| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Clause 1 gives effect to the Neill committee's recommendation that an Electoral Commission be established. Indeed, establishment of an independent Electoral Commission
lies at the Bill's heart. Creation of a commission will represent an important step in the modernisation of our constitution, and in ensuring public confidence in the integrity of our electoral arrangements.
Many commentators have argued or supported the case for the establishment of a single body with a remit to oversee the United Kingdom's electoral machinery. The Government share the view of those commentators that there is a clear need for a body with a broad role to play in the conduct of elections and of referendums. The role should extend beyond policing the income and expenditure of political parties, to the broader matters of electoral law, increasing voter participation and defining electoral boundaries. The authority of that body should be grounded in its neutrality and independence from both political parties and the Government of the day.
Subsections (1), (2) and (3) provide for the establishment of an Electoral Commission which will consist of between five and nine electoral commissioners. The Neill committee recommended that the commission should consist of five members. The intention was that the five commissioners should be appointed in the first instance, but that a further four should be appointed when the functions of the various boundary commissions transfer to the Electoral Commission.
Subsection (4) specifies that the electoral commissioners may be appointed by Her Majesty. The appointment procedure is described in more detail in clause 3. However, the key point is that the commissioners will not be appointed directly by a Minister.
The Neill committee recommended that the commissioners should be part-time appointments. However, the Bill does not specify whether the commissioners should serve on a part or full-time basis. Until the body is fully established, it is perhaps difficult to be certain about how far the commissioners' work load will merit part or full-time appointments. That point is perhaps partly related to the point made by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
The Government would expect initially to appoint a full-time chairman, but the four other commissioners on a part-time basis. However, it seems unnecessary for the Bill to make explicit provision on the point. Some flexibility in meeting future arrangements would seem to be desirable.
The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) asked various questions. On the boundary commission, we said in the White Paper that the first priority was to put in place controls on donations and campaign expenditure. Accordingly, the commission would not take on the boundary functions until 2002 at the earliest, and perhaps not until 2005, after the fifth general review of parliamentary boundaries has been completed. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Neill committee did not examine the matter in any great detail. We see considerable advantage in bringing all electoral matters under one roof. Various efficiency gains would also be realised if the functions of the parliamentary and local government boundary commissions were merged in one body.
In its comments on the draft Bill, the Neill committee did not raise any objections to vesting the boundary functions in the commission. Indeed, on Second Reading, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who is a member of the Neill committee, welcomed the proposals.
Mr. Walter:
Earlier, I quoted the Neill report, which referred to the boundary commission. The report said that to transfer that work
The hon. Gentleman also talked about the commission starting in November 2000 and the clause 30 provisions coming into play. He rightly said that the timetable was demanding, but the public demand that political parties get our act together. They are fed up with a flexibility in party funding arrangements that amounts almost to a public scandal. They want the issue sorted out. Many of us want to address the public concern about what the media have called sleaze in politics. There is a lack of proper controls and of systematic ways of dealing with party funding. Passing the Bill would address much of that public concern. That is why we want to ensure that we do so as soon as reasonably possible.
I do not resile from the views that Home Office officials have expressed about the timetable being demanding, but it is not unrealistic. We can achieve it. The hon. Member for North Dorset fears that chaos may reign among smaller parties. No party is immune from public concern. Some of the smaller political parties may not yet have been the focus of the keen eye of the media or public concern, but without systematic regulation they could have problems if they receive more careful attention.
We need to ensure that the public concern is addressed as soon as possible. That is part of the process of restoring public confidence and trust in our constitutional and parliamentary system. It is an important task of the Bill. We can debate the details, but there can be no doubt about the urgency of responding to public concerns. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is asking whether we are able to meet the timetable. We have looked at the issue with great care and have been assured by those who will be carrying out the task that it is possible to get the administrative systems in place. We are going to proceed step by step, trying to ensure that the important areas of public concern are addressed first, then moving on to more administrative--although still important--issues such as parliamentary boundaries. We can create the structures that will enable us to deliver.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst believes that we need more commissioners and perhaps a body that can provide lots of working parties. I know that he is interested in who gets the commissioner roles. He clearly wants to create lots of opportunities for people to apply for such jobs. Neill did not see the commission as a job-creation scheme for long-winded politicians. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not have any interest in that. He can be assured that the Neill committee looked at the matter with a great deal of care and wisdom. When we put the wisdom of the right hon. Gentleman against that of the Neill committee in the divine balance, I expect it to come down on the side of the Neill committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Mike O'Brien:
I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 94, line 9, at end insert--
As a body corporate, the Electoral Commission will be able to do anything that is incidental to the carrying out of its functions. That principle has been established by case law dating back to 1880. The issue is not in serious doubt, but we think it sensible to have a clear statement of the position in the Bill. New paragraph 1A has numerous precedents in other legislation establishing bodies corporate.
