---

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am grateful for that—he has the final call. My issue relates to subsection (3) of the new section. It is not about seniority of posts but the political sensitivity of posts. A great range of posts within the commission will be politically sensitive at one point or another and it is

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC128

hard to know when people will undertake work of a politically sensitive nature. I am thinking not of senior but of younger people, who can be rash—shall we say, rash or precipitate—in their judgment of how they might take advantage of the information that they gain in performance of their duties within the commission. It might be someone who foolishly believed that he or she could advance his or her political career by gathering information of one sort or another. It may not even be a political career that he or she wants to advance; it might be a career in the media, for which the information would be very helpful indeed. Is there not some value in having a slightly longer minimum period of quarantine? I know not whether three years—36 months—is the right period, but a 12-month quarantine period is quite short. I have no wish to inhibit people developing their careers, within and without the commission, but there is an argument for having a slightly longer period of quarantine for people who want to work in the commission and at the same time have political affiliations.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: First, I should say how much I appreciate the fact that the Government have picked up the point that I made in Second Reading about the level of this flexibility for the chief executive. It is absolutely right that that should happen; I also think that it is right that they have to have that consultation with the Speaker’s Committee, which, at the end of the day, will no doubt be the body that takes the decision. I have no doubt that the chief executive will listen with care to whatever the Speaker’s Committee says. I wanted to make that point.

Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, I want to make another point. I accept that if someone is in a politically sensitive post, obviously it might be important that there is a longer term. However, the clause states that in deciding what that period should be, the chief executive shall take account not only of the level of seniority of the post, but

“how likely it is that any holder of the post will be required to deal with politically sensitive matters”.

In fact, the clause covers the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made. Perhaps I may say again how grateful I am and, I am sure, how grateful the chief executive of the commission is that he will now have the flexibility to—

1.30 pm

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My point was not that someone would be in a politically sensitive role all the time, but that people dip in and out of politically sensitive activities. Junior members of staff will have a variety of tasks, perhaps. What I am concerned about is that if someone obtains access to information on a serendipitous basis, that person would not be the subject of the quarantine order, because the chief executive would see it in that way. I was concerned that it may be that some higher basic threshold would be a good idea.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I take that point and I understand that it is always possible for someone to use information that they should not use, or whatever, and they do not necessarily have to be someone to whom the one-year period applies. It could be that

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC129

someone has been there three years and still has that influence. I go back to the point that I do not think there is an absolute relevance in that and hope that the chief executive would have the discretion and sense to ensure that anyone who has to deal with political issues has the experience to carry out that role.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots.

Lord Henley: Perhaps I may make one or two brief comments. We are sympathetic to these government amendments, but I ask the Minister to deal with one or two points. First, can he repeat what seems obvious to me: that this affects only the staff of the commission and in no way could these amendments at some future stage be used to affect the commissioners in relation to new subsection (3)? It would obviously be ridiculous if they began to be appointed by their party leaders. They could not be treated as if they were staff and found themselves excluded because of their political backgrounds. The noble Lord will obviously have no problem in repeating that.

Secondly, I agree that it is useful that the chief executive has the power to vary the period as he wishes and that he should consult the Speaker’s Committee. In the end, the final decision will be that of the chief executive. I should be grateful if the noble Lord repeated that. I take it, from my reading of the Bill, that the Speaker’s Committee has no veto on the chief executive. No doubt, he or she would take appropriate advice if the Speaker’s Committee had very strong views about what he was proposing.

Thirdly, it would be quite useful if the Minister gave some example of the times when he thought that the chief executive might wish to make use of this power to vary the period. I have some idea of my own, but I should be grateful if the Government gave their views as to when they thought it likely that the chief executive might exercise these powers.

Lord Tyler: I wish to make a brief contribution. We, too, see the logic of clarifying these issues and we very much endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, said about the role of the chief executive. It is now easier to follow and clear. It is also important that the chief executive knows what the role is and to whom he or she is accountable on this issue. There was quite a lot of discussion about this at an earlier stage, and I think that this is now probably a sensible consensus and compromise.

