 House of Commons |
Session 2007 - 08 Publications on the internet General Committee Debates Political Parties and Elections Bill |
Political Parties and Elections Bill |
The Committee consisted of the following Members:Chris Shaw, Chris Stanton,
Committee Clerks † attended
the Committee Public Bill CommitteeThursday 20 November 2008(Afternoon)[Sir Nicholas Winterton in the Chair]Political Parties and Elections BillClause 8Declaration
as to source of
donation Amendment
proposed [this day]: No. 151, in clause 8, page 6, line 30, at end
insert— ‘(5A) A person does
not commit an offence if, in the opinion of the Commission, the person
had no intention of making, or by innocent mistake made, a false
declaration under this section.’.—[Mr.
Djanogly.] 1
pm Question
again proposed, That the amendment be
made.
The
Chairman: I remind the Committee that with this we are
discussing amendment No. 6, in clause 8, page 7, line 28, leave out the
words in column 2 of the table and insert ‘A fine of
£1000’.
The
Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Mr. Michael
Wills): I welcome you, Sir Nicholas, and the rest of the
Committee to our final sitting. I think that before the Committee
adjourned I had completed my remarks about clause 8 stating clearly
that a person commits an offence only if they knowingly or recklessly
make a false declaration, but I want to say at the commencement of this
afternoon’s proceedings that I recognise the concerns that have
been expressed that an over-zealous approach to enforcement for minor
technical breaches is in no one’s interest. It may result in
major breaches going unpunished if the Electoral Commission focuses on
minor technical breaches, so I asked the commission to write to the
Committee, setting out its risk-based approach to regulation. I hope
that members of the Committee have received that
letter. As
part of the letter, the commission has described in a very helpful way
its criteria for investigating breaches. I hope that that goes a
significant way towards reassuring hon. Members. The commission has
said that the criteria that it will apply in order for it to
investigate a breach are, first, that there is evidence or information
substantiating a potential breach of political party or election
finance legislation, not merely an assertion of or a speculation about
a breach, and secondly, that the commission considers that it is in the
public interest for it to investigate, taking into account the
potential impact of the breach on the integrity or transparency of
party or election finance, the cost of investigating such a potential
breach relative to the impact of the breach, and any other
considerations that may be relevant. I hope that those criteria are
helpful in reassuring the Committee that the commission is not
interested in pursuing cases that are essentially groundless. Members
of the Committee are understandably concerned about that.
Notwithstanding
the considerable reassurance from the Electoral Commission, I am still
willing to consider how that reassurance may be given more force in
appropriate cases. However, in stressing my openness on the issue, I
emphasise that offences that are formulated as false declarations
through the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, such
as those subject to the amendment, quite properly have a degree of
intent or negligent wrongdoing inherent in them. I do not think that
there is a good case for revisiting that. Clause 8 already provides
that a person is guilty of an offence only if they knowingly or
recklessly make a false declaration. They commit an offence only if
they are either conscious of the fact that it is substantially certain
that they are making a
false— Mr.
Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con): Is the Minister
saying that he will consider whether this should be an indictable or
just a summary
offence?
Mr.
Wills: No, I was saying that I was prepared to consider
the circumstances in which the commission might be able to give further
reassurance to the Committee on the basis on which it will investigate
potential breaches or breaches. It has already, in its letter, gone a
long way towards reassuring the Committee, but if concerns remain, we
are open to considering
that. Under
the clause, someone is committing an offence only if they are conscious
of the fact that it is substantially certain that they are making a
false declaration or if they are being careless to the point of being
heedless of the consequences. If neither of those conditions is
satisfied, an offence is not
committed. I
must oppose amendment No. 6 for similar reasons. We believe that the
controls on permissible donations that were introduced in the 2000 Act
are vital to uphold public confidence in the transparency and fairness
of our democracy. A breach of those rules is a serious matter, and must
result in a serious penalty. The amendment appears to downgrade the
seriousness of failing to comply with the requirements in clause 8. I
understand the motivation behind it, which is essentially the same as
that discussed in the previous amendment. We are concerned that if the
amendment were accepted, we would be sending a mixed message about the
importance of the controls on donations. We believe that a fine of
£1,000 would not be a sufficient
deterrent. On
the basis of the reassurances that I give the Committee and on our
willingness to continue considering the matter, I hope that hon.
Members will agree to withdraw their
amendments.
Mr.
Djanogly: I thank the Minister for going over the matter
in some detail, and for helpfully setting out the commission’s
criteria, which I will go away and consider. I appreciated him saying
that he was open to a further review, but the area that he is prepared
to consider is quite narrow. We will look carefully at the matter
again. We consider it important that an innocent mistake should not be
caught. As to whether the package and the criteria that has been
mentioned by the Minister are adequate, we will review that in due
course. For the moment, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Amendments
made: No. 158, in
clause 8, page 6, leave out lines 31 to
33. No.
159, in
clause 8, page 6, line 42, after
‘54(1)(aa)’, insert ‘(but not section
54(1)(b))’.—[Mr.
Wills.] Mr.
David Kidney (Stafford) (Lab): I beg to move amendment No.
