Political Parties and Elections Bill

As the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, this has been an interesting debate. There have been many distinguished contributions, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) might have predicted, not everybody has agreed on everything in the Bill. However, it is notable that much of the discussion has been about not what is in the Bill, but what is not in it. [Interruption.] Of course hon. Members will want to pursue the policies that they think are particularly appropriate to their needs. The hon. Member for Huntingdon suggests that, because the Bill focuses on transparency, the effectiveness of regulation and trying to bring in blocks on spending, the Government are insouciant about electoral fraud. He knows that that is nonsense, because every time he raises the issue, he is told of the measures that we are taking and have brought in—postal vote personal identifiers, witness signatures and so on—and every time he just ignores that and repeats the same old refrain. Of course we take electoral fraud seriously. We are tackling it, and will continue to do so. We are very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman to tackle it more effectively. It is in the interests of everyone in the House to do so, but the Bill is not about that. The Bill is about matters on which I believe everyone in the House can agree. It is founded on three fundamental principles. First, our democracy depends on the public having trust in political parties. The hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made an eloquent case for that. Secondly, there must be greater transparency in the funding of political parties, more effective powers for those scrutinising the conduct of elections, and an end to the arms race in party political spending. There has been much discussion today about whether there is such an arms race. I draw attention to the findings of the Hayden Phillips review. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned the papers. He will be aware that they are in the possession of Sir Hayden Phillips, who is deciding whether to release them. The hon. Gentleman knows, as do we, that the papers found that there was a significant increase in spending not only in general election compared with general election, but crucially within each electoral cycle. That is because spending at a local level is off the balance sheet. That is why we need more and better controls on candidate spending. The third principle on which I hope the entire House can agree is that on an issue of such constitutional importance, it is vital that we move forward, as far as possible—notwithstanding the wisdom of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase—on the basis of consensus. Of course elections will always be vigorously disputed, but the foundations of the electoral system itself should not be the subject of dispute in so far as we can avoid that. Hon. Members have rightly been concerned with points of detail, which I shall deal with. There has been much talk about the transparency of the relationship between the trade unions and the Labour party. Labour Members placed great emphasis on the historic links. Many of the Opposition's obsessions were aired. The House should know that recently the affiliated trade unions wrote to the Labour party general secretary to confirm that they will voluntarily provide more information to members about the collection and use of political funds and the individual member's right to opt out, and that the affiliates will introduce a common text for incorporation into membership materials, including application forms. In addition, the affiliates agreed that full affiliation of the levy-paying membership is the most transparent form of political membership, and moves will be made to that end. I hope that that indicates how we will move forward to introduce greater transparency into the process. I hope that the Opposition will reflect on that and think about how they can match those measures. There has been a great deal of discussion about the triggering mechanism. We had detailed and forensic discussion of the matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) called it Aquinian. I am not sure that any of us is much wiser about the degree of consensus that previously existed, but nobody could ever have wanted or endorsed a situation in which candidates were totally unregulated except in the last four weeks of the election. That is what we are trying to address. The various points made in the debate will be taken on board by us. My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Dr. Strang) made a good point about the trigger. He stated that opposition to the Bill was based more on practicalities than on principle. I was interested to note that the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) seemed to agree with that. We are willing to address the details of the proposal in Committee. We want to approach the Bill openly and we will address each point constructively. Concern was expressed that the provisions might discourage political volunteers. The hon. Member for Cambridge, my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase, for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), and for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd), and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) all expressed concern about how the Bill may affect treasurers in local parties. Although we want the system to achieve greater transparency, that must be balanced against the need for it to be manageable if it is to operate for both donors and political parties. We want to achieve that balance, so we are listening to the Electoral Commission and to the parties. We have certainly also listened to all the contributions made in this debate. As I said, we want to move forward on the basis of consensus. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has made clear, we want representations on the issue and we will approach them all constructively. Before I comment in detail on the Electoral Commission, I want to thank the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) for acting as such an eloquent conduit for its views. We are all grateful to him. There has been a lot of concern about the role of the Electoral Commission. Everybody realises that it needs to be improved and most of the contributions to the debate have given a general welcome to the measures that we have taken to enhance competence and experience at the commission. However, a great deal of concern has been expressed about some of the new powers. My hon. Friends the Members for Slough, for Cannock Chase and for Manchester, Central and the hon. Members for Isle of Wight and for Huntingdon all expressed worries about the extent of the powers. There has been some misunderstanding about how the powers will operate. First, we have set pretty high hurdles for their operation; the test is higher than that for existing powers. The powers will be warrant-based, so the commission will have to apply to use them. Under the new powers, unlike under the existing ones, reasonable force to gain entry can be authorised by a justice of the peace when the warrant is issued. However, the commission would have to demonstrate to a justice of the peace that it had a reasonable belief that an offence had been committed. Technically, there is no new statutory entry power. A search can take place only when a warrant is granted and whether one is granted and what it allows depends on the decision of the justice of the peace acting as an independent check on the commission's power of entry. That is actually more restrictive than what can be done under the current power to enter. We recognise that people have raised significant concerns. We have listened to them today and when they have been expressed previously. We have heard the force of opinion in the House on the issue and will consider what can be done to address it. We expect to return to those concerns in Committee. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight mentioned concerns about stop notices, but I should say to him that those have a high hurdle before they can be applied. The commission has reasonably to believe that the activity of the person in question is"““seriously damaging public confidence in the effectiveness of the controls in this Act””." A lot of people have expressed a wide range of concerns, and I want to address three or four in respect of specific points. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight made a detailed point about single-seat divisions in his constituency, and I shall write to him about that. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) expressed concern about when we were going to bring in section 59 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 and clearly set out some of the issues raised in relating that provision to the Bill. He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor has written to him explaining that we are considering how the provisions will work together. My right hon. Friend has offered a meeting, and the best way forward is for that meeting to take place very soon to see whether we can reach agreement on that serious issue. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand only too well, the issue is not simple. However, we want to resolve it, so we will come back to him very soon—I do mean very soon—with a time for a meeting on how we can move forward. The hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) raised an issue that concerns many Members, and I am grateful to him for the spirit in which he did so. He will know from our previous discussions that I am keen to continue a dialogue on that, but he will also know that in our view it is not necessarily as simple as he suggests. For example, there are implications for electoral administrators. The current provisions exist for a reason, and there continues to be a body of opinion in favour of them. They are not merely a historical anachronism, as he elegantly suggested. I can assure him that we will consider the matter, take it forward, and continue what I hope that he agrees has been a constructive dialogue. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Dunne) asked about non-resident voters. This is the first time that we can remember that issue being raised with us. The hon. Member for Huntingdon said that he will pursue it in Committee. We are happy to do that if necessary, but the solutions may not need to be legislative. The issues at stake in this debate are extremely important. I hope that hon. Members will agree that whatever may not be in the Bill, what is in it is very important for the health of our democracy. If we can agree on the principles of a more transparent and more effectively regulated system with greater controls on spending, we will have a platform on which we can move forward to discuss the details in Committee. Some hon. Members have urged us to go further, and we want to do so. This Bill is not the end of the story, and we recognise that more needs to be done. However, I say to all those who have criticised us that, as the Justice Secretary said, we can move forward enduringly and sustainably only on the basis of consensus. These issues should never again become part of a game of political football. Sadly, we do not yet have that consensus on all the measures that we wish to put in place, but we will continue to explore ways in which we can achieve it. In the meantime, the Bill represents significant progress. It strengthens the Electoral Commission, enhancing its competence and powers, as all independent reviews have recommended. It introduces blocks on the arms race in election spending, and we will keep going to put those blocks in place. The Bill introduces greater transparency to political donations. At various points in the past—