However, it is important that those responsible in the commission for any form of enforcement are seen as a particular category. It may be that a longer period will be necessary for them, not just from a practical point of view but, as we have said in debate on other amendments today, from a perception point of view as well.

I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts. I understand his point about quarantine but I fear that, as the noble Baroness said, the length of time is less important than the mindset. You could stipulate that people should not have been involved in active politics for 15 years but the important point is their mindset when they come

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC130

to the job. Similarly, I am sad to say that if a young person has ambitions to become an investigative journalist, it will not matter how many years of restriction are imposed because that may not have any bearing. That person may not have had any political experience but may be extremely ambitious to join the team of the Sunday Times, to quote just one example. Whatever the case, I do not think that we should be deluded into thinking that time is the critical point. However, the noble Lord made a very important point about loyalty and commitment in the commission. If we do nothing else in this Committee and at later stages, we have to reinforce that point, if only because, with the appointment of the nominated party commissioners, we may look as though we are diluting the issue.

Lord Campbell-Savours: I keep thinking of the Damian Green affair, where a civil servant had come straight from a political party, gone into a department and then acted improperly. I worry that the restriction period is too short and I think that the Government should consider an additional period in relation to employees.

Lord Tyler: Again, I understand the noble Lord’s point, but whether that individual had been immune from direct party-political influence and activity for one year, three years or 10 years is immaterial. I shall try not to make any generalised comments but it would seem that anyone who takes on a responsible position within any administration, as in that case, or in an important regulatory body such as this and who goes in with a partisan view or with partisan ambitions—a point made very well by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson—is inappropriate for the task. It is a considerably difficult question, and it concerns recruitment and training as well as a check on previous experience. I give way.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I am extremely grateful. The noble Lord raised the question of enforcement. I understand the point about senior enforcement officers but the enforcement case will be heard at quite a junior level. The information and documents will be put together and the case will be assembled not at a senior level but by a series of junior members of the commission. As I understand the drift of what the Minister is saying, some senior people will be picked out and will probably be given a longer quarantine period. I may be wrong but I do not read in the Minister’s comments or body language that we are talking about adding to the quarantine period for those who deal with highly sensitive matters at quite a junior level.

Lord Tyler: That is a formidable point and it reflects the one that I made about enforcement. The commission has many other responsibilities but, when it comes to the specific task of enforcement, I think that the chief executive will be well advised to think very carefully about the so-called period of quarantine. However, the marker that I wanted to put down is that we need to be quite sure that we give guidance to those who set out the criteria. I think that we will all have to give that matter more thought before Report, and I hope that the Minister will do so too. However, whether the guidance should be in the form of the time limitations

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC131

in the Bill, I have more doubt. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made the valid point that we do not want to see at any level of the commission people given important responsibilities that will have a direct relationship on how a party, or an individual within a party, is or is not the subject of any enforcement. It is an extremely important point that we should all think about between now and Report. It may be that Ministers will find a way of approaching this issue other than through the Bill.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I have little to add to what I have said but it is important to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, once again, for her input. She answered the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, very well and has completely stolen what I was going to say. But I shall say it again anyway. The issue of political sensitivity is covered by the proposed new sub-paragraph (3)(b) in Amendment 77. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that the issue is about the kind of people who will be recruited. When someone who has been politically active becomes a public servant, that individual has to have a change of mind because he is now a public servant. The restrictions, the varying times and so on are meant to help in that, but it is also about the way people think.

As to the direct route request, yes this applies only to the staff of the commission; yes it is correct that the final decision will be made by the chief executive; and no, I am afraid I do not have any examples at hand. The enforcement point is interesting and we will certainly think on it as a result of today’s debate.

Lord Campbell-Savours: Perhaps I may put a scenario to my noble friend. This is a real world question. Imagine a young socialist in a political party who does his 12 months and then joins the Electoral Commission. He is then involved in an inquiry into malpractice in another political party—maybe the Liberal Democrats or the Conservative Party—and has to make a recommendation about penalties or is involved in the making of that recommendation. Surely that is utterly wrong and must be avoided at all costs. So we either have to extend the limits, as proposed in the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, or we have to introduce other criteria on the way in which the commission deals with these matters internally. We have to do that in the Bill, otherwise we will have problems in future.

