---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He is absolutely right. As I tried to explain, using the term ““public interest”” in respect of Great Britain is unacceptably wide; to use it in terms of Northern Ireland requires some explanation, with good reason to support it. As I said in an intervention earlier, I am a little concerned about the independence of the chief electoral officer. Perhaps the Committee will forgive me if I fast-forward to clause 8 which states: "““The Chief Electoral Officer . . . is appointed by the Secretary of State . . . A person must not be appointed as Chief Electoral Officer for more than 5 years at a time.””" Furthermore, he cannot hold office for more than 10 years. By comparison, the police ombudsman is appointed by Her Majesty the Queen, although I accept that it is by recommendation—no doubt from the Secretary of State. Why is the situation different for the chief electoral officer? Clause 8 does not lead us to believe that the CEO would be independent. As I noted earlier, the relationship between the CEO and the Secretary of State will be somewhat incestuous. The Minister says that the 2010 canvass would be cancelled only if the CEO had made a recommendation against it, but surely in the real world the Secretary of State could put pressure on the CEO if he thought it appropriate. I am concerned about the situation, although as we explored it in great depth during the previous debate I shall not repeat the arguments, but will the Minister give us some examples of what the public interest would mean under the clause? He gave a financial example to show why the 2010 canvass might not take place. He has just had several minutes to discuss other possible examples with officials and colleagues, so I hope that he can offer some to show why he feels that the Secretary of State would overrule the CEO. In particular, will he give us his interpretation of what ““the public interest”” would actually mean?