European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons
Monday 6th February 2017 Commons Chamber

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He will recall that, even in his own remarks, he talked about the questions that were raised in the context of the Scottish referendum. I am talking about whether or not an independent Scotland would have easy or ready access to the EU or whether it would have to negotiate, brand new, under article 49. If Northern Ireland were taken out of the EU as part of the UK, no article in the Lisbon treaty allows for part of a former member state entering the EU. Anybody could raise a question mark over whether or not a referendum in that context would admit Northern Ireland into the EU as part of a united Ireland. The question mark could be raised because the German precedent might not apply. The Taoiseach addressed that point last summer, and the British Government need to take it on board.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman may be guilty of jumping quite a lot of steps in advance. There is no evidence that the people of Northern Ireland have any intention, at any time in the foreseeable future, of joining the Republic of Ireland. I think that this is a case of inventing theoretical problems to get in the way of what is a perfectly sensible process.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will take one more intervention from the hon. Gentleman and then I will make some progress.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not recognise that the key wording in new clause 150 comes from the Good Friday agreement itself? The paragraph appears in the agreement not just once, but twice. It is in the constitutional issue section of the agreement and it is in the agreement between the British and Irish Governments. If it was good enough and important enough to be in the Good Friday agreement and to be endorsed by a referendum of the Irish people in the north and the south, why should it not be respected now when we are being asked to reflect on how English people voted in a referendum?

[Mr Harper]

Again, I come back to what the hon. Gentleman just said about how the English people voted. If he looks at the separate parts of the United Kingdom, he will see that both England and Wales voted to leave the European Union. As I said earlier, this was a UK decision. The fact that different parts of the United Kingdom may have voted in different ways is not relevant. It was a United Kingdom decision, and the United Kingdom voted to leave.

Personal Independence Payments

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 21st January 2015 Westminster Hall

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. There are two issues: the legislative process—I take his word about the timetable for that—and the implementation and operational matters. The Department and I will provide every assistance to the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure that that goes smoothly. It is worth putting on record—

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Harper]

Let me finish my comment, which is about a point that the hon. Member for Foyle raised. The Stormont House agreement states that although the Northern Ireland Executive normally legislate on welfare on a parity basis with Great Britain, they can deviate from parity, partly to recognise the history of Northern Ireland and some of the specific issues that apply. However, the agreement also states that the cost of deviations from parity with Great Britain must be met from the existing Northern Ireland budget. The hon. Gentleman set that out, and I wanted to put that on the record to clarify the position. The Northern Ireland Executive can deviate from the normal process when they legislate to deliver the operational effect.

[Mark Durkan]

Of course, there have historically been some differences in delivery, even within the parity regime, on matters such as housing benefit. When the Minister meets Mervyn Storey, will he ensure that he, as the Whitehall Minister, says nothing to disturb our working assumption that much of the room that we thought would have to be made up from the Executive’s block grant is available to us within our spending remit under the welfare cap? That cap is not really biting at the moment, but it may do so in the future. Can he assure us that our assumptions about not having to rely so much on the block grant, and on the rest of the Executive’s budget grant, will not be disturbed by any meeting that he has with the devolved Minister?

[Mr Harper]

I will certainly make sure that the meetings I have with the Minister are helpful. The hon. Members for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) and for Edinburgh North and Leith mentioned the Smith commission, which is relevant to the conversations in Northern Ireland and in Scotland. It may not be far in the future, but I cannot anticipate the Government’s comprehensive response to the report published by the Smith commission, for which hon. Members will have to wait patiently a little longer. It is worth saying that we have to be careful, because Ministers have to follow current legislation. All that has been announced in the Smith commission report is what will happen in the future. The Government have made commitments, but no legislation has yet been introduced. When legislation is introduced, the Scottish Government will have to decide what they will do, and our conversation today makes it clear that we will have to think about operational delivery. Ministers have to proceed on the basis of the current law.

Electoral Registration and Administration Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Monday 18th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

We have hardly rushed in the way we have conducted this legislation. I announced our decision in September 2010 and we then published the legislation with the pre-legislative scrutiny. We have been doing this in a very deliberate and careful way, as I think most people would accept.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister has referred to the experience in Northern Ireland, but does he accept that the dip that took place there was not just a temporary blip after which the numbers were immediately recovered following one step, because it took some time to recover? Does he also accept that there is something qualitatively different about the current proposal because for the first time individual electoral registration will be used to determine a boundary review? That is an overnight use of a new system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

There is a very clear answer: the register’s use in the election will be its first use, and we know that at the time of a general election people will be very focused on it. By the time of the publication of the registers in 2015, individuals who have not been confirmed automatically at the start of the transition will have had more than one year to register individually, had more than two canvasses, been contacted a number of times by the electoral registration officer and between canvasses had a general election, a time when awareness of politics and voting is at its highest.

Our intention remains that EROs will write to individuals who have neither registered nor been confirmed towards the end of the 2015 canvass to inform them that they will be removed and to offer them one further chance to apply. It seems to me that, for somebody to be eligible to be registered, at their property and not to have registered individually for the 2015 register, they will almost have had to go out of their way to avoid being contacted by an ERO, and almost deliberately have not registered. The steps that we have put in place are very robust.

[Mark Durkan]

Reflecting on the Northern Ireland experience again, does the Minister not recognise that one problem in Northern Ireland was that people thought, because they had voted in a recent election, that they were already registered automatically for future purposes? The amount of information actually created confusion and an assumption that if someone had a vote they were on the register in future.

[Mr Harper]

It is worth pointing out that, after the general election in 2015, there will be another full canvass of households to ensure that we get people on the register. The danger with just carrying everybody forward for ever and a day is that we just perpetuate inaccuracy; we might get completeness but it would be at the expense of ensuring that the data were accurate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mark Durkan]

I appreciate your indulgence, Mr Amess, and I hope the Minister will be able to offer some assurances about the concerns I raise.

This schedule is entitled “Sharing and Checking Information etc” and it clearly relates to the integrity of the registration process per se. I briefly consulted the draft secondary legislation, which the Minister advertised in response to previous invitations to establish whether the matter about which I am concerned is addressed in that secondary legislation. It is not addressed in the Bill, certainly not in schedule 2.

Issues about the sharing and checking of information arise not just at the registration stage, but during the key phase in the conduct and management of any given election process itself—whether it be a local government election, a general election, elections to health authorities or for police and crime commissioners, local referendums or whatever. A number of different votes now take place, and those charged with electoral management have to go to the market quite often to procure the services and supplies from companies that are in a position to support them. It is a growing and significant market, so the whole question of datasets is hugely important in that context. If suppliers cannot have proper access to the relevant datasets because somebody else says that they are really in control of them and leans on electoral registration officers to say that another firm will not get access to their formats or that access will not be made easy, it makes it hard for other suppliers to compete fairly.

That has been an issue in the past, and I have raised it previously. There is a very successful firm in my constituency, which has developed its position in electoral management services. It is a firm called Opt2vote. Local government officers here told the company that they were not in a position to procure from Opt2vote simply because it would cause them difficulty—in respect of time and for budgetary reasons—to issue the contract as another company, Express Ltd, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Electra of Electoral Reform Services Ltd, has ability to access the data formats. Registration data should by its nature be deemed to be in the public interest and to be public property, and it should be fully and readily accessible to any firms competing to provide services. That is in the interests of both fair competition and best-value public procurement.

I hope that the Minister will address the whole question of open data standards in the Bill, because it would be odd if it were not addressed there. I have looked at the draft secondary legislation, in which the Minister has provided a list of other issues that he intends to address in that legislation and others that he does not intend to address. The issue that I have raised appears in neither list, which reinforces my request to him. The Cabinet Office evaluation of data matching pilots in 2011, published in March 2012, noted—on page 33—that there were also issues relating to the consistency of data sets with EMS systems, and that the formatting of some of the data sets meant that match rates were not always as high as they could be. The key way in which it suggested that that could be improved was the standardising of address and name formats throughout national data sets. Recommendation 4 stated:

“Where possible there should be greater consistency between the national datasets and the electoral register/EMS”

—electoral management system—

“to ensure compatibility. In particular improved standardisation of data formats and the use of UPRNs in national datasets would improve match rates, in addition to more sophisticated algorithms.”