Lord Tunnicliffe: Any member of the commission staff doing any task must act impartially. The power in this clause is to give the chief executive a reasonable and proportionate way of ensuring the impartiality that we all seek. The chief executive in his consultations will sensitively pick the appropriate post and create a structure that will provide public confidence. Over and above that, the essence on which our public life depends is that public officials act impartially in their role of working to their job descriptions and to the standards expected of them.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. There are concerns around this issue and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has given a number of interesting scenarios.

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC132

How many people does the Minister think will be inhibited from joining the commission because of a 12-month ban who would otherwise join at 24 months? If we double the period, how many people would that rule out? The balance of risk and reward lies with a longer period. The number of people—including those who would make really good commission employees—who would be inhibited because of a 24-month ban as opposed to a 12-month ban would be infinitesimal. In response to the noble Lord’s point about wanting to go to the commission within 12 months of leaving a political party, I wonder why someone is going—whatever the party.

1.45 pm

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I have a problem with the last comment. I know many people who are interested in that aspect of electoral work and would want to join the commission. Therefore I do not think that the noble Lord’s point is right. I also have a problem with timing. However, I accept the point made by my noble friend that we should consider laying down some criteria. You can be out of a political party for one year, five years or 10 years and still want to be involved; it does not mean that you are no longer involved. You are not active, but you may still have an instinct that draws you to a political party. I accept, after listening to the discussion, that we must think about how we address the points that have been raised.

Lord Tunnicliffe: I have nothing to add at this point.

Amendment 75 agreed.

Amendment 76 not moved.

Amendments 77 and 78

Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe

77: Clause 7, page 5, line 41, at end insert—

“11B(1) The chief executive of the Commission may by giving notice to the Speaker’s Committee—

(a) designate a particular post on the staff of the Commission, and

(b) specify as the relevant period for that post, for the purposes of paragraph 11A(2)(aa), a period of two years or more,

if the chief executive reasonably believes that it is necessary to do so in order to maintain public confidence in the effectiveness of the Commission in carrying out any of its functions.

(2) The period specified under sub-paragraph (1)(b) may not be more than five years.

(3) In deciding what that period should be, the chief executive of the Commission shall take into account—

(a) the level of seniority of the post;

(b) how likely it is that any holder of the post will be required to deal with politically sensitive matters.

(4) Each notice under sub-paragraph (1) must relate to only one post.

(5) A notice under sub-paragraph (1)—

(a) has effect from the day on which it is received by the Speaker’s Committee, and

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC133

(b) (subject to sub-paragraphs (6) and (7)) expires at the end of the period of three years beginning with that day.

(6) Sub-paragraph (5)(b) does not prevent a further notice being given under sub-paragraph (1) in relation to the post in question, either—

(a) before the previous notice would have expired, or

(b) at any time after the expiry of the previous notice.

A further notice received by the Speaker’s Committee before the previous notice would have expired supersedes the previous notice.

(7) If the chief executive of the Commission gives notice (a “cancellation notice”) to the Speaker’s Committee cancelling a notice under sub-paragraph (1), the notice under that sub-paragraph ceases to have effect—

(a) on the day on which the cancellation notice is received by the Speaker’s Committee, or

(b) (if later) on such date as may be specified in the cancellation notice.

(8) Before giving a notice under this paragraph the chief executive of the Commission shall consult the Speaker’s Committee.

(9) The Commission shall publish, in such manner as they consider appropriate, information setting out the effect of all notices under sub-paragraph (1) that are in force at any particular time.””

78: Clause 7, page 5, line 41, at end insert—

“( ) The amendment made by subsection (2) does not apply to the appointment of a person—

(a) to assist the Boundary Committee for England in the performance of its functions,

(b) to assist the Commission in carrying out functions transferred to them by an order under section 18(1) of the 2000 Act (transfer of functions of Local Government Commission for England), or

(c) to perform duties including either or both of those.”

Amendments 77 and 78 agreed.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 79

Moved by Lord Norton of Louth

79: After Clause 7, insert the following new Clause—

“Reports of Electoral Commission

(1) Where the Electoral Commission makes a report to the Secretary of State under the provisions of section 6 of the 2000 Act, the Secretary of State shall respond in writing within a period of six months from the day of the publication of the report.

