UK Parliament / Open data

Political Parties and Elections Bill

That is not the case, because the defences are different. They are not put together. Let me continue my line of thought; the hon. Gentleman can then come back, if he likes. I should like to draw a comparison with section 167 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which shows the point that we are making. It stated that when a person had to be charged with an offence under its provisions, they could apply to the High Court, an election court or other court as appropriate for relief from liability, on the grounds that""the act or omission arose from inadvertence or from accidental miscalculation or from some other reasonable cause of a like nature, and in any case did not arise from any want of good faith"." The 1983 Act is an effective example of our amendment in practice. We tabled a near-identical amendment in Committee, but the Minister dismissed it. He said:""Hon. Members spoke about the 1983 Act, but that framework was replaced by the 2000 Act…We do not believe that the amendment is necessary, but of course we hear the concerns about the dangers of an overzealous approach to enforcement—of the minor, technical breaches."––[Official Report, Political Parties and Elections Public Bill Committee, 20 November 2008; c. 379.]" The 1983 Act may have been replaced, but that does not mean that it is not a good example of what we want to get to. The Minister concedes that there is a concern about an over-zealous approach by the commission and that we should address that concern by clarifying the defence. We should act now to avoid the dangers that we have identified and that the Minister has confirmed. There should be no harm in adding this extra layer of protection. Perhaps the technical point that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) made earlier is valid, but I say here and now that the Conservative party has been the only one to have supported the concept of an innocent mistake—and we are sticking by it. I am pleased that the Minister seems to be coming around to our way of thinking.

About this proceeding contribution

Reference

488 c609 

Session

2008-09

Chamber / Committee

House of Commons chamber
Back to top