Political Parties and Elections Bill

One overarching principle of this Bill, which we all very much welcome, is the increased flexibility in terms of any penalties or sanctions that can be imposed by the commission. One of the major flaws left in the 2000 Act was that the commission realised that it could impose either the most draconian and appropriate sanction or no sanction at all. Therefore the flexibility of different penalties is clearly appropriate. However, it would take some considerable persuasion to make me believe that we should leave it entirely to the commission’s discretion as to which of those sanctions, fines or penalties may be appropriate without Parliament looking in detail at what is the appropriate penalty for the appropriate offence. The commission may welcome total discretion for itself, but it would be right for Parliament to consider it. We therefore, by and large, oppose these amendments on the basis that we in Parliament should consider what is appropriate and what penalties should be applied in response to specific offences. I am slightly puzzled by these amendments. Amendments 47, 49, 53 and 57 seem to be based on the premise that a penalty requirement could be applied even if there has been no offence or any contravention. Guidelines from the commission may deal with that, rather than introducing requirements or penalties where there has been no offence or no contravention. Similar arguments apply to Amendments 39 and 48 and I am not sure why they have been degrouped. I should be grateful for further information on this.