Political Parties and Elections Bill

I want to make progress. I am conscious that we are taking up too much time and that many other Members want to speak. I have given way generously throughout my speech. The Electoral Commission said that it could not issue draft guidance until Royal Assent, and that it would then expect to consult very fully on such guidance before it became final. In the note on the White Paper circulated to the parties, the commission stated:"““It would take some time after Royal Assent to finalise and issue any guidance.””" I hope the Justice Secretary is listening. I am setting out the Electoral Commission's view about his provision and what would be involved:"““The Commission would have strong reservations about the practicality of enforcing new rules which depended upon such guidance until the date at which the final guidance was available. The Commission also strongly supports the recommendation of the Gould review of the 2007 Scottish elections, that no changes to the rules surrounding elections should be applied to an election held within six months of those changes coming into force.””" It is unseemly haste to bring into effect a discredited system; it is unnecessary and will compound bad law with reckless implementation. The third objection to the provision is that it is in effect retrospective. Hundreds of parliamentary candidates from all parties are already in place across the country. Perfectly properly and in accordance with the law that the Justice Secretary himself brought in, they have conducted themselves in a way that under the old rules would have triggered their election expenses. If this monstrous provision came into effect they would have to find some absurdly artificial way of ““detriggering””, which would involve taking down websites, pulping literature and changing already published material. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) is facing an outstanding and energetic Conservative candidate so I can see why he feels sensitive about the matter. It makes my whole point: this is a thoroughly partisan piece of legislation, which it is wrong to introduce in this way. The fact that two Labour Members in marginal seats, with energetic candidates on their tails, object so strongly, makes the case that this legislation is not in the public interest—it is in the Labour party interest. The important point is that even if agreed clear guidance were in place so that there was no uncertainty, there would still be a massive, hugely effective penalty on candidates who have behaved completely properly in accordance with the law that the Justice Secretary himself brought in. The House should always reject retrospection and for that reason alone I hope the Justice Secretary will withdraw the proposal.