|
Ms Harman: Mr. Conway, I have finally understood the hon. Gentleman's point. He is talking not about fixed-term elections, but a fixed interval between dissolution and the election. That is not covered in the clause. Having said that, I believe that there is a problem, because there can be a short period and a massive amount of spending in advance, which will not count as national campaigning or election expenses. The question is, because we are all so wedded to certainty, whether we leave that period uncovered and unregulated. There is a trade-off between certainty and reach.
Mr. Djanogly: The Minister keeps on saying that there is problem and, of course, there is. One of the confusions that I have, and that other hon. Members have expressed, is that the problem existed pre-2001. It was considered in 2001, and consensus was reached, so many of us do not understand why we are changing it.
Column Number: 98
What has happened since 2001 to say that we have to look at it again?
Ms Harman: We had a situation where large amounts of money were focused immediately before the dissolution, and that money, which was, to all intents and purposes, campaign expenditure in a particular constituency, was not caught by the rules. Although it might not have been identified as a problem before we last legislated, that is as it may be. That does not negate my argument that there is currently a problem. That is what the clause is designed to address. As we do not have fixed-term elections, we have a trade-off on certainty. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston is right: the rules are clear. However, they allow for considerable off-the-books spending, which can create unfairness. The hon. Member for Northampton, South said that there would be awful problems and that campaigning by way of newsletters would have to be reported. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley (Barbara Keeley) said, that could constitute normal parliamentary activity and not, if it took place prior to dissolution, an election expense.
We all agree that the old concept of prospective parliamentary candidates was an artifice that did not work. We have changed that, but we now have a new problem and we have made a proposal to deal with it. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome asked whether it would be right, if the regulated period were extended from four weeks, or even two, to four months, to keep the same spending level, given that the period would have been extended but the allowable amount would not have been increased. I hope that it will reassure hon. Members—it probably will not—if I undertake not to bring into effect the four-month provision until we have agreed the increase in the amount of spending that will be allowed within that four months. I do not see a great rash of enthusiasm for that on my side of the Committee.
The best that I can do—given that the Bill is our attempt to tackle many problems, that we want to listen to debate, and that this has been the first opportunity for hon. Members of all parties to discuss the detail—is to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that we will come back to the matter on Report. Before that, we will have to have further discussions with all parties in the House of Commons and with the Electoral Commission. When the commission consulted them, the parties—unsurprisingly—all had different views. None appeared to fall full square on the four-month period.
The measure is an attempt to deal with the problem, but there is no consensus, even within parties, on a solution. I urge the Committee to leave the clause in the Bill; not to press the amendment to a vote; to agree that there is a problem; and to accept my undertaking that we will not impose a solution that does not have wide support—that is not the approach that the Department for Constitutional Affairs would take on such an issue, even if colleagues could be whipped into supporting it. On that basis, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment. However, if we are pressed to a vote, I would ask the Committee to reject
Column Number: 99
the amendment on the understanding that we will come back to the matter.
Mr. Heath: That was an elegant retreat on the Minister's part and I am grateful. I do not say that disparagingly; I believe that she is listening to the whole Committee, so if she is not persuaded by me, I hope that she will be persuaded by others with a great deal of electoral experience, particularly those on the Benches behind her.
The suggestion would not be absurd were it not for the fact that we do not have fixed-term elections. I could argue in favour of such elections, but that would not be within the terms of the amendment.
10.15 am
There are also arguments against fixed-term elections. The hon. Member for Worsley talked about the American situation in which there is a very long lead-in period. The other consequence is a lame duck, last term president. Of course we could not have a lame duck, last term Prime Minister in this country, could we? The political situation in this country is very different, which we should acknowledge.
The Minister is right that the quasi fixed-term elections is an issue that the Electoral Commission needs to address. It has, in fact, sought to address it. The past three elections have coincided with the county council elections in England and Wales, which is very irksome to colleagues standing in county councils who never ever get their own campaign and never get the chance to stand on their record because it is enveloped within the general election campaign.
The quasi fixed-term election also means the timing of a general election is predictable to a certain degree, despite the fact that we do not have a fixed-term election. Certain people feel able to expend large amounts of money in what they believe to be the period before an election because there is a reasonable expectation that it will be close to the general election.
There are other ways of addressing that issue. We had a debate in Westminster Hall only last week on regulating the funding of political parties and the potential for caps on donors. That might bite in this instance, because very often the abuses come not from the funds of local political parties but from funds from external sources, sometimes in very large amounts, immediately before the general election. There may be other ways of addressing that particular abuse, and I encourage the Minister to consider them.
A consensus has developed that the proposal simply will not do, because the remedy is likely to be worse than the ailment. The Minister has assured us that she will talk to other parties and will return on Report with an alternative, so there is no point in my pressing my amendment to a vote. We have made progress, and I am grateful to all those who have contributed to the debate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Column Number: 100
Clause 30
Discretion to report on certain elections
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Mr. Binley: This is not a very contentious clause, and I do not want it to be one. I recognise that the training of electoral registration officers and electoral administration staff will be dealt with in another place, but the clause talks about reports on elections, and I wonder whether the report will contain reports on the quality of administration and the performance of electoral registration officers and their staff. I do not suppose that it will be a sort of school report, but that we might use it to improve our electoral administration, because there is a general impression—it is certainly mine—that the concept of good election organisation has deteriorated in the past 30 years and certainly in recent years.
Electoral registration officers and their staff used to be in situ for a very long time, but that no longer seems to happen to the same degree. Very often, a new person is in charge of a general election every time we have one. There is therefore a real need for training as a whole, which I shall discuss later when we deal with the relevant part of the Bill. In this respect, however, we need to monitor the whole process, and I wonder whether monitoring will be part of the reporting procedure.
Ms Harman: Following the debate on the previous clause, I should say that the Bill would have been a classic case for pre-legislative scrutiny. However, we wanted to get the fraud measures in as soon as possible. We want to deliberate long and hard on some provisions; with others, we just wanted to get them on to the statute book. That explains the two speeds.
In reply to the hon. Member for Northampton, South, performance standards will be laid down and monitored by the Electoral Commission. I assume that the issues he mentioned would be part of those standards.
Clause 30 will give the Electoral Commission a power, but not a duty, to report on certain elections in addition to those that they must report on at present. Section 5 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 requires the Electoral Commission to prepare and publish reports on the administration of certain elections and referendums, including parliamentary elections, European parliamentary elections, Scottish parliamentary elections, elections to the National Assembly for Wales and Northern Ireland Assembly and UK and regional referendums. There is presently no duty or power to report on by-elections to those bodies. The clause will therefore add a power to report on parliamentary by-elections as well as those to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. It does not mean that the Electoral Commission must prepare such reports but allows it to do so if it wishes. It is a sensible extension to the commission's powers that gives it the flexibility it feels that it needs to prepare reports when it considers them necessary.
Question put and agreed to.
Column Number: 101
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
| 