We may have to be cautious in interpreting that recommendation. It does not imply that all electoral management systems should use the same data format; it simply implies that the national data set used should be compatible with all electoral management systems, which is substantially different. The Minister might consider it unreasonable to expect data from, for instance, the Department for Work and Pensions to be made available in three different formats to suit each of the electoral management systems. Perhaps the problem would be resolved more easily if only one data format were used.

Given that the Government have invested a substantial amount in developing a common interface electoral mark-up language to meet the objective of introducing a uniform and reliable way of allowing systems that support the running of elections to inter-operate, could the Government use the Bill as a vehicle to ensure that a common data standard is applied across all systems? That would end the anomalies that are inherent in the current market, which lead to abuses or, at least, to allegations of abuse, in which data standards are not common and access is not guaranteed to be open.

If Electoral Reform Services Ltd tries to refute the allegations that I have made about it tonight, and the insinuations that I have made about it in the past, I will suggest that the best way in which a company of its kind could be protected from such allegations—and the best way in which a company such as the one in my constituency could be protected from any future abuse—would be for us to address the issue properly in the Bill. It would be a dereliction of duty for that not to be done.

[Mr Harper]

I will not go into the issues in quite as much detail as the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), but I will make a couple of points.

The mandating of the data standards that local authorities use for their individual electoral registers is a matter for them. We have been clear about the fact that theirs are local databases, and that we are not trying to recreate a national database. However, the hon. Gentleman made a good point about interoperability and the exchange of data. In terms of data matching, existing national databases such as the DWP database have a consistent format. We are working with all the electoral management service suppliers who are contracted to local authorities in Great Britain as part of the process in order to optimise the working of the system.

Given that the hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues, the best thing for me to do is reflect on them and then either write to him or, if it is not appropriate to do just that—given that he mentioned a specific company in his constituency—arrange a meeting with him, which might be more helpful, to make sure that I have addressed his points.

One of the things that we are doing in the pilot—I alluded to this in relation to confirmation—is making sure that the process whereby electoral registration officers send data to the DWP, and vice versa, is scalable. The hon. Gentleman referred to issues in the first set of pilots whereby a lot of EROs found the process resource-intensive. That is one of the things we want to focus on in the second round of pilots, in order to make sure that the process is scalable and does not generate lots of resource issues. Some of that may be about having open standards and making it easier to transmit the data. Let me reflect on the issue further, however. I will then write to the hon. Gentleman and, if necessary, we can have a meeting. I hope that that is a satisfactory response.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 2 accordingly agreed to.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4

Annual canvass

Parliamentary Lobbying

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 2nd November 2011 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) on securing the debate, which has largely been helpful and balanced.

The contribution of the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) was useful because it put into context the fact that lobbying can be very helpful and that it enables Members of Parliament to be better informed. He gave the example of the Mental Health Bill. I had the same experience in opposition, when I worked with many disability organisations and charities. In opposition, some of the assistance and resources of lobbyists are needed to help the argument and ensure that legislation is framed properly and that well-informed questions can be asked. The problem occurs when those types of contacts are not transparent. The right hon. Member for Oxford East (Mr Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) made that point. The issue is transparency.

I will say this from the start as it may pre-empt some interventions: we are committed to introducing a statutory register. We will publish our proposals for consultation before the end of this month, and then I hope we can engage in that debate. Several hon. Members have alluded to that matter. The reason we are publishing our proposals for consultation is very simple: we want to get it right. We need to get the definition of who would be captured by the term lobbyist correct. We must not stifle legitimate lobbying or the ability of our constituents and other people to talk to us or Ministers, but we need to ensure that the relevant information is out in the open. We must deal with the issue correctly, so we will publish our proposals and have a thorough consultation on which everybody—Members and those outside—can have their say. We can then ensure that we strike the right balance.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Is there not an element of “There’s a hole in the bucket, dear Liza” in all this? As the Minister says, when the proposals are published, there will be consultation and debate. No doubt that will involve a considerable degree of lobbying. What will be his attitude to the lobbying approaches he receives as Minister during that consultation period?

[Mr Harper]

Let me come on to that at in a moment because I want to set out my thoughts logically.

I thank the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr David) for his relatively consensual approach because it is important that we get dealing with the issue right. The subject affects all parties, and all parties have lessons to learn. We need to ensure that we approach the issue on that basis. He struck the right note, but to encourage other Labour Members also to take such an approach, I will remind them of what they did or did not do in Government. An amendment tabled by the Liberal Democrats on having more transparency on lobbying was mentioned. Every single Labour MP here who was in the House at the time happily voted against that. The hon. Member for Newport West clearly paid very little attention to the new clause when he voted against it because if he had read it, it sounds as though he would have agreed with most of it.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Thursday 8th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend thinks back to our earlier debates on the Bill and its effects, he will remember that this is not just a mechanical process to do with the detail of the Dissolution itself. Rather, it is about the consequences that flow from that. Much of our debate revolved around what will happen to the nature of the parliamentary process if we have fixed terms—what will be the benefits and potential negative consequences. The reason for looking at it after a full fixed term is to enable the committee to consider whether, as I would hope, the possible positive outcomes we debated have come about, and alternatively whether some of the concerns that have been expressed on both sides of the House have been proved accurate, and then to make some recommendations and publish a report. As a consequence, this House will be in a good position to debate the matter and discover whether further legislation is needed.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

So far, the Minister has focused on the fixed-term Parliament aspect of the Bill, but there is also the constituency aspect. Will the review that the amendment would allow also be able to look at issues such as whether the number of constituencies should be fixed at 600 or there should be more flexibility, and whether the boundary reviews should take place every five years?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman took part in many debates on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill before it was enacted, and he will remember that we set up a similar type of review mechanism to look at the operation of that legislation in respect of parliamentary boundaries. A similar type of post-legislative scrutiny and review was set up to consider precisely those issues in that legislation, therefore. I hope that deals with the hon. Gentleman’s concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

I have just said that that would take place—the consensus on the committee’s terms of reference, as is usual. That is very sensible; we do not want to put all the detail in the motion. The hon. Gentleman should read this morning’s written statement—I will not dwell on it, Madam Deputy Speaker, because you would call me to order if I did—and I am sure that we will have the opportunity to discuss some of the details tomorrow, when we debate a private Member’s Bill. The written statement sets out our overall position on the commission on the West Lothian question. We will consult Mr Speaker on some of the details involving the House, and we have also said that we will have a full opportunity for all the parties to consider the matter. That was in this morning’s statement.

[Mark Durkan]

May I take the Minister back to the points about consultation that may be involved when the committee is formed? Will he assure us that that consultation will not just be through the usual channels with the Opposition, but will involve all parties? As a matter of principle, my party has never accepted nomination to the House of Lords, and we were singularly excluded from any consideration in relation to the committee that has been formed on that matter.

[Mr Harper]

I take the hon. Gentleman’s point on that and thank him for making it. Given the nature of the matter, it would be helpful if the committee were wide ranging. That is also a good reason not to be too specific about, for example, the size of the committee. Clearly, we need to ensure that Members from all parts of the House are able to be represented properly. On setting down how big the committee should be, there is, of course, a tension if committees are too large, but if they are too small they can be too narrow. It would be helpful to be able to have that debate when we know something about how the measures have worked in practice.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 13th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I agree. The fact remains that we are taking powers away from this House and giving them to the other place. It has been clear to me from our earlier debates that that view is not widely shared in this House, and indeed, interestingly, it does not appear to be widely shared in the other place. As I observed from careful reading of the report of the debates there, many speakers were very concerned about the primacy of this House, which was good of them. They said that they did not want to damage it in any way. Plainly their support for the amendments was inadvertent; they may not have thought through the consequences fully. I therefore think it would be sensible for this House to disagree with their lordships, and to give them an opportunity to reconsider their decision and return the Bill to the form in which it left this House.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

I recognise the strength of the Minister’s arguments. The effect of the amendments, surely, would be to leave us with not a Fixed-term Parliaments Bill, but a Fixable-term Parliaments Bill. We could get into a constitutional “fix” in trying to “fix” the term, with an elected Chamber voting one way and an—in all likelihood—still unelected Chamber voting another way. If that happened, what would be the default position?

