| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Stunell: Although there are still some points of difference between us, I thank the Minister for his very helpful and constructive reply. The debate has been worth while. If it has at least caused the Government to consider what the right level of skills qualification and disqualification should be, and to agree to present further proposals to the Committee, it will certainly have been worth while.
6.15 pm
Various points have been made in the debate, and I shall not even attempt to deal with them comprehensively. I should, however, like to deal with one difference between the view that I expressed and the view of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who seemed not to be as concerned as I believe that the Committee should be about the impact of public perception in this sphere of public policy. Surely he has learned from the previous general election that public perception is utterly vital to the integrity of the political process and the public perception of that process. If the Electoral Commission should at any point lose public credibility, the consequent damage would be very serious.
As I said when moving the amendment, the Neill review is the first fundamental review of the electoral system for 117 years. There may be another review soon,
but equally, there may not be another one soon. Therefore, our fundamental objective should be to get the grounds rules for the Electoral Commission right.
In the Standing Committee, when concerns were expressed about other parts of the Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office--dealing with us very fairly--said, "Don't worry. Our intention is that this is a matter that the Electoral Commission will come back to in due course." It is one of the Minister's favourite phrases.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping)
indicated assent.
Mr. Stunell:
Revisiting issues is fine, as it will provide a mechanism for keeping electoral processes up to speed--whether those processes involve new technology, new avoidance techniques developed by the political parties, or as yet unforeseen circumstances--but that benefit will be undermined if the Electoral Commission itself has lost public credibility and validity in the eyes of hon. Members. Furthermore, not only the Government of but the Opposition of the day will have, implicitly, to be able to place their trust in the commission and to have confidence that the commission is able credibly to conduct elections.
In other countries with different political backgrounds, the majority of general elections are won not by campaigns, but by their equivalent of the electoral commissioners and the rules that they operate. That is why it is so very important that the Committee should ensure that we have appropriate rules which command public support and deliver what Parliament wants.
I thank the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) for his very time-limited but specific support for my amendments. I shall not tempt him by saying more than that. Nevertheless, there is one important distinction between my amendments and amendment No. 22, which was tabled by Conservative Front Benchers. I ask the Minister, in considering the issues raised in the debate, to consider those differences very carefully. I have characterised the argument as one involving the poacher and the gamekeeper.
I see absolutely nothing wrong with people with experience of poaching joining the commissioners and showing not only that excesses exist, but how those excesses might be controlled or mitigated. I take the point made by the Under-Secretary, that there should perhaps be a period of purdah, so that one does not go from being Chancellor of the Exchequer to being an electoral commissioner. Such a restriction seems sensible. However, it is also worth bearing in mind the Minister's other point--that pre-existing political experience and knowledge of political culture are important.
I tell Conservative Members that the truth of that proposition was evident in the Committee's previous consideration of the Bill. Each hon. Member has experience of fighting elections, raising money and taking part in keen political debate, making us perhaps uniquely well-equipped--perhaps too well equipped--to know what we are talking about when debating this subject. So often, a Committee's consideration is perhaps not terribly well informed by practical, first-hand experience. However, in the Committee's consideration of this legislation, everything from the auctioning of Mrs. Thatcher's handbag
to the most minute detail of electoral law has been explored by people who know what they are speaking about. Let us have some poachers.
Mr. Forth:
Who auctioned the handbag?
Mr. Stunell:
That is for Conservative Front Benchers to explain.
I hope that the Minister accepts that we should not throw away the idea of having commissioners with political experience. However, we must ensure that there is not the slightest appearance or reality that they are returning to political activity. I accept that some issues are best put into employment contracts and others are best put in job descriptions, but some are best put in the Bill. The Bill should specify that such people should not participate in current political activity.
I shall not pursue the argument about whether parish councillors should be included. I do not want my practical intention to be sunk by sticking too rigidly to an interpretation that I offered the Committee on the spur of the moment in an intervention. But it would be a shame if we did not take into account, for example, the fact that someone had been the leader of a local authority in a major city for 10 years.
