|
Mr. Tyler: The point is well made. In my constituency, which is, geographically, one of the largest outside Scotland and Wales—I was going to say in England, but of course it is in Cornwall, not England—the situation was even more dire. If anyone wanted to deliver their ballot paper personally, it was extremely difficult to do so. I do not want to go into detail—I understand that that would be inappropriate. However, the commission responsible to Parliament carried out the only authoritative analysis of what happened in 2004, yet the Government chose largely to ignore the results of that analysis and its advice.
As the Deputy Leader of the House said, there is an unusual relationship with respect to the Electoral Commission; it is answerable to Parliament rather than to Ministers, and the Speaker has a special Committee on it. By coincidence, the hon. Member who answers for that that Committee was taking questions on the Floor of the House this afternoon—I was there. Such questions have to be very limited; they can deal only with the way in which the commission operates, but not with its advice. Questions on a major issue such as this would be ruled
Column Number: 7
out of order by the Table Office, and this motion provides one of our only opportunities to raise a point of principle. The limitations on our Committee are severe, and we therefore have only limited opportunities to express concern when the constitutional role that we have recently given to our advisers to Parliament is in doubt and put in some difficulty by the response of the Government.
I draw particular attention to the fact that the two commissioners whose names are before us this afternoon have wide experience, beyond the commission itself. Pamela Gordon is much involved—she has been for some time—in boundary commission questions. No hon. Member in this Room—Scottish Members in particular—can be unaware of the importance of the advice of the boundary commission.
I do not want to see a situation develop in which, because the Government reject the advice of the commission on any issue, a commissioner feels that his or her independence and integrity has been restricted or prejudiced for the future. That is particularly important in the next five, six, seven, eight, nine and all the way up to 18 months, during which time we assume there will be a general election. In those circumstances, it is extremely important that the Government lay off and do not seek to confront our expert advisers. They are not Government advisers, but Parliament's advisers. It is important that we in the House have confidence in the quality of that advice and that it is given with total independence and integrity.
The Deputy Leader of the House said that there had been some controversy—I think that that was the word he used—or perhaps he said that not all the advice given by the commission received unanimous consent.
Mr. Woolas: It was not universally welcomed.
Mr. Tyler: That is fair comment, but the only people not to welcome it were the Government. Perhaps they were supported by some of their Back Benchers, but not by all of them.
We have to be extraordinarily careful. If we are going to recruit really good people for such roles advising Parliament, not just the two people included in the motion this afternoon—[Interruption.]
The Chairman: Order. Mr. Cryer, I am sure that the newspaper is riveting, but it is not appropriate.
John Cryer (Hornchurch) (Lab): Sorry. The debate is fascinating.
Mr. Tyler: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) may be extremely interested at some future date in the degree to which the commission is able to offer independent advice without being leaned on by the Government. I have every confidence in the quality of the commissioners and their deputies. My concern is that they must be given an absolute guarantee from this House that they will not be leaned on by any Government of any colour, and that they are uniquely
Column Number: 8
responsible to Parliament. It is an unusual relationship, and I hope that all hon. Members will support that contention.
4.46 pm
Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con): I promise that I will not test the Committee's patience or detain it for long, but as the Whips have enjoined me to take part today, I hope that colleagues will allow me two minutes.
I have no doubt that the reappointment of the two people in question is good news. The Deputy Leader of the House talked about openness, transparency and the electoral process. We have the slightly convoluted situation of an independent commission answerable to Parliament, but I am not sure who tasks it to consider particular jobs; the Government of the day will steer clear of electoral law because they will say that it is a matter for the commission.
In all seriousness, because this is not a humorous matter, there is one thing that the commission should consider after the next general election. When I was first privileged to be elected to Parliament in 1983, the only thing that appeared on the ballot paper was my name; there was no party designation. For all of us standing in the next general election, in addition to our name, our party designation will appear. That is now a crucial part of electoral law, relating to the Electoral Commission and the funding of parties.
The commission should examine what happens when an hon. Member feels moved to change party. There are all sorts of legitimate reasons why a person might do that. There is a feeling of sensitivity about the issue in Oxfordshire and the north Cotswolds, because no fewer than three geographically close constituency neighbours of mine have changed party designation—at Stratford-on-Avon, Witney and now Wantage.