[Mr Harper]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman has put it very well. Under the Bill as the Government want to see it—this House having disagreed with their lordships, and their lordships having accepted that the Bill should remain as it is—its provisions would be in force unless and until a future Parliament changed them. It would be this House that would determine whether an early election should take place if two thirds of Members, that is, a broad consensus, were in favour of it—which returns us to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about what would happen if there were a general view that the state of the nation was such that there should be an early election—or if the Government no longer had the confidence of this House. The other place would have no role in that process at all, which I think is right.

As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, if the amendments were in force there would be a “fix” in each Parliament: each Government would effectively be able to choose whether to have a fixed-term Parliament, because they could block the motion passed by this House. Worse, it would not be a choice that the Houses took at the start of a Parliament, because the amendments make no provision for that. At any point during the Parliament, the two Houses, if they passed the motion, could suddenly convert the Parliament to a fixed term. That would be likely to lead to the position described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone, with people putting a fix in place to suit a particular short-term need.

[Mark Durkan]

Does any provision in the Lords amendments or the Bill specify or restrict who can table such a motion in either House, and when or how many times it could be tabled again if whoever tables it does not succeed on the first occasion?

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on it. The provisions are completely silent about that. They do not say who would table the motion, or whether the same question could be continually repeated.

The amendments are not very well drafted. I think that they are wrong in principle, because under the normal procedure legislation that is passed stays in force unless it is changed by a future Parliament, but even if we liked the concept of a sunset provision, such a provision ought to be much better drafted and much more effective. This House can choose only between accepting the amendments and disagreeing with them, and I think I have almost made my case that we should disagree with them.

It has been argued that we are trying to bind future Parliaments. That is not what we are trying to do at all. We are merely trying to re-establish the normal constitutional position. We are passing legislation which we hope will become the established position, but if a future Parliament, perhaps the next one, decides that the fixed-term Parliament experiment—an experiment that is common to many countries around the world—has not been successful and has not led to better government, it will be perfectly free to pass another piece of legislation that repeals these measures either in full or in part. We do not have an arrangement whereby we “sunset” every piece of legislation, and an incoming Government then find that the rules are unwritten and they can choose what those rules should be. That would not be a very sensible constitutional position.

House of Lords Reform

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Monday 27th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am very grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s very positive winding-up speech. He clearly listens to the debate in this House, which is unlike that in the House of Lords. Perhaps unsurprisingly, in the House of Lords debate last week, there were 101 Back-Bench speakers, of whom 19 were in favour of a wholly or mainly elected House, at least in principle. I thought that was actually quite encouraging, given the turkeys and Christmas principle. It is worth noting that 68 of those speakers were former Members of this House, which gives the lie to the idea that all those who speak in the other place are disinterested experts; they are largely people who have been in politics and remain in politics. It seems to me that such people would have no problem standing for election.

Our debate was more balanced. Out of 34 Back-Bench speakers, I counted 15 who were broadly in favour of the proposals, 16 who were not in favour and three who were broadly in favour of reform, but had significant concerns about our proposals. It was a fairly balanced debate, which I think is why the Opposition Front Benchers became more enthusiastic about our proposals as the debate proceeded. The right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan) started very positively by saying that he was committed to a 100% elected Chamber. However, I detected that there was a danger of his letting the best be the enemy of the good.

The right hon. Member for South Shields (David Miliband) gave a sensible counsel of action. He made it clear that he was in favour of a 100% elected Chamber, as is my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. However, neither of them wants to let attempting perfection prevent any reform whatever, and both think that ending up with 80% of Members of the House of Lords being elected would be an improvement on the position that we have today. I hope that other Members will pay attention to that.

It is worth reminding everyone at the beginning of my remarks that we are considering a White Paper and a draft Bill. We are carrying out pre-legislative scrutiny, which we were urged to do on previous constitutional Bills. A Joint Committee has been set up, with 13 Members of this House and 13 Members of the other place of varying degrees of enthusiasm for reform. If we look at the Committee in the round, we see that it is broadly representative. I hope that it will consider the issues raised in the House of Lords last week and the House of Commons today. I know that a significant number of its Commons members were present today and listened to the debate either in full or in part.

[Mark Durkan]

Is the Joint Committee not really going to be just a theatre for screensaver politics, in which images are going to be projected, an impression of activity and movement generated and shapes thrown, but nothing real will actually be achieved?

[Mr Harper]

I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. There are serious people on the Committee, and it is chaired by a very senior Member of the other place, the noble Lord Richard. It has the capacity to consider the matter seriously, examine our White Paper and our draft Bill and bring forward a serious report that we in this House and the other place will consider. It has that opportunity, and it is up to the Committee whether it decides to grasp it or to do what the hon. Gentleman says. From looking at the members of the Committee appointed from this House and the other place, I have confidence that it will take the matter seriously. The Government will listen to it if it engages seriously in the process, and I hope that it will.

A number of Members wondered why are introducing these proposals. The simplest answer is that those who make the laws should be elected. One Member of the other place, who will remain nameless, said last week that she did not believe there was a democratic deficit, or that elections were the only form of democracy. In response, the noble Lord Sharkey said:

“She argued that the scale of the House’s outreach and its collective wisdom constitute a kind of democratic system.”

He continued, in a way that I thought was appropriate to the House of Lords, that that allowed

“a much more flexible definition of democracy than is usual.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2011; Vol. 728, c. 1233.]

I agree with him. Democracy is based on direct election to key institutions, and the House of Lords is a key institution that makes laws. It is a legislating body. Having been responsible for steering legislation through Parliament, I am not sure about the idea that the other place simply gives the Government advice, and it is entirely up to us, in a relaxed manner, whether we take it or leave it. I am afraid that was not my experience of trying to get legislation through the other place. It is part of this Parliament, so its Members should be elected.

A number of Members suggested today that they had concerns about primacy, including my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who was the first Back Bencher to speak, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley). We have not said in our proposals that there will be no changes if Members of the other place are elected. We have said that there will be an evolution of the relationship between the two Houses, but that ultimately the primacy of this House is guaranteed by the Parliament Acts. We control the supply of money, and ultimately we can pass legislation without the agreement of the other place. The relationship will change, as it has over the past century. It has changed since last year, with the advent of a coalition Government and the fact that the Salisbury-Addison convention does not operate in the same way, if at all. That change will continue, but ultimately this House is supreme, and that is guaranteed by law.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), supported by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), made the point that this is not a zero-sum game. Improving the way in which the other place works could mean that our game is raised, and that collectively these Houses will do a better job of holding the Government to account. Many Members have referred to the role of the other place, which is to scrutinise and revise legislation, but also to hold the Government to account. Both Houses have a responsibility to do that, and both could do it better.

I say to those concerned about primacy that we considered carefully how to constitute the other place and examined ways of preventing it from being able to argue that it was more legitimate than this House. We proposed a different system of election, and elections by thirds, so that the House of Lords never has a more recent mandate than the House of Commons. We have said that Members should be legitimate by being elected, but we recognise that they will not be as accountable as us because they cannot be re-elected. They cannot therefore argue that they are more legitimate and usurp our powers.

Let us consider the point about talents and skills. Broadly 25% of the current House of Lords are Cross Benchers; the rest are already party political nominees appointed by the party leaders and the Executive. The idea that the other place is somehow free of politics or party politics is simply wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Oliver Heald) explained that elections will be an improvement on patronage.

