Mr.
Tyrie: I have no questions. The point that I wanted to
raise was answered by Ian McIsaac in response to a question put to him
earlier.
The
Chairman: Does any member of the Committee wish to ask
further
questions?
Q
47Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I have a brief question for
all the witnesses. Others witnesses have commented on things that they
believe should in the Bill. Given that you have all stressed the
volunteerism of your parties—mine included—is there
anything that you regard as a missed opportunity and that should be in
the Bill that would encourage volunteerism, strengthen it or acknowledge
it? Shall we start with Mr. McIsaac?
Ian
McIsaac: I can answer that question in a slightly
different way. Anything that seeks to impose, by regulatory sanction,
complex and ill-understood rules on volunteers will kill it stone dead.
That is a negative answer.
As for
encouraging volunteerism, it will flourish on its own as long as it is
not put down. By and large, people are interested in politics and they
want to have the opportunity to engage. As for declarations, one of my
concerns is that those who give money will consider there is something
dodgy about supporting political parties. They will think that Oxfam is
okay, but not this or that party, because they have to go through a
special legal hoop for it. The negatives are the problem. Take the
negatives away and it will
flourish. Hilary
Stephenson: Clarity is the thing for me. Volunteers
worry when they do not know whether they are breaking the law. The vast
majority of them want to do the right thing. We need anything that is
simple, clear and consistent. That brings me back to one of the good
things in the previous legislation: the clarity concerned with the
starting of expenses during an election. Unless we are moving into much
broader areas, I strongly urge that simple clarity is very
helpful. Roy
Kennedy: Clarity and certainty. We are all officials,
but all the parties are basically volunteer armies. People have to be
certain and have clarity about their responsibilities, what they have
to do and what they do not have to do. That is what we need. We have
all referred to raising the limits. I hope that you will consider
it. I
have another point to make that is not about volunteerism. When we gave
evidence to the Graham inquiry and supported the idea of commissioners,
we also said, although the inquiry did not take it on board, that
perhaps the others who should have a role in the commission were the
administrators. They obviously run the election from the other side of
the table, as it were. We put that forward. They certainly have a valid
viewpoint that should be taken account of as
well.
The
Chairman: On behalf of the Committee, I ask our witnesses,
who have been extremely helpful, whether they wish to express any views
to us about the Bill that the Committee will be considering from next
Tuesday morning—line by line, almost word by
word? Ian
McIsaac: The only thing I would say is this. I have
been involved with this party, or any political party, for less than
three years, but I have noticed that innocent mistakes have a habit of
being magnified in the press, on the blogs and the rest of it, as if
they were
some sort of scandal. People make mistakes, even in the best regulated
organisations. To open up the possibility for mistakes, and thereby the
whiff of scandal, could be very
counter-productive.
Q
48Mr.
Tyrie: What are you
suggesting? Ian
McIsaac: That it would be absolutely inevitable. With
the thousands of donations involved, the volunteers involved, the lack
of training and compliance manuals, and all the rest of it, there will
be mistakes. The Electoral Commission would have no choice but to act
on those
mistakes. I
am not talking about breaking down people’s doors, but even the
commission putting it on its website that such and such a constituency
association accepted some dodgy donation from someone would mean that
the press were on to it and the whole thing would become a hoo-hah,
when actually it was nothing—someone dropped the declaration
down the back of the desk and found it a month later. That is the sort
of problem that we have to be very careful not to
exacerbate. Hilary
Stephenson: I want only to reiterate the point about
clarity and enforceability of the rules—that has to be key. They
are not going to be perfect; it is not possible to do something perfect
here. However, something that people can understand and not
accidentally fall foul of is what we need. To that end, I hope that the
Committee will consider the possibility of a spending limit over a
period of years in the electoral
cycle. Roy
Kennedy: Just a point about volunteers—all
parties are volunteer armies. Today, you have probably heard with
surprise the amount of agreement on certain things between the three
representatives. You can take that on board in your deliberations over
the next few weeks. Thank
you.
The
Chairman: On behalf of the Committee, I thank our three
witnesses from the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour parties
for the very helpful evidence that they have given, and for the frank
and full way in which they dealt with every question put to them. Thank
you very much
indeed. Further
consideration adjourned.—[Ian
Lucas.] Adjourned
accordingly at four minutes to Three o’clock till Tuesday 11
November at half-past Ten
o’clock.
| 
