, because one person is not able to see everything. That is not a great situation.
Caroline Lucas
I am pleased to speak in favour of my amendments 1 to 7, and I hope to press amendment 1 to the vote. As colleagues will know, they are designed to get rid of part 2 in its entirety. That part would allow Ministers to use secret courts in a wide range of cases, for example any in which they could claim that national security was involved.
Let us look at some examples of when secret courts could be used, such as the cases of the bereaved families of soldiers bringing negligence claims against the Ministry of Defence. Debi Allbutt, whose husband was killed in a so-called friendly fire hit on his Challenger tank in Iraq, has said:
“I really don’t think people in the country realise how dangerous this new law will be for justice. I think anyone in my position deserves to know the truth about how their husband, a brave soldier fighting for his country, lost his life.”
Let us think of cases involving victims of torture or rendition in which the Government have been involved, who are seeking redress. They would also be affected, including such people as Khadija al-Saadi, who was 12 years old when she was rendered by MI6 to Gaddafi’s Libya along with her mother, three younger siblings and Gaddafi-opposing father. In a letter published by the prisoners’ human rights group Reprieve, she has said:
“I wrote to Ken Clarke when I heard about the secret courts plan, but he would not say that he would not seek to try my case in secret. I still feel this would have been unnecessary, unfair, and unworthy of the UK. I hope the inquiry will be as open and as fair as the phone hacking inquiry.
Secret courts could also be used in actions against the Government over corruption in arms deals. On Second Reading, Ministers refused to rule out the possibility of that in some cases:
“if there was embarrassment over arms sales to a particular country, where those sold arms had been used to deny the human rights of many others, against the policies and wishes of this country, and there was a desire not to make that too public”.—[Official Report, 18 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 722.]
A case of corruption in arms deals is therefore another that would not be held in open court.
Habeas corpus claims are at risk, too. Claims under the centuries-old safeguard against illegal detention, which forces the authorities either to charge or release a prisoner, are generally considered civil actions, so secret courts could mean people being imprisoned without knowing why. That was exactly what the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), said in the Public Bill Committee—that the Bill would cover habeas corpus claims. My new clause 2 would address that.
The question this evening is whether we really want to allow the Government to ensure that everything from state involvement in torture to the neglect of British soldiers could be hidden from public view. After a decade that has seen our intelligence agencies become involved in unprecedented complicity in wrongdoing, we should ask how we can prevent that from ever happening again, not how to remove the safeguards that allow us to hold the state and its agencies to account. That is especially true when, as the high-profile case of Binyam Mohamed has amply illustrated, the security agencies have shown that they are prepared to mislead the judiciary, and given that judges tend to defer to Ministers when faced with arguments about national security.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Paul Flynn
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate, and wonderful to support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg), who does his job so well as the Member of Parliament for the middle ages. It feels as though he is not just making history, but part of history.
It is extraordinary that a Bill presented as a reform or great change would actually put into law the concept of arranged marriages. We are very sniffy about them when we consider other religions and other parts of the world where one member of a family has absolute power in arranging the marriages of relatives, but that is what we are doing in this great reforming Bill. I do not know where the idea comes from that one person should be allowed to dictate the marital choices of six of her—later his—relatives. Is this a Liberal Democrat Bill? Is this the cutting edge of the future reforming zeal of the Liberal Democrat party: to espouse the concept of arranged marriages? This is the modern world.
In another part of the Bill acting as a reform, we are denying the opportunity to 87% of our population of ever achieving the job of Head of State. We are excluding and discriminating against atheists, non-conformists, Catholics, Jews and Muslims, who can never be Head of State: that is what we are being asked to approve today. It is perhaps not the reform we were looking forward to.
The traditions of the Church have been referred to. I find little difference between the high Church of England and Roman Catholicism, particularly now that Roman Catholicism has, lamentably, dropped the Latin language, which was a great joy to my youth:
“Introibo ad altare Dei, ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam.”
When I was in my “juventutem”, it was a matter of some pleasure—a joy, an education and a great richness—but it has gone now. What on earth is the difference that we are talking about?
I hope to speak briefly, because I think there may be some puzzlement among my constituents—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The hon. Gentleman says that he will speak briefly. Will he, for the rest of his speech, speak in English so that we can all understand it? Clearly, we have not all been educated to the high level of Paul Flynn.
Paul Flynn
I am very happy to speak in Middle English:
“Whan that Aprille with his shoures soote
The droghte of Marche hath perced to the roote”.
