Political Parties and Elections Bill

To some degree I was tempted to answer the points to be made on this group during what I had to say on the previous group. Other interesting issues have arisen. The question of how the commission uses its powers is interesting, but I should remind the Committee that the civil sanctions regime, if I may call it that, is very flexible indeed. One possible outcome is a fixed monetary penalty, provided that the commission is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a prescribed offence has been committed, which has to reach the criminal standard of proof. Instead, the commission may impose a discretionary requirement on a person, a political party, recognised third party or permitted participant, when it is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a person has committed a prescribed offence. A discretionary requirement can take various forms, including a monetary penalty or just an instruction to take certain actions designed to prevent the recurrence of an offence or contravention, or to restore the previous position. The Electoral Commission can also impose a stop notice on a person to prevent them doing what they are doing. If the commission has reasonable grounds for believing that a prescribed offence has been committed, it can accept an enforcement undertaking from an individual or party. I point those examples out to show how flexible the system is. The commission states that its criteria in investigations are, ""intended to ensure that we only use our supervisory and enforcement powers where it is reasonable and proportionate to do so. Our action is likely to include an investigation [of] whether a breach has occurred, or whether to impose a civil sanction… in the ""limited number of cases where this is currently possible … or determine that a case should be considered for criminal prosecution. Our policy is to investigate where a case meets the following criteria: there is evidence or credible information indicating a possible breach of party and election finance legislation—not merely assertion"," or rumour, ""and we consider that it is in the public interest for us to investigate, taking into account the potential impact of the possible breach on the integrity or transparency of party and election finance, the cost of investigating relative to the overall impact of the breach, and any other considerations that may be relevant"." It comes to this: the commission is not obliged to do anything even if an offence has been committed. The commission has issued enforcement guidance saying that it will act proportionately and in the public interest, as I have just quoted. If a decision is taken to impose a fixed monetary penalty, it will be at the relatively low end of the scale, and there is a right to make representations before a final decision is made to issue the penalty. The commission is obliged at this stage to take local pressures into account if it is made aware of them. My noble friend gave the example of the impoverished treasurer who has made a mistake. Later in Committee, we will discuss government amendments that introduce a concept of "reasonable excuse" into the reporting requirements of the 2000 Act, so that an offence will be committed only if a report is submitted late and without reasonable excuse. This will ensure that good reasons for a failure to comply are taken into account. I point this out to indicate the flexibility of the scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said earlier, under the present scheme, either offences are classed as criminal in a manner that goes way over the top, with courts being bothered with matters that should never concern them, or nothing is done at all. This is a more satisfactory way of dealing with the issue. I imagine that, if some impoverished treasurer of a constituency association or party should find themselves in this position, the commission will act reasonably and proportionately towards them.