The hon. Member for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) said that the House of Lords was larger than all Assemblies except China’s National People’s Congress, which has more than 3,000 Members. That was a particularly topical reference given Premier Wen’s visit today. I will not pass on that news to the Prime Minister—he might think that 3,000 Members is a target for which to aim rather than something to be discouraged.

The serious point is that the other place has talented Members on the Cross Benches and the party political Benches, but I strongly agree with the hon. Member for Rhondda: so does this place. Someone mentioned a national health service debate in the other place, in which Lord Howe of Aberavon referred to the number of experts there. We have them in this House, too. We have a practising dentist, a former GP, a former hospital doctor, former nurses, former members of the armed forces, former business people, former opticians—[Interruption.] I skipped over lawyers deliberately, but we have other talented people who can contribute to the House. We should not do ourselves down and pretend that Members of this House do not have a lot to offer.

I have been present for the entire debate and I have read Hansard for the two days of debate in the other place last week. Frankly, I must say that more fresh and considered ideas about improving the draft Bill came out of today’s debate from elected Members of this House than emerged from the debate last week.

One or two hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), asked why we favoured proportional representation. The answer is simple. First, the Government should not have a majority in the other place. It should not be a carbon copy of this House, so the system should be different. We selected single transferable vote in the draft Bill. We recognise that there is a case for an open list. The STV system would reduce parties’ control and allow Members to be more independent. People said that they liked that aspect of the existing House of Lords.

I agreed with the hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) when he said that having first past the post in this House, which he and I supported in the recent referendum, and proportional representation in the House of Lords, forms a solid constitutional settlement. The two Chambers have a different role and should therefore have different electoral systems that play to those different roles.

For the future, we have a draft Bill, and both Houses have appointed a Joint Committee, which can start its work. Both Houses have given the Committee an “out” date—we want it to report by 29 February next year. If the Committee wants more time, it can come back to both Houses, as is usual. The Government will listen to what the Committee states in its report. We have listened carefully to the debate last week and today, and we will continue to listen to hon. Members’ views. We will listen and adapt our proposals, and in the next Session we will introduce a Bill to reform the other place, with the first elections in 2015. I hope that we will get the support of as many Members as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of House of Lords reform.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 15th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I understand why the hon. Gentleman raises this point: it is an issue in Cornwall, where a number of voters have second properties. The case law clearly talks not about “primarily reside” but about “reside”. However, it is also clear that if a second-property owner pops there on holiday for two weeks a year, that would not count as residing. Many hon. Members genuinely live in more than one location of course, because we spend some of our time in London and some of our time in our constituency. Many Members will therefore be registered to vote in both places, but for parliamentary elections we will exercise that vote only once. I suspect that Members will tend to do as I do, which is exercise it in such a way that we can vote for ourselves, either because it makes a difference electorally or because it is more emotionally satisfying—or both.

I shall return to the point I was making before we went off on a number of interesting detours. However emphatic the drafting, we do not think that attempts to limit the exercise of discretion in exceptional circumstances are likely to be as successful as do those in the House of Lords who proposed the amendment. It may be true that the drafting will discourage a court from finding against a boundary commission that chooses not to exercise that discretion, but the commissions will be under considerable pressure to exercise it, particularly given the inclusion of the concept of “local ties”. Exceptional local ties may actually exist in the UK, but the concept is already the Trojan horse which allows political parties to make arguments that are in their electoral interest—and, frankly, in their electoral interest alone.

The Boundary Commission for England noted in its fifth general report that there was usually more debate at local inquiries about local ties, in their many varied and often subjective guises, than about any other matter. That is one of the main reasons why constituencies are as unequal in size as they are today. It seems to the Government that this amendment would in practice simply increase the amount by which constituencies and the weight of vote vary, and do so by far more than those who argue for it imagine.

My hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who is a member of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, made this point in the previous debate when she said it was important that we have clarity and as much certainty as possible. The Government’s view is that that will not be the effect of this amendment, which is why I am arguing that we should not agree to it.

[Mark Durkan]

Is it not the case that clause 11 provides for constituencies in Northern Ireland to not conform to being within the plus or minus 5% UK quota? Instead, they will vary greatly, and far more widely than that quota; the Bill makes specific provision for that. Why can Northern Ireland constituencies deviate more widely from the UK quota, and from each other, than other constituencies? These are constituencies that will also be electing six seats each to the Assembly. This completely contradicts both the Minister’s arguments and the principle of proportional representation that is in the Good Friday agreement.

[Mr Harper]

I think we debated this matter at an earlier stage in the House. The reason is very simple: Northern Ireland is a very small part of the United Kingdom and there is an issue in respect of seats being allocated between the constituent parts of the UK. If a Northern Ireland constituency is on the cusp of being or not being allocated as a seat, we could end up with a situation where a boundary commission’s ability to have flexibility was constrained to a far greater degree than the plus or minus 5%. The point of the provision is to make sure that in such cases, in that very small part of the UK where there are relatively few seats, the boundary commissions are able to take proper account of local ties. In no other part of the UK is that effect likely to take place, because the next smallest part of the UK is almost twice the size. We thought this was a sensible measure to make sure the boundary commissions were not constrained to a far greater degree than they would be in other parts of the UK because of the relative smallness of the population of Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

This stems not from the size of Northern Ireland, but from the problem of fixing—from the fact that the Bill fixes the number of seats at 600 and 600 only, and from the way in which seats are then distributed to the different constituent parts of the UK. That is the issue. It has nothing to do with being able to take account of local boundaries or geography or anything else. It is because of this insistence on 600 and 600 only.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

There are two issues there. I will not dwell on the money Bill issue to any great extent, because if I were to do so you would rule me out of order, Ms Primarolo, but I have read the account of the debate in the other place to which the hon. Gentleman refers and the other place is not challenging the Speaker’s ability to rule on whether a Bill is a money Bill. It is simply disagreeing with the consequences of that, and arguing that if something is a money Bill it is perfectly appropriate for the upper House to debate it in Committee and pass amendments to it, recognising that legally those amendments will have no effect if the House of Commons chooses not to take them into account. The upper House is therefore not challenging the Speaker’s right to make that decision.

The hon. Gentleman is also not right to say that this is about the Speaker deciding, effectively, whether to bring down the Government. That would be a decision for the House. The Speaker would have to make a decision about certifying something as a vote of confidence. As we debated last week, it would be extraordinary if the House were debating a motion of confidence—which the Speaker would certify as such—with everybody remaining in ignorance of the fact that it was a motion of no confidence in the Government. I simply do not think that would happen. Everyone would be very well aware of the fact that it was a motion of confidence—that it had that import to it. It would be for the House to vote on the matter, and the Speaker would then certify in a way that means the decision is outside the ambit of the courts.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As the Minister just appeared to touch on, under the Bill the Speaker issues the certificate only after the vote has taken place, not before. Therefore, would not the Labour amendment that specifies what is and what is not a vote of confidence be much better in everybody’s terms?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

The Committee was quite right. I agree that we need to ensure that the courts do not question those matters. In a moment I will deal with the amendments and the Government’s reason for believing that the language we have used about the well-precedented use of Speaker’s certificates prevents the courts from questioning the Act.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex observed that judges were not more interventionist. I believe there is evidence that there has been more judicial activism in judicial reviews of Executive decisions, but as far as I am aware there is no evidence that the courts have become more interventionist in challenging parliamentary proceedings. Executive decisions and decisions of Parliament are quite different from each other. Although the Supreme Court has a new name, it has no greater powers than the judicial Committee of the House of Lords that it replaced. I do not think that my hon. Friend’s concerns are well judged.

