Mr.
Wills: We have had a fascinating debate, and I am grateful
to the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire for raising the
matter. I shall start by saying straight away that of course I
recognise that we are in a multi-party, multi-legislature UK. This
Government brought in devolution, and we are extremely proud of it. It
has made for a much more vibrant and healthy democracy within the
context of a United Kingdom. I am sure that he finds that final phrase
unpalatable, but there it is. We are proud of devolution, and he is
absolutely right that his party plays an important part in the new,
vibrant democracy. I thank him for recognising that only the Labour
party can now speak for the whole UK. That is generous of him, and we
acknowledge
it. May
I throw some light on something that has baffled many members of the
Committee, including the hon. Member for Chichester, and let the entire
Committee know what the Speaker’s Committee consists of? It
consists, with one exception, of hon. Members. They are the hon. Members
for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) and for North Down (Lady Hermon), my
right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord
Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local
Government—he is there ex officio, as I believe is the Lord
Chancellor—the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins),
the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), my right
hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and
the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter). I am
sure that the Committee would agree that that is a most distinguished
gathering of parliamentarians, who can be trusted to do their job with
great distinction and
impartiality. We
have had an interesting debate. I have to say, I agree with almost
every single word that the hon. Member for Epping Forest said. At the
heart of this issue lies an important debate about the future of the
United Kingdom, although I am sure you will forbid me from straying too
far into that territory, Sir Nicholas. I am sure that there will be
many occasions on which we shall return to that subject, but we shall
not discuss it at length today.
I want to
stress a couple of things before I address the detail of the
amendment. First, as the hon. Member for Epping Forest said quite
clearly, at the heart of the proposition made by the hon.
Member for Perth and North Perthshire is the idea that somehow the
so-called political commissioners—we prefer the term nominated
commissioners—will act as partisans on behalf of their
party.
Pete
Wishart: It is the same question that I have put to all
the political parties here: if the Minister is satisfied that that is
the case, will the Labour party therefore waive its right to have a
political commissioner, and perhaps open it up to other parties in the
House?
Mr.
Wills: The hon. Gentleman is an eloquent and skilled
debater. I had anticipated him asking me that question, and I shall
answer it in a moment if he will bear with me. It is a good question,
but there is a good answer too. The short answer is no, however I will
provide a more detailed explanation in just a moment, if I
may.
The point
that I was making is that underlying the hon. Gentleman’s
amendment is the proposition that nominated commissioners will act in a
politically partisan way, and therefore it is unfair that they should
be excluded. That is absolutely not the case. I see him shaking his
head.
Pete
Wishart: I did not say that at
all.
Mr.
Wills: That seems to be the underlying assumption, and
that therefore it is fair that the hon. Gentleman’s party and
other parties that are in a minority at Westminster should have due
representation on the commission. However, as the hon. Member for
Epping Forest said extremely clearly, nominated commissioners should be
selected on the basis of their experience. That is the basis on which
they will be selected and on which we expect them to discharge their
duties—not in a politically partisan way.
On the point
about why the parties that have the largest representation at
Westminster should have the position that they have in the Bill, the
answer follows on from the point that I just made. That is precisely
why we would not be prepared to relinquish our particular position to
other parties. The three largest parties at Westminster have—I
hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree, because it is a matter of fact
not opinion—the widest pool of political experience throughout
the United Kingdom on which to draw, including experience of all the
different electoral systems, as the hon. Member for Cambridge
said.
The answer is
not what the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire is suggesting,
which is to segment and fracture the overall view, so that there are
specialists in this particular area and this particular electoral
system. I may be caricaturing what he was trying to suggest, but that
would be the logical consequence of his contribution to the debate.
What is important is that we have a wide pool of experience upon which
to draw. The three largest parties at Westminster pre-eminently have
that wide experience of all the regions of the United Kingdom and all
the different electoral systems. They can bring that collective
experience to bear on all the issues that the Electoral Commission has
to address.
