Mr.
Hanson: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman, it is
important to clarify matters, because I want to refer to amendments
Nos.21 and 22 that the hon. Lady has tabled. I differ from her because
under her amendments, the chief electoral officer would be dismissed if
he or she were convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a term
of imprisonment, whether suspended or not, at any time during his or
her career. I want to ensure that a criminal offence would mean a
dismissal if it occurred during the tenure of the chief electoral
officer, not
historically. I am
not suggesting that any future Secretary of State or, indeed, Her
Majesty would appoint a chief electoral officer who has criminal
convictions. However, the clause is designed specifically to ensure
that if a criminal conviction occurs during the tenure of the office,
the Secretary of the State can dismiss the individual. As we discussed
last week in the Chamber, previous convictions are matters for
consideration but are not a bar to holding the particular
office. I understand
the point made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). There
may be a need for a statement on the reasons why the dismissal
of the chief electoral officer has occurred. Clause
8(5)(a),(b),(c) and (d) show clearly the circumstances in which a chief
electoral officer may be dismissed by the Secretary of State. It would
be an additional
bureaucratic burden for the Secretary of State to undertake the hon.
Gentleman’s proposal. He used those words when speaking to the
amendment. I agree with him that it would be an additional bureaucratic
burden. Should the
chief electoral officer have need to contest why the Secretary of State
dismissed him or her, he or she has recourse in law, as does any
individual dismissed from a post. They could also make their complaints
public if they so wish. So if the Secretary of State had acted in an
underhand way, as the hon. Gentleman suggested, the chief electoral
officer could go public with the reasons why he or she was dissatisfied
with that decision. To add a legal requirement to produce a report for
Parliament would be a step too far. I hope that the safeguards built
into the clause will satisfy the hon.
Gentleman. With that,
I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments. I hope that I have
given a satisfactory explanation of the way in which we approached the
legislation and that I have satisfied hon. Members on the points
raised.
Lady
Hermon: I am terribly sorry to disappoint the Minister but
I did not find his response satisfactory in the least. He kindly said
that he “could”—I am quoting him
directly—add the word “criminal”. That is
precisely what I am asking him to do under amendment No. 19. I
understand from the Minister’s hesitation that he accepts that
“criminal” should have been
included.
Mr.
Hanson: There is no hesitation on my part; I simply say to
the hon. Lady that the clause does what she wishes it to do. If a
conviction occurred, it would occur in a criminal court, and the
individual would be dismissed on that basis. That is an accepted
definition. There are differences in drafting styles between different
Bills, but that is an accepted definition, and I hope that it will
satisfy the hon. Lady that there is no need for her amendment, which
would add an extra word to the Bill but not change its
meaning.
Lady
Hermon: I am most grateful to the Minister. I can assist
him with some references to recent Northern Ireland legislation on that
very matter. He might like to know that the Police (Northern Ireland)
Act 1998 says:
“The
Secretary of State may call upon the
Ombudsman”— that
is the police
ombudsman— “to
retire...if satisfied that the Ombudsman has...been convicted
of a criminal
offence”. That is
written into the Act. Let me refer the Minister also to the Police
(Northern Ireland) Act 2000, a more recent piece of legislation. He may
like to know that schedule 1, which relates to the Policing Board, says
that: “The
Secretary of State may remove a person from office as an independent or
political member of the Board if satisfied that...he has been
convicted of a criminal offence in Northern
Ireland”. The word
“criminal” appears in that Act. Those are recent pieces
of legislation in Northern Ireland in which the word
“criminal” is included. That is what I am asking
about.
Mr.
Hanson: I have no wish to cause a row where a row need not
exist. Essentially, the hon. Lady will be aware that the legislation
that we support has exactly the same meaning as her amendment. I am
happy to reflect on the matter with my officials and to write to the
hon. Lady. I would rather do that because as the hon. Lady will
understand, in Committee, the wording of legislation is carefully
thought-out by parliamentary draftsmen to have specific meanings. I
believe that the meaning of the legislation is exactly the same as it
would be if we added the word “criminal”. I would rather
reflect on the matter than accept the amendment for the simple reason
that there may be different
circumstances.