My hon. Friend also referred to the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. The European Court of Justice can deal with matters related to European Union law; nothing in the Bill would engage it. Similarly, the functions of the Speaker under the Bill do not engage any of the rights conferred by the European Court of Human Rights. I think it was only last week that the Joint Committee on Human Rights agreed with that when it said that the Bill’s provisions did not need to be brought to the attention of either House on human rights grounds.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman)—who is not in the Chamber, as he has had to fulfil a long-standing and important engagement to attend a meeting elsewhere in the House—expressed concern about the European Court of Human Rights. In fact, it has shown the utmost respect for parliamentary privilege. In a 2003 case, A. v. United Kingdom, it was specifically held that article 9 of the Bill of Rights did not violate the convention by preventing an applicant from taking defamation proceedings against an MP for words said in parliamentary proceedings. The European Court of Human Rights strongly supported the contention that courts would not become involved in these matters.

I agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, who said that owing to the very nature of these events—the fact that they would be politically highly charged—judges would not be keen to rush in and engage in questions that are rightly to be resolved by political rather than legal means. I have heard no evidence, apart from assertion, that courts would do anything different.

[Mark Durkan]

I gave the example from 2001 when, on the third attempt, David Trimble and I were jointly elected as First and Deputy First Minister by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That was taken to the courts. Yes, the courts did not touch on issues connected with the Assembly’s standing orders, but they did entertain the suggestion that the Secretary of State had failed to use the power and duty, given to him under law, to set a date for an election if no First and Deputy First Minister have been elected after six weeks. The Secretary of State did not do so, claiming that because he had notice of the potential to elect us, which had been issued by the end day of the six-week period, he could interpret the deadline differently. The court did not throw out the case and the judges—competent, serious, senior judges—divided on the issue. In the light of that precedent, the assurance of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) does not stand.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me. He accurately sets out the fact that at issue was not a proceeding in Parliament—a decision of this House—but an executive decision by the Secretary of State. As I have said, there is lots of evidence that courts will challenge Ministers’ decisions, and one can argue about whether they will be right to do so; Ministers would probably argue they are not, but everyone else would probably argue that they are. The case the hon. Gentleman raises involved an executive decision; it was not a decision of this House or a proceeding in Parliament, and it is not protected under article 9.

[Mark Durkan]

But what we are talking about is related to the closest equivalent in the Northern Ireland Act 1998 of the certificate powers being given to the Secretary of State. Sections 31 and 32 of the 1998 Act provide for the early Dissolution of the Assembly and early elections. They are the exact same powers, except that in Northern Ireland the Secretary of State has the powers of an “over-Speaker”, rather than their being vested in the Presiding Officer. They are the equivalent powers, however.

[Mr Harper]

No, I think there is a rather crucial difference. The powers in that Act are given to a Minister—they are not proceedings in Parliament. That leads me nicely on to amendment 6—

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I hope that it will happen sooner rather than later.

The position in Northern Ireland is slightly different. One difference in the Northern Ireland settlement is that if the date of the election is brought forward by whatever period, the original scheduled election does not have to be held. Also, the responsibility for Assembly elections, including the date, remains a matter for the Northern Ireland Secretary. He also holds the power to shift the date by two months either way, whereas the date for Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly elections can be shifted by only one month. I have discussed that in great detail with Northern Ireland Ministers.

Given the difference of the Northern Ireland settlement, and that next year there is a triple combination of Assembly elections, local elections and the referendum, Northern Ireland Ministers want to learn form that experience to see whether the existing power is sufficient or whether they wish to modify it. They will consult parties in Northern Ireland, both now and after next May, to see whether a further change needs to be made. If so, we will legislate to bring it into force.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for recognising that the position in Northern Ireland is different. In putting my name to new clause 4, I was conscious that it was in clear tension with sections 31 and 32 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to which he alluded. Will he give an explicit assurance, however, that Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office will involve all the parties in Northern Ireland in discussions? The 1998 Act was derived from the Good Friday agreement, was based on negotiations and agreements with all parties, and should be amended only by using the proper review mechanisms in full and true spirit.

[Mr Harper]

As in Scotland and Wales, we want to hold these discussions with all the parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, because this is a matter not for whoever happens to be running the Administration, but for the Assembly and all the parties represented in it.

[Mark Durkan]

Will the Minister indicate whether Ministers might at least be open to hearing a clear statement from all the parties, and perhaps the Assembly at large, that our preference would be for parliamentary elections on a four-year cycle, so that they do not clash with the Assembly? That would be the easiest way to avoid all sorts of problems. The formula that the Minister is using to allow the Northern Ireland Assembly to move its date might be an unachievable test: it might be impossible in the mixed-party circumstances of Northern Ireland ever to achieve a two-thirds majority, so we could be left with a political crisis and uncertainty. It would be a lot better to fix the cycles.

[Mr Harper]

There are two issues there. First, we recognise that the existing legal position and structure of politics in Northern Ireland are different, which is why we have adopted this different approach. There will therefore be extensive consultation with Northern Ireland Ministers and all the parties in Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) hit on a second point though. Changing the cycles and adopting four-year terms for both this Parliament and the devolved legislatures would not solve the problem, because there can be early elections—if, for example, there is a vote of no confidence. If we had four-year cycles for everything and one early election, we could end up with the cycles coinciding not once every 20 years, as under our proposals, but at every general and devolved election, which would make the problem worse not better. Under our proposals, the coincidence will happen only once every 20 years, not more frequently.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Tuesday 2nd November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I have just one further point. The hon. Member for Foyle also raised an issue about whether the language on the forms was clear enough about spoiled ballot papers. The form mentions the need to return all the spoiled papers, but that might leave some ambiguity, so I will reflect further on it. There are two things worth saying. We have an opportunity to deal with the issue, but the hon. Gentleman will know that at an earlier stage of our proceedings, the House agreed to an amendment that gave the Electoral Commission permission to make the forms—but not the ballot papers—more accessible for disabled people and easier for voters to understand. To be clear, if, after the Bill receives its Royal Assent, as I hope it does, any further issues are raised as to whether the forms are as clear as they could be, the Electoral Commission will have the power to make those changes to facilitate accessibility or make the forms easier to use.

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the Minister for those particular assurances, but on my reading, form 3A under schedule 8 does not explain that if one ballot is spoiled, they all have to be returned. That is not at all clear in the wording. Any effective amendment would need to lead to a change of wording on the form, perhaps through the channel that the Minister has described.

[Mr Harper]

I agree. I said that I thought the hon. Gentleman made a fair point. I will go away, think about whether it is a real concern—it is a good point—and decide on the best way to deal with it. I hope that that is helpful. I believe that I have addressed the points made by hon. Members and I hope that the House will agree to the Government amendments.

Amendment 18 agreed to.

Amendment made: 19, page 3, leave out lines 31 and 32.—(Mr Harper.)

Schedule 7

Combination of polls: Scotland

Amendments made: 44, page 212, leave out lines 10 and 11 and insert—

‘“the 2010 Order” means the Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2010;’.

Amendment 45, page 212, line 15, leave out from ‘Article’ to ‘Order’ and insert ‘14 of the 2010’.

Amendment 46, page 212, line 32, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 47, page 212, line 41, leave out ‘19 of the 2007’ and insert ‘18 of the 2010’.

Amendment 48, page 213, line 9, leave out ‘20 of the 2007’ and insert ‘19 of the 2010’.

Amendment 49, page 213, line 19, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 50, page 213, line 31, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 51, page 214, line 34, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 52, page 215, line 5, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 53, page 216, line 1, leave out ‘second sentence of’ and insert ‘requirement for separate ballot boxes in’.

Amendment 54, page 216, line 33, leave out ‘and (12)’.

Amendment 55, page 216, line 40, leave out ‘(13)’ and insert ‘(12)’.

Amendment 56, page 218, line 18, leave out ‘46(7)’ and insert ‘46(6)’.

Amendment 57, page 218, line 35, leave out ‘46(7)’ and insert ‘46(6)’.

Amendment 58, page 218, line 38, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 59, page 219, line 11, leave out ‘47(5)’ and insert ‘47(4)’.

Amendment 60, page 219, line 21, leave out ‘48(7)(a)’ and insert ‘48(6)(a)’.

