More details have come of how Welsh Assembly (Possibly) Members John Dixon and Aled Roberts have ended up in the predicament of having their election questioned, but the eventual outcome is still unclear.
Aled Robert’s stood for election despite holding a disqualifying post – with the Valuation Tribunal for Wales. He has since resigned from that position, but the reason he was not aware that it was a disqualifying post is that it was missing from much of the legal guidance available to election candidates and their agents. For example, the Electoral Commission’s official guidance made reference to the wrong (older) list of disqualifying posts, which excludes the Valuation Tribunal. Similarly the National Assembly of Wales’s website and the training materials used by the Electoral Commission at a Welsh Liberal Democrats even earlier in the year both made the same mistake.
So he seems to have a very good case for saying that he was telling the truth when he signed his consent to nomination paper stating that “to the best of my knowledge and belief I am not disqualified”. That should provide an extremely strong defence in response to the police inquiry demanded by UKIP. Less clear is whether or not the Welsh Assembly can vote to let him take his seat anyway. The short version of it is that there are conflicting distinguished legal opinions on that matter.
John Dixon’s case is a little more complicated. He also had a post with the Care Council for Wales that was also on the disqualified list and, unlike in Aled Roberts’s case, there was no misinformation over it. However, he has an email from the Care Council for Wales saying that his membership of the body had been terminated.The email is vulnerable on two fronts – whether that was sufficient to legally end his membership of the body and, even if so, whether that happened soon enough. Again, there are conflicting legal opinions on whether or not the Welsh Assembly can vote to regulate matters in his case using its powers under section 17(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006.
There are some parallels with the case of Conservative MP Bob Neill, who was elected in the Bromley & Chislehurst by-election despite holding a disqualifying post until the day after the election. In that case the Liberal Democrats argued he was disqualified, but mindful of the outcome of the Winchester by-election, did not pursue an election petition after he was declared elected. That case therefore does not provide legal guidance for the Welsh case, especially as the legal details around disqualification are different between the Westminster Parliament and Welsh Assembly.
If one or both are unable to take up their seats, they would be replaced by the next Liberal Democrat candidate on the party’s lists as both were elected via the regional list part of the Welsh Assembly.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Josh Babarinde makes the case for his Domestic Abuse Bill
North London's expanse
West End Ward Tuesday Surgeries #dundeewestend
Big brother state
Matthew Radmore
tom arms
Jonathan Brown
6 Comments
I am told that the only comparable precedent related to Liberal MP, Michael Winstanley in 1973. I do not know any details except that Parliament voted to remove a technical bar to him being an MP. It seems though that he was not an MP at the time as he lost Cheadle in 1970 and was then elected for Hazel Grove in 1974. If anybody can cast any light on this it would be appreciated.
The Parliamentary situation with disqualified candidates was settled after a series of cases came to light in 1955 – it was discovered that several MPs held public appointments which were unpaid but there was provision (never used) for repayment of expenses, and no-one had realised that this made them ‘offices of profit under the crown’. The upshot of it all was that the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 was passed which allowed (s. 6) for the House to resolve to disregard a disqualification where the MP had been unaware and had since resigned the office in question.
In Dr Winstanley’s case, such a resolution was passed on 3 April 1974. He was a GP in a group practice which held the appointment of medical officer to the Royal Ordnance Factory at Patricroft, which made him technically a civil servant.
“In that case the Liberal Democrats argued he was disqualified, but mindful of the outcome of the Winchester by-election, did not pursue an election petition after he was declared elected. ”
It is totally ridiculous that these issues are ONLY resoluble through an expensive adversarial system. Surely a body like the Electoral Commission ought to be able to arraign a ‘wrong’ MP or councillor having performed an inquisitorial role on information supplied to it in good faith suggesting that a candidate was disqualified. “The Electoral Commission do something useful?” Heaven forbid!
For those who wish to read the original debate, a transcript and subsequent personal statement by Dr Winstanley are on They Work For You.
We ,the rank and file ,still have to carry on and would appreciate someone taking the reigns and sorting out this dilemma.It is not in Labours interest to hurry things along ,as it stands at present without the two A.M.,s being able to fulfil their roles Labour have a majority so please please will someone put pressure on Welsh Government to make the decision.
We have been in talks with the Welsh Government but nobody will move until the Police investigation has reached a conclusion. The only ways nto resolve this is a full vote in Plenary, which needs political agreement, or to declare a vacancy and appoint the number two on the list. The first requires cross party agreement, the second undermines natural justice whilst the first option is still available.