The
Chairman: Order. I call Lady
Hermon.
Lady
Hermon: I am grateful to the Minister for assuring me
that, once again, he will reflect upon the inclusion of the word
“criminal” in front of the word “offence”
in clause 8(5). It just seems a simple, obvious request for
clarification in the Bill to make it consistent with earlier pieces of
Northern Ireland legislation. The Bill is poorly drafted; that is the
problem. I would like the word “criminal”
included. The more
important issue—and here I will have an argument with the
Minister—is his refusal to accept the amendments that make
reference to the chief electoral officer, including amendment No. 21,
which
says: “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.” Alternatively,
amendment No. 22 says:
“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.” The Minister took
issue with the amendments on the grounds that they could relate to a
previous conviction held by the chief electoral officer. I am sure that
it is not necessary to draw the Minister’s attention to this
point, but clause 8(5)(c) gives the Secretary of State the power to
dismiss the chief electoral officer if he is satisfied that
“a bankruptcy order has been made
against him, or his estate has been sequestrated, or he has made a
composition or arrangement with, or granted a trust deed for, his
creditors”. Does it say
that that must have happened during the term of his office as chief
electoral officer? No, it does not. The Bill does not refer to a
criminal conviction. However, it does refer to a bankruptcy order,
sequestration or a composition arrangement with
creditors. I
humbly—though in ill temper—suggest to the Minister that
it is much more serious for a chief electoral officer to have been
found guilty of a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment. That
should be in the Bill, and the Minister’s excuse for refusing to
include it is woeful, taken in the context of the Bill’s
provisions for dismissal on grounds of bankruptcy, whether past or
current. The Bill does not set a time
scale. I am sorry to detain the Committee but I refuse to withdraw the
amendment. Question put, That the
amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
15.
Division
No.
1] Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)Question
accordingly negatived.
The
Chairman: Is it the hon. Lady’s intention to press
amendments Nos. 21 and 22 to a
Division?
Lady
Hermon: I would be persuaded, if the Minister would care
to intervene to indicate that he is prepared to reflect on making the
Bill
more—
The
Chairman: Order. The debate is concluded. The decision to
press the amendments to a Division is in the hon. Lady’s
hands.
Lady
Hermon: Yes. I do want to.
Amendment proposed: No.
21, in clause 8, 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.'.—[Lady Hermon.]
Question put, That the
amendment be
made:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes
15.
Division
No.
2] Foster,
Mr. Michael
(Worcester)Question
accordingly negatived.
Clause 8 ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
Clause 9 ordered to stand
part of the
Bill.
Clause
13Introduction 11.15
am Question
proposed, That the clause stand part of the
Bill.
Mr.
Robertson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Taylor, for the
opportunity to discuss this clause briefly. Under the legislation,
donations to political parties in Northern Ireland from the Republic of
Ireland will still be permitted. In no way do I want to make a party
political point, but the concern is that donations from the Republic
benefit certain political parties to the exclusion of others. The
objective of much of our debate, and legislation that has been
introduced through statutory instruments and primary legislation, is to
normalise the situation between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I
welcome the attempts to normalise and, where possible, make comparable
the situation. Some of this legislation works towards that. One aspect
that does not is the provision for donations to political parties in
Northern Ireland to come from donors in the south.
There is a further
complication. It is possible for people who live abroad—in
America, for example—to make donations to political parties in
Northern Ireland not necessarily directly, but through citizens of the
Republic. That is a concern. I would have liked to limit the amount of
time for which the provision exists, stating that from, let us say,
2010, such donations would no longer be acceptable.
The Government’s
explanation for allowing donations from the south to be made to the
north is that the two countries are inextricably linked, and one party
at least is registered in both countries, so it is acceptable. However,
if we are moving towards normalisation and equalisation, I do not think
that it is acceptable for that situation to continue. Therefore, I am
concerned that the Government seem to be prepared to let it carry on
indefinitely, whereas I would have sought to end it—not
necessarily today or tomorrow, but certainly by putting a three or
four-year limit on the arrangement. I look forward to hearing other
hon. Members comments, because I know that the issue is of concern to a
number of parties in Northern Ireland, and to finding out what the
Minister has to say about the situation.
|
