Schedule 2
Political Parties and Elections Bill
2:00 pm
David Howarth (Shadow Solicitor General, Ministry of Justice; Cambridge, Liberal Democrat)
No, I cannot. That is why the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire is right to raise the issue and ask the Government to think through these matters.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Huntingdon said that his amendments were tabled on a probing basis. That means I need not spend the time that I was going to spend dismantling them. However, I shall put a couple of points on the record. The schedule allows for civil sanctions not only to be used where the commission thinks a criminal offence has been committed, but where there has been some contravention of other requirements. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled to say, as he did, that there is a question about the clarity of that and where it would apply. However, there is no doubt that there are some instances in which that would apply and where it would be useful for the commission to have such a power.
The example the commission gives in its latest briefing is worth putting on the record. It talks about the regulations on accounts and reports of donations. There is a requirement on parties to give full and accurate quarterly reports of donations and loans. It is a criminal offence to make those reports late, but it is not a criminal offence to make them inaccurately. The question is what to do about that situation. One possibility is to make that a criminal offence as well, which I think the hon. Gentleman might have been suggesting. However, that would simply increase the number of criminal offences created by the statute. The other possibility is simply to say that this is a regulatory requirement and there needs to be some sanction for missing it. What should the sanction be? The sanction that the schedule allows is not just monetary; it relates to more appropriate things, such as requiring the party concerned to submit accurate accounts. That should be the first port of a call.
I was going to spend a lot of time arguing against the second set of amendments, but I now think that they can be disposed of quicker. Those amendments would basically remove the safe harbour created by being subject to the civil sanction regime. The way in which the schedule works means that if a person or organisation is subject to the sanctions in the schedule, criminal proceedings cannot be taken against them. That seems to be a wholly useful provision that adds to legal certainty—it is generally a good idea to avoid uncertainty. The measure also fulfils a principle that is important to me and my party—although perhaps less to others who voted for other legislation some years ago—that there be no double jeopardy.
I do not really understand why the hon. Gentleman has proposed what seems to be a backwards step, but if his point is merely to ask the Government to be clearer about the circumstances in which the measure will apply, that is fair. That goes back to the point we tried to make earlier in the week about the need for clear guidance. I am still entirely unconvinced by the Government’s position, which seems to be that the commission should be given the power to give guidance, but that it should not be required to give guidance.
The hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that these are complex provisions and difficult for lay people to follow. It therefore seems right to require the commission to give guidance. That guidance should be not only about what is necessary for compliance, but also about what is sufficient. That would help to enforce the law and allow a greater degree of public confidence in the way that the law works.