The
Chairman: I should draw the Committee’s attention
to the fact that the hon. Gentleman made extensive reference in his
contribution to various elements in schedule 1. I did not stop him, but
that makes me less well disposed to the prospect of having a stand part
debate on the schedule. If other members will bear that in mind, it
will help me.
David
Howarth: Thank you for those comments, Mr.
Cook. It will take me much less time than the hon. Member for
Huntingdon to say what I have to say about the clause. He is right to
worry about powers of entry and other details that we will discuss when
we debate schedule 1, but we politicians have to bear it in mind that
Parliament has imposed lots of requirements on other people. When it
comes to imposing similar requirements on politicians themselves,
people who were not concerned before suddenly become concerned, and we
must be aware of what that looks like to the outside world. The key is
that we should not make arbitrary exemptions for ourselves. The
principles that we apply when regulating politics are the same as those
that we apply to the regulation of anything else. I hope that when hon.
Members make points that might sound self-interested, they will at
least have the grace to concede that similar points can be made about
other people’s civil liberties, not just their
own. Mr.
Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con): I should simply like
an explanation of the measures on page 2. In the right-hand column,
lines 5 and 8 mention summary convictions, and that is to be
understood. Further down,
however, there seems to be a rather peculiar situation in which the
Northern Irish are entitled to six months off from what the English,
Welsh and Scots have to pay as a penalty. Why are the Irish entitled to
a lesser penalty than the English, Welsh and
Scots?
Mr.
Wills: I shall be relatively brief, because many of the
important points of detail that the hon. Member for Huntingdon has
raised will be covered in our discussions on amendments. I shall simply
say a few general words about the clause.
The
distinguished contributions of the hon. Members for Huntingdon and for
Cambridge clearly illustrate the path that we have tried to tread with
the clause and the schedule. Of course, we have to be sensitive, as the
hon. Member for Huntingdon has said, to the voluntary nature of a huge
amount of political activity. We must be sensitive to the need to
sustain that activity and to the risk of that effort being damaged by
any legislation giving the Electoral Commission new powers. He made the
case very well about the potential risks of this clause and, indeed,
any legislation that seeks to
regulate. The
hon. Member for Cambridge rightly points out that we must be extremely
careful of seeming to exempt ourselves arbitrarily from regulations and
controls to which we rightly expect other participants in public life
to be subject. The controls that we propose are not dissimilar to those
relating to the Financial Services Authority, for example. We have to
steer a careful course here. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of
State for Justice and I made it clear on Second Reading that we are
sensitive to the concerns that hon. Members on both sides of the House
have expressed about this clause and about the powers in the schedule
to which it is so closely linked. The amendments that the Government
have tabled, which we will discuss in due course, show that we are
trying to respond to those concerns.
However, in
relation to the overall position, it is worth reminding the Committee
that the commission already has extensive powers under section 146 of
the 2000 Act, which requires the disclosure of documents and gives it
the power to enter premises and take copies of information for the
purposes of carrying out its functions. It is a criminal offence, under
the provisions of that Act, to
fail, “without
reasonable excuse, to comply
with” a
request or to obstruct entry and
search. The
powers that we are discussing already exist. They have, from memory,
only been used once in the past eight years. They have not been used
extensively, but they exist. As we discuss the matter, we will see that
these powers are being restricted. We have tabled amendments and we
will discuss the details as we go forward and I will, if I may, address
many of the particular points that have been raised in the course of
that discussion. It is important to bear it in mind that, so far, we
have consensus on the importance of the Electoral Commission’s
regulating the conduct of elections more effectively than it has done
in the past—I think that all Committee members agree with that.
If the commission is to do that, we have to give it the powers to be an
effective
regulator. We
have tabled a lot of amendments and I will bear in mind your
strictures, Mr. Cook. However, if I may suggest it, there
would be merit in, and the Committee
would benefit from, a stand part debate on schedule
1, because it is important, there is a widespread degree of concern
about it, and we should have such debates. However, I will restrict
myself at this
point. We
have to bear in mind that we must give this body the powers to be a
credible
regulator.
Mr.
