Winter Floods 2013-14

Debate between David Heath and Chris Ruane

Thursday 8th January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Heath]

It is undoubtedly true that changes in land management have an effect. Land compaction and the growing of different crops on more upland areas affect the rate of flow into what is effectively a large sponge. I have lived in Somerset all my life, and the landscape is still pretty recognisable as what it was when I was a boy. We could not really say that there has been a revolution in agronomy in the area; it is still principally a livestock area, and crops are grown there as forage rather than as commercial crops. Although the hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I will come back to later, it is possible to overstate land management as part of the cause and effect.

The third reason for the lack of action I mentioned was in my view an environmental heresy, namely the decision, for some reason, that the watercourses in Somerset were the centre of ecological interest, rather than the land in between them. That is, I am afraid, nonsense. The watercourses are artificial drainage channels. It was ridiculous to “save” the flora and fauna of the drainage channels but lose the irreplaceable flora and fauna living on the land in between them; that has been the effect.

I will deal quickly with what has happened since. The Government have done an awful lot of the things we asked them to, and I am grateful to Ministers for that. We were lucky: we had the attention of the national and, indeed, the world media for a short period of time. If the Thames valley had flooded before the Somerset levels, we might not have attracted the same attention. We secured visits from very senior members of the Government: the Prime Minister made a number of visits, as did the Deputy Prime Minister and more than one Secretary of State, as well as the Minister with responsibility for floods. We were very grateful that they came to see for themselves what needed to be done.

[Chris Ruane]

This may sound a little sour, but even though 500 houses were flooded in St Asaph and 140 were flooded in east Rhyl, the Prime Minister failed to visit either community.

[Mr Heath]

I am very sorry to hear that. In the previous year the Prime Minister did not put in an appearance in Somerset, so perhaps it was a case of hitting the right moment and of the strength with which representations were made. Certainly we had the Government’s attention, which had an effect.

To deal first with the immediate response, before I move on to the Government’s response I have to pay tribute again to the huge voluntary effort. People behaved quite extraordinarily in helping their neighbours, and people from further away helped those whom they did not know. There were enormous numbers of charity donations. I spend a day at the Somerset Community Foundation opening letters that were quite heartbreaking, with donations from people who could ill afford them but were giving them because they felt it was necessary to help those in distress. As many people will know, there were donations of forage for animals from farmers in other parts of the country, which were hugely welcome. That has led to the setting up of what I hope will be a permanent exchange, which will be of value.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between David Heath and Chris Ruane

Monday 25th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

I repeat: this is a power for Parliament and I expect Parliament to use it sensibly because I believe—contrary to all the evidence—that most Members of Parliament want our democratic system to work as effectively as possible. Yes, the hon. Gentleman is right that there are differences between constituencies. The electorate in my constituency is almost the same as the electorate in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras, but demographically the two are very different and a comparison between them would be almost meaningless in those terms. The right mechanism in his constituency might be completely wrong for mine and there may be better and more effective measures we can deploy—as long as we are clear that our intention is to have in every constituency a register that is as complete and as accurate as we can manage.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman was not here for the early part of our discussion of the amendments, but I happily give way to him.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so graciously. Earlier, he said, “We would not move forward unless we—no, not just we: the Electoral Commission and both Houses—were satisfied.” Let us imagine that on one side there was the Government and both Houses—one of them, this place, in an unholy alliance and the other stuffed with Liberal and Conservative peers—and on the other side the Electoral Commission saying, “No, things are not right.” Who would win?

[Mr Heath]

I do not remember any Government of any complexion introducing proposals on electoral law on which there was not a measure of agreement with the Electoral Commission, but the whole purpose of the Bill is to ensure that the first word—not the last word—lies with the Electoral Commission. The commission has the duty in the first instance to assess any proposal and to do so in the light of the evidence from pilot schemes run in the interim. It is inconceivable to me that a Minister would put forward a proposal using the mechanism in the Bill that did not have the full approval of the Electoral Commission. A future Government could decide to write their own primary legislation and abolish the canvass overnight—that is exactly what the Labour Government the hon. Gentleman supported did—but we do not intend to do that, because we think there is a better mechanism, based on evidence and on the views of the Electoral Commission, and that is what we have proposed.

Let me go though the amendments in the group. Amendment 22 would remove the possibility of the Government proceeding with the abolition or the amendment of the annual canvass. We have no immediate intention of doing either, but I believe that that is a valuable power to be available to both Houses, provided there are safeguards and it is used on the advice of the Electoral Commission. It would be a great shame to be unable even to consider following the example set in Northern Ireland if that is the best way to achieve completeness and accuracy of the register.

Amendment 24 deals with the mechanism within Parliament. As I said, the mechanism proposed is unique because of the requirement to have the advice of the Electoral Commission before starting. I hope that the House is satisfied that the two-stage process—a report by the Electoral Commission followed by the normal affirmative procedure in both Houses—provides sufficient scrutiny and safeguards.

