Proceeding contribution from Lord Hanson of Flint (Labour) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 17 May 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill.
Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
I appreciate the way in which the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr. Reid) and for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) made their proposals. The Government and the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute have a common interest. It is our intention broadly to mirror the provisions on anonymous registration, for the reasons that we discussed in the Committee of the whole House some weeks ago. Anonymous registration is vital to protect individuals who feel threatened and we agree with it. The question is how to do it. The new clause would replicate the provisions of the Electoral Administration Bill, and the reason I cannot accept the new clause is not that we are not on the same wavelength in respect of anonymous registration but because there are differences in the operation of electoral law in Northern Ireland. There are registration conditions and anti-fraud measures that do not apply to the rest of the United Kingdom, including, for example, proof of identity requirements at the polling station that are not necessary in Great Britain and which make anonymity more difficult to maintain. There is a range of reasons. We shall introduce an Order in Council to give effect to the same principle that the hon. Gentleman wants to achieve, but in a Northern Ireland context. The proposals will be introduced later so that we can consider their implications for Northern Ireland, but the principle is exactly the same. I want anonymous registration in due course and we shall introduce the order after the consultation process. We hope that that will not be long after the scheme is introduced in Great Britain and that any difference in time scale will be a matter of only a few months. I hope that it will be only a few weeks, and that we can introduce the order quickly. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman does not support the whole idea of Orders in Council. I realise that they are not amendable and that that gives rise to difficulties, but on this occasion there are real reasons, which I have outlined, for an Order in Council. I do not expect that he will disagree with the content of the order because it will achieve his objectives, but in a Northern Ireland context. I turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). If he looks at clause 3, as I know that he has done, he will see that the Government’s clear intention is that there will be a canvass in 2010. The key point of his amendments is that, if the chief electoral officer believes that the canvass in 2010 is not necessary for him to meet the registration objectives that we have also set out in the legislation—for example, if he feels that a canvass would not improve the comprehensiveness or accuracy—and he believes that, for his own purposes, that the cost of that canvass is not justified, he can recommend to the Secretary of State that the 2010 canvass be cancelled. Only if such a recommendation is made can the Secretary of State make an order to remove the requirement for a canvass to held in 2010. The Secretary of State cannot unilaterally cancel the canvass in 2010; he can only do so if the chief electoral officer makes a recommendation to that effect because the chief electoral officer, not the Secretary of State, believes that the canvass should be cancelled. Even if that were the case and the Secretary of State accepted the chief electoral officer’s recommendation, it would be subject to approval by both the House and another place. Canvasses are very resource-intensive in terms of both labour and money. It is only right that the chief electoral officer has the power to determine how his resources will be best deployed in determining whether or not a canvass is necessary in 2010. Indeed, the hon. Member for Tewkesbury will know that 2010 is only four years after the final annual canvass, which will take place very shortly. I hope that, with the assurance that the Secretary of State has a power only to accept a recommendation, the hon. Gentleman will not press any of his amendments and that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute will withdraw the motion.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 446 c1065-6
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children Compensation Devolved matters Children in care Crime Administration of justice Crimes against property Community centres Environment protection Electoral register Dismissal Northern Ireland Protection Police Public appointments Northern Ireland Assembly Political parties Ministers Security Sustainable development First Minister of Northern Ireland
- Legislation
- Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2024-04-21 20:04:30 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325182
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325182
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_325182