Djanogly: It is important that, at this stage, the
Minister gives the Government’s rationale for needing the
clause. He just said that there has been only one prosecution in this
area in the last eight years. Does he think that there are things that
would be prosecuted, but are not being prosecuted, because there is a
lack of legislation, or does the commission need to pull its finger out
and do more of what it should have been doing? Perhaps he can give the
Government’s view on what needs to be
done.
Mr.
Wills: We are trying to give the commission new powers so
that it can be more effective, as is necessary, in respect of the
offences. As the hon. Gentleman has said, powers of entry are provided
for under those new measures. The commission should be a credible
regulator that can act as a deterrent as much as anything else. I ask
the hon. Gentleman, as we discuss these matters further, to bear it in
mind that the existence of these powers may act as a deterrent to the
kind of behaviour that we do not want to see in the conduct of our
elections. That is an important point. It is not that we think that
these offences will necessarily be committed and that they will then
have to be prosecuted under the relevant powers; we want to stop this
behaviour happening. The existence of these powers could be a credible
deterrent. I
want to address a lot of the detail, because it relates to the
amendment, but first I want to correct a remark I made earlier and put
the record straight. The commission has not used its powers of entry;
it has only once used its power to request
documents. I
hope that Committee members will support clause 2 and that we can
discuss its detailed implementation as we go through schedule
1.
Mr.
Turner: I was hoping that the Minister would respond to my
question. Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): Will the Minister give
way?
The
Chairman: Order. Has the Minister given way to
Mr. Turner? He cannot take two interventions at the same
time.
Mr.
Wills: I have given
way.
Mr.
Turner: I made my remark and sat
down.
Mr.
Kidney: On the question asked by the hon. Member for Isle
of Wight, might the answer relate to the passage of the Criminal
Justice Act 2003? Might it be that that does not yet apply in Northern
Ireland, which is why there is a distinction between a six-month
sentence in Northern Ireland and a 12-month sentence in the rest of the
UK? It was a new sentence introduced in the 2003 Act, under
which I think half is meant to be served and half not. There is still a
maximum of 26 weeks to be spent in a prison
cell.
Mr.
Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has summarised
the situation perfectly.
Question put
and agreed
to. Clause
2 ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
1Investigatory
powers of Commission: Schedule to be inserted into the 2000
Act 6
pm
Mr.
Djanogly: I beg to move amendment No. 102, in
schedule 1, page 13, line 15, leave out sub-sub-paragraph
(1)(d). The
part of the schedule to which the amendment refers deals with
powers “in
relation to registered parties and
others”, and
it is the “others” bit about which we have most concern.
The amendment proposes the deletion of the term “regulated
donee” from the list of people or groups to whom the
commission’s new investigative powers will apply. This part of
the schedule is effectively lifted from the PPERA, but with the
important change of inserting that
category. The
meaning of “regulated donee” is defined in paragraph 1(7)
of schedule 7 to that Act
as “a
member of a registered party...a members association;
or...the holder of a relevant elective office, whether or not he
is a member of a registered
party.” The
amendment comes on the back of our concerns about the extension of the
powers to individuals. Given that a person can fall under that
provision and not be a member of a registered party, I fear that unless
we are careful the effect will be to push people further away from the
political process. The hon. Member for Cambridge said earlier
that we have to examine politicians, but he will appreciate that what
we are discussing here goes much further than politicians and deals
with
donors. By
broadening the scope of which people the powers of investigation cover,
we are in danger of casting the net too wide. People may become
fearful, or at least think twice about volunteering their time and
energy to assist political parties, if the end result might be that
they are investigated by the commission for an action that they have no
direct involvement in. My understanding is that it was the Ministry of
Justice, rather than the commission, that requested these extensions to
the powers. Will the Minister please explain why, and why he believes
that they will be required in
practice? In
an era of political disfranchisement and unwillingness to get involved
in the political process, the last thing that we wish to do is
discourage donors. We must be careful to ensure that we do not
introduce legislation so broad that it tars everyone with the same
brush. We do not need another reason for members of the public to turn
their backs on political
parties. The
provision is also a disproportionately powerful tool to hand to the
commission. How does the Minister see the balance between its
enforcement role and the need to safeguard the public from arbitrary
state interference working in the paragraph that I mentioned? Can he
give hon. Members an idea of the number of people in the UK who would
be considered regulated donees and therefore fall within its
scope?