Amendment 61, page 219, line 35, leave out ‘48(9)’ and insert ‘48(8)’.

Amendment 62, page 220, line 5, leave out ‘49(8)’ and insert ‘49(7)’.

Amendment 63, page 220, line 7, leave out ‘49(12)’ and insert ‘49(10)’.

Amendment 64, page 220, line 24, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 65, page 220, line 29, leave out from ‘53(1)’ to first ‘reference’ in line 30 and insert ‘and (2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules, a’.

Amendment 66, page 220, line 31, leave out from ‘referendum’ to ‘does’ in line 32 and insert—

‘( ) Rule 53(2)(g) of those rules’.

Amendment 67, page 220, line 37, leave out ‘53(1)(a)’ and insert ‘53(2)(a)’.

Amendment 68, page 220, line 38, leave out paragraph 40 and insert—

‘40 Rule 53(2) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules has effect as if “counting officer” were substituted for “CRO” in each place.’.

Amendment 69, page 221, line 2, leave out ‘53(3)’ and insert ‘53(4)’.

Amendment 70, page 222, line 27, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 71, page 222, line 33, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 72, page 223, line 8, leave out sub-paragraph (5) and insert—

‘(5) The counting officer must, on request, provide an election agent for the Scottish parliamentary election with a copy of the statement relating to that election.’.

Amendment 73, page 224, line 12, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 74, page 225, line 16, leave out from ‘the’ to ‘and’ in line 17 and insert ‘polling register (within the meaning given in Article 2(1) of the 2010 Order),’.

Amendment 75, page 225, line 24, leave out ‘69(1)(e), (f) and (h)’ and insert ‘69(1)(c), (d) and (f)’.

Amendment 76, page 225, line 27, leave out from first ‘the’ to end of line 28 and insert ‘CRO were to the counting officer’.

Amendment 77, page 225, line 36, leave out ‘72’ and insert ‘72(4), 75(2) or 77(1)’.

Amendment 78, page 226, line 3, leave out sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) and insert—

‘(2) Rule 78 of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules has effect as if it were amended in accordance with sub-paragraphs (3) and (3A).

(3) In paragraph (2), after “ CRO” insert “or counting officer”.

(3A) For paragraph (3) substitute—

“(3) After the close of any polls that are being taken together with the poll that has been abandoned, the counting officer must—

(a) separate the ballot papers for the abandoned poll, and

(b) deliver or cause to be delivered to the CRO the ballot papers and other documents relating to the abandoned poll.

(3A) Paragraphs (4) to (9) apply in relation to the poll that has been abandoned.”’.

Amendment 79, page 226, line 28, leave out ‘72(8)’ and insert ‘78(10)’.

Amendment 80, page 226, line 32, leave out ‘Scottish Parliament (Elections etc.) Order 2007 (S.I. 2007/937)’ and insert ‘2010 Order’.

Amendment 81, page 227, line 1, leave out ‘20A(4) or 20B(3)(a)’ and insert ‘20(4)(b), 21(4)(b) or 22(3)(b)’.

Amendment 82, page 227, line 2, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 83, page 227, line 4, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘30’.

Amendment 84, page 227, line 5, leave out ‘2007’ and insert ‘2010’.

Amendment 85, page 227, line 9,, leave out ‘(9)’ and insert ‘(10)’.

Amendment 86, page 227,, leave out lines 22 to 25.

Amendment 87, page 228, line 8, at end insert—

‘“proxy postal voters list” includes the list kept under paragraph 8(6) of Schedule3 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010;”;’.

Amendment 88, page 228, line 27, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 89, page 228, line 35, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 90, page 228, line 40, before ‘In’ insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;

(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 91, page 228, line 40, leave out ‘sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2), for “CRO”’.

Amendment 92, page 229,, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—

(a) the CRO and members of the CRO’s staff;’.

Amendment 93, page 230, line 13, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 94, page 230, line 18, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.

Amendment 95, page 230, line 18, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 96, page 230, line 21, leave out ‘(5)’ and insert ‘(6)’.

Amendment 97, page 230, line 22, leave out ‘(8)’ and insert ‘(9)’.

Amendment 98, page 230, line 23, leave out ‘“(8A)’ and insert ‘“(9A)’.

Amendment 99, page 230, line 24, leave out ‘(6) or (9)’ and insert ‘(7) or (10)’.

Amendment 100, page 230, line 28, leave out ‘(10)’ and insert ‘(11)’.

Amendment 101, page 231, line 14, leave out ‘32(5)’ and insert ‘31(5)’.

Amendment 102, page 231, line 29, leave out ‘32(5)’ and insert ‘31(5)’.

Amendment 103, page 231, line 21, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 104, page 232, line 15, leave out ‘7(7)’ and insert ‘9(7)’.

Amendment 105, page 232, line 17, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 106, page 232, column2, leave out lines 19 and 20.

Amendment 107, page 233,, leave out lines 4 to 10.

Amendment 108, page 233, line 36, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 109, page 233, line 42, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 110, page 234, line 3, before ‘In’ insert—

‘“In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;

(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 111, page 234, line 3, leave out ‘sub-paragraphs (1) and (2), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2), for “CRO”’.

Amendment 112, page 234, line 7, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 113, page 234, line 10, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 114, page 234, line 12, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 115, page 234, line 15, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 116, page 235, line 35, leave out ‘20A’ and insert ‘21’.

Amendment 117, page 235, line 36, leave out ‘20B’ and insert ‘22’.

Amendment 118, page 236, line 18, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 119, page 236, line 29, leave out from ‘sub-paragraph (4)’ to end of line 30 and insert

‘(a) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”; (b) after “then” insert “lock the ballot box (if it has a lock) and”’.’.

Amendment 120, page 236, line 31, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 121, page 236, line 35, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 122, page 236, line 41, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 123, page 236, line 43, leave out ‘(7)’ and insert ‘(10)’.

Amendment 124, page 237, line 2, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 125, page 237, line 3, column2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (4)(c), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 126, page 237, line 5, leave out ‘20A’ and insert ‘21’.

Amendment 127, page 237, line 5, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 128, page 237, line 6, column 2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (4)(c), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 129, page 237, line 9, leave out ‘20B’ and insert ‘22’.

Amendment 130, page 237, line 9, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 131, page 237, line 10, column 2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraphs (3)(c) and (5), for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’.

Amendment 132, page 237, line 13, leave out ‘lock and’.

Amendment 133, page 237, line 16, leave out ‘21’ and insert ‘23’.

Amendment 134, page 237, line 16, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 135, page 237, line 19, leave out ‘22’ and insert ‘24’.

Amendment 136, page 237, line 19, leave out ‘(3), for “constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘(2), for “returning officer”, and for “CRO”,’.

Amendment 137, page 237, line 24, column2, at end insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) for “CRO” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer”;

(b) for “CRO’s” substitute “relevant returning or counting officer’s”.’

Amendment 138, page 237, line 25, leave out ‘23’ and insert ‘25’.

Amendment 139, page 237, line 26, leave out ‘constituency returning officer’ and insert ‘CRO’.

Amendment 140, page 237, line 30, leave out ‘24’ and insert ‘26’.

Amendment 141, page 237, line 30, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 142, page 237, line 35, leave out ‘25’ and insert ‘27’.

Amendment 143, page 237, line 35, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 144, page 237, line 38, leave out ‘26’ and insert ‘28’.

Amendment 145, page 237, line 38, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 146, page 237, line 41, leave out ‘27’ and insert ‘29’.

Amendment 147, page 238, line 2, leave out ‘28’ and insert ‘30’.

Amendment 148, page 238, column2, leave out lines 2 to 48 and insert—

‘In sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) for the words before sub-paragraph (a) substitute “The relevant returning or counting officer shall retain, together with the documents mentioned in rule 69(1) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules and rule 49 of the referendum rules”;

(b) in paragraph (a), for the words from “the election to which” to the end substitute “the election or referendum to which it relates and the area to which it relates”;

(c) in paragraph (b), at the end insert “in respect of the election, and a completed statement in the form set out in Form 10 in Part 3 of Schedule 7 to the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2010 in respect of the referendum”.’

