|
Dr. Pugh: Hypothetically, if the issue were discussed at local level but the outcome was seen as inappropriate or contestable by a community that felt badly treated because it did not have the right number of polling stations for its population—if those facts were stated plainly, but there was no agreement—could an appeal be made to the Electoral Commission?
David Cairns: The straightforward answer is that I do not know. I hope to return to the subject later.
We are trying to ensure that people have the chance to put their case and have their questions are answered. Paragraph 7 of proposed new schedule 1A to the 1983 Act states:
''On completion of a review the authority must . . . give reasons for its decisions in the review''.
It also has to
''publish such other information as is prescribed.''
I hope that that will go some way towards alleviating or ameliorating the situation.
Mr. Binley: Will the Minister respond to a point that I raised earlier? When organising elections, there is often no time to review election law, as such considerations arise too late in the process. I asked whether the Minister would use the guidance notes to allow electoral registration officers to do what they used to do, and have urgent discussions with local political parties over the siting of polling stations if necessary immediately prior to an election.
David Cairns: Paragraph 6 of proposed new schedule 1A states:
''Representations made by any person in connection with a review of polling places may include proposals for specified alternative polling places.''
Column Number: 40
It is clear that ''any person'' will include political parties. We are opening up the process beyond political parties. We do not use the words ''political parties''. I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman some reassurance.
Mr. Binley rose—
David Cairns: We are making heavy weather of what I think is a fairly straightforward point.
Mr. Binley: It is not.
David Cairns: I think it is. I shall give way for the last time.
Mr. Binley: I thank the Minister for giving way, but this is not a point of little interest. What I described happens regularly. I was an election agent for 12 years—I was proud of the fact—and I remember that we often needed to find a polling station in a rush. In a good area, the electoral registration officer would do that in consultation with the political parties, but it did not happen in areas where practice was not as good as it ought to be. I seek guidance for electoral registration officers, so that they can pursue such a policy. Good geographical access to a polling station is a vital part of the democratic process.
David Cairns: I can do no more than draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Bill says that individuals are allowed to make representations. He is talking about emergencies, so I assume that he is talking about by-elections.
Mr. Binley: No, no.
David Cairns: I cannot understand why an election should be treated as an emergency. Perhaps that is why we disagree. There is a clear, transparent process. We set out in detail how consultation should take place. Representations can be made by ''any person''; we do not have to rely on the artificial trigger of 30 people complaining about something before it is taken seriously. The results of such reviews have to be published.
Another issue that came up on Second Reading was access for disabled persons. We are allowing representations to be made by anyone who has sufficient interest in the accessibility of polling places in the area to disabled persons, or has particular expertise in relation to access to premises or facilities for disabled persons, including disability groups. The disability group does not have to be in the local authority area or polling district in order to make representations. It could make representations from a central standpoint.
All polling places and stations should be accessible to all voters. However, the service providers, including public authorities such as councils, do not think that the duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which from 1 October 2004 imposed a duty to make reasonable adjustments to the physical features of buildings if disabled people would otherwise find it impossible or unreasonably difficult to make use of services, apply to electoral services. That revision of current legislation reinforces the duty of local authorities to consider people with disabilities. The Bill sets it out in clear English.
Column Number: 41
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 20
Minimum age
4.30 pm
Mr. Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in clause 20, page 22, line 5, leave out 'nominated as a candidate' and insert 'elected'.
We do not often have the privilege of amending an Act from 1695; it is a welcome departure. To add to the gravitas of the situation, we are also amending the Union with Scotland Act 1706, so these are momentous matters.
I seek to add a degree of consistency. There is no doubt about this matter in the Bill, which states:
''A person is disqualified for membership of the House of Commons if, on the day on which he is nominated as a candidate, he has not attained the age of 18.''
That is admirably clear, and everyone understands it. It is a change from the 1695 provision, but that is not unreasonable as times have changed. The relevant section in the Parliamentary Elections Act 1695 is entitled
''Infants not to be elected.''
Few people nowadays would describe a 20-year-old as an infant, but that was the appropriate description in 1695. I shall not attempt to reflect in my speech the spelling of the 1695 Act. It says that
''noe person hereafter shall bee capable of being elected a member to serve in this or any future Parliament who is not of the age of one and twenty yeares and every election or returne of any person under that age is hereby declared to bee null and void And if any such minor hereafter chosen shall presume to sitt or vote in Parliament hee shall incurr such penalties and forfeitures as if hee had presumed to sitt and vote in Parliament without being chosen or returned.''