What
evidence has the commission, or any other body, presented to the
Government to support the need for such a broad definition of those who
can be investigated? The impact of the change will clearly be to alter
the limited scope of the powers and apply them to a hugely larger
catchment group. Finally, what example can the Minister give of the
powers having been required in
practice?
David
Howarth: The Electoral Commission’s view is that it
requires regulatory power over at least some regulated donees. I notice
that the provision is about donees rather than donors—the people
receiving the money, not the people giving
it. Regulated
donees are defined in the 2000 Act as members of a registered party, a
members’ association
or “the
holder of a relevant elective
office”. The
particular group that the Electoral Commission believes it needs
regulatory power over is the middle one, the members’
association. Under the current law, a members’ association is
defined
as “any
organisation whose membership consists wholly or mainly of members of a
registered party, other
than” something
that is a party
itself. There
is a requirement to regulate registered donees and to have access to
their papers because otherwise it would be easy for sub-groups within
parties to be set up in such a way as to evade regulation. It is
perfectly reasonable for the Bill to extend the basic way in which
regulation happens to members’ associations. It was implied in
the comments of the Electoral Commission that the Government must
answer why it is also necessary to extend the same powers to individual
members of parties or individuals who hold elected
office. In
fact, those two cases might be different. There might be an argument
for the third category: those of us in the House, for example, who are
holders of elected office. I shall not refer to particular media items,
but it might be possible for donations to parties to take a route to an
individual hon. Member for help in his office or such matters. They
might otherwise have gone to the party, so perhaps there is a case to
answer in such instances. However, I am worried about the extension of
the powers to individual party members, which was the strongest point
made by the hon. Member for
Huntingdon. Unfortunately,
the amendment would go far too far. Under existing law, there is power
to require documents from registered donees. The Bill adds powers of
entry, which is what is worrying several people. The problem is that,
under the existing law, powers to require documents and powers of entry
are treated separately. The Bill puts them
together. Unfortunately,
the hon. Gentleman’s amendment would not only prevent the
extension of the law, but take the law away from where it is and reduce
the power of the commission over requiring documents. We should not do
that. It raises the matter that the commission mentioned, in that the
issue should be approached not through entering people’s
premises on a warrant or on the say so of the regulator, but by going
instead down the route that it proposed of treating the whole thing as
a civil matter, whereby the commission goes to the court and asks for
an order requiring documents be produced.
It
was proposed that if the requirement was not obeyed, at that
point—as a remedy for the failure to comply—the court
could either hold the object of the law in contempt or further
authorise a search. There needs to be some regulation; there seems to
be over-inclusiveness in the schedule’s drafting. I ask the
Government to look at the matter again—not how the amendment
proposes, but more subtly than that.
Mr.
Wills: Independent review after independent review has
recommended that the Electoral Commission’s powers should be
overhauled. It cannot be right, for example, that when someone has used
an agent to give money to a party, the Electoral Commission can require
information not from the original secret donor, but only from the
agent. The powers that we propose will allow the Electoral Commission
to investigate effectively and request information from all those who
have
it. There
is a case to be made for allowing the investigatory powers to apply to
regulated donees. However, of course I am aware of the concerns that
have been expressed here today, and elsewhere, by hon. Members about
the powers and their application to regulated donees. I am also aware
that the Electoral Commission has perhaps been reconsidering its
position—we have had some communications, and I intend to
discuss the matter further with it and to reconsider carefully whether
the extension provided by the Bill is defensible. Given that the
commission has yet to use the power, the case for extending it may
still have to be
proven. Colleagues
and Members of Parliament have expressed concerns. We need to seek the
advice of the regulatory body to see what it feels on the subject. When
we have had those further consultations with the Electoral Commission,
I shall respond to this point. However, I take up the invitation of the
hon. Member for Cambridge to reconsider those points of view. As we are
engaged in reconsidering the provision, I hope that the hon. Member for
Huntingdon will withdraw his
amendment.
| 