Amendment 149, page 239, line 3, leave out ‘53(1)(g)’ and insert ‘53(2)(g)’.

Amendment 150, page 239, line 6, leave out ‘“constituency returning officer”’ and insert ‘“CRO”’.

Amendment 151, page 239, leave out lines 9 to 12.

Amendment 152, page 239, line 13, leave out ‘68 and 69’ and insert ‘68, 69, 70 and 71(1)’.

Amendment 153, page 239, leave out lines 29 to 38 and insert—

‘(i) in relation to a document or packet relating to the Scottish parliamentary election, rules 68, 69, 70 and 71(1) of the Scottish Parliamentary Election Rules;

(ii) in relation to a document or packet relating to the referendum, rules 50 and 51 of the referendum rules.”’.

Amendment 154, page 239, line 39, leave out from ‘sub-paragraph (4)’ to end of line 42 and insert ‘for “CRO”’.

Amendment 155, page 240, leave out line 9.

Amendment 156, page 245, line 5 (Form 4—Form of postal voting statement (to be used for Scottish parliamentary election where proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers not combined)).

Amendment 157, page 251, line 9 (Form 10—Statement as to postal ballot papers for the referendum).—(Mr Harper.)



Schedule 8

Combination of polls: Northern Ireland

Amendments made: 158, page 255, line 6, at end insert—

(ba) Part 5 of the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2009/1741) or Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/454) (issue and receipt of postal ballot papers);’.

Amendment 159, page 255, line 25, at end insert—

(0) rule 16A (corresponding number list);’.

Amendment 160, page 255, line 36, at end insert—

( ) a provision referred to in sub-paragraph (1)(ba), (3)(c) or (h) or (4)(b),’.

Amendment 161, page 255, line 39, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—

( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules to the extent that it relates to ballot papers issued in pursuance of rule 21(1) of those rules, or’.

Amendment 162, page 255, line 44, at end insert—

‘( ) The Chief Electoral Officer may not decide that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together unless the Chief Counting Officer agrees.’.

Amendment 163, page 256, line 2, leave out ‘, 3’ and insert ‘to 3B’.

Amendment 164, page 256, line 13, at end insert—

( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 165, page 256, line 16, at end insert—

( ) rule 16A(2) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 166, page 256, line 25, at end insert—

( ) rule 26(1) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 167, page 256, line 31, at end insert—

( ) rule 16A of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 168, page 257, line 31, leave out ‘this paragraph’ and insert ‘sub-paragraph (2)’.

Amendment 169, page 257, line 33, at end insert—

‘(4) The declaration of identity to be used by those entitled to vote by post in the Assembly election must be in the form set out in Form 3A in Part 2 of this Schedule.

(5) Sub-paragraph (4) applies instead of the requirement in rule 24(1) of the Assembly Elections Rules for a declaration of identity to be in a particular form.

(6) The declaration of identity to be used by those entitled to vote by post in the local election must be in the form set out in Form 3B in Part 2 of this Schedule.

(7) Sub-paragraph (6) applies instead of the requirement in rule 21(1) of the Local Elections Rules for a declaration of identity to be in a particular form.’.

Amendment 170, page 258, line 16, at end insert—

(0) rule 26(3)(e) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 171, page 258, line 18, at end insert—

( ) rule 26(3ZC) of the Local Elections Rules.’.

Amendment 172, page 260, line 38, at end insert—

22A (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) If the Chief Electoral Officer thinks fit, he or she may require the relevant registration officer to produce—

(a) a combined postal voters list, consisting of the things that would otherwise be included in—

(i) the postal voters list for the referendum;

(ii) the list under paragraph 2(4)(a) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order;

(iii) the list under section 7(4)(a) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001;

(b) a combined proxy postal voters list, consisting of the things that would otherwise be included in—

(i) the proxy postal voters list for the referendum;

(ii) the list under paragraph 4(8) of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order;

(iii) the list under section 9(9) of the Representation of the People Act 1985 as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(1) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001.’.

Amendment 173, page 265, line 41, at end insert—

‘( ) Where lists are prepared as mentioned in paragraph 7(2), 8(2) or 16(1)—

(a) rules 49(1)(b) and 51 of the referendum rules apply to the packets of those lists;

(b) rule 58(1) of the Local Elections Rules applies as if sub-paragraph (da), so far is it relates to those lists, were omitted.’.

Amendment 174, page 266, line 6, after ‘rule’ insert ‘60 or’.

Amendment 175, page 266, line 9, after ‘61’ insert ‘or 63’.

Amendment 176, page 266, line 42, leave out ‘61(2)’ insert ‘64(1) to (6)’.—(Mr Harper.)



Amendment proposed: 177, page 266, line 42, at end insert—

Part 1A

Postal voting

Interpretation

39 In this Part—

“the 2008 Regulations” means—the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied for purposes of the referendum by Part 3 of Schedule4, and those regulations as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(2) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2599);

(a) the Representation of the People (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2008 (S.I. 2008/1741) as applied for purposes of the referendum by Part 3 of Schedule4, and

(b) those regulations as applied for the purposes of Assembly elections by Article 3(2) of, and Schedule 2 to, the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2599);

“the Local Elections Order” means the Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 (S.I. 1985/454).

Attendance at proceedings on issue and receipt of postal ballot papers

40 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The following provisions have effect as if the persons listed in them included persons who would be entitled to be present at the proceedings on the issue or receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum or a relevant election if those proceedings were taken on their own.

(3) The provisions are—

(a) regulation 72 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 3(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Procedure on issue of postal ballot papers

41 (1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together, and

(b) a combined postal voters list or proxy postal voters list is produced by virtue of paragraph 22A.

(2) In a case where a postal ballot paper is issued at the same time in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections, a single mark must be placed in the list under the following provisions—

(a) regulation 76(2) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 6(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(3) In any other case, a mark must be placed in the list under those provisions identifying the poll to which each postal ballot paper issued relates.

Provisions requiring declaration of identity to indicate colours of ballot papers

42 (1) The provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) do not apply where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) Otherwise, the provisions listed in sub-paragraph (3) have effect as if the words before “the colour” were omitted.

(3) The provisions are—

(a) regulation 76(4) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 6(3) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Envelopes

43 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The same covering envelope and ballot paper envelope must be issued to a voter under the following provisions in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections.

(3) The provisions are—

(a) regulation 78 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 8 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(4) The number of each of the postal ballot papers issued must be marked on the ballot paper envelope unless the envelope has a window through which all of the ballot paper numbers are displayed.

(5) The following provisions do not apply—

(a) regulation 78(4) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 8(2) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Spoilt postal ballot papers

44 (1) This paragraph applies where—

(a) the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together,

(b) a person returns a spoilt postal ballot paper under regulation 81(1) of the 2008 Regulations or paragraph 12(1) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order, and

(c) a postal ballot paper has been issued to the person in respect of one or more of the other polls.

(2) The spoilt postal ballot paper may not be replaced unless all the postal ballot papers issued to the person are returned.

(3) Where an unspoilt postal ballot paper is returned as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2), the 2008 Regulations or Local Elections Order apply to it as if it were a spoilt ballot paper.

Opening of postal voters’ ballot box

45 The following provisions have effect as if for the words after “opened” there were substituted “at the counting of the ballot papers”—

(a) regulation 85(3) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 16(3) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Opening of ballot paper envelopes

46 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The following provisions have effect as if after “number” there were inserted “(or one of the numbers)”—

(a) regulation 88(2)(a) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 17B(2)(a) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(3) The following provisions have effect as if at the end there were inserted “or, where more than one number appears on the ballot paper envelope, a sufficient number of ballot papers (marking the envelope to indicate the missing ballot paper)”—

(a) regulation 88(2)(c) of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 17B(2)(c) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Countermand or abandonment of poll for relevant election

47 The following provisions do not apply where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together—

(a) regulation 90 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) paragraph 18 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

Retention of documents

48 (1) This paragraph applies where the Chief Electoral Officer decides that the proceedings on the issue and receipt of postal ballot papers in respect of the referendum and the relevant elections are to be taken together.