Amendment 23 would remove the ability to reinstate the canvass, which seems a little perverse, given the comments made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St Pancras. I hope that the House will reject it.

Under clause 6(5), an order to amend or abolish the annual canvass would include provision to create further secondary legislation. I think that makes sense. If amendment 25 were made, it would prevent subsequent orders, so everything would have to be in primary legislation. I do not believe we need to use such an unwieldy method and that regulation and subordinate legislation are better. On reflection, I suspect the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge will agree with me that that is not the most sensible way of setting about our business.

Clause 7 sets out the requirement, when a proposal is made, for a report by the Electoral Commission containing an assessment of the extent to which registration officers are currently able to ascertain those unregistered people who are entitled to be registered and those who are registered but are not entitled to be so; the extent to which proposals in the order meet that objective; and the merits of alternative methods of meeting it. If amendment 27 were made, that report, instead of going to the relevant Minister, would go direct to Parliament. That does not necessarily make sense, because if such a proposal were to meet with a negative response from the Electoral Commission, it would not proceed to Parliament—Ministers would not entertain the suggestion. If the report were positive, however, it would be presented to Parliament and would necessarily form part of the process. In any case, I would expect the Electoral Commission to publish such a report, irrespective of whether it was to be presented to Ministers or to Parliament; the report would appear on the website and be available for general view and consideration. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment 28 would set arbitrary limits on the time the Electoral Commission had to produce a report. It is unnecessary to place such a restraint on the commission.

Amendment 29 relates to the important matter of the commission’s role in relation to schemes to pilot proposed changes to the annual canvass. If we are to have a successful system, the pilots are extremely important. Without them, proper evaluation of schemes proposed by registration officers for their areas will be impossible. This covers the point raised by the hon. Member for North Durham about, in effect, horses for courses. The instigation comes from the registration officer for the area, it is agreed by the Minister, and Parliament must agree it by the affirmative resolution procedure. To insert yet another hurdle into the process is unnecessary because, in practice, the Electoral Commission would play a part in the design of any pilot scheme and would be responsible for evaluating it in due course. At the end of the day it is Ministers who are responsible to the House for schemes that are introduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Heath]

This involves two things. First, we need to have pilots to see how we can most effectively secure the information; the Electoral Commission might want to take a view on that. Secondly, we need to ensure that that is reflected in the secondary legislation—the regulations that specify what needs to be collected. There is already quite a long list of things that are specified; indeed, the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) has complained that it is too long. Despite his reservations, I think that accessibility issues would be a useful addition. Provisions elsewhere in the Bill provide specific powers to add other requirements. For example, new paragraph 3ZA(1)(a) to the Representation of the People Act 1983 provides the power that the hon. Member for Hendon is concerned about. It seems that his view is shared by the Electoral Commission, which slightly worries me, but I will come back to that.

[Chris Ruane]

If a local authority offered to pilot such an initiative, would it receive additional funding?

[Mr Heath]

We want to make sure that every authority has the funding it needs to do the job properly. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is a duty on local authorities to make available to electoral registration officers the funding that is necessary for them to do their job. He also knows that some authorities do that very well but some, frankly, do not, and in those cases the ERO ought to be saying, “You, Mr Chief Executive”—or Mr County Treasurer, or whatever—“are not providing the resources necessary to do the job effectively.” We will support every time EROs who lack the resources to do the job properly.

[Chris Ruane]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I will give way once more to the hon. Gentleman.

[Chris Ruane]

If such a pilot is of national significance because it could influence national policy, and it is above and beyond what an ERO or a local authority is already doing, surely it is incumbent on the Government, in a time of cuts, to recognise that and make additional funding available to it.

[Mr Heath]

I repeat that every electoral registration officer has a duty—a very important duty—to make sure that the register in their area is as complete and as accurate as possible. That is their duty, irrespective of this Bill.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between David Heath and Chris Ruane

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is wearing a lovely tie, but his point is not entirely logical. The arguments for getting rid of the door-to-door annual canvass in Northern Ireland were nothing to do with the security situation and everything to do with the system of individual voter registration that was being introduced. That is precisely analogous to what we are doing.

Let me deal with the substance of the points that have been made. There is one clear misapprehension among those who have spoken, which is to assume that there is currently a requirement for the annual canvass to take place in October. That is not the case under current legislation. There is a reference date of 15 October. That is the point at which people are asked to consider where they are resident. That is quite a confusing requirement. I know for a fact that people who are trying to register get confused by it. They think, “Hang on a minute. On 15 October I plan to be visiting my Aunt Gladys in Carlisle. Where should I put myself down as being resident?” The reference date is therefore not necessarily helpful to the process of registration. There is not a requirement for the canvass to take place in October. It can take place at any time and is divorced from the reference date.