The relevant wording of the Union with Scotland Act 1706—
''none shall be capable to elect or be elected''—
shows that the moment of election is the relevant time. That is also the test in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975. As I read it, holding an office of profit under the Crown or a position on the list of disqualifying positions—positions that prevent one from serving as a Member of Parliament—stops one not from being nominated but from assuming the position of a Member of Parliament. Such legislation stops one taking one's seat in the House.
Mr. Jim McGovern (Dundee, West) (Lab): Under the hon. Gentleman's formulation, would anyone of any age be able to stand as a candidate and simply be unable to take their seat if they were successful?
Mr. Heath: Strictly speaking, that is the state of the law. I have just read out part of the 1695 Act, which is the current state of the law. It clearly says that someone may not be elected unless they have reached ''one and twenty yeares''. Currently, one has to be 21 to be a Member of Parliament, but the Government propose that that age should be 18. All we are considering is the date on which that applies, but the date is construed differently for different elections. There was a dispute in the European parliamentary
Column Number: 42
elections about whether the nomination of a candidate whose 18th birthday fell between the point of nomination and the point of election was valid.
Different rules apply to different elections in what we expect to be a common electoral process. My question is simply this: does the Under-Secretary agree that it would be better to decide what the relevant date for these purposes will be and better for the date to be consistent throughout legislation and across elections? It is not consistent at the moment, so will the Under-Secretary explain why not?
Mr. Djanogly: We welcome clause 20, which reduces from 21 to 18 the age qualification for membership of the House of Commons, for membership of a local authority and for election as mayor or assembly member of the Greater London Authority. The clause will require that the candidate is 18 on the day of nomination, or 18 on the day of the poll in the case of a local authority election or an election to the GLA when the election is not preceded by nominations. In a democratic system, it is only fair that all who are eligible to vote are also eligible for election.
The amendment seeks to change the qualifying time so that the candidate must be 18 by the day of election rather than by the day of nomination. Apart from the fact that the amendment seems to be a keen attempt to grab a few more weeks for 17-year-olds, will the Under-Secretary say whether it would pose any mechanical problems in the event of the election date not being fixed?
David Cairns: I rise to speak knowing that I have rather more knowledge of House of Commons disqualification than do most hon. Members, having been the victim of one such disqualification that required primary legislation in the rather anxious weeks before the 2001 election before I could stand.
The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome rightly highlights several discrepancies. Some disqualifications allow one to stand for election but do not allow one to take up one's seat. The ones that debarred me were precisely those; they were statutes relating to membership of the House of Commons, which presupposed that people did not have to stand for elections. Subsequent electoral law never took that into consideration, so it was perfectly valid for me to stand for election and to be elected, but I could not have taken up my seat. That, however, is not the precise issue that we are debating.
I echo the objection expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. McGovern) when I say that we do not want someone who is 14 when nominated and at the time of the election having to wait until they are 18 before they can take their seat. After all, there is no axiomatic link between someone being elected and taking their seat. It would be perfectly possible for Sinn Fein Members who were elected months ago to take their seats at any time, so we must be careful about legislating when such gaps exist.
The Bill is trying to do precisely what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome has asked us to, which is to harmonise and standardise the arrangements. The arrangements, as they apply to
Column Number: 43
local and GLA elections, already make it clear that candidates must have reached the minimum age by the time when they are nominated. Clause 20 clarifies the fact that the age disqualification is linked to the day on which the candidates are nominated at parliamentary elections.
One can pick either the day of nomination or the day of the election because the day of nomination is 11 days before the day of election. That answers the point made by the hon. Member for Huntingdon, because one will know the day of the election by the day of nomination. The matter is therefore not technically difficult. It is simply a question of which day one picks. I am attracted to the idea that we would maximise the ability of someone to stand at election if, during those 11 days, the candidate had a birthday and would otherwise be debarred if they turned 18 between the day of nomination and the day of the election, but if the amendment were adopted, we would end up with a discrepancy between the law as it applies to Westminster and the law as it applies to the GLA and local elections.
There are other issues relating to non-contested elections, in which the day of nomination is in effect the day on which the person is elected. Overall, we are trying to do what the hon. Gentleman wants us to, which is to standardise the arrangements. The Bill makes a change from the historical precedent, but we are standardising towards the status quo for the GLA and local elections. I think that his overriding aim is for clarity and standardisation and hope that with that reassurance he will withdraw the amendment.
| 
