I follow the noble Lord, Lord Bates, by indicating the approach that I and my noble friends intend to take during the Committee process. As we are all political animals, in a sense we all have to declare an interest, unusually, in this subject. We also have a considerable interest in ensuring that the Bill leaves your Lordships’ House in a better state than it arrived. That surely is the justification for this process and, indeed, for your Lordships’ House. As we are all self-confessed experts on this subject, I have every confidence that the Committee process will achieve that improvement.
I and my noble friends have two overriding objectives in this Grand Committee. First, we believe that we should seek to build as far as possible on the Hayden Phillips agreement across the three major parties so that we can try to achieve some of the objectives that that important process set for itself. I was delighted that at Second Reading we had support from other parts of the House, notably from some Conservative Members of your Lordships’ House, to seek that objective. As the noble Lord, Lord Bates, has already said, we have a responsibility to try to reinvigorate confidence, and there are ways in which the Bill can do that. Of course, we cannot do it just via this Bill. For example, it is folly to imagine that by a legislative stroke of a pen we can give new strength to the role and responsibilities of the Electoral Commission and that the commission, on its own, can suddenly achieve improvements. Some of the improvements required are much nearer to home—among politicians.
Our second objective is to try to ensure that, when the Bill leaves this House, the Electoral Commission is empowered and given responsibility—that is why this amendment is very relevant—in a way that is both proportional and practical. I think that we are all very conscious that the political class, if I may put it like that, and not just the Government has imposed on the commission great expectations and great responsibilities but that it has not necessarily given the commission the weapons with which to fulfil those expectations and responsibilities. Therefore, our second overriding objective is to try to ensure that, when it leaves your Lordships’ House, the Bill gives the Electoral Commission the responsibilities and resources that it requires to fulfil this role.
Coming to Clause 1 and Amendment 1, I understand fully that the noble Lord, Lord Bates, was probing. I am not sure that he used that word but it certainly sounded like probing. Our anxiety is to ensure that at the very outset of the new legislation it is absolutely clear that the commission has a responsibility to ensure compliance with all the necessary controls rather than to take steps with a view to securing compliance. Frankly, that sounds a bit wishy-washy. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, in thinking that, given the full range of responsibilities set out in Schedule 1, it will be a pity if at the very outset of this Bill there is seen to be any quibble, doubt or hesitation. I shall listen with great interest to what the Minister says but I have some sympathy for the point of view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Bates.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Tyler
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 29 April 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c52-3GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:10:12 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_551125
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_551125
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_551125