Mr.
Djanogly: I had not wanted to take up the
Committee’s time at this late stage, but the Minister will
appreciate that even the Electoral Commission has said that we should
not move ahead on e-voting projects at this time, until we generally
have a handle on an electoral system that is not seen to be working as
it
should.
Mr.
Wills: As I said, we are not currently conducting any
pilots and we have no plans to do so. The whole point about the pilots
that took place last year was that we are learning lessons from
them.
Mr.
Djanogly: They were a
disaster.
Mr.
Wills: The hon. Gentleman characterises the pilots in a
rather misleading way. Their whole purpose was to learn lessons for the
future. Never to try to learn lessons for improvement in techniques
would be wrong. Other countries do it. We have just seen an
extraordinary election in the United
States.
Pete
Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The Minister
is talking about learning lessons from innovations. What lessons did he
learn from the Scottish parliamentary elections last
year?
Mr.
Wills: I am conscious of the clock. With regard to the
extraordinary American election, some estimates suggest that 30 per
cent. of people cast their votes early. That is a way to move forward
with an electoral system that we can see produces benefits. It
demonstrates the potential for modernising electoral processes. On the
basis of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Epping
Forest will withdraw the new
clause. 7.15
pm
Mrs.
Laing: I appreciate that the Minister has been
genuine in his explanation why he cannot support the new clauses. I am
pleased that no pilots are in the pipeline at present. It is wrong to
spend taxpayers’ money on gimmicks when we need to concentrate
on real reform. Given the time and the will of the Committee, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
motion. Motion
and clause, by leave,
withdrawn.
Clause
8Declaration
as to source of donation
Mr.
Wills: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in
page 5, line 43, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000, or £1,000
where subsection (4A) of section 54A
applies,’.
The
Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the
following: Amendment No. 3, in
page 5, line 43, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. No.
135, in page 5, line 43, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000 donated
to a registered party or £1,000 donated to an accounting unit of
a registered
party’. Government
amendments Nos. 154 and
155. Amendment
No. 4, in page 6, line 3, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
156. Amendment
No. 5, in page 6, line 14, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Amendment
No. 134, in page 6, line 14, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000 donated to
a registered party or £1,000 donated to an accounting unit of a
registered
party’. Government
amendments Nos. 157 to
160. Amendment
No. 148, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 7, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
161. No.
147, in page 34, line 12, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
162. Amendment
No. 146, in page 34, line 25, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendments Nos. 163 and
164. Amendment
No. 145, in page 36, line 2, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
165. Amendment
No. 144, in page 36, line 7, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
166. Amendment
No. 143, in page 36, line 20, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’.
Government
amendments Nos. 167 and
168. Amendment
No. 142, in page 37, line 30, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
169. Amendment
No. 141, in page 37, line 35, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
170. Amendment
No. 140, in page 38, line 6, leave out
‘£200’ and insert
‘£1,000’. Government
amendment No.
171. Clause
8 stand
part.
Mr.
Wills: I am pleased that we have moved to this important
group of amendments.
Ian
Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): I beg to move, That the debate be
now
adjourned.
David
Howarth:
Objection.
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister was speaking. He would have
to sit down before I could ask the Government Whip to move the Question
that he seeks to put to the Committee and to which I am now aware that
there is an objection. Clearly, that Question is debatable. I suggest
that the Committee do not debate it at great length, but that is
entirely up to the Committee. Again, I can give only guidance, not
advice. I ask the Minister to speak to the amendments. It is up to him
how quickly he does so. Then I shall be happy to call the Government
Whip.
Mr.
Wills: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. I will be as brisk as I
possibly can, but there are a great number of amendments, so forgive me
if I conclude my remarks in
full. Clause
8 requires a person making a donation of more than £200 to a
political party to make a declaration about the source of the funds.
The declaration must say whether another person or body has given more
than £200 with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, the
making of that donation. If that is the case, the declaration must go
on to state whether sections 54(4) or (6) apply to the donation: that
is, whether the donations have been made by the donor
acting—[Interruption.]
The
Chairman: Order. The Minister has the floor. Minister,
please continue your remarks.
Mr.
Wills: Thank you, Sir Nicholas. If that is the case, the
declaration must go on to state whether section 54(4) or (6)
apply to the donation: that is, whether the donations have been made by
the donor acting as principal donor for a group of other donors or as
agent for another donor. If they have, the 2000 Act separately requires
the details of the true underlying donor to be disclosed. If the
declaration says that the sections do not apply, the declaration must
state why not.
If a donation
of more than £200 is not accompanied by a declaration, it cannot
be accepted by the party. Furthermore, the party must take reasonable
steps to verify that the declaration is accurate and include a
statement to the effect that it has done so in its donation report.
Schedule 3 replicates the proposal in respect of regulated
donees— including MPs—recognised third parties and
permitted participants in referendums.
Concerns have
been expressed that the £200 threshold is too low and that the
requirement to take reasonable steps is unduly onerous. I have listened
to those concerns and am keen to ensure that the provisions, while
being useful, do not impose an unnecessary burden on donors, parties
and volunteer workers. With that in mind, I have moved the accompanying
Government amendments. As they are technical, I hope that the Committee
will be content if I explain the combined effect of some of the
amendments rather than taking each individually, which might prove
unnecessarily complex and
time-consuming. The
combined effect of Government amendments Nos. 153 and 155 to 157 is as
follows. The size of donation that must be accompanied by a declaration
will be raised from the current threshold in the Bill of more than
£200 to the level at which a central party is required to
declare a donation to the Electoral Commission, that is £5,000.