I hope that the House will find a way of inviting the commission to consider that perfectly legitimate matter. Otherwise, an hon. Member could be elected at the general election but change party the very next day, and nothing could be done about it, notwithstanding the fact that they had stood under a different political party designation. If one wishes to change party, one should do as Dick Taverne did: he stood down, there was a by-election and he was re-elected on an independent ticket. That was fair and honest, and at some stage the Electoral Commission ought to consider that matter.
4.48 pm
John Cryer: After I had decided to listen to this debate, I thought that I should join in. I want to pick up on a point made by the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry). He said that when somebody switches sides, there is a feeling that they ought to stand down and force a by-election. As we seem to be only a few months from a general election, it is not particularly relevant if somebody now changes sides and then decides to stand down. However, there is another example, involving a Member of the European Parliament—Robert Kilroy-Silk. The Electoral Commission would be well advised to examine his case, because he decided to resign the UK
Column Number: 9
Independence party whip only six months after being elected to the European Parliament. When a person stands for election, they receive, among other things, taxpayers' money. As far as I am aware the Electoral Commission is charged with scrutiny of all elections—local, European, London, Scottish and Welsh as well as general elections.
After Robert Kilroy-Silk had used taxpayers' money to stand on a UKIP ticket he decided, after getting into a bit of a tizz about various things, to switch sides. I am not sure who charges the Electoral Commission with what to examine and how to go about it, but it would be sensible for it to consider that matter. When a change of that kind happens so quickly after an election, there is surely a case for investigating and deciding whether the person who was a candidate should be prevailed on to pay back some of the money that he claimed from taxpayers to fight an election in which he clearly stood on a UKIP ticket. Perhaps, if he did not want to pay it back, we could take away his villa in Spain and use that.
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): On a point of order, Mrs. Adams. Would you rule on whether you will allow remarks about that issue, or do you want the Committee to remain focused on the motion? I should be interested in commenting on the issue of representation, but there would be no point in my trying to dress it up in references to the motion to reappoint the two commissioners.
The Chairman: I have allowed some leeway, because the matter before the Committee is particularly odd, but I think that we really must return to the motion.
Ms Keeble: Fair enough.
4.52 pm
Mr. Woolas: I thank hon. Members for taking part in the debate. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for standing in for the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), who is not well, and I thank him for his support. Mr. Speaker has already, as I have mentioned, taken the matter that we are considering through a consultation process involving the different parties in the House; under the 2000 Act, that includes the minority parties but not Members of Parliament who have not taken the oath. That information may help hon. Members.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall, who spoke in a previous Committee about remuneration of commissioners, made similar points today. I hope that I can reassure him about the Government's firm intention of maintaining the independence and integrity of the commission. I thank him for giving the Government credit for setting up the commission. As he said, we had all-party support.
I can, however, take the hon. Gentleman to task on one point. He said that the quality of advice is only as good as the actions that result. My response is that it is not my job today to defend or promote any resulting actions, and I do not think that you would let me, Mrs. Adams. I am keen to point out that I have moved the motion at the written request of Mr. Speaker. I should
Column Number: 10
be more than happy to explain to the Committee where the hon. Gentleman is wrong, in principle and in fact, about postal balloting, but that is for another time.
Different Departments are responsible for electoral policy for different types of elections. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible in the case of local government elections; others are covered by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. That is why shadow spokespersons and Select Committees relating to those Departments deal with the content of policy on electoral law, whereas the conduct of the Electoral Commission is overseen by the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission. We should be grateful to hon. Members on that Committee, and the hon. Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers), who is the spokesman on behalf of the House.
The role of the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission is to oversee the commission. It is a statutory Committee, which was set up under the 2000 Act. The commission is required to submit, each year, to the Speaker's Committee, an estimate of income and expenditure. That is why the accountability of the Electoral Commission is primarily to the Commons, although as the hon. Gentleman said it is also responsible to Parliament as a whole.
The commission is also required to submit a five-year strategic plan. The Speaker's Committee may modify the estimates and the five-year plan to make them consistent with the economical, effective and efficient discharge by the commission of its functions. It is of course open to anyone to make suggestions to the commission, and I undertake to pass on to the commission, purely in the role of postman, the point that has been made about the names on the ballot paper.
The question about what happens to Members who switch sides is important. There is clearly something in the water in the part of the world where the hon. Member for Banbury lives, and we would obviously like to spread it to other water companies in the United Kingdom.
| 
