HC Deb 14 February 1985 vol 73 cc542-5
Mr. Mellor

I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 24, line 1, after 'Act', insert '(except section [Amendment of other enactments] (1) and the entry in Schedule 4 relating to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984)'.

The Temporary Chairman

With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 27 — Amendment of other enactments — and Government amendment No. 84.

Mr. Mellor

The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has scurried into the Chamber—oh, he has left again. I thought that he was going to look with considerable delight upon my discomfiture, because I am obliged to propose an amendment to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. The right hon. Gentleman teased us several times about the efforts that we had to make to get one or two technical matters right.

The point is that in removing rule 36 of the parliamentary election rules in schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983, we went a little too far. I shall briefly explain why. Personation is rightly an indictable offence punishable with a maximum of two years' imprisonment and an unlimited fine. Under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, a person who in England and Wales is suspected of having committed an offence punishable with less than five years' imprisonment may usually be arrested only if what the Act calls the general arrest conditions are satisfied. I think that most members of the Committee thought that that was a step in the right direction. I see the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs) nodding his head, although he may not have agreed with all the details. That was why the Act repealed rule 36.

7.45 pm

A voter who was suspected of personation at the polling station would usually be arrestable under the general arrest conditions. That is fine, but in repealing the special power under rule 36 the Act also repealed, for England and Wales, the polling agent's power to challenge the voter and the presiding officer's power to order the arrest. Those were useful safeguards, because the polling agent could challenge a voter whom he suspected of personation, and he had to undertake to substantiate the charge in a court of law. The effect of the challenge was that the presiding officer could order the voter to be arrested, although he could not be prevented from voting. We want to keep that provision. I very much regret that it was inadvertently swept away in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. I invite the Committee to put that provision back into the legislation. I apologise for the fact that it was taken out in the first place. I hope that the Committee, without too much trouble or difficulty, will agree to the amendment.

Mr. Alfred Dubs (Battersea)

It would be ungracious not to accept the Minister's apologies. I hope that this is the last time that the Government have to apologise for matters connected with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. In this instance, we should accept the Minister's apology. He has eaten humble pie, and no more needs to be said.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 24, line 3, leave out 'and for different purposes'.

My hon. Friends and I come before the House as earnest seekers after information, for we fail to understand how the words proposed to be left out make any difference to the sense of the subsection. I take it that the word "provision" in page 24, line 3, means a provision of a measure that is separately designated in some way, whether as a clause, a subsection or a paragraph of a subsection. If that is the correct interpretation, it is not clear how there can be "different purposes" within the same provision or how—supposing that there could be "different purposes" within the same provision—it could possibly be right to bring the provision into force for one purpose or set of purposes and not for another.

It may be that somewhere in the Bill, hidden from the eyes of the laity, there are provisions under which different purposes can be pursued. But, even if that is so, it would be highly inconvenient for the Act to come into force, not even section by section or provision by provision, but purpose by purpose, where several purposes were contained within one provision. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will explain the intention behind the words, and will also find it possible to advise the Committee that they are not really necessary and might in practice prove an inconvenience.

Mr. Mellor

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) for giving us the benefit of his formidable experience of legislation and for making that point. I shall look at what he has said and, if I find that my immediate response has missed some of his points, I shall make that clear at a later stage.

It is intended that there should be the maximum flexibility, because certain points will arise about the implementation of the Bill that we will need to contemplate. That is why clause 27(2) is framed in that way. I believe that it allows the Secretary of State to bring the provisions into force by order, to bring different provisions into force on different days, and to appoint different days for different purposes. Therefore, certain free-standing provisions of the Bill can be brought into force after the minimum period of two months or so has elapsed, but other provisions cannot be brought into force until after the regulations have been made. That will obviously be a time-consuming process, because other consultations must be proceeded with. That deals with the question of different provisions.

The reference to "different purposes" is designed to ensure that the commencement orders may, for example, include a proviso that the provision being brought into force would not affect an election of which, say, notice had been published before the appointed day. Otherwise, we might find that a candidate had already paid £150 deposit, but clause 12 having come into force before polling day, he would have to deposit a further £350. The reference to "different purposes" would enable us to decree that he would not have to pay that.

I do not know whether that explanation is coherent enough for the right hon. Gentleman. I shall reflect on what he said. If he raised other points, I shall consider them. Perhaps, for the record, I should reassure him on a point that he did not raise. There is no question of that provision giving power, say, to introduce arrangements for Northern Ireland on a different day from the rest of the United Kingdom. I assure him that all the provisions will be brought into effect at the same time throughout the United Kingdom.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

I thank the Minister both for his final remarks and for his conciliatory preamble. I am greatly excited by the news that the Bill contains free-standing provisions—the term used by the Minister. It would be fascinating to know which parts of the Bill are free-standing. That is a term of art which, despite my years, I have not hitherto encountered in legislation, and it would be interesting to discover its meaning.

I followed carefully the Minister's substantive explanation. It still seems inherently undesirable that a date should be fixed for the coming into force of "section something, subsection something", when that provision, from that day, would be enforced for only certain purposes. I hope that in the consideration that he has promised to give to this matter, the Minister will instance in the Bill where such a subdivision, for the purposes of commencement of a single provision, is necessary, and whether it will be convenient.

It seems remarkable that the Secretary of State should, by order, provide that a provision shall come into force for only certain purposes and not for others. He will then need another day for the same provision to come into force for different purposes. I hope that the Minister will have leisure to consider those issues before the next stage of the Bill.

Mr. Mellor

I shall look at the points that the right hon. Gentleman made with his usual cogency and authority. My reference to "free-standing provisions"—it may not have been the most felicitous of phrases—simply meant those provisions that did not require regulations to be made to give them the necessary effect. They could be brought into force without the need for further regulations. A great deal of the Bill relies on regulations subsequently being made to give the whole arrangement coherence.

In my final remarks, when I was giving the right hon. Gentleman reassurance about Northern Ireland, perhaps I should not have referred to "all the provisions", thereby implying that I was referring to everything in the Bill. I meant to say that any provision that was brought into force would be brought into force throughout the United Kingdom as a whole and that there would be no question of using any power in clause 27 to differentiate on any provision between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. I hope that that is helpful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell

This is a moment for rejoicing. We have a new technical term, "free-standing," which will be of great advantage. Many of us have an inherent and instinctive objection to provisions in a Bill which, for their operation, depend on regulations — subordinate legislation.

We now know that our desire is for more free-standing legislation—something that might almost feature in an election programme. The Conservative party is for free-standing legislation, and more of it. If this short debate has done nothing else, it has provided for a certain lifting of the heart and an enrichment of our parliamentary vocabulary.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 27, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to