Middle English would be appropriate for the age in which some of the Government Members—
Mr Deputy Speaker
The hon. Gentleman is giving away his age. If he could please keep to common English. Thank you.
Paul Flynn
It is interesting that we have got on to linguistic discrimination. I could stay within the rules of the House and speak in Middle English, which very few, if any, people in the House speak, but I am denied the opportunity to speak in the language of Wales, which has the same authority and respect in this House as spitting on the carpet, where it is ruled as “unruly behaviour”. However, I will move on.
What is important in a Head of State? It is character, not religion. I am not allowed to be offensive to members of the royal family, because we are bound by rules that were created in the 13th century. I can do it outside this place, but not in Parliament—part of the infantilism of Parliament.
Paul Flynn
I am informed otherwise by those who perhaps have an even greater knowledge of this place than others—it goes back a long way.
The practical situation is that if we talk about the choice of Head of State, we can make only favourable comments about the people concerned. It is not difficult to say anything favourable about our present Queen, who has had a remarkable reign and has never interfered with politics in any way. However, if we look back at her immediate predecessors—again, without being derogatory —her father had an unhappy time and her uncle was a very unsuitable monarch, and her great grandfather and various others were not suitable.
There are grave doubts about the immediate successor, which are well known. There are many doubts about him and we are not even allowed to know what he wrote in letters to Ministers a few years ago. [Interruption.] “Quite right”, says an hon. Member. Who are we to know? We are only the elected people of this country. We are the representatives of the nation, not someone who happened to be first past the bedpost some time ago. That does not qualify him to make the crucial decisions he would have take, which is common in most countries where they have an elected state and the Head of State is there to keep the Prime Minister in control. That might have been necessary in the dying days of Mrs Thatcher’s rule, the details of which I gave last week—
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. Perhaps we can get back to new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2.
Paul Flynn
I will speak about new clause 1, as you rightly say, Mr Deputy Speaker, though these remarks are of relevance.
The suggestion is that we have a regent: a piece of ingenious constitutional gibberish that is part of the past rather than the future. We should be legislating for the future. Let us look at what we have got. I am still baffled—I cannot get these things across to the Table Office—as to how these outrageous decisions we are taking are consistent with the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European convention on human rights. Article 9 of the convention states:
“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.”
That is enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1998—not 1598 or 1298. It goes on:
“Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
What has this got to do with a democratic society? This is about an autocratic society and a monarchy that have contributed nothing to our progress over the years. Rather, they have been an obstacle to democratic reform for centuries.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are now generalising the debate and not really focusing on new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2. Mr Flynn, will you please focus on the new clause and amendments?
Paul Flynn
I would be delighted, but let me say—although I probably should not—that the contribution of royalty has been of one head, grudgingly donated.
The Bill appears prima facie to be incompatible with article 1 of protocol 12 of the European convention on human rights, which forbids discrimination on the grounds of birth in any right created by law. Perhaps the Government would like to think about that point. We are creating not only a piece of new discrimination, new unfairness and new gender bias, but something that is in conflict with the Human Rights Act and the European convention on human rights.
It would be good to know what advice the Government have had on the Bill. I have tried to question the Government about this, but they have been reluctant to answer. The Bill states that it complies with the relevant rights. Nevertheless, this is one of the most atrocious Bills ever to come before the House. So many Bills have unintended consequences, however, and this one opens a Pandora’s box on the royal succession: those who believed that the rules were set immutably in stone now know that they are not, and now that there has been one change, there can be many others.
We must move forward to an adult, 21st-century choice of Head of State, as have most countries in the world—those free nations that elect their Head of State and give their entire population the chance to be elected. Under the Bill, however, only members of the Church of England can become Head of State. The Church in Wales has pedigree. The Celtic Church existed long before the Roman Church—this European import—came along to take over the country, and we have the great saints Illtyd, Dyfrig, Samson and a string of other great saints.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Order. I fear that the hon. Gentleman’s speech might be on a loop. He started with this, and I think he is now coming to an end, is he not? Will he perhaps concentrate on new clause 1 and amendments 1 and 2?
Paul Flynn
I am delighted to support new clause 1 —it is a minute improvement to the Bill—and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will press it to a Division, so that we can support his cause and stand up for a minor improvement to end the grotesque religious intolerance in the Act of Settlement.
Jacob Rees-Mogg
If my amendments were not within the scope, Mr Speaker would surely not have selected them.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
That is absolutely correct. That clarification was right; the amendments are within the scope of the Bill.
Miss Smith
I have no intention of disputing your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that was not the intention of my comments. I merely wanted to say that this Bill has never had the intention of addressing the religion of the monarch or indeed of those in the line of succession.
Voting Age
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Miss Smith
I will answer the hon. Gentleman but take no further interventions on that because I have little time. He is confusing the concept of activities in schools with the national curriculum, which are two different things.
We need to give young people a say in the issues and decisions that affect them. The Government have made that a key principle in our “Positive for Youth” policy and are engaging young people in the political process in a number of ways. The British Youth Council has received funding from the Department for Education to promote the voice of young people at national and local level. That includes establishing a new national scrutiny group of representative and elected young people to advise Ministers across the UK Government directly. I look forward to my first meeting with the group. The Cabinet Office is working with Bite the Ballot and Operation Black Vote to pilot different approaches to engaging directly with young people and black and minority ethnic groups in the UK, including in their schools, colleges and communities, to increase their understanding of both the process and relevance of registering to vote.
Hon. Members have argued that 16 and 17-year-olds ought to be able to vote in order to help engage young people at an early age in our democratic and political processes, but they do not yet convince me. I have not seen compelling evidence. The Youth Citizenship Commission, which the previous Government set up in 2008—no doubt it was part of their onward journey—considered ways in which to develop young people’s understanding of citizenship and increase their participation in politics. It also considered whether the voting age ought to be set at 16. In its summer 2009 report, it felt unable to make a recommendation on whether the voting age should be lowered. It suggested that there was a lack of evidence regarding the merits of votes at 16, and noted that there were vigorous views on either side of the debate, which we have heard in the debate. It said that it is
“of the view that the issue is not the principal factor in encouraging young people’s interest and involvement in politics and citizenship.”
That speaks for itself and sums up several strands of the debate.
Those findings were in line with those made five years earlier by the Electoral Commission in its 2004 report on the age of majority. The commission recommended in its report that the minimum age stays at 18 years. It also recommended reducing the minimum candidacy age from 21 to 18 so that voting and candidacy are the same—a number of hon. Members have made that point—and the change was duly introduced.
The evidence is therefore not clear cut. We should certainly continue to consider the question, and I welcome the role of the Backbench Business Committee in that. Perhaps the more pressing question is what we can do to increase registration and turnout in groups who can vote. Registration among young people is lower than among other population groups. Recent Electoral Commission research shows that 55% of 17 and 18-year-olds and 56% of 19 to 24-year-olds were on the register, compared with 94% of over-65s. Those figures are telling.
I also note that the turnout figures for 18 to 24-year-olds have been falling. At successive elections from 1974 to 1992, approximately a quarter of that group did not vote. That is important to know and something we all ought to take seriously and work on. There is clearly an issue about engagement, particularly with younger electors, which goes beyond franchise, and the Government are trying to address it.
We are introducing the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, which I know we shall enjoy debating in the House next week. It will go some way towards changing the electoral registration process for the better by introducing individual registration. It will create a legislative framework to allow alternative channels for registration, such as online registration. The move from paper to digital will make registration more convenient and increase accessibility—a significant transition. We want to ensure that during this period we enable as many people as possible of all ages to register to vote. We know we need to go further than those changes alone. I mentioned that the Government are working with a range of organisations to seek to engage individuals and communities from all sections of society into the political process, and specifically to drive up registration rates in under-registered groups.
The Government are fully committed to doing all they can to increase voter registration levels, but, to return to the main theme of today’s debate, there is no silver bullet solution. Increasing democratic engagement is not solely the responsibility of Government. Politicians, political parties, electoral administrators, teachers, young people themselves and others in society all have a role to play in encouraging young people to register to vote, and then to actually use their vote in elections and referendums. We must provide people with compelling reasons to vote.
I pay tribute again to hon. Members and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this compelling debate, one in which evidence and principle have their place, and I hope we have done it justice today.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
To sum up for no more than two minutes, I call Stephen Williams.
Succession to the Crown Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
Is the Minister giving way?
Miss Smith
I would rather the Question be put.
Question put and agreed to.
Schedule accordingly agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill, as amended, reported.
Bill to be considered tomorrow.
Justice and Security Bill [Lords]
Nigel Evans Excerpts(11 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. There is a 10-minute limit on contributions from now on, with the usual injury time for up to two interventions.
Immigration
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The time limit is being reduced by one minute, to seven minutes, to accommodate as many Members as possible.
