Mr.
Hanson: I understand the spirit in which the hon. Lady
tabled the amendments. There is nothing unusual in the way that the
clause is drafted. It uses similar terms and conditions to those used
in other legislation, for example, provisions relating to the
commissioners on the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the
police ombudsman. The same conditions and the same method of
appointment that apply under this clause apply to those posts. All
those office holders, like the office holder we are discussing, are, of
course, independent of the Government. Therefore, they are useful role
models in respect of the
appointment of the chief electoral officer. The time limit on their
terms does not in any way diminish their independence.
As the hon. Lady identified,
under clause 8, the chief electoral officer can be appointed for a term
of up to 5 years, and nobody can hold the post for more than 10 years.
I have also made something clear about the incumbent at the time the
Bill is enacted. Denis Stanley has recently retired as chief electoral
officer and we are in the process of appointing a new one. I am not yet
clear, as you will not be either, Mr. Taylor, when or if the Bill will
receive Royal Assent. Therefore, we have said that the time scale for
the appointment of the chief electoral officer will commence when Royal
Assent is given to the Bill and when it is enacted. An individual might
be appointed in the next few months and they will have up to 10 years,
plus the period up until the Bill receives Royal Assent. I hope that
that clarifies
matters. I understand
the reasons why the hon. Lady wishes to specify a minimum period. I
simply say to her that the normal practice is that individuals will be
appointed for up to five years and that will, in normal practice, mean
five years; there are few circumstances in which I can foresee the
Secretary of State appointing someone for less time than
that.
Lady
Hermon: Does the Minister agree that the present wording
indicates that the person who is appointed chief electoral officer, and
who will take up the work that Denis Stanley has been doing so
courageously and well for such a long period, can be appointed for just
a week or just a month? The Minister referred to “normal
practice”. Why will he not simply change the wording to make it
clear that the initial appointment will be for a term of not less than
five years?
Mr.
Hanson: I can confirm to the hon. Lady that the Bill, as
drafted, will ensure that a person can be appointed for a term of up to
five years. I am happy, outside the Committee, to reflect on the points
that she has made. There might be merit in specifying a minimum term,
but the normal practice for other posts is the same as is in this
provision. I hope that she can accept that. I shall happily examine
whether it is in the interests of the chief electoral officer and the
Government to consider her proposals, because there might be merit in
them. I shall not prejudge the case. The normal practice is proposed in
the Bill. Given those comments, I hope that she will withdraw her
amendment.
Lady
Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. I am glad that
I intervened, because following my intervention he gave a commitment,
honourably and rightly, as is his habit, to listen to representations,
particularly those from Members from Northern Ireland, who have
particular concerns having grown up there, borne the brunt, and known
what electoral fraud means and how votes are stolen. Stealing votes is
a serious criminal offence. The office of the chief electoral officer
is a particularly important one in Northern Ireland.
I am reflecting on earlier
clauses, which I shall not comment on in detail. The Minister will know
from a debate on the Floor of the House last week, that the Bill, in
its earlier clauses, also abolishes the annual canvass and has
instituted a canvass that might take place at 10-yearly intervals. That
means that it is important that whoever is appointed as Denis
Stanley’s successor has independence. Such independence is
brought about by a secure tenure in post of at least five years and up
to 10 years, and not by their having a short minimum period. If fraud
is creeping back into the system, and if the antennae of those in the
electoral office tell them that there is mischief, such as people being
registered to vote who are not entitled to do so, it is important that
the chief electoral officer has been in post for a considerable period
of time. Reflecting
on the change to the annual canvass and the importance of the point
that the chief electoral officer should be independent and have
security of tenure, I look forward to subsequent discussions with the
Minister on this point after the Committee. However, given his
assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Lady
Hermon: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in page 7, line
41, leave out ‘an' and insert ‘a
criminal'.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 9, in page 8, line 4, at end
insert— ‘(5A) The Secretary
of State must set out in writing the reasons for dismissing the Chief
Electoral Officer in this section and place a copy before each House of
Parliament.'. No.
21, in page 8, line 4, at end
insert— ‘(5A) The Secretary
of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he
has been convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of
imprisonment.'. No.
22, in page 8, line 4, at end
insert— ‘(5B) The Secretary
of State must dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied that he
has been convicted of a criminal offence and been sentenced to a term
of imprisonment whether suspended or
not.'.
Lady
Hermon: Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 22 relate to the chief
electoral officer him or herself, who will be appointed shortly. Again,
it is curious drafting that has caught my attention and led to my
tabling of the amendments. Clause 8(5)(b) is critical in relation to
the amendment. It contains a discretion, not a duty that
“The Secretary of State
may dismiss the Chief Electoral Officer if satisfied
that—...
b)
he”— or
presumably
she— “has been
convicted of an
offence”. What jumped
off the page was the omission of the word “criminal”. I
am not a member of a golf club, but without anything to limit it, the
word “offence” includes offences referred to as
disciplinary offences, which are breaches of the rules of a golf
club—or those of other organisations. I am sure that it is not
intended that the Secretary of State may dismiss the chief electoral
officer for a minor infringement of golf club rules.
Amendment No. 19 would ensure
that the word “criminal” is included in the subsection to
make it clear that the current drafting is far too wide and would
ensure that the wording is narrowed to make it clear that only a
criminal offence would be relevant. That would bring the wording into
line with the appointment of members to the Policing Board. I notice
that the Minister has his colleague who is responsible for policing and
security with him, the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland,
the hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward). Given the recent
controversy about appointments to the Policing Board, I am sure that
both Ministers from the Northern Ireland Office will know that the
Secretary of State may, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000,
dismiss and remove an independent or a political appointment to the
Policing Board, if that person has been convicted of a criminal offence
in Northern Ireland after their appointment.