I understand the Minister's reluctance to accept amendment No. 2, which deals with taking an office of profit under the Crown. A Conservative amendment lists several offices of profit under the Crown from which some candidates for the commission would have to be chosen. I understand those arguments, but I hope that the Minister understands the concern that a less benign future Government--not containing any current Members of Parliament, who are full of good will to all men and women--might seek to use the appointments system to undermine the integrity and independence of the Electoral Commission. Hon. Members may think it far-fetched to fear that we could get into a situation such as obtains in some other so-called democracies, where the equivalent of the Electoral Commission is manipulated by the ruling party, but we should not leave that as a feasible option.
We have had a useful debate and the Minister has made some useful concessions. We shall watch carefully to see the form of those concessions when they reappear. I hope that he will bear our concerns in mind and will treat them not as party political knockabout, but as a genuine desire to ensure that we establish a secure, long-lasting foundation to monitoring our democratic process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield):
I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 98, line 14, after '17(8)', insert--
The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord):
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: amendment No. 23, in clause 5, page 4, line 7, after 'however', insert--
Amendment No. 24, in page 4, line 26, at end insert--
Amendment No. 28, in clause 8, page 6, line 28, after 'Scotland', insert--
Amendment No. 34, in clause 11, page 8, line 14, after 'Scotland', insert--
New clause 3--Transfer to commissions of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland--
Mr. Grieve:
Amendment No. 35 is perhaps the least important of the amendments in this group, because it is consequential on the others, so the fact that it is the lead amendment might be misleading.
The amendments concern the possible applicability of the aspects of the Bill relating to the commission to local elections in Scotland. It became apparent in the Standing Committee that, as a consequence of devolution, although the new regime that we are establishing for the funding of political parties will apply to elections to this place and to the Scottish Parliament, it will not apply to local government elections in Scotland, by virtue of the Scotland Act 1998.
Lord Neill was unequivocal about the desirability of the reforms that he was proposing applying to every part of the United Kingdom. He said:
'or by the Scottish Parliament in pursuance of section [Transfer to Commission of functions of Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland](8).'.
'save with the consent of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales or the Northern Ireland Assembly (as the case may be)'.
'(iv) local government elections in Scotland (with the consent of the Scottish Parliament); and'.
'unless the Scottish Parliament requests otherwise'.
'except with the consent of the Scottish Parliament'.
'.--(1) The Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any one or more functions of the Local Government Boundary Commission for Scotland (in this section referred to as "the Scottish Commission").
(2) The Commission shall make arrangements for functions transferred to them by an order under subsection (1) to be exercised by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
(3) Where each of the functions of the Scottish Commission is transferred by an order under subsection (1), the Scottish Parliament may by order make provision for the abolition of the Scottish Commission.
(4) An order under subsection (1) or (3) may include provision for the transfer to the Commission.
(a) of the staff of the Scottish Commission, and
(b) of any property, rights and liabilities to which the Scottish Commission are entitled or subject;
and an order which contains provision such as is mentioned in paragraph (b) may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.
(5) An order under subsection (3) may include provision for the abolition of any duty in compliance with which the Scottish Commission was established or constituted.
(6) An order under this section may contain any appropriate consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions amending, repealing or revoking enactments).
(7) Any power of the Scottish Parliament to make an order under this section shall be exercisable by statutory instrument.
(8) The expenditure of the Commission, so far as attributable to the exercise of any functions transferred by an order under subsection (1), shall be met by the Scottish Parliament.'.
"We have considered whether the Election Commission's remit should cover the whole of the United Kingdom for all purposes or whether, in connection with elections and referendums in Scotland,
14 Feb 2000 : Column 648Wales and Northern Ireland, there should be separate election commissions for those parts of the country. Our view is that the Election Commission should have UK-wide authority, especially since all aspects of election law (save for local government elections) are to be reserved for the UK Parliament under devolution legislation."
It is curious that, when the Bill is passed, the regulations on election expenditure and political donations for those standing for the Scottish Parliament will be different from those that apply to candidates in local government elections.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |