 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Political Parties and Elections Bill |
Political Parties and Elections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Chris Stanton,
Committee Clerks † attended
the
Committee WitnessesProfessor
Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s College
London Professor Justin
Fisher, Professor of Political Science, Brunel
University Michael
Pinto-Duschinsky, Senior Research Fellow, Brunel
University Ian McIsaac,
Finance Director and Registered Party Treasurer, Conservative
Party Roy Kennedy,
Director of Finance and Compliance, Labour
Party Hilary Stephenson,
Director of Campaigns, Liberal Democrats Public Bill CommitteeThursday 6 November 2008(Afternoon)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Political Parties and Elections BillFurther written evidence to be reported to the HousePPE 02
Professor Justin Fisher, Professor of Political Science, Brunel
University PPE
03 Professor Keith Ewing, Professor of Public Law, King’s
College
London 1
pm
The
Chairman: Before I welcome our distinguished guests this
afternoon, I want to say a few words to the Committee. Before we begin
to take evidence, I would like to respond, briefly but fully, to a
point raised in Committee by Mr. Reid on Tuesday and again,
informally, this morning by Mr. Duddridge. Mr.
Reid drew attention to the short time between the end of the evidence
sessions and the deadline for the tabling of amendments for
Tuesday’s sittings, and asked whether starred amendments might
be
selected. My
co-Chairmen and I appreciate that there is limited time before the rise
of the House this evening, but the decision to structure the
Committee’s time in this way was taken by the Programming
Sub-Committee and I remind the Committee that it was done so after
considerable discussion. The programme motion was approved by this
Committee on Tuesday morning, when one of my co-Chairmen was in the
Chair. It was in the gift of the Committee to provide itself with a
bigger gap after the evidence sessions. The deadlines for the tabling
of amendments are there for the benefit of all Committee members, who
need sufficient time to consider the amendments before they are
debated. I
also note that the issues discussed in the evidence sessions so far are
not entirely new. The views of the Electoral Commission, for example,
and two of our three distinguished academics have already been
submitted in written evidence to the Committee. In such circumstances,
and in line with existing practice in Public Bill Committees, I can
confirm that my fellow Chairmen and I do not intend to select starred
amendments. That is my statement; if Mr. Duddridge wishes to
rise on a point of order, I am happy for him to do so, but he should
remain seated, so that his voice can be picked up by the
microphone. James
Duddridge (Rochford and Southend, East) (Con): On a point
of order, Sir Nicholas. I wish to remain seated. Notwithstanding what
you said, I ask you to look at the matter a second time. The Opposition
Front-Bench team found that there were significant new pieces of
information this morning—tangible differences—that were
not mentioned in the written submissions and of we were not aware
before. As the Whip, I shall not go into policy issues, but there are
significant changes—that is the Opposition’s position.
Furthermore, during the Programming Sub-Committee, if I may refer to
that, we
were given reassurances. While there was no commitment to take starred
amendments, an indication was given that the Committee would be able to
review the issue—and on that basis we were happy to proceed. I
do not know whether there is another way forward, whereby we could
table starred amendments, then circulate them to the various parties on
Friday. They would still be starred amendments on a day on which the
House is not sitting, but we would be happy to circulate them
then. There
are significant amendments that we want to table as a consequence of
evidence. This meeting does not break up until 3 o’clock and we
do not know when the business of the House will be completed—it
could even be completed very shortly after us, so that there would not
be time for us, physically, to go and table the
amendments.
The
Chairman: I note what Mr. Duddridge says. I
remind him and other Committee members that they have until 6.30 pm to
table amendments. I have not received notice—the Government, who
would be more in the know, have made no such indication—that
today’s business will finish early but, at the moment, I do not
anticipate that it will do so. I am certainly prepared to listen to any
representations made by the Opposition parties. I would be happy to
receive any evidence, perhaps in writing, as to where they believe the
evidence given this morning, perhaps by the Electoral Commission,
differed dramatically from the evidence that it submitted in writing.
My fellow Chairmen and I should certainly give the matter
consideration. However, I cannot promise that we shall change our
ruling and select starred amendments.
[Interruption.]
Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Further to that
point of order, Sir Nicholas. My understanding was that the point of
hearing the evidence in these sessions was to see whether we needed to
table amendments to the Bill as a result. According to your ruling, we
shall have a very short time this evening to go through
Hansard—if that has been produced by the time our
proceedings end. It would be of help if the Clerks could advise us
whether that would be the case, because we shall have to take
Hansard, study it—some complicated concepts and issues
were discussed this morning—and review whether further
amendments need to be filed, all within a matter of hours. As my
colleague said, that would only be if the business of the House lasts
until 6.30 pm
today.
The
Chairman: Two things. First, the Opposition could advise
the Chair as to what important amendments they believe need to be
tabled, based on the evidence given so far. Of course, next
week—I am in the Chair on Tuesday morning—the Committee
can make what progress it chooses. It could well be the case that the
areas covered by the amendments that the Opposition might wish to table
will not be taken on Tuesday morning. Therefore, to an extent, the
Opposition and the Committee as a whole are in control of their own
business in that
connection. Mr.
Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): Further to that point of
order, Sir Nicholas. I am very concerned about this, first, because it
was discussed informally before we met the first time. I received
clarification that, under the
new public Bill procedure, there would be scope for flexibility, to
enable the tabling of amendments in the light of evidence that was
submitted. I specifically discussed that, and was given the same
information that we have just received about what happened through the
usual channels, before the start of our formal
meetings. Secondly,
if I may say so, it is a little unreasonable to ask us to provide
written evidence of where we think that we might need to table
amendments, bearing in mind that all the relevant people are sitting
here in front of you for the whole period, Sir Nicholas. We cannot even
be sure that the House will run until 6.30 pm; debate may close
earlier. Thirdly, to provide one example, you were in the Chair, Sir
Nicholas, when the Electoral Commission said that it would like to add
to the evidence. It produced a specific example relating to its
concerns about the appointment to the commission board, and the change
of the 10-year rule to five years. [Interruption.]
I am pleased that the Minister wishes to speak, but I do not wish to
prejudge whom the Chair might
call.
The
Chairman: I am going to call the Minister, then I will
stop taking points of order. We have distinguished witnesses here and
we must finish taking evidence from them by 2 o’clock. If
necessary, we can continue the points of order then, but I prefer to
call the Minister first.
The
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael
Wills): Thank you, Sir Nicholas. In the spirit of
helpfulness with which Government Members have approached the matter,
we want amendments to be tabled as long as they are genuinely based on
new information. We want to be helpful and will be as accommodating as
possible on an informal basis, but only if there is genuinely new
information. I am always prepared to be enlightened, but so far the
discussion has been a recycling of familiar points on all sides. We
have a useful memorandum, and there are genuinely new points that need
to be considered. However, we will be as flexible as
possible.
The
Chairman: I intend to make progress. Perhaps we need to
sit after 3 o’clock, informally, to see whether we can resolve
the matter. I do not wish to embarrass our witnesses who, in some
cases, have come at great inconvenience to themselves. We should do
them the courtesy of listening to them at this stage, and we will find
another way to resolve the problem. The Minister has indicated that he
is prepared to be flexible, and the Chair wants to ensure that all
important matters are debated. I suggest that we make progress. If the
Whips on both sides of the Committee wish to come to the Chair during
the discussion over the next two hours, I would be happy to receive
representations.
David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): That procedure excludes me, and
I am the person who has the example.
David
Howarth: The specific example that the Minister should
consider came up this morning. The Electoral Commission said that there
is a problem about what will happen in clauses 4 to 7—the
clauses we will
consider first on Tuesday—should a political party fail or refuse
to appoint a commissioner. That is a brand new point and is not in any
of the written submissions. It is a technically difficult point to deal
with, but I do not think that we will be able to discuss it on Tuesday,
given the rules.
Mr.
Tyrie: That is exactly the point I raised. In a similar
area, the chief executive of the Electoral Commission said that for the
first time, he found difficulty with the switch from ten to 5 years for
the bar on party political affiliation before appointment to the
board.
The
Chairman: I have heard what has been said. I have
indicated that I wish to make progress and I intend to do so. I am sure
that Mr. Duddridge and Mr. Lucas can make
representations to the Chair as we perform our business this
afternoon.
On behalf of
the Committee I extend a warm welcome—at last—to our
three distinguished visitors. For the record, will you identify
yourselves?
Michael
Pinto-Duschinsky: I am Michael
Pinto-Duschinsky. Professor
Justin Fisher: I am Professor Justin
Fisher. Professor
Keith Ewing: I am Keith
Ewing.
Q157
1Mr.
Djanogly: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I hope that the
evidence session does not produce too much information that might
require amendments to the Bill. Gentlemen, I fear that you could have
done better in an earlier session. I would like to address the broader
issue. To date, we have been considering the nuts and bolts of the
Bill. I would like us to step back for a moment and consider the
Electoral Commission as a whole, which we have not yet
done. It
has to be said that many hon. Members, certainly in the Conservative
party and perhaps in other parties, have been reviewing the performance
of the Electoral Commission in recent years and have thought it in many
ways deficient. That has led quite a number of people to say that the
commission should be abolished as an institution. That is not the
official position of our party or any other party, as we have a Bill
here to improve its performance, but that would be a valid starting
point for you to give your views on whether it is a valid institution
and whether the general thrust of the Bill is correct in terms of its
reform, if you think that that needs to be
done. Professor
Keith Ewing: From my point of view, the Electoral
Commission is essential. I cannot contemplate us having a system of
regulation of elections, donations or party funding without an
independent agency of this kind. I am reinforced in that belief by the
fact that most other mature Westminster-style democracies have agencies
of this kind. It would be inconceivable now not to have such an
organisation. I
am aware of complaints and concerns in the House and elsewhere about
the performance of the commission, I think since it was established in
2001. I am not sure who is ultimately responsible for the failure, as
some see it, of the commission to perform as well as it might, but
I suppose I feel slightly that much of the criticism has been unfair, in
the sense that this body has been presented with a very detailed
framework of legislation and much of it, or the drafting of it, has
been quite difficult. Much of it is very technical. Much of it is
incomprehensible. I think it has been as steep a learning curve for the
commission as it has been for everyone
else. My
sense is that since the loans for peerages affair, there has been a
significant improvement in the performance of the commission. Certainly
over the last 12 months, the regulatory role of the commission has
greatly increased and the profile of the commission has increased, and
I think overall the performance of the commission has improved. From my
point of view, there should be a healthy tension between Members of the
House and the commission. They should not be in each other’s
pockets. It should be a conflictual, not a consensual, relationship. I
would see that as quite
healthy. That
leads me into a measure of scepticism about the desirability of some of
the reforms proposed in the Bill. I am not convinced of the case for
political commissioners. I do not know of any other Westminster-style
democracy where such an idea has taken root. In most countries,
electoral
commissions— Michael
Pinto-Duschinsky: Save for the United
States? Professor
Keith Ewing: That is not a Westminster-style
democracy. Let me finish the point. I am not confident that this is a
good idea and I have a certain hesitancy about the proposals to deal
with civil penalties, but perhaps we could explore those in more detail
when others have had a chance to
speak.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 7 November 2008 |