Clause 1
Political Parties and Elections Bill
4:30 pm
Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Huntingdon, Conservative)
Given that, one way or another, whether here or in the other place, the Bill is invariably going to stretch into the next Session, I agree with my hon. Friend about the rush. However, that is the situation that we face.
Let me move on to amendments Nos. 79 and 38. We generally support the aim of clause 1 and believe that it should be a tool for change. There is a need to refocus the commission on its core duties as a regulator. That is generally recognised by pretty much everyone, not least by the commission itself. The question is, how are we going to do that? Given the known weakness of the commission in its various functions, does the Bill go far enough in redefining those functions? The Bill gives the commission lots of new investigatory powers, for instance, but will it actually use them in the exercise of its functions, given the limited redefinition in the Bill? Do the functions need further focus than has been provided?
Let us examine the redefinition. Clause 1 will delete the original wording of section 145(1) of PPERA, which states:
“The Commission shall have the general function of monitoring compliance”
and replace it with the slightly more proactive wording:
“shall have the function of monitoring, and taking such steps as they consider appropriate with a view to securing, compliance”.
That emphasis on the proactive role of the commission is to be encouraged, as the bulk of the reports to date have recommended a need for it to act more courageously and to shrug off what some have seen as a passive attitude. In essence, clause 1 provides that in addition to its existing function of monitoring compliance with the various requirements, the commission shall also have the function of taking such steps as it considers appropriate to secure compliance with those requirements.
The aim of amendment No. 79 is to tighten the wording of the clause, to insert the word “sole” before describing the function of the Electoral Commission. The aim is that first, we will not be back here again in six years, with all the associated costs, to review the scope of the commission’s duties because it has been able to take the path of least difficulty and resume a passive role and, secondly, to aid the commission and give it a clearer indication of what Parliament thinks its role should be. It may take time for the commission to readjust to its new role, so I propose a clear statutory signposting so that it can have the courage of its convictions to fulfil its mentoring and enforcement role, without the need to consider the wider issues for the electoral system. I hope that the commission and the Government see this is an enabling remit for the commission, rather than a restricting one.
Amendment No. 38 seeks to clarify the position. Given that the Bill seeks to refocus the commission’s core duties on to its role as a regulatory body, we need to do away with a particular section in PPERA as it will, in effect, become all but redundant. To leave it on the statute books will serve no function other than to confuse the commission and those studying the legislation.
Section 13 of PPERA places a duty on the commission to promote awareness of the electoral and democratic systems. As my hon. Friend for Chichester so rightly pointed out in his submission to the Committee on Standards in Public Life review, this is not a matter for the commission; rather it is a matter for political parties. The amendment is designed to tie up the loose ends so that there is no room for future confusion.
Last night the Electoral Commission commented on this issue, and it is worth putting its position on the record. It said:
“The Commission does not support amendment 38 which would remove our duty to promote public awareness of electoral systems and related matters. There is a strong case for ensuring that people get clear and reliable information about how to register to vote, and how to take part in elections, and for this information to be provided by the independent Electoral Commission.
Although the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL), in its eleventh report, recommended that the Commission should no longer retain a wider statutory duty to encourage participation in the democratic process, it also recommended that the Commission should ‘retain a clearly defined statutory duty for the provision of public information on the mechanics of the electoral process including electoral registration procedures, how to vote and explaining any changes to the electoral system.’
The Commission no longer encourages participation in the broader sense discussed by the CSPL. We agree with the Government’s response to the CSPL on the point that ‘informing the public on the mechanics of the electoral system, including the registration process, is key to maintaining a strong democracy and we agree that the Electoral Commission should continue to fulfil this role.’”
While I can understand the Electoral Commission’s position, it leads to a wider issue, namely: where is the line going to be drawn on what constitutes strict provision of public information, and how much of its time should be spent on undertaking that? Given the well recorded poor record of the Electoral Commission on that aspect, the Bill should be more specific. That is why I head back towards the measures contained in my amendments.