Regarding amendments Nos. 21
and 22, I repeat that the office of the chief electoral officer is
important because its holder carries out a job that gives confidence to
the public in Northern Ireland. The person in question must be
satisfactorily qualified and remain qualified to command the respect of
the community in Northern Ireland, whatever community it might be.
Amendment No. 21 would insert a requirement for the Secretary of State
to dismiss the chief electoral officer if satisfied that he has been
convicted of a criminal offence punishable by a term of
imprisonment. Amendment
No. 22 would ensure that the Secretary of State must dismiss—
[Interruption.] This is for the hon. Member for
East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who, I am sure, will wish to comment on
this amendment. Amendment No. 22 would ensure that the Secretary of
State must dismiss the chief electoral officer if satisfied that he has
been convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term of
imprisonment, whether suspended or not. It seems incredible to me that
even if the chief electoral officer has been found guilty of a heinous
crime that carries with it a term of imprisonment, there is no duty
under the Bill to require the chief electoral officer to stand down
from his post. We are not talking about a member of staff in the
electoral office, but the chief electoral officer himself or
herself. It is
incumbent upon the Minister to accept the amendments so that there will
be no discretion for the Secretary of State and so that the removal of
the chief electoral officer will be compulsory when the criminal
conviction carries a sentence of imprisonment. I am not aiming at minor
infringements of the criminal law, but at the compulsory removal of a
chief electoral officer who has been found guilty of a criminal offence
that is punishable by a term of imprisonment. That is the simple import
of the amendments, which are all sensible and straightforward. The
Minister would do well to accept them.
Mr.
Robertson: I shall speak to amendment No. 9, which may
sound a little heavy-handed and bureaucratic. However, I refer the
Committee back to our debate on the Floor of the House about the
control that the Secretary of State might have over the chief electoral
officer and the concern that was
expressed at the time. I refer to the opportunity for the Secretary of
State to cancel a canvass of the electorate that might be recommended
by the chief electoral officer, and the fact that his reasons for
cancelling such a canvass are apparently covered by the words
“in the public interest”. We did not receive a
satisfactory explanation of that phrase.
The chief electoral officer
can be dismissed for the reasons set out in the Bill. According to
clause 8(5)(d), those include if
“he is unable or unfit to carry
out his functions.” That
could be considered slightly vague. In the context of Northern Ireland,
in particular, it is important to have a chief electoral officer with
some degree of autonomy and independence. I am concerned that that will
not be the case under the arrangements that have been made.
I will not try the patience of
the Committee by going over the ground that we covered on the Floor of
the House, as hon. Members will be familiar with what was said.
However, if relations become strained between the Secretary of State
and the chief electoral officer, it should be made public why the
Secretary of State feels the need to dismiss the chief electoral
officer. It seems a bit bureaucratic to lay the report before the
Houses of Parliament, but I do not think that it would take up a great
deal of the Secretary of State’s time. There are not many
changes taking place with regard to drawing up the list of electors,
but transparency and, more importantly, confidence in the process in
Northern Ireland are essential. That is my motivation in introducing
amendment No. 9.
Dr.
Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast, South) (SDLP): I want to add
my tuppence-worth to the comments made by my learned colleague, the
hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon). The point is that the chief
electoral officer needs to be seen to be independent and to be as
autonomous as possible. Others have expressed significant concerns,
which are genuine. It is possible—I hasten to add not under the
present Government, as no such thing would ever happen with the present
team of Ministers—that a future Government could try to exercise
control over the chief electoral officer.
The SDLP shares those concerns
and thinks that it would be right to build in that sensible safeguard.
All it will do is require the Secretary of State to set out his reasons
for dismissal of a chief electoral officer in a report to Parliament.
We think that is entirely appropriate. We are therefore pleased to have
the opportunity to add our names to the amendment and urge the
Ministers to take our genuine concern into
consideration. 11
am
Mr.
Hanson: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments.
Hopefully, I can reassure him that the chief electoral officer is and
will be independent of the Government. The safeguards in the Bill allow
that position to be independent. It is reflected throughout the Bill
and in the way in which the current Government operated with the
previous chief electoral officer, Denis
Stanley.
I understand the points that
the hon. Member for North Down made. I do not believe that the word
“criminal” is necessary. It is used in other
legislation—and there are different drafting styles in
legislation—but the meaning of this Bill is exactly the same as
the meaning of other Acts with regard to criminal convictions. It is
not necessary to specify that the offence in clause 8(5)(b) should be
criminal.
Lady
Hermon: Will the Minister just name one piece of recent
Northern Ireland legislation where the word “criminal”
has been omitted from in front of the word
“offence”—just one?
Mr.
Hanson: I am the fount of much knowledge and I have taken
through a number of Northern Ireland Bills but, off the top of my head,
I cannot answer that particular
question. However,
clause 8(5)(b) does refer to criminal offences, as the clause is clear
that the chief electoral officer can be dismissed only if a conviction
has taken place, and convictions are available only in the criminal
courts. Therefore, although I accept that the word
“criminal” is not included in the clause, in essence, a
conviction means a conviction in a criminal court, and that means
exactly the same as what the hon. Lady’s amendment is trying to
achieve. I could add
the word “criminal” into the legislation. There is not a
problem with that, but the Bill, as drafted by myself and my officials,
will achieve the same purpose. If the hon. Lady so wants, I am happy to
reflect on whether the word “criminal” should be
included, but the effect will be the
same.
| 
