Political Parties and Elections Bill

We now come to a series of considerations on these amendments. This particular proposal is largely consequential on the previous group and teases out the powers conferred on the Secretary of State to bring forward orders. As the Bill stands, it provides for offences, restrictions or requirements to be prescribed for making decisions on which can be the subject of civil sanctions. That is done by means of an order which will be formulated by the Secretary of State and then the draft order will be laid before Parliament and subject to approval by affirmative resolution. The amendments would basically remove the word "prescribed" where it appears in relation to an "offence" or "restriction or requirement". That means that civil sanctions are available in relation to any offence, restriction or requirement and not just to those that are prescribed. At this point I want to say a little more about the punishment fitting the crime which is being undertaken here. When offences have occurred, a just outcome is what we seek. In many ways, what is being proposed in terms of fixed monetary penalties would fall into this category. That type of sanction could be available to a court if it was a criminal sanction. The court may decide that a fine is the appropriate outcome. I would not want to see these presented as a mere slap on the wrist: they are a significant advance over the current power in the Act which effectively allows the commission to name and shame or refer cases to the Crown Prosecution Service. There are some pretty substantial penalties here, and it is important how this works. I referred to our concern over what might be termed innocent mistakes. In other words, without testing the emotions of the Minister, we are dealing with a network of people who are volunteers up and down the country, and the sanctions that may be available to them. We were concerned that there should be a defence of an innocent mistake, or that that might be considered. The strong point about the civil sanctions that have been proposed is that they would allow for some incremental offence. In the first instance, therefore, someone would be told to desist from such an action that could potentially give rise to a crime, the clear implication being that if they did not stop, there would, sadly, be no alternative than to pursue a criminal prosecution. That is going in the same direction as the financial penalty that would be levied by the commission, which one would hope people would comply with. In the event that they are unable to comply with the financial penalty, there would be an incremental reference through the Crown Prosecution Service into the courts, which I presume would take account of an individual’s ability to pay. These are probing amendments that follow the approach that there are some pretty strong powers here under the civil sanctions, which could be used in most cases to satisfy and ensure that action is stopped. The objective of all these provisions is to serve as a deterrent to people as well as to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. With those comments, I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I beg to move.