---

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

moved Amendment No. 13:"Page 7, line 28, after ““by”” insert ““Her Majesty the Queen on the recommendation of””" The noble Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 14 to 17, which are in my name. These are largely probing amendments to explore the nature of the role of the chief electoral officer and his independence from the Secretary of State. Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 relate to the length of time that a person may fill the position of chief electoral officer. I hope that the Minister can reassure me about the independence of this position. As has already been discussed in another place, the Bill gives the Secretary of State considerable power not just in relation to who is chosen and the length of time that the position is held but also in influencing the decisions that the postholder takes as part of the job. My amendments would make the position a Crown appointment on a par with the Police Ombudsman—a post in which it is also very important that the holder is independent and is seen to be independent from the government of the day. It seems to me that the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is every bit, if not more, as important and prestigious an appointment as the Police Ombudsman. That is not ““downwriting””, or whatever the correct word may be, the role of the Police Ombudsman, which is equally important. The decision on how long one person should remain in the post of chief electoral officer will always be slightly arbitrary. From reading the debate in another place, I understand that fixed-term appointments are in line with modern approaches and modern terms and conditions of appointment. I leave aside the question of whether something should be accepted merely because it is ““in line with modern approaches”” rather than because it stands on its own merits. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s rationale for setting limits of five years as an initial appointment and 10 years as a maximum. With those limits, the chief electoral officer would barely have time to settle into his job before he was unceremoniously kicked out and replaced by someone else. As the limits stand, it would be considered normal practice to have a new electoral officer every election—something that would discount the benefits that experience and familiarity would bring to a position which needs to be held in the highest esteem. My amendments would extend the initial term of appointment to eight years to ensure that the appointment was renewed only every other election. If necessary, the person holding the position could be appointed to stay on for one more election, bringing his or her tenure to 12 years. That would, I feel, lend some continuity to the post. As an aside, on the way back from Northern Ireland yesterday, I happened to be sitting next to Lady Vallance, who had been wearing a different hat investigating the electoral system in Northern Ireland. We had a conversation about this matter, and she felt that I was more right on this than the Government. I sincerely believe that it would be wrong to change the chief electoral officer as regularly as every five years. I am suggesting that the person in question should be in post throughout two elections and that he should have the option to continue throughout a third election if he is doing well, is on top of the job and everything is believed and seen by the electorate to be in totally safe hands, and if the Secretary of State or whoever has the power to appoint him—it may not be the Secretary of State if I get my way—is in agreement. I beg to move.