Prime Minister’s Adviser on Ministers’ Interests
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. If hon. Members will resume their seats, let me announce that this debate is time limited to 2.20 pm. I intend to call Gareth Thomas at 1.58 pm for 10 minutes, Nick Hurd at 2.08 pm for 10 minutes, and finally Mr Jenkin to sum up in the last two minutes. Six Members wish to contribute, so I ask them to take account of the time constraints in order to be fair to others.
Paul Flynn
No, it would not, because, under this Government, in the three serious cases I have mentioned, the code has not been used, when it should have been. The only time it has been called upon was in a case of some triviality, where the person involved admitted her guilt, and that went through. These other serious potential abuses have not even been investigated, and we must question the impartiality of the adviser because of his conduct on the day of the debate in question. All the misgivings we had were justified.
We, as an institution, are in grave danger of deepening public cynicism against us. We have had new cases of allegations, backed up with films showing a lobbyist trying to get access to the Prime Minister or boasting of access—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I will not put the clock on you, Mr Mulholland, but I ask you to resume your seat at 1.58 pm.
Greg Mulholland (Leeds North West) (LD)
I am a member of the Public Administration Committee, and I am very proud that we have come up with this sensible and important proposal. It is hugely important for Parliament, as it addresses the holding of Ministers to account, which is one of our key roles. We must remember that it is important outside this place, too; it is important to ordinary people, who saw the unseemly events of the past few months and have therefore come to regard the current system of accountability as wholly inadequate. Recent episodes have also left a nasty taste in the mouths of Members on both sides of the House, who agree that the current situation is wholly unacceptable.
When Sir Alex Allan appeared before our Committee, we had what can only be described as a wholly unsatisfactory discussion with him in respect of both the realities of the role and, I am afraid, our confidence in his ability to perform it as it should be performed, rather than as it is, sadly, currently performed.
We must remember that this proposal was introduced by the previous Government. In response to the predecessor Committee’s previous report on the issue, they made it clear that the appointment would be a personal one by the Prime Minister and that he would need to have confidence that the person appointed would be able to provide independent and impartial advice.
We want the Minister to say that the Government will accept our sensible proposal, and we also want the Opposition to agree to it; they must accept the original principles of this new office as set out under the last Government. I have asked the same of the Deputy Prime Minister, and I believe that he is happy to do so on behalf of the Liberal Democrats.
The full title of this post is “the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests” but the simple reality is that it is the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests. The current title is fraudulent and misleading to Parliament and the public. If these reforms are not accepted and implemented, the Government should at least have the decency to change the title to “the Prime Minister’s adviser on Ministers’ interests.”
Sir Alex Allan was appointed to the post with no open competition. We do not believe anyone else was even in the frame for the job, and there was no detail whatever on the process he went through. That is simply unacceptable.
Our proposal is based on an extremely simple idea. If—free from political interference and regardless of any media witch hunt—the independent adviser believes there is sufficient genuine evidence for an investigation, he should intervene. That is all we are asking for.
House of Lords Reform Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I remind hon. Members not to approach the Chair to find out when they will speak, as Mr Speaker has indicated. We will try to get in as many hon. Members as we can.
Mr Allen
My right hon. Friend, having been a strong member of a past Executive, knows where he is most powerful. Is he most powerful sitting on the Back Benches here, or was he most powerful when in Whitehall and commanding a Government Department? We could discuss how effective the scrutiny was that he went through.
To have an un-elected Chamber with a say in passing laws over our citizens is a democratic abomination. It is not a deficit, an anachronism or a quaint ceremonial corner; it is an insult to every elector in the land. It is hobbling and repressive. It says to our citizens, “You are not capable or worthy of deciding your own future, of deciding who should run your country.” It says that this country is about deference and patronage, about a lack of self-confidence and belief, and about insiders and those who know better. It is about our past, not our future. It is an open wound in the body of our democracy and it must be healed.
That wound can be healed only by introducing the elective principle to the second Chamber. That is what this generation of parliamentarians in both Houses can achieve over the next year, and it can be done without beheading those whose service in the second Chamber deserves our respect, not our abuse. For those of us who for 25 years or more have worked for reform, standing on the shoulders of a century of giants before us, these proposals are the most serious attempt yet to bring about a change in our democracy and bring it into the modern era. Their courage and ambition mock the flaccid indecision of recent years.