(2) If for any reason the Secretary of State is unable to respond within the period stipulated in subsection (1), he shall inform the Electoral Commission of that fact, and the reasons for it, no later than the day on which the response was due.”

Lord Norton of Louth: The Electoral Commission is required by Section 6 of the 2000 Act to keep under review and from time to time submit reports to the Secretary of State on matters relating to elections, referendums, the redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections, the registration of political parties, the regulation of income and expenditure, political advertising in broadcast and other electronic media and the law relating to these matters. I mention in passing, following yesterday’s debate, that the commission is not required to report on institutions of government or institutions of the European Union. The commission may also be

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC134

required by the Secretary of State, under subsection (2), to review and submit reports on matters specified by the Secretary of State. The reports produced under the terms of this section are published in such a manner as the commission determines.

The areas covered are clearly important and relate to the commission’s areas of expertise. However, Section 6 is silent about what happens to the reports once they have been published. There is no requirement for the Secretary of State to have regard to them, or even to respond to them. My amendment would ensure that, when the commission makes a report to the Secretary of State under the provisions of Section 6, the Secretary of State responds in writing within six months of the day of publication of the report.

The requirement to reply within six months is not onerous. Ministers seek to reply to Select Committee reports within two months of publication. In this House it used to be six months for committees other than the European Union Committee; but the Government recently agreed that it should be two months for all committee reports. The Government seek to respond to Law Commission reports within six months. I have opted for the more generous six-month period. If it is to be a statutory provision, that seems appropriate.

The second part of the amendment seeks to address the obvious objection to imposing a statutory time limit, namely that it may not always be possible to provide a substantive response in six months if the report is highly technical. My proposed new subsection (2) provides that if the Secretary of State is unable to respond within six months, he shall inform the Electoral Commission of that fact, and the reasons for it, not later than the day on which the response is due.

The provisions of the clause are not unduly onerous; indeed, they are open to the objection that they are not tight enough. However, they have the merit of imposing on the Secretary of State a duty to respond to reports from the Electoral Commission. Such a requirement is eminently sensible. It would bring Electoral Commission reports into line with Law Commission reports, and ensure not only that they are taken seriously by the Secretary of State, but are seen to be taken seriously—an important element of transparency. If the commission believes that a matter is of such weight as to justify a report to the Secretary of State, or if the Secretary of State believes that a matter is of sufficient importance to require a report from the commission, there should be a requirement on the Secretary of State to provide a written response. The new clause imposes no requirement in terms of content; that must be a matter for the Minister, as is the case with responses to Select Committee and Law Commission reports. All that is required under this clause is that the Secretary of State must reply in writing; I believe that it imposes a useful—indeed, a necessary—discipline. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I support the amendment. It is absolutely right that if, in fact, the Electoral Commission has been asked to do a piece of work, that response must come. I am not sure whether six months is not a bit too long, but I shall go with the amendment. It is important that responses are received

30 Apr 2009 : Column GC135

while the issue is still timely. If you leave it a year, you could have completely forgotten what the issue is about. To lay this down means that there has to be a response. The commission says that usually it does get responses, but there have been occasions when it has not. That is unacceptable. It is unfortunate, perhaps, if something needs to go into the Bill to say that that has to happen, but if that is necessary then so be it. The commission also makes the point that reports should be published under Sections 5 and 6 of PPERA. We should ensure that it covers all those points.

Lord Tyler: We, too, very much support this amendment, along similar lines to the noble Baroness. I am not sure whether it is not that the present reporting regime has been inadequate as regards what the commission has or has not been doing, or whether it is the response that the Secretary of State has or has not made in a timely fashion that is at the centre or core of the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth. Either way, this is obviously an extremely helpful self-discipline, which otherwise is not really dealt with under Section 6 of the 2000 Act. The reviews set out under that section are very important; these are not trivial issues and, as the noble Baroness has said, leaving them too long unreported or unresponded to by the responsible Secretary of State would seem to leave a nagging doubt on whether action is being taken on important issues.

---