Clause 10 - Legal Proceedings
Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill
5:00 pm
Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon, Conservative)
I build on what I said last week about the exclusion of access to the courts. The clause leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and discomforts Opposition Members. The Minister was keen to point out last week that there are precedents. They were the Referendum Act 1975, the Scotland Act 1978, the Wales Act 1978, the Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997 and the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998. All those Acts were introduced under Labour Governments and that brings Conservative Members no comfort. We are concerned that the rights of someone who wants to query the result of such a referendum, which could be close in parts of the country, are being curtailed by the clause.
Unusually, I struggled to follow what the Minister said in his response last week. I normally find him extremely clear, and his arguments cogent. He said that the presence of clause 10
''hardly affects all the statute law of the United Kingdom. It is nonsense to suggest that the wider rights relating to judicial review are in any way being affected or curtailed.''—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 3 December 2002; c. 47.]
The clause states that ''No court'', which I understand to mean no court, ''shall entertain any proceedings'', which I understand to mean any proceedings,
''for questioning the number of ballot papers or votes cast in a referendum held in pursuance of an order under section 1''.
The way in which most people would proceed were they unhappy with a result would be to go to court for a judicial review. The clause appears to expressly exclude that possibility. I therefore do not understand the Minister's response last week. I should like maximum clarity, given that what Ministers say on the Floor of the House and in Committee stands for all time and people take notice of it. I hope that the Minister can be clearer. Does clause 10 preclude people from seeking to go to court for a judicial review on the outcome of a referendum or not? If it does not, what is the clause's primary purpose?
We do not expect corruption, vote rigging or technical deficiencies in any ballot that we hold in this country. In our political systems, we are broadly a very incorrupt country, and we should be thankful for and ever vigilant of that. However, things can creep up on us by surprise. The presidential elections in the United States of America are an obvious example. Who would have thought that in the most sophisticated nation on the face of the earth there would be technical difficulties in recording people's votes? If it had not been for the ability to go to court to obtain clarity, we would still have a President with a question mark over his democratic legitimacy. We do not want that to happen in this country, or for the outcome of elections to be hanging in the air so that people do not know whether a regional government has been voted for. Clause 10 stands in the way of achieving clarity.
When the Minister responded last time, he said that clause 10 existed to prevent people clogging up the system by going to court with vexatious or frivolous claims because they did not like the outcome of a referendum. As a lawyer, I do not always have confidence in the judicial processes in this country, but it is perfectly within the capacity of the judicial system to deal with such matters quickly. Applications for judicial review can take place in a matter of two or three days—even within 24 hours if it is urgent. A time delay is therefore not appropriate. Courts are well used to throwing out vexatious and frivolous claims; it happens week in week out throughout this great country.
I cannot see a reason for the clause or its impact. Unless the Minister can clarify whether it prevents someone in this country from going to court for a judicial review on the outcome of a referendum, the matter will remain shrouded in mystery and I will be inclined to vote against it.