Are the proposals perfect? No, of course not. Only the 650 different plans in the minds of each hon. Member are perfect, but that is why, theoretically at least, we have a parliamentary process. There is a—
Regional Pay
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. To ensure that more Members are able to participate in the debate, the time limit is being reduced to four minutes as from now. I call Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Electoral Registration and Administration Bill
Nigel Evans Excerpts(12 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, page 2, line 8, at end add
‘if the Electoral Commission believes that the new electoral system is operating effectively’.
The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 30, in clause 25, page 14, line 17, at end insert—
‘(1A) Before making an order under subsection 1, the Secretary of State must seek the views of the Electoral Commission as to whether the establishment of an electoral register made up solely of electors who have registered individually would help or hinder the achievement of the registration objectives.
(1B) For these purposes the registration objectives are to secure, so far as is reasonably practicable—
(a) that persons who are entitled to be registered in a register are registered in it,
(b) that persons who are not entitled to be registered in a register are not registered in it, and
(c) that none of the information relating to a registered person that appears in a register or other record kept by a registration officer is false.
(1C) The Commission must submit its assessment, with a recommendation, in a report to the Secretary of State, which must be laid before Parliament as soon as possible by the Secretary of State.
(1D) If—
(a) the recommendation in the Electoral Commission’s report is that the establishment of an electoral register made up solely of electors who have registered individually would help the achievement of the registration objectives, and
(b) the recommendation is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,
the Secretary of State may make an order bringing Parts 1 and 2 of this Act into force.
(1E) The Secretary of State may not make such an order if those conditions are not met.
(1F) If—
(a) the Electoral Commission’s report does not contain a recommendation to proceed to establish an electoral register made up solely of electors who have registered individually, or
(b) the report does contain such a recommendation, but it is not approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament,
within 12 months after the day on which the report is submitted by the Electoral Commission (in the case mentioned in paragraph (a)) or disapproved in Parliament (in the case mentioned in paragraph (b)), the Secretary of State must require the Commission to submit, by a specified date, a further report under this section containing the terms mentioned in subsection (1A).
(1G) For the purposes of subsection (1F)—
(a) a report is disapproved in Parliament when either House decided against resolving to approve the report (or, if both Houses so decide on different days, when the first of them so decides);
(b) the date specified by the Secretary of State must be at least one year, but no more than two years, after the day on which the requirement under that subsection is imposed.’.
Amendment 31, page 14, line 17, at end insert
‘with the exception of Schedule 5, Part 2, which shall come into force by order only once—
(a) the data matching pilots for pre-verification purposes established by the Electoral Registration Data Schemes Order 2012 have been completed,
(b) the Electoral Commission has reported on these schemes as under the terms of that Order, and
(c) the Electoral Commission believes that the completeness of the register will not be negatively affected.’.
Mr David
Labour Members support the principle of individual electoral registration, as we indicated on Second Reading; indeed, we legislated for it in the last Parliament. We believe that it is desirable to have a complete and accurate electoral register. We also believe that IER is a system that is compatible with modern society, and we recognise that it is outdated to rely on the head of the household. However, we have genuine concerns, and the amendments we have tabled reflect them.
Clause 1 will amend the Representation of the People Act 1983 to enable local registration officers to add individuals to the electoral register under the new system. Let me make it clear that we accept the need for clear guidance to be given during the early stages of the new system’s implementation, but we are extremely concerned about the huge power that the Bill will give to Ministers. It would be better for the Secretary of State to issue guidance, under section 52 of that Act, and for action to be taken following a recommendation from the Electoral Commission to follow certain guidance. We fully accept that that would not involve parliamentary scrutiny, but it would take us beyond the five years stipulated in the clause.
The mention of five years brings me to my next point. The Bill’s explanatory notes state in relation to clause 1(5):
“Subsection (5) provides that the requirement for registration officers to have regard to guidance about determining applications to register will cease 5 years after coming into force. This provision is included because after five years the new registration system, and the process for determining applications, is likely to have reached a steady state and guidance will no longer be necessary.”
I want to emphasise the word “likely” in that second sentence; there is no certainty about this. It involves a possibility, or perhaps a probability. This is “likely” to happen. Furthermore, the explanatory notes use the term “steady state”. I recall the captain of the Costa Concordia suggesting that his ship was in a steady state as it lurched on to its side before being beached. Is that similar to the state of this legislation? In view of the lack of clarity in the explanatory notes, we feel that it would be far better if the Electoral Commission were to determine whether the system was working effectively.