(2) The Chief Electoral Officer must—

(a) endorse on each of the specified packets a description of its contents, the date of the poll and the name of the area to which the packet relates;

(b) complete a statement as to postal ballot papers in relation to each poll;

(c) retain the packets and statements.

(3) The specified packets—

(a) in relation to the referendum and the Assembly election, are the packets made up under regulations 79, 81(5) and 89 of the 2008 Regulations;

(b) in relation to a local election, are the packets made up under paragraphs 11 and 17C(b) of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(4) A statement as to postal ballot papers—

(a) in the case of the referendum and the Assembly election, must be in the form set out in Form N in Schedule 3 to the 2008 Regulations;

(b) in the case of a local election, must be in the form set out in Form 2 in Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order.

(5) Where—

(a) any covering envelopes are received by the Chief Electoral Officer after the close of the poll,

(b) any envelopes addressed to postal voters are returned as undelivered too late, or

(c) any spoilt postal ballot papers for the referendum or Assembly election are returned too late to enable other postal ballot papers to be issued,

the Chief Electoral Officer must seal those envelopes or postal ballot papers up in a separate packet, endorse the packet as mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(a) and retain the packet.

(6) A copy of the completed statements as to postal ballot papers for the referendum and for the Assembly election must be provided to the Electoral Commission.

(7) The following rules apply to any packet or document retained under this paragraph—

(a) rules 51 and 52 of the referendum rules;

(b) rule 56 of the Assembly Elections Rules;

(c) rule 59 of the Local Elections Rules.

(8) In its application by virtue of sub-paragraph (7)(c), rule 59 of the Local Elections Rules has effect as if references to the proper officer of the council were to the Chief Electoral Officer.

(9) This paragraph applies instead of regulation 91 of the 2008 Regulations.

(10) Paragraph 19 of Part 3 of Schedule 2 to the Local Elections Order has effect as if—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), the reference to paragraphs 11 and 17C(b) were omitted;

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), the references to envelopes were omitted.’.—(Mr Harper.)

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Monday 25th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I did not say that. I assume that most Members will have duties in the House and in other places. If they do not, of course they can attend the counts. However, I foresee that most Members of Parliament will have important matters to tackle here, instead of attending counts in local authority areas or in Scottish Parliament, Northern Ireland Assembly or Welsh Assembly constituencies.

[Mark Durkan]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Harper]

As with his lengthy speech, the hon. Gentleman is just going around creating confusion where there is none. The territorial orders that we have laid today—and we have laid them today—will be available for Members in good time for the debate on Report. The debate that we are having today is about new clause 20 and the Government new schedules, which, as he well knows, relate to the law as it currently is, prior to the tabling of the territorial orders, so he is creating a problem where none exists.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister referred to the fact that the provisions on postal votes in Northern Ireland, as provided for in the Government’s new schedules, are not the same as those provided for elsewhere. Given that he has spent a lot of time dealing with the various Opposition amendments, will he now address that issue? The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) said that there could be further amendments from the Government. Will the Minister also address that issue, and tell us whether we are awaiting further amendments from the Government on postal voting in Northern Ireland?

[Mr Harper]

This is not a secret: I set out what we were going to do in the letter that I sent to all hon. Members who took part in the debate on Second Reading, and to the Opposition and the leaders of each party represented in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly and the Northern Ireland Assembly. What we are going to do is complex, but simultaneously straightforward, which is to have tabled the combination amendments today—that is, the new clause and the Government new schedules, based on existing legislation, which we are debating. The territorial orders updating the legislation have been laid today in the Table Office. When the Committee concludes today, the Government will, as I said in my letter, table amendments that we can debate on Report—if they are selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means—that will be based on the new legislation. The territorial orders that have been laid today will be available in good time for Members to decide whether they want to table any amendments for discussion on Report, because they will be available for Members to see tomorrow. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman.

I have set out, at some length, our response to the amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rhondda. As I said at the beginning of this debate, I would urge hon. Members to support our new clause and our new schedules, and to oppose the hon. Gentleman’s amendments.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Monday 18th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

I was not in any way underplaying the seriousness of the issue in those cases where these events happened. I was simply outlining the fact that it was not as widespread as people might have thought from the television coverage; I wanted to put it in context. However, as I said, I absolutely acknowledge that for those people who were affected, the problem was clearly very serious, and we want it to be solved, but we do not necessarily think that the proposal under discussion is the right way to solve it. There is a danger of creating as many, if not more, problems than those we are trying to solve in the first place. The law of unintended consequences might apply.

[Mark Durkan]

Does the Minister not accept that the problem is likely to be more acute in circumstances such as those in Northern Ireland, where voters will be using three different ballot papers? Regardless of what combination arrangements are put in place in respect of separate ballot boxes and so forth, that is likely to cause more delay. I also ask him to remember that in the last general election some of us had our counts delayed by dissidents who were directly attacking the democratic process. Sadly, it is likely that in some places in Northern Ireland there could be disruption outside the polling stations, which will add to the problem.

[Mr Harper]

The hon. Gentleman raises two separate issues. The latter problem is clearly one that I hope does not arise, although he says it may well. If so, it must be managed on a case-by-case basis. We cannot make provision in legislation for that, but we want to make sure we solve the problem.

The hon. Gentleman’s first point about the combination of polls next year highlights exactly why we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission and officials who administer elections across the UK to put in place sensible combination provisions to ensure that the elections run smoothly. It will be for those responsible for delivering both the elections and a referendum to look at what the likely turnouts will be and what complexities might arise from the elections, particularly in places such as Northern Ireland where there may be a number of polls with different electoral systems, and to put plans in place. One of the things that the Electoral Commission will be examining, certainly as far as the referendum is concerned, is whether people on the ground have made those arrangements. I know that the chief counting officer will be ensuring that the counting officers and regional counting officers have exactly thought through some of these issues to ensure that they do not arise again, and of course they have the power to direct some of these things to be sorted out appropriately, a power that they did not have for the election.

To be fair, it is worth making the point that although the Electoral Commission was criticised to some extent this year, it was not responsible for delivering the elections in those individual cases. It delivers the guidance and it encourages returning officers to think about some of these issues, but in the areas where there was a problem it was largely the responsibility of the individual returning officer for not having planned properly or having had proper contingency arrangements in place. That is where the responsibility lies, and we need to ensure that that does not happen again.

Individual Electoral Registration

Debate between Mark Harper and Mark Durkan

Wednesday 15th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Harper]

My hon. Friend would not expect me to comment on an ongoing investigation, and I will not do so, but he has raised the issue of why it is important to make the accuracy of the electoral register more secure. We intend to deal with the public perception as well as the reality of the fraudulent registrations that have occurred. As I said in my statement, a third of the public are worried about the security of registration in our voting system, and it is important to the maintaining of confidence in our democracy for us to deal with those real concerns.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The Minister has said that the proposed carry-over from 2014 to 2015 is designed to avoid the adverse effects experienced in Northern Ireland, but he has also said that those who carry over will be disqualified from postal or proxy voting. Will that disqualification be noted on the register? Among the groups who lost out in Northern Ireland were the long-term sick and disabled, who made the mistake of believing that being on the standing list for postal votes was the same as being permanently registered.

[Mr Harper]

Those people will not be disqualified from postal or proxy voting, but if they wish to have a postal or proxy vote, they will have to supply their personal identifiers. Those who are already signed up for postal or proxy voting and have already supplied their signatures and dates of birth will have to renew those details from time to time and undergo a verification check. The information will be due at some point in the future in any event, and we are investigating whether we can synchronise the processes to avoid duplication.