 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Political Parites and Elections |
Political Parties and Elections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Chris Stanton,
Committee Clerks † attended
the
Committee WitnessesRt
Hon Jack Straw MP, Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for
Justice Rt Hon Michael
Wills MP, Minister of State, Ministry of
Justice Mark Sweeney,
Ministry of Justice Ruth
Sloan, Ministry of
Justice Matthew Smith,
Ministry of Justice Sir
Hayden Phillips, GCB, Chair of Inter-party Talks on the Funding of
Political Parties Sir
Christopher Kelly, KCB, Chair of the Committee on Standards in Public
Life Public Bill CommitteeTuesday 4 November 2008[Frank Cook in the Chair]Political Parties and Elections Bill10
am
The
Chairman: Before we begin, I have a few points to make.
Members may, if they wish, remove their jackets during the sittings.
Will they ensure that their mobile phones and pagers are turned off or
at least switched to silent running during our proceedings? I would
hate interruptions. I will have enough difficulty concentrating on the
detail myself, without there being distractions. I remind the Committee
that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill, copies of
which are available in the room. Adequate notice should be given of
amendments and, to be eligible for selection at a Tuesday sitting, they
must be tabled by the rise of the House on the previous Thursday. To be
eligible for selection at a Thursday sitting, they must be tabled by
the previous Monday. As a general rule, I and my fellow Chairmen do not
intend to call starred
amendments. Not
everyone is familiar with the process of taking oral evidence in Public
Bill Committees, so it might help if I explain briefly what is proposed
so that we can all be clear about it, especially me. The Committee will
be asked first to consider the programme motion on the amendment paper
for which debate is limited to half an hour. We shall then consider a
motion to report written evidence, followed by a motion to permit the
Committee to deliberate in private in advance of the oral evidence
sessions, which I hope that we can take formally to save
time. Assuming
that the second motion has been agreed, the Committee will then move
into private session. After it has deliberated, witnesses and members
of the public will be invited back into the room and our oral evidence
session will commence. That should be at about 10.30. We shall not be
starting the evidence session before then. If the Committee agrees to
the programme motion, it will hear oral evidence today and on Thursday,
and revert to the more familiar proceedings of clause-by-clause
scrutiny next week. I call the Minister to move the programme
motion. Motion
made, and Question
proposed, That— (1)
the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.00
a.m. on Tuesday 4th November)
meet— (a)
at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 6th
November; (b)
at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 11th
November; (c)
at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 13th
November; (d)
at 10.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 18th
November; (e)
at 9.00 a.m. and 1.00 p.m. on Thursday 20th
November; (2)
the Committee shall hear evidence in accordance with the following
Table;
(3)
the proceedings shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 4 to 7;
new Clauses relating to Electoral Commisioners etc; new Schedules
relating to Electoral Commissioners etc; Clauses 1 and 2;
Schedule 1; Clause 3; Schedule 2; new Clauses relating to functions of
Electoral Commission; new Schedules relating to functions of Electoral
Commission; Clauses 12 and 13; new Clauses relating to elections and
electoral registration; new Schedules relating to elections
and electoral registration; Clause 8; Schedule 3;
Clauses 9 to 11; new Clauses relating to political donations and
expenditure; new Schedules relating to political donations and
expenditure; Clauses 14 and 15; Schedules 4 and 5; Clauses 16 to 20;
remaining new Clauses; remaining new Schedules; remaining proceedings
on the
Bill; (4)
the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought
to a conclusion at 4.00 p.m. on Thursday 20th November.
—[Mr.
Wills.]
Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): I wish to say a few
words about the programme motion. The sub-committee’s
deliberations were a somewhat tortuous affair. We appreciate that a
number of difficulties and irregularities involved in the process made
it complicated and, as you will appreciate, Mr. Cook, we put
our various protests on the record. We have lingering doubts about the
timetable, even though we do not intend to oppose the motion. We are
worried whether there will be adequate time for the tabling of
amendments. I accept that there will be several hours after the close
of the final evidence session on Thursday before the rise of the House,
as you said in your opening remarks, when we shall have time to table
amendments. Having said that, we would have preferred a longer period
in which to contemplate amendments, rather than just a few hours
following the end of the evidential process. On that basis, we are
reserving our position on the timetable to some extent and hope, as
discussed in a sub-committee, that the Government will be open-minded
if it seems that more time is
required. Mr.
Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD): I welcome you to the
Chair this morning, Mr. Cook. I have one point about the
programme motion, echoing what has just been said. If, following the
evidence sitting on the Thursday, we have only a few hours or, if the
House rises early, no time at all to submit amendments, I ask you and
your fellow Chairs, Mr. Cook, to take cognisance of that and
perhaps accept starred amendments, if they arise as a result of
evidence that we take on the Thursday and they ought to be
debated on the following Tuesday.
The
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael
Wills): I shall respond briefly to those comments. As
reference has been made to the informal proceedings, in keeping with
the spirit in which the Government approached the informal proceedings
setting the programme motion, we were determined to do everything we
possibly could to accommodate the timetable of Opposition spokespeople.
They had a certain amount of confusion about their diaries and we did
everything that we could to accommodate them. We shall continue in that
spirit. If there is a need to find further time, we shall do everything
possible. The subject is important and we want to debate it properly.
We would not want the Opposition to be constrained by a lack of time
for tabling amendments, if we can possibly avoid
it.
Mr.
Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): I did not participate in
the informal sub-committee, so I am not privy to any of those alleged
confusions, difficulties or complexities, but it strikes me that the
crucial issue, if we are to make sense of the evidence sittings, is to
be given enough time to think through how to translate the evidence
that we have had into amendments. I am grateful, Mr. Cook,
that you will bear starred amendments in mind. It would be hugely
helpful if you could give us a feel later in our proceedings, but
before Thursday, what your attitude will be on the specific issue of
amendments derived from evidence that may have been collected only in
the hours prior to what at the moment is the
deadline.
The
Chairman: Like you, Mr. Tyrie, I was not able
to attend the pre-meeting, but I am reliably informed that matters have
been discussed in considerable detail. It is a matter for the usual
channels to sort out on the way through. There is nothing cast in stone
or iron here. I am sure that, with the Government’s intention to
be extremely reasonable and rational, as we heard, everyone will have
every
chance. Pete
Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I, too,
welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook. May I ask, through you,
who was invited to the sub-committee last week? How are the invitations
delivered? Who from the Committee qualifies to be part of that
sub-group?
The
Chairman: Those who are thought necessary to conduct the
proceedings are invited specifically by Mr. Speaker. I am
not in a position to question Mr. Speaker from this lowly
seat. Question
put and agreed
to. Ordered, That,
subject to the discretion of the Chairman, any written evidence
received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for
publication.—[Mr.
Wills.]
The
Chairman: Copies of any memoranda received by the
Committee will be made available in the Committee
Room. Ordered, That,
at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be
heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are
admitted.—[Mr.
Wills.] 10.10
am The
Committee deliberated in
private.
10.21
am On
resuming—
The
Chairman: We shall now hear the oral evidence from
Ministers and officials from the Ministry of Justice. Good morning, I
welcome you all here today. For the record, perhaps it would be useful
if you would each introduce yourselves to the
Committee. Mr.
Straw: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I am the
Secretary of State for Justice, for these purposes. On my left is
Michael Wills, the Minister of State who is handling the Bill. On his
left is Mark Sweeney, the director running the division in the Ministry
which covers electoral law. Matthew Smith is the lawyer on the Bill.
Ruth Sloan, on my right, is the Bill
principal.
The
Chairman: Thank you. Before calling the first Member to
ask a question, I should like to remind all members of the Committee
that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the
Bill. I call Jonathan Djanogly.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 5 November 2008 |