Schedule 2
Political Parties and Elections Bill
3:30 pm
Michael Wills (Minister of State, Ministry of Justice; North Swindon, Labour)
Amendment No. 53 would remove proposed new paragraph 16 from schedule 2. The effect would be that no supplementary order could be made. That is not desirable, because it would prevent us from specifying crucial details to allow the provisions to work properly. However, I doubt that that is the intention. It is more likely that the amendment would prevent important details about how the power would work in practice from being left to secondary legislation.
We recognise that the detail of how the powers will be applied is crucially important. The way in which a monetary penalty will be calculated, for example, is very important. For that reason, a carefully produced order, subject to full consultation with the commission and other appropriate persons, is the right approach. That will ensure that all the necessary detail is subject to the appropriate level of scrutiny. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure if it deals with what offences, requirements or restrictions are to be prescribed or if it seeks to amend another Act of Parliament. If it deals solely with other matters, the negative procedure will apply. Both routes provide Parliament with the opportunity to undertake detailed scrutiny where that is thought appropriate.
It would be unhelpfully inflexible if details, such as the example of the calculation of monetary penalties, which might change over time, were set out in primary legislation. If we are serious about having a flexible sanctions regime—I return again and again to the concept and principle of flexibility—albeit one that is certain and set out in legislation, we need this power.
Amendment No. 54 would amend paragraph 16(3), which allows for a supplementary order to be made by the Secretary of State to
“make provision amending, repealing or revoking an enactment (whenever passed or made).”
The amendment appears to seek to ensure that such provisions may not be more punitive than any provided under the Bill. However, the power in paragraph 16(3) is only intended to be used where consequential changes are needed to other bits of legislation because of the way the Bill works. For example, any provisions made about the powers of courts to deal with appeals may require changes to other legislation that also deals with that topic. Any such order remains subject to the affirmative procedure, therefore the amendment is not necessary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will ask leave to withdraw his amendment.