The canvass usually takes place around October because of the other factors that electoral registration officers have to consider, such as the deadline for the publication of the register, the performance standards set by the Electoral Commission, the data return that electoral registration officers are required to provide to the Office for National Statistics and the usual timing of elections in May. Electoral registration officers will still have to take those factors into account when making arrangements for the canvass.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) has discussed this matter with an expert panel of electoral registration officers and electoral administrators. It has welcomed the removal of the reference date, which it agrees is confusing, and sees the advantage of the requirement for an annual canvass as it is put forward in the Bill. It provides flexibility, but at the same time there is an implied date that officers can work around. They can extend the canvass period if it will help the completeness of the register, but they will still be canvassing at approximately the same time. I hope that that at least helps Members understand what is proposed.

Amendment 8 is about what factors the electoral registration officer takes into account in preparing the canvass. Proposed new section 9D(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which will be inserted by clause 4, states:

“Each registration officer in Great Britain must conduct an annual canvass in relation to the area for which the officer acts.”

That follows the wording of the canvassing obligation in existing legislation. Registration officers are therefore already required to canvass their whole area, and we do not need to set out in new primary legislation the precise categories of property that a registration officer must contact to comply with the requirement to canvass their area. The electoral register and the local land and property gazetteer use the same address data.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

[Mr Heath]

Yes, I will. I know I will regret it, but I will.

[Chris Ruane]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. The obligation of door-to-door canvassing was set out in, I think, the Electoral Administration Act 2006, but many authorities did not take it up. Year after year, they were asked, “Are you doing this?”, and responded, “No.” We need firmer legislation. We were not firm enough in 2006, and here is an opportunity to state firmly in legislation that officers have to go out door-knocking year in, year out, because that is what gets results.

[Mr Heath]

I do not regret having given way to the hon. Gentleman as much as I often do, because his point is pertinent, but it is pertinent to amendment 7 rather than to amendment 8, which I am addressing at the moment and which is about the areas of information—

[Mr Heath]

I prefer to answer it at the point in my remarks where I reach the relevant amendment, rather than suddenly plucking a piece of information out of the air. I think that is helpful to the House.

We expect registration officers, as part of their canvassing duty, to write to all properties of which they are aware and at which people may be resident, including all the categories mentioned in amendment 8 and any other properties containing potentially eligible electors. The difficulty with specifying categories in primary legislation at the level that the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge suggests is that it could inadvertently narrow the scope of what electoral registration officers are expected to do. Such details are difficult to change if they are set out in primary rather than secondary legislation.

I move on to amendment 7, so the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) will be pleased to know that his point is now relevant. I am grateful to hon. Members of all parties for highlighting the benefit of conducting house-to-house inquiries as part of the canvassing process. Section 9A of the 1983 Act already requires registration officers to take all steps necessary to maintain their electoral register. That includes the requirement to make house-to-house inquiries on one or more occasions. That will remain in the 1983 Act, so it is not necessary to make the suggested amendment.

In addition, the Electoral Commission’s performance standards set out the steps that a registration officer must take to comply with their duty, and we expect full compliance with those standards. Registration officers can carry out house-to-house inquiries to obtain information when no canvass form has been received, or to supplement such information, but the Bill will also enable them to make use of house-to-house inquiries before sending out canvass forms. That is an important distinction. Such inquiries may not be appropriate in every area, so we would not want to amend legislation to require registration officers to conduct them, but they will be particularly useful in ensuring the effectiveness of the canvass in areas of high population turnover such as we have discussed this evening. What I am really saying is that existing requirements remain, but they will be supplemented by this legislation.

[Chris Ruane]

The Minister mentions the provision in the 1983 Act. The 2006 Act re-emphasised that and gave it greater status. Will that now be superseded, because even when it was given greater status it was not properly implemented? Here is an opportunity to make the 2006 Act even stronger. Will he take it?

[Mr Heath]

Nothing is being superseded. The arrangements that we are putting in place will strengthen the requirement. I do not accept that changing the word “may” to “must” would make the slightest difference to those recalcitrant councils that simply do not do their job properly, and those are the ones that we and the Electoral Commission need to address. We will do so, and I am confident that at the end of the process we will have a better registration process than we have at the moment, and it will be much more inclusive of those who should be registered.

I heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) explain the numbering system in Edinburgh on Second Reading and I heard her again this evening, and I am afraid that I am still no more confident that I could understand how to deliver anything there. That is a matter that the electoral registration officer in Edinburgh needs to take very seriously.

I invite the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge to withdraw the amendment and to work with us to ensure that the arrangements in the Bill work most effectively.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between David Heath and Chris Ruane

Tuesday 19th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mark Tami]

The Parliamentary Secretary was asked a straightforward question earlier. If he believes in equalisation, why will two seats in Scotland be treated differently?

[Chris Ruane]

Answer that.

[Mr Heath]

I will happily answer—