There is a
fundamental difference of view on this issue. It is not that the
provision is Westminster-centric and the wrong perspective to adopt; it
is the only proper position to adopt in a United Kingdom. The hon.
Member for Epping Forest set this out well: the source and foundation
of power and authority in this country remains in the Westminster
Parliament, because that is the Parliament for the entire United
Kingdom. Of course, the devolved Administrations and legislatures have
an important part to play. They have brought great vibrancy to our
democracy and we are proud of what we have done to make that happen,
but the power is still devolved from Westminster and so the Bill is in
the form that it
is. 12
noon There
has been little discussion of the detail of the amendment, so I want to
address that. The hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire will not
be surprised by what I am about to say, but, if he will forgive me, I
will say it anyway for the record.
Amendments
Nos. 112 and 113 would remove the requirement to have a maximum of four
political commissioners and, in our view, thwart the purpose of the
clause, which is to enhance the credibility and effectiveness of the
commission, both to those it regulates and to the general
public. Although
clause 6 places the minimum and maximum number of commissioners at five
and 10 respectively, by not limiting the number of nominated
commissioners permitted it could, in theory, lead to those nominated
commissioners being in a majority on the board. I think that all
members of the Committee would agree that that would seriously
undermine the independence of the commission—both its actual and
its perceived
independence. Limiting
the number of nominated commissioners to four means that they will
always be in the minority, although they will still be able to bring to
the commission the political experience it needs—the events of
the last few years show that that experience is needed—to create
greater confidence among those it regulates.
Amendment No.
114 would compel parties to make nominations to the Speaker’s
Committee. Under the Bill as drafted, parties will be free to make
nominations to the Speaker’s Committee if they choose to do so.
The amendment would mean qualifying parties being obliged to put
forward to the commission a person to be considered for appointment. We
think that that is unreasonable and therefore cannot support
it.
Amendments
Nos. 115, 116 and 117 would remove the need for three of the
commissioners to be from the largest parties in the United Kingdom
Parliament and the means for calculating parties’ relative size
for that purpose. As I have said, we believe that it is the right
balance to have commissioners from those parties in order to command
the widest range of political experience. That is a difficult judgment.
We must make a judgment about how to do it, and this is the judgment
that we have made, for the reasons that we have said. I accept that the
hon. Gentleman has a perfectly logical position, from his perspective,
in suggesting alternative arrangements; it is just that we do not agree
with
them. We
believe that, to get that pool of political experience, it is right
that three of the commissioners should come from the three largest
parties and that the fourth commissioner should come from another
qualified party. The recruitment and selection process for all
commissioners will remain a matter for the Speaker’s Committee.
Again, I am sure that it will look at the contributions made to the
debate on these amendments and take into account what the hon.
Gentleman has said, and indeed what the hon. Member for Cambridge has
said. These
are important questions and they will be a subject for legitimate
debate in the future. Constitutional arrangements are never set in
stone. They evolve and develop, and this process is part of their
evolution and development. I am sure that we will continue to return to
these issues. In the meantime, however, I hope that the hon. Member for
Perth and North Perthshire will agree, in the light of all the
circumstances, to withdraw the
amendment.
Pete
Wishart: I appreciate all Members taking part in what has
been an interesting and illuminating debate on the issues involved in
how we start to deal with the multiplicity of legislatures that we have
throughout the United Kingdom. I also appreciate the Minister’s
attempt to look at those issues a little more clearly and perhaps to
come back with solutions. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for
Cambridge, who has again spoken about the need perhaps to devolve
further the powers of the Electoral Commission, which is a realistic
way forward that we might address in the
future. However,
the suggestion that nominations for political commissioners will
somehow exist almost in a vacuum—without the parties that
nominate those people—is preposterous and ridiculous. That is
why, other than the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who, much to the
chagrin of her colleagues, has been the only member of the Committee to
say that we need to be prepared to put the political nomination
aside—
Mrs.
