| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I found that answer extraordinarily puzzling. First, Clause 5 has the procedure for Her Majesty to make an Order in Council for an extraordinary general election. Why is that said to be a slower way of proceeding than the laying of a statutory instrument, even though it is subject to the negative procedure, before Parliament? Nothing could happen during the period that a negative resolution could be laid against it. There would be bound to be a delay if you lay a statutory instrument before, presumably, both Houses of Parliament, which would lie on the Table for at least 14 days. It may be longer: I am not sure of the precise time limit involved. I do not understand that. The machinery of using the Order in Council is in Clause 5. Why is it not in Clause 4?
Before I decide what to do with this amendment, I invite the Minister to address why it is different in Scotland. That is the other thing which I do not understand. Why in Scotland is it the Presiding Officer who makes the proposal for Her Majesty to make a proclamation under the Scottish Seal in relation to the change of the day of an ordinary general election? Why is it the Presiding Officer who approaches Her Majesty for a proclamation under the Scottish Seal if he wants it, or if the Assembly or Parliament want an extraordinary general election? What is the difference?
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1089
If it is possible in Scotland, all the arguments advanced by the Minister against my amendment fall. There are two glaring inconsistencies in what the Minister has said and I invite him to respond.
5.45 pm
Lord Davies of Oldham: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that invitation. Again, if an order has to be made in emergency circumstances, it is not the case that the negative procedure for the passing of such an order by both Houses of Parliament is necessary. Of course it is necessary to validate it, but the order would be acted upon. It would need to be because it would be defined as having taken place in exceptional circumstances where it was necessary for prompt action to be taken to change the date of the election. The noble Lord will recognise that we have to have such a provision. Of course it is unlikely that it will ever be used, but we need a provision whereby it could be, otherwise we could be in a situation where a designated election day is established but circumstances would inhibit a proper election being held. The noble Lord is merely indicating that there should be no way for such an issue to be resolved.
Lord Crickhowell: The Minister is getting into a worse tangle than ever. He has not attempted to answer my first intervention by saying that it would apply to extraordinary situations as set out in the next clause. But I keep reading out the Government's own notes on the Government of Wales Bill. He has now said that the Secretary of State may have to act quickly and that he would not have to put the order before Parliament; if necessary he could simply lay it. But paragraph 48 of the Explanatory Notes makes the position absolutely clear:
"Before making an Order under this clause, the Secretary of State must first consult the Welsh Ministers and an Order must be laid before Parliament and is subject to being annulled by resolution of either House of Parliament".
Either the Minister is wrong or the notes on the clauses are wrong. The Committee is entitled to know which.
Lord Davies of Oldham: The noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, will recognise that of course it would be practicable to do both. First, it is possible to consult Welsh Ministers, and that obligation is made clear in the Bill. Secondly, it is possible to lay the order. What may not be possible, depending on the circumstances that obtain, is for it to follow full parliamentary process. But we are talking here about a variation within a very limited framework contingent on emergency circumstances of some kind. I therefore find it difficult to understand why it is not recognised that it is only under such circumstances that executive action would need to be taken.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: What about Scotland?
Lord Davies of Oldham: I have not come to the Dispatch Box with full details on the position in Scotland. However, I want to emphasise the fact that the Scottish Parliament is different from the Welsh
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1090
Assembly and in these emergency provisions we reflect differences in powers between the two assemblies. However, we are talking here about a power being taken forward from the existing Government of Wales Act and we see no reason why it needs to be changed. It refers to limited circumstances in which effective executive action would seem to the Government to be obviously necessary. In Amendments Nos. 8 and 9 we are not talking about the general provisions governing Welsh elections, either for the Assembly in the normal course of events or where an extraordinary general election has to take place. In that circumstance, the Welsh Assembly, by a two-thirds majority, would actually take the decision.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I remain in a state of confusion. I do not believe that the Minister, with the greatest respect, has given an adequate explanation of this anomaly. I do not think it is enough to say it is in the Government of Wales Act already and therefore has to be carried over to this Bill because that is what we are here to do. We are here to look at what is wrong with the Government of Wales Act and to update it; to advance it and look at its machinery once more. While I seek to withdraw the amendment at this stage I shall certainly return to it on Report and, no doubt, we can further consider it then. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Extraordinary general elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 to 13 not moved.]
Clause 6 [Voting at general elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15E not moved.]
Clause 7 [Candidates at general elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 15F and 15G not moved.]
Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 16:
"( ) The regional returning officer shall publish the list of candidates submitted by each political party for each electoral region."
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 16 has a very straightforward objective, to establish open lists for Assembly elections. The amendment states that the regional returning officer shall publish the list of candidates submitted by each political party for each electoral region. The implication is that the candidates will not be ranked in order, but will nevertheless be on a list of candidates from the party. The virtue of open lists is that the electorate actually decides who they wish to elect. This is a method of election used by a number of countries which function on the basis of additional member systems. The different members elected are absolutely clear. They have been the choice of the electorate. This is a very transparent method of conducting a list system. The electorate could, if they wish, for example, choose on the basis of gender.
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1091
Maybe they would prefer a female candidate, or a member of a political party who has a viewpoint that may not comply with the strictest interpretation of the party. If they want to elect a younger or older person because they feel this would be the right choice in the circumstances, they can. The electorate hold the decisions in their hands and not the party. We believe that this very important principle would extend democracy for the electorate. Indeed it might actually encourage them to participate in elections more, which would be a very good thing. I beg to move.
Lord Davies of Oldham: I was singularly unhelpful on the previous group of amendments so I hope to be a little more positive on this one. With regard to Amendment No. 16, we already provide for such publication in paragraph 17 of Schedule 6 to the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2003. This kind of detail is normally included in secondary legislation. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, will look at this with the keenest of interest and, given that during discussion of the previous group of amendments I was upbraided for my limited perspective on the Scottish Parliament, he might just like to take on board that both Scottish and European elections are covered in exactly the same way—not in primary legislation but in subordinate legislation. The point is taken and accepted. We already have it in place.
On Amendment No. 20 we are convinced of that case too. The difference is that we do not think this is the Bill in which this problem should be tackled. This probably relates to the case at the last general election when one constituency's results were delayed for a considerable period because of the death of a candidate. We clearly need to address the issue and that is exactly what we are doing. Clause 28 of the Electoral Administration Bill deals with the death of a candidate at a parliamentary election. Where the election has to be countermanded or abandoned, it shortens the delay before a fresh election can be held. It also tackles that problem that we all recognise existed. That applies to Parliament, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales plans to apply broadly similar changes in an order that he will bring forward for approval later this year under Section 11 of the Government of Wales Act. The order will update the rules for conduct of Assembly elections to tackle this problem which, although has mercifully not affected elections in Wales thus far, we had warning from the general election of the distress that it can cause all round. We therefore intend to remedy the problem, both in relation to parliamentary elections and elections for the Welsh Assembly.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |