David
Howarth: I might have misunderstood the process
underlying clause 4, if not clause 5. When people are nominated by
party leaders, will all those names be published, or only the names of
the successful
candidates?
Mr.
Wills: Sadly, I am not in a position to enlighten the hon.
Gentleman on the precision of the clause. I am not sure that the Act is
specific about that. I am looking for guidance, in case there is some
arcane detail of which I am not aware—if the hon. Gentleman will
bear with me. I would not like to mislead the Committee or the hon.
Gentleman, whose legal expertise is
considerable. I
am reliably informed that it would be a matter for the Speaker’s
Committee to decide whether the names should be made public. I am sure
that it would take
account of the views expressed in this Committee in making its decision.
What is important is that we have faith in the process, which is
already working well. The Speaker’s Committee is there, there is
a process in place and everyone accepts that it is working reasonably
well at the moment. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to have faith in
that process. All of us, and anyone who serves on the Speaker’s
Committee, are as concerned as he is with the issues raised. I hope
that that gives him some
reassurance. 11.15
am
Mr.
Tyrie: The Minister says that he hopes that the
Speaker’s Committee will take the trouble to read the
Hansard that we are creating now. In that spirit, perhaps he
could go a little further. I found the argument of the hon. Member for
Cambridge wholly convincing and I think that the Minister did, too, but
he is slightly stymied just now. He is not quite sure of all the facts
necessary to decide which way he should take policy. Perhaps I am
mistaken in
that.
Mr.
Tyrie: I am mistaken in that. Does the Minister agree that
there is a donation the size of which will lead to the impression of
the possibility of undue influence being exercised as a consequence of
that donation, and does he think that that should have some bearing on
a Speaker’s Committee decision on whether to appoint someone,
particularly with reference to, for example, a former trade union
leader whose trade union has made very large donations to the Labour
party, or with reference to a very large individual donor to the
Liberal party or the Conservative
party?
Mr.
Wills: As always, I have followed with great care what the
hon. Gentleman said. May I say that I did not “hope” that
the Speaker’s Committee would read the Hansard? I have
every confidence that it will read the Hansard and take it into
careful consideration as it makes its decisions with all the care and
deliberation that it usually brings to these matters. The hon.
Gentleman was making a rather logical point until he raised the
question of leaders of trade unions. With that, he is getting into very
different territory. If he thinks about it for a moment, he will see
that the leader of a large trade union whose union had made a large
donation corporately to the Labour party was in a very different
position from the large individual donor. I hope that he will reflect
on that before we set any more red herrings going in that
area. Let
me address the substance of the hon. Gentleman’s remarks. He was
saying—I am sure that he will correct me if I have mistaken his
drift—that hypothetically the donation could be so large that it
would give rise among the public to a perception that undue influence
was being gained as a result of the size of the donation. The hon.
Gentleman is nodding. Logically, of course that could be the case. I
cannot speculate, but it would be rash to rule out the possibility of
such a perception taking root. Of course it
would.
Mr.
Tyrie: So the hon. Member for Cambridge is
right.
Mr.
Wills: With all due respect, that does not follow. I
should say, for the benefit of the much-quoted Hansard, that the
hon. Gentleman, from a sedentary position, suggested that the hon.
Member for Cambridge was right. I suggested that that was not a logical
conclusion to draw. The hon. Member for Cambridge said that we should
draw a line that would automatically exclude large donors, whatever the
size of the donation. I said that it would be rash to make that
assumption. What I am saying and what I have said before is that we
should approach these issues case by case. I have every confidence that
the Speaker’s Committee will be able to make those judgments. At
some point, we have to have confidence that it will be as concerned as
everyone on this Committee that public perceptions of that type should
not take root. We know that in this area there is a problem with public
perceptions of the probity of our political life. The Bill is designed
to address many of those concerns, and the Government will do
everything that we can to address all the concerns. We have to have
confidence that the Speaker’s Committee shares the concerns and
will address
them.
Mr.
Wills: I was about to finish, but I am always delighted to
give way to the hon.
Gentleman.
Mr.
Turner: I am grateful. Is the Minister allowing for
Mr. X to give a gift of £50,000 and find himself
operating this new position in relation to the Electoral Commission and
for Mr. Y to give £50,000 and not be so occupied? The
same amount of money is being given and there is nothing else in public
that distinguishes
them.
Mr.
Wills: Of course there will be all sorts of specific
circumstances, and I do not want to speculate on what they might be.
The tax status of a large donor might be brought into play, for
example. That is a matter for the Speaker’s Committee. At some
point, we have to decide as a Committee whether we want to draw a
line—as suggested by the hon. Member for Cambridge—and
say, “Above this level of donation, such donors should not be
included in the criteria for eligibility as an electoral
commissioner.” I am anxious about the exclusion of donors, as a
matter of principle. They may well be people of considerable political
experience. I am sure that we can all think of examples of large-scale
donors who play active roles in the management of their political
parties, and who regard themselves as people of great political
judgment and
experience. The
Speaker’s Committee needs to look at such matters and make a
judgment about whether public perception, among other things, would be
such as to tarnish that appointment. I am suggesting that matters
should be handled on a case-by-case basis. All the evidence suggests
that the Speaker’s Committee commands the respect of the House
and the wider public, and that it proceeds with due impartiality and
without bias. I am not aware of an allegation of partiality or bias on
the part of the Speaker’s Committee, and it is a working
assumption that it will proceed on that basis. To draw hard and fast
rules would be unfair to the majority of donors who
contribute donations to all political parties out of public spirit. We
should want to encourage them to continue doing
so. Mr.
Wills: I see that the hon. Gentleman wants to speak
again.
The
Chairman: Order. I request that interventions are brief
and very much to the
point.
Mr.
Tyrie: I always do my best. The Minister said that he
thinks that the Speaker’s Committee commands the respect of the
public. The trouble is that the public have no idea about such
Committees. They are completely opaque bodies that make decisions
anonymously. It is not that they command disrespect, but they do not
command public respect. Does the right hon. Gentleman
agree? Does
the right hon. Gentleman find it curious that he is opposed to the idea
of drawing a line or imposing a cap on the donation that might lead
eventually to the ineligibility of someone from one of the
appointments, when all three major parties support, in principle, a
donations cap in order to restore public confidence more generally in
the issue of donations to political
parties?
Mr.
Wills: As always, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for
his succinct contribution to the debate. Of course, most members of the
public are not intimately familiar with the workings of the
Speaker’s Committee, but we can assume that our democracy is
sufficiently transparent that, if there were significant concerns, they
would have percolated into the wider sphere. However, we are not very
far apart on that
point. There
are areas in the Bill and in other such issues where we accept that
there should be donation caps. That is a matter of fact, but we are
talking about the selection of electoral commissioners who will be
expected to bring their experience—not their
partisanship—to the exercise. They will be judged, as I said
earlier, not by how they are selected, but by how they behave when they
are selected. That is the key. If they behave in a partisan way, and
the selection process is seen to be flawed as a result, the Government
will, of course, consider the matter
again. It
behoves us all to keep a careful eye on how all legislation,
particularly in this area that is so important to our democracy, works.
If it turns out to be flawed, it needs to be changed but, at the
moment, we have no evidence that it will turn out so. A lot of evidence
suggests that it will work perfectly well and achieve all the goals
that the hon. Member for Cambridge and the Committee want to
accomplish. I see no member of the Committee rising to speak, so I
invite the hon. Member for Epping Forest to withdraw the
amendment.
Mrs.
Laing: I am glad that we have debated the amendment
because it has brought out some important issues. I share the
Minister’s confidence that the Speaker’s Committee will
take note of our deliberations this
morning. Nobody wants to have to say in a few years’ time,
“We told you so.” In a few years’ time, rules may
be reversed if matters go wrong. We hope that they do not. I have every
confidence in the Speaker’s Committee. We have aired points of
concern, and it is important that they should go on the
record.
I agreed 100
per cent. with the Minister when he said that people who donate to
political parties are acting honourably. They are contributing to
democracy in the same way that people who donate to charities are
contributing to good causes. The workings of democracy in our country
are a good cause. Giving money to political parties is an honourable
and respectable thing to do, and should be encouraged. Some of my best
friends give donations to political parties. We should be encouraging
such donations and not allowing certain elements of the media to
denigrate those who donate. My point has been made. This was an
interesting probing amendment and, with the leave of the Committee, I
beg to ask leave to withdraw
it. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Pete
Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I beg to move
amendment No. 112, in
page 3, line 39, leave out
‘Four’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following amendments: No. 113, in
page 3, line 40, leave out from
‘(1)’ to
‘the’. No.