Laing: I really must clarify this point, or I might not
remain on the Committee much longer. [Laughter.] I
will probably be forcibly removed. I did not say that the Conservative
party ought not to put forward someone
or that the place ought to be given up. I was merely illustrating, for
the purposes of our argument, the fact that a person’s wisdom
and experience do not depend on his or her party
allegiance.
Pete
Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for clarifying
that. She sought to say that she would be happy to waive the right to a
Conservative nomination, but she now brings that into line with the
thoughts of everybody else in Committee, which I suspected anyway. I
always presumed that no political party would be prepared to give up
its right to nominate political commissioners, which confirms my strong
suspicions that party political interests are at play here. To pretend
otherwise is like living in cloud cuckoo land. Of course party
political interests are at play, otherwise there would not be party
political
commissioners.
Mr.
Wills: I am slightly surprised by the hon.
Gentleman’s cynicism. Given the passionate idealism that he
normally brings to the exposition of his cause, this really is a very
cynical view. If he reflects on a wide range of analogous bodies in our
public life, on which people with wide political experience serve, he
will see that those politicians from all political parties serve the
party interest without party bias, and have done so for many years and
will continue to do so. I hope that he withdraws his
remarks.
Pete
Wishart: Call me an old cynic, Sir Nicholas. I accept what
the Minister says. I know that people who are nominated from political
parties do a fantastic job in a number of bodies throughout the United
Kingdom, but it is naïve to suggest that there is not a small
element of party political interest—there must be. No political
party would be prepared to give up its right to nominate a political
commissioner. We still do not have a solution for what we do with
minority parties. We still have not addressed how the Electoral
Commission will turn its attention to dealing with the devolved
Assemblies and Parliaments across the United Kingdom.
Amendment No.
111 would clarify and support what the Minister says. It proposes to
limit the rights of political commissioners to become involved in some
of the work of the
Commission.
The
Chairman: Order. We will consider amendment No. 111 at a
later stage, so it is not appropriate to raise the matter
now.
Pete
Wishart: Thank you, Sir
Nicholas.
Mr.
Wills: I hesitate to return to this point, but it is so
fundamentally important. The hon. Gentleman is proceeding on a
completely wrong assumption. The Electoral Commission regulates the
electoral system itself. It is in the interests of every single
democratic political party in this country that the integrity of that
electoral system is paramount. That is the self-interest of every
nominated commissioner on the board, nothing else. It does not matter
what values we espouse, what policies we want to put into effect or
whether we are in Scotland or in the United Kingdom Parliament, the
integrity of the electoral system is of fundamental importance to every
single one of us. Every single one of us shares the same self-interest
in the transparency,
incorruptibility and integrity of that system. I hope the hon. Gentleman
will shift the base of his argument away from how he has been
proceeding until now.
Pete
Wishart: I am grateful to the Minister for his
intervention and I agree with practically every word he says, but may I
say to him, in all candidness, that there will be a whiff of suspicion
about the work of the Electoral Commission when it comes to the
Scottish elections? On the Electoral Commission, there will be
nominated political commissioners from the Conservative, Liberal and
Labour parties for the regulation of electoral law in elections to the
Scottish Parliament, but there will be no representative from the
largest political party in Scotland, which forms the Scottish
Government. The
Minister may go on and on about the fine group of people who have our
best interests at heart, but, for ever and a day, there will be a whiff
of suspicion that something is not quite right. All the other political
parties will get to nominate a political commissioner, but the party of
government in Scotland will not. That cannot be right. I cannot accept
that that is the way forward for
Scotland. We
are coming to amendment No. 111, which will, I hope, clarify the role
of political commissioners. That is the opportunity for people to say
what the political commissioners can do. I beg to ask leave to withdraw
the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Mrs.
Laing: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in
clause 5, page 4, line 8, at
end insert ‘and the registered heads of the
three largest nominating parties at that time shall be required to make
such a
nomination.’.
| 