Where the donation is to a local accounting unit of such a party, the
requirement is for a declaration to accompany donations of more than
£1,000. In addition, where such a donation is made to a
party’s central organisation, a declaration will have to say
whether an amount of more than £5,000 has been provided to the
donor with a view to, or otherwise in connection with, that donation.
Again, the relevant figure is a donation of more than £1,000 if
the donation relates to a local accounting unit. If an amount of less
than those sums has been provided, the further requirements relating to
making a declaration about the impact of sections 54(4) and (6) will
fall away.
In addition,
Government amendments Nos. 160, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 168, 169 and
170 seek to achieve the same effect for the declaration requirement in
schedule 3 with respect to donations to individuals and
members’ associations, recognised third parties and permitted
participants. Government
amendment No. 158 removes the requirement for a registered party to
take all reasonable steps forthwith by, or on behalf of, the party to
verify it. Government amendments Nos. 163, 167 and 171 remove this
requirement with respect to declarations received by the individuals
and organisations covered by schedule 3, which I have already
mentioned. It is worth noting that removing this provision will not
reduce the obligations that parties are already under by way of section
56 to ensure that they take reasonable steps to verify the identity and
permissibility of donors. So, even where a declaration is made under
these arrangements, if a party suspects for any reason that the details
given are not right, section 56 may require them to make further
checks. These amendments will substantially reduce concerns about
overburdening central and local parties and donors, while ensuring that
the biggest donations are subject to an improved level of transparency.
That said, if hon. Members have residual concerns, about the level at
which these requirements have effect for example, I will, of course, be
willing to listen to them and consider them
further. Ian
Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): I beg to move, That the debate be
now adjourned.
David
Howarth: Thank you, Sir Nicholas, for making it clear that
the Question is debatable. I would like to have it debated and I would
also like to vote against it. The Committee is making painfully slow
progress with
this Bill. Today, we have completed six groups of amendments in nearly
five and a half hours. If we continue at that pace, on Thursday, when
we have just short of four and a half hours, we will not even reach
clause 9. That means that the Committee will not get to discuss all of
the proposals about party funding that have been put down for
debate—all the proposals about caps on donations, party
expenditure and about how to deal with the question of affiliation of
the trade unionists to the Labour party.
It would be
an outrage if this Committee were to be denied the opportunity to
debate those issues which, for my party, and for many members of the
public, are central to our consideration. We would also be unable to
discuss clause 10, which is where the triggering proposal comes before
the Committee. We spent hours in the first part of the Committee taking
evidence from numerous experts on the question of triggering. There has
been wide debate, both inside and outside the House, on whether
triggering works. It would be farcical, having done all of that, not
even to reach that question in Committee. My proposal is that we do not
adjourn the debate now, that you, Sir Nicholas, suspend the sitting for
an appropriate time for us to have something to eat, and that we come
back after about an hour and carry on consideration so that we at least
get far enough tonight so that on Thursday we shall be in a position to
give full consideration to those important
matters.
Mr.
Djanogly: There is a longer-term timing issue and a
shorter-term timing issue. In the longer-term context, we have some
sympathy with what the hon. Member for Cambridge has just said. We have
maintained consistently that not enough time has been given, such as
the single weekend between the evidence sessions and the following
Committee sittings. We are still suffering from the lack of time to
consult properly as we move through the Bill—that has been a
consistent problem for us. Given that the later stages of the Bill will
be in the next Session anyway, we have no idea what the rush has been
with Committee. The overall time could have been longer and, to that
extent, we have sympathy with the hon.
Gentleman. However,
in the short-term context, we wish to delay discussion of clause 8
until Thursday. Let me explain why. On Second Reading, the Government
implied and consistently after that said that we would get amendments
to clause 8. First, they spoke about providing a new clause, then
amendments. We received those amendments, such as they are—I
agree that they are pretty poor—only yesterday. We filed our
amendments, based on the Government amendments, yesterday evening. It
is not as if we had a week to look at what the Government came up with.
We had a handful of hours and we put in our amendments yesterday
evening, which means that, today, they came in starred, so we cannot
debate our amendments until Thursday. That is why I say to the hon.
Gentleman that I am very sorry, but he should not look to us. The
Government did not allow us time to debate our amendments, which is why
we think it fit and proper to adjourn now until Thursday, and that is
why we shall be voting to
adjourn. Pete
Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): I rise to
support the hon. Member for Cambridge in asking for an adjournment, so
that the Committee can
reconvene in an hour’s time after we have all had some suitable
refreshment. The public will find it staggering that we are not able to
discuss, as now looks likely, such issues as party funding, caps and
donations, party expenditure and trade union affiliation. That is what
the public want us to discuss; that is the meat of the Bill. It would
be unforgivable if we spent all this time sitting and failed to reach
the crucial and important amendments. Failure to do so would be a
dereliction of the Committee’s
duty. I
listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Huntingdon,
but I have to say to him that the Conservatives have been less than
helpful in making sure that we try to reach those amendments. I was
looking forward to the Conservative amendments on such crucial issues,
but they have not been forthcoming—they have not
happened.
| 