106, in
clause 8, page 8, line 12, at
end insert— ‘(12) The
registration by a Member of Parliament of receipt of a donation or
other benefit within the terms of the 2000 Act in the Register of
Members’ Interests shall be sufficient compliance with the
requirement for registration of the same with the Commission and
registration of such receipt with the Commission shall be sufficient to
meet requirement for registration in the Register of Members’
Interests. (13) The Registrar
of Members’ Interests and the Commission shall put in place
arrangements for the sharing of such information as enables them to
give effect to subsection
(12).’. May
I say, Sir Nicholas, what a pleasure it has been to witness the smack
of firm leadership that you have given us whenever you have been in the
Chair?
All hon.
Members have an interest in the amendment, which is about the
registration of donations and benefits received by Members of
Parliament. Before the commission started work in 2001, we all knew
that we had to register such benefits in the Register of
Members’ Interests. Since the commission started work, we have
had to register the same benefit twice, under two regimes with two
formats and two different procedures. Since 2001 hon. Members have
become increasingly frustrated about that and demanded
action.
Eventually,
Parliament amended the law in the Electoral Administration Act 2006 by
inserting section 59, which says that in future, Members can go back to
registering only in the Register of Members’ Interests. The
provision was not brought into effect straight away because the
commission and the House authorities said that they need time to align
their procedures so that the commission could be satisfied that it
could get from the registrar all the information that it currently
collects. The registrar wanted to be clear that the law permitted the
handing over of such information.
It is two
years since then, and the provision still has not been brought into
effect. That delay is reprehensible. When Mr. Wardle of the
commission was giving evidence, I asked him whether the law was
sufficient for us to get to the result for which we all thought we were
waiting. He said that it was not. He thinks that there should be an
amendment to the Bill, so I have tabled the amendment. My offering to
the Committee is to say that, finally, we will get to the position that
we thought we would get to in 2006.
Mrs.
Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con): I thank you for
calling me, Sir Nicholas, and I sincerely apologise to you, the
Committee and the hon. Member for Stafford for not being present when
the amendment was moved. I support, in principle, the direction of the
amendment. As
my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George
Young) said on Second Reading, it is an important principle that dual
reporting is unnecessarily bureaucratic and leads to misunderstanding
and confusion. Such reporting is therefore wrong. We
have all known for some time that confusion can occur. Conservative
Members have so often said during the passage of the Bill that law that
is not clear is not good. This legislation lacks clarity. There is not
just a lack of clarity now, or a possible lack if the Bill were to
become law. There is already confusion between the 2000 Act, the 2006
Act and the matters that we are
discussing. The
2000 Act introduced two parallel reporting regimes for hon.
Members’ interests. First, we have to report—as is quite
proper—our interests as Members of Parliament to the House of
Commons. In addition, those matters have to be reported to the
commission. It almost goes without saying that that creates confusion,
and that that confusion is significant. That situation was recognised
by the Government, and by all parties in the House, as being wrong, and
therefore the Government rightly proposed section 59 of the 2006 Act,
which was supported by both sides of the House. Its aim was to produce
one route for registration, as my right hon. Friend put it on Second
Reading when he referred
to “streamlining
and simplifying the process without compromising on
transparency.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2008;
Vol. 481, c.
96.] That
is what we all want to see. However, section 59 requires commencement
by an order laid by the Secretary of State, and that has not been
forthcoming. Why is that taking so long? We understand, of course, that
the Electoral Commission had reservations about the exact rules laid
down by the House and that discussions have been ongoing between all
parties involved, including the Government and senior Members of the
House of Commons who represent us on such matters, but they have had
three years to work it out. The confusion has continued and has caused
embarrassment to some Members on both sides of the House, who have
innocently and inadvertently made mistakes because of the far too
complicated bureaucracy. That should not happen. Why have the
Government not brought into force section 59 of the 2006 Act? They
would have our support in that. In the meantime, we on the Conservative
Benches support amendment No. 106, so eloquently introduced by the hon.
Member for
Stafford. 1.15
pm
Mr.
Wills: I understand the frustration of Committee members,
but I point out to the hon. Lady that we cannot commence section 59 of
the 2006 Act until the Electoral Commission has notified the Secretary
of State that it is satisfied that it has received, from the Register
of Members’ Interests, all the information that it is required,
under the 2000 Act, to collect in relation to holders of the relevant
elected office. We agree that the need for MPs to provide different
reports to different bodies is undesirable—it is inefficient,
cumbersome and leads to the sorts of consequences that she
mentioned.
Discussions
continue between the parties concerned. I have held meetings with the
House authorities and the Electoral Commission. All sides are coming
closer together. They are not absolutely agreed on the best way
forward, but I think they will be very soon. The solution might not
have to be a legislative one; it might be—I say no more than
that—an administrative one. However, we are diligently engaged
in the task, and I hope very much that I can return with the outcome of
those discussions, so that, if necessary, the House will have an
opportunity to consider any necessary solutions. I stress, however,
that we might not need a legislative solution.
On the basis
of those reassurances, I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford
will withdraw his
amendment.
|
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2008 | Prepared 21 November 2008 |