Sir George Young (North-West Hampshire):
I want to press the Minister a little further. The amendment is extremely wide and might have brought a smile to the lips of King Henry VIII. It gives the commission virtual carte blanche. I note that the Treasury, which never sleeps, managed to get "except borrow money" inserted into the amendment before it was published.
What will the amendment provide that the commission cannot do under the Bill as drafted? Clause 8 allows it to do certain things but only "at the request of"; clause 3 allows it to do other things "with the agreement of"; clause 5 bans it from doing certain other things; clause 11 adds further parameters; and then along comes the amendment and makes much of the rest of the Bill wholly redundant by allowing it to do virtually anything to facilitate the carrying out of its functions. If such broad provision is required, can it be restricted in some way so as not to conflict with the parameters laid down elsewhere in the Bill?
Mr. Maclean:
I am concerned about the amendment for several reasons, the first of which is its location in the Bill. It is my experience that when such a body is set up, its functions and powers are described in various clauses and then there is a general subsection saying something like, "Notwithstanding any of the above, the Commission can exercise any other powers, duties or functions that are incidental to its purpose", but here we have a free-standing Henry VIII power stuck in a schedule.
The schedule says:
There could have been better places to put such a power. Clauses 4 and 5 describe the commission's functions, and clause 7 lists
At the risk of being rude, I hope that the Minister's explanation will be slightly better than his previous one. It will be not satisfactory for him to say, "The Neill committee said one thing, but the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said another, and I prefer the opinion of Lord Neill." It is this Chamber that is making the legislation and I hope that the Minister will take seriously the views of all right hon. and hon. Members and not depend on someone else for his judgment.
The placing of the amendment is odd, wrong and somewhat sinister, but I also find its terms unacceptable. The Minister will doubtless have some precedent before him--unless his officials have gone downhill radically in the past three years, and I doubt that--showing that the Home Office put through some legislation between 1993 and 1997 that contained a clause roughly similar to the amendment. At the time, I may have advanced impeccable arguments to support the case that the inclusion of general powers such as those contained in amendment No. 6, was appropriate--in the appropriate place, of course--in certain legislation. However, I find the phrase
I am certain that I must have put through legislation that allowed an organisation to do anything that was incidental to, or conducive to, the carrying out of its functions, but the amendment contains that new phrase. Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) nor I would have tolerated a word such as "facilitate" in legislation, and indeed the phrase would make the powers of the commission much wider.
While I can see that certain items might be incidental or conducive to the carrying out of the commission's functions, who will judge whether they are "calculated to facilitate"? If the commissioners came to an irrational decision--about something which they thought was calculated to facilitate their functions--their irrationality would not mean that they would fail a judicial review, provided they could argue that the decision was "calculated to facilitate", no matter how illogical, irrational or off the wall it might have been.
"to the Election Commission might seriously overload that body, whose responsibilities, it seems to us, will be onerous enough as it is. We are not inclined to recommend change."
Mr. O'Brien:
The Neill committee took an initial view, and we expressed to it our view that there would be advantage in bringing the work under one roof. As I understand it, the committee broadly accepts the approach that we proposed. Therefore, while the committee may have taken the view that such change would not be helpful, we have described to it the way in which we are proposing to go forward, and it has made no objection to that. We would not want to bring in the boundary commission recommendations immediately, but in the longer term there will be advantages. This is the proper body to bring all the matters together.
4.45 pm
'Powers
1A. The Commission may do anything (except borrow money) which is calculated to facilitate, or is incidental or conducive to, the carrying out of any of their functions.'.
"The Commission shall not be regarded--
It continues:
(a) as the servant or agent of the Crown, or
(b) as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown."
"The property of the Commission shall not be regarded as property of, or property held on behalf of the Crown."
Why should that be followed by such a broad power as the amendment will bestow? It is rather scary that the Government are taking such a power in a mere schedule.
"Powers exercisable only on Commission recommendation."
Other parts of the Bill also describe the commission's proposed powers and functions. It might have been more appropriate to attach a general catch-all.
"which is calculated to facilitate"
very worrying.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |