Schedule 1
Political Parties and Elections Bill
12:00 pm
Jonathan Djanogly (Shadow Minister, Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform; Huntingdon, Conservative)
Welcome to the Committee, Mr. Atkinson. In an attempt to redress the balance on the retention of documents, amendment No. 28 would require the commission to furnish people from whom documents have been seized with copies of the documents. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight raised that issue in earlier deliberations, and I am pleased to be addressing it formally as he wished.
The amendment would enable people to minimise any disruption or financial loss during the period in which their documents were retained. Furthermore, the possibility of an individual or an organisation wishing to seek legal advice when they find themselves in such a position is high, so by providing them with copies we would allow them to seek that advice straight away and ensure that their rights were observed in any redress processes available to them. In retrospect, I would redraft the amendment so that a person had to request documents before they needed to be given, but the principle is the same and, I believe, still valid.
Amendment No. 29 would provide for a copy of the warrant authorisation to be left with the person on whom it was served. It follows a similar vein to the amendment that I proposed to paragraph 4 of schedule 1, but it deals instead with paragraph 5. It is important that individuals or groups subject to the power of the commission have the ability to access avenues of appeal and redress, which provide vital safeguards to prevent abuse of the powers by the commission.
Having copies of relevant documentation at an early stage is vital if such avenues are to be utilised effectively and employed in a manner that protects the individual or group, as well as calls the commission to account for its actions. Furthermore, leaving a copy would allow for a cool and considered review of the warrant away from the heat of the moment, and would prevent a simple flash of paper with the recipient possibly in shock from the entry process. Perhaps another measure covers that point, but I would be grateful if the Minister explained the position.
Amendment No. 30 concerns the word “any”. It is far too broad a word when describing what a person must do in the context of an entry situation. Do we expect a wheelchair-bound donor to climb a flight of stairs or an arthritic party officer to press keys on a computer keyboard? It is easy to assume that those caught by the provision will be able-bodied or computer literate, or have any other skill set that we consider commonplace. Hon. Members will know from experience, however, that that is not the case in many local party offices or organisations, let alone in respect of individual donors. The amendment, therefore, by inserting the word “reasonable”, would force the commission to take account of the circumstances of each case and act accordingly. Again, we feel that this is a question of balance and proportionality.