| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Clause 22
Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert--
("(4) The person registered as a party's treasurer shall be responsible for compliance on the part of the party--
(a) with the provisions of Parts III and IV (accounting requirements and control of donations), and
(b) unless a person is registered as the party's campaigns officer in accordance with section (Parties with campaigns officers), with the provisions of Parts V to VII (campaign expenditure, third party expenditure and referendums) as well.
(4A) In the case of a party with accounting units the person registered as the party's treasurer shall, in relation to the provisions of Part III, be responsible for compliance on the part of the party's central organisation (rather than of the party).")
Mr. Tipping: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 39, 42 to 45, 52, 56, 58 to 60, 63, 64 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 65 to 67, 147, 148 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 150, 312 to 317, 379 and 381 to 389.
Mr. Tipping: This group of amendments deals with various points relating to the registration of political parties. Amendment No. 34 is concerned with the responsibilities of the registered treasurer. Clause 22, as considered by this House, requires the registered treasurer to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance on the part of that party with the provisions of the Bill--[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister must be heard. Will Members remaining in the Chamber please be quiet?
Mr. Tipping: We accept that it is not essential that a registered treasurer perform the former role as well as the latter. What is needed is a compliance officer, who may or may not have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party.
Amendment No. 34, taken with amendment No. 39, also addresses concerns that the Liberal Democrats have expressed about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. The amendments provide for the registration of a campaigns officer with responsibility for
compliance on the part of the party with the provisions of parts V to VII, namely, the controls on election and referendum expenditure. Where a party appoints a campaigns officer, the responsibilities of the registered treasurer would be confined to compliance with parts III and IV. In another place, Lord Rennard welcomed these amendments as addressing his party's concerns. Earlier, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who has pursued the matter fairly vigorously, acknowledged that the amendments would satisfy his party's concerns.11.30 pm
Lords amendments Nos. 52, 56 and 63 require the Electoral Commission, when it refuses an application under clauses 25, 26 or 27, to give the party concerned a notification in writing of the reasons for such refusal.
The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 64 ensures that a party's registered entry is kept up to date. A change to one of the party's registered officers would need to be notified to the commission within 14 days; all other changes to a party's entry in the register would need to be notified within 28 days.
Although I favour the amendments, I note that there is dissent in the House on the matter. I note carefully the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and his colleagues. Indeed, in an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made it clear that the Conservatives had real anxieties about these matters. I do not want to pre-empt them, but the argument is not about principle, but about practice.
The Government's view is fairly straightforward: we believe that the 14 day and 28-day provisions are commensurate. In the example cited earlier--of a death--the appropriate course would not necessarily be for the party to find a new treasurer immediately, but to ask another of its officers to take the position temporarily until a permanent replacement could be found.
I ask the House to accept the Lords amendments.
Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his brevity. The matter was touched on earlier, but it is, nevertheless, one to which we must return.
The Minister is right--the bulk of the amendments are sensible. They command agreement and are an illustration of the operation of the good aspects of the passage of the Bill. However, there is a point of detail that cannot be ignored. One feature of the Bill is the extent to which it places onerous burdens of compliance on local constituency associations and, as I pointed out earlier, with draconian penalties if such compliance is not forthcoming.
I ask the Minister, as I did earlier, to consider the position of a small constituency association--possibly of a minority party--that does not have a huge input from the centre, and whose treasurer drops dead. Given the mechanisms that have to be employed to replace a treasurer--the fact that one has to remember all those matters--is it reasonable to expect that association, within 14 days, to select someone else and to put the name forward to the Electoral Commission?
The Minister kindly informed us that the local association should have a replacement available--someone who could easily step into the breach. However,
we know that the Bill places onerous burdens on treasurers; not many people will be willing to take on that task. Indeed, that is one of the anxieties that has been frequently expressed during the passage of the measure. In those circumstances, our proposal--to lengthen the period to 21 days in the event of a death and to 42 days otherwise--is reasonable, prudent and sensible.I cannot believe that the Electoral Commission's principles of control will founder as a result of that provision. Although it may appear to be a detail, it is upon such detail that the Bill's success as law will rest. We consider that our amendments--especially our amendment to Lords amendment No. 64--should be pressed to a vote; they offer a better course of action than that proposed by the Government.
Mr. Stunell: I shall not rehearse the points that I have made about the Bill's adaptation to accommodate the philosophical viewpoint of the Liberal Democrats on federalism, except to say that it is appreciated that a lot of work has been done on topics with which civil servants and Ministers were not especially familiar initially. I should like to give credit to Lord Rennard for the work that he has done in the other place.
I want to say a few words about the amendments to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has spoken. We feel strongly that a tremendously burdensome, bureaucratic requirement will be placed on local party officers, especially small-scale branch treasurers and the smallest fry in the political arena. On hearing the hon. Gentleman, a colleague of mine said, "Well, it is not surprising that the first treasurer dropped dead, considering the burdens created under the Bill." Many treasurers will be reluctant to take office and people will be reluctant to come forward if a vacancy arises.
The suggestion that there could be acting treasurers is a little fanciful. Accounts would not be changed and the necessary resolutions would not be passed at formal meetings in the time scale that would allow such appointments to be made. I suspect that in the average branch, the cheques would collect behind the clock until the new treasurer was appointed. There would be serious difficulties in the unhappy circumstance of a vacancy occurring during an election, when the treasurer's role might be more acutely focused. Parties will be required to live with those difficulties under the Bill.
I spoke earlier about the transitional, training and preparatory arrangements necessary to make all this happen. If people are told that they must have another treasurer in place within 14 days--the funeral, the inquest or whatever will have hardly taken place--and that they will be in default if they have not, the dominoes will start to topple as the offences mount.
Mr. Tipping: Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), both of whom have been talking about the treasurers of accounting units. Of course the provisions on those units are for a replacement within 28 days, but Lords amendment No. 34 deals with the replacement of national treasurers within 14 days. If the real concern is about the treasurers of accounting units, I believe that there is no disquiet or argument across the Floor of the House.
Mr. Stunell: I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention, which perhaps clarifies some of the issues. I was making a general case by reference to a particular example. If that example is not appropriate, I am happy to move on.
Any organisation faces difficulties when such a tragic vacancy occurs. I should like the Minister to explain why he thinks it so important to refer to two weeks. What would be the effect on the Bill's effective implementation if 21 days were adopted? What control would be lost? What offence or abuse do the Government fear would be created by an interregnum of three weeks rather than two? Without a treasurer at any level in the party, there will be no authorisation, so there can be no illegal or unmonitored expenditure. Such decisions will be delayed until the vacancy is filled.
If a vacancy occurs in the middle of an election, there will be every pressure on the party to make an alternative appointment so that progress can be made. There is a requirement for reporting at seven-day intervals during elections, so 14 days is insufficient to ensure that that occurs. I want to press the Minister on that point. Why does the time scale have to be 14 days? Why not 21 days? What abuse are the Government trying to stop? Given the grave difficulties that a party will face in such an unfortunate circumstance, why is it essential to include such a barrier? I will join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues. If the matter is put to the vote, we will support the extended deadline--not because it creates a loophole, but because it prevents a major disincentive to political parties delivering the goods.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |