AMENDMENTS RELATING TO ELECTION PETITIONS (Hansard, 14 March 2000)

§ Mr. Tipping
I beg to move amendment No. 118, in page 158, leave out lines 7 to 13.

Mr. Deputy Speaker
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 119 to 122, 132 and 133.

§ Mr. Tipping
The amendments deal with the rather arcane practice of election petitions, and I shall deal with them quickly. Paragraphs 2 to 6 of schedule 16, to which amendments Nos. 118 to 120 relate, remove the requirement that parliamentary and local election petitions are tried locally. I understand that a parliamentary election petition has not been heard since 1929. However, new information suggests that some local petitions have been heard fairly recently. Accordingly, amendments Nos. 118, 119 and 120 delete or amend paragraphs 2 to 6 of schedule 16, so as to preserve the status quo. Amendment No. 132 makes consequential changes.
Amendment No. 119 also repeals section 130(2)(a)(ii) of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which prevents a judge from serving on an election court in the area where he practises—a procedure that appears to be out of date.
Amendments Nos. 121, 122 and 133 relate to paragraph 8 of schedule 16. This paragraph removes the provision in section 153 of the 1983 Act in which an elector may stand in the place of the respondent. That provision dates back to the time when electors and candidates had difficulty travelling. I hope that the House will therefore agree to modernise election practices.

§ Sir Patrick Cormack
When the Minister talks about maintaining the status quo, he has our sympathy; 261 when he talks about modernisation, he has our deep distrust. Nevertheless, there is nothing too violently appalling in his suggestions, although we shall certainly ensure that they are considered with great assiduity in the other place. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that we may want to return to them. However, with that point, I commend the hon. Gentleman.