114, in page 3, line 41, after
‘party’, insert ‘shall’,
and after ‘forward’, insert ‘a
person’. No.
115, in page 4, line 6, leave out
‘three of
the’. No.
116, in page 4, line 7, leave out
‘three largest’ and insert
‘qualifying’. No.
117, in page 4, line 22, leave out
subsection
(7).
Pete
Wishart: It is a pleasure, Sir Nicholas, to serve under
your chairmanship in this august Committee, and I look forward to the
rest of the sittings that we will share together. The amendments are
pretty straightforward and self-explanatory. I seek proper recognition
from the Bill and the Electoral Commission that we are now in a
multi-legislature, multi-party democracy throughout the United Kingdom.
The amendment is about more than just this Parliament. We now have four
legislatures in the United Kingdom and five parties in power. We have
the majority Government in the House of Commons, the minority Scottish
Nationalist party Government in Scotland, and coalitions in Wales and
Northern Ireland. All of them have to be served by the Electoral
Commission and all of them have to be properly recognised by this Bill.
However, the Bill does not do that. It is Westminster-centric as usual
and that has been recognised by the written submissions from electoral
commissioners among others. If the Bill was just about this House, it
would be absolutely fine. We have seven Members out of a total of 659.
All the minority parties put together number some 28 Members of this
House. To get one commissioner out of that number is very fair and
generous; it is a very good deal. However, we are not in that
situation. Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Are there not 646 Members
of the House of Commons?
Pete
Wishart: The hon. Gentleman is probably right. I
apologise for my ignorance. Numbers have never been my strong point, as
hon. Members will probably recognise in the course of these
proceedings. Nevertheless, the point is still the same. We would be
very fortunate to get one commissioner for this one House of Commons,
but this is about more than that. It is about all the legislatures
throughout the United Kingdom, in which case, it is totally
unsatisfactory.
Let us look
at the situation in Scotland. The Electoral Commission has a
responsibility for Scotland. In Scotland, the SNP is not a minority
party. We are the largest party in Scotland by votes and by seats, and
we are the Government in Scotland. To have the Government in Scotland
effectively excluded from electoral regulations for Scottish elections
is absurd and bizarre and clearly not fair. How can that be right? It
would be like saying to this House, “We can have an Electoral
Commission and a proper regulation of elections, but let us exclude the
Labour party.” That would be totally unacceptable, just as it is
for the Scottish National party to be excluded from electoral
regulation for the Scottish
Parliament.
11.30
am Let
us look at what is happening in Scotland just now. Over the past few
months, there has been a polarisation of support between the Labour
party and the Scottish National party. Those are the two largest
parties in Scotland. Two smaller parties make a significant political
representation to the Scottish Parliament—the Liberals and the
Conservatives. The Liberals lost their deposit in the last two
by-elections and secured less than 3 per cent. of the vote. The
Conservatives held on to one of their deposits by the skin of their
teeth. They are no longer becoming small parties in Scotland, they are
becoming fringe parties. However, those two fringe parties will have a
seat on the Electoral Commission and will make regulations concerning
elections to the Scottish Parliament, when the party of government will
not. How can that be fair and right? That point must be addressed, and
I am looking forward to the Minister’s response on how it will
be achieved.
How will the
fourth commissioner be decided? All registered parties in this House
with two or more Members are seemingly to nominate two representatives
each. They will go to the Speaker’s Committee, which will
decide. The hon. Member for Chichester asked whether the public know
who is on the Speaker’s Committee. As a Member of Parliament, I
have no idea who is on it. I know who the Speaker is and that he will
look after Back-Bench Members of political parties in the House, but I
have no idea who is on the Committee other than Mr. Speaker
himself. I presume that there will not be a minority party Member on
the Speaker’s Committee—I would put any amount of money
on it—so what will it know about those parties when it makes a
decision?
I suggest
that the Speaker’s Committee will look at the largest minority
party and decide to give it the job. The largest minority party in the
House is the Democratic Unionist party, which has nine Members. Second
largest is the Scottish National party with seven Members, the Social
Democratic and Labour party has three and Plaid Cymru has three. If the
Speaker’s Committee decides to give the job to the largest
minority party, we would have the ridiculous situation of the
Democratic Unionist party in the Electoral Commission looking after the
interests of the Scottish National party.
| 
