Political Parties and Elections Bill

The amendments seek to amend the paragraphs of this part of the schedule that define the circumstances in which the commission may impose a discretionary requirement on a person, a registered party, a recognised third party or a permitted participant. Each amendment replaces the relevant paragraph with a new paragraph, which retains much of what is currently in the Bill. However, there are some important differences that we are unable to accept. First, these amendments move the word "prescribed" from these sections when referring to offences. We dealt with this in Committee yesterday. We do not believe that this approach is desirable as the full details of which offences may be punished with a civil sanction should be set out in secondary legislation, subject to affirmative resolution and thus to full scrutiny of both Houses. Additionally, the amendments significantly depart from the current drafting of the Bill by adding a new heading (b), which states that a discretionary requirement may be imposed "with the express agreement" of the person or organisation involved. In effect, the amendments propose that a person could come forward and give their agreement to the commission to impose a discretionary requirement. We are not sure that the provision of such a step is logical in procedural terms. A civil penalty, by its nature, should accompany a breach as defined by the commission, and it is for the commission, not for the person concerned, to decide whether a breach or contravention has taken place. If a person should be allowed to volunteer themselves for a sanction in this way, the commission would presumably need to investigate the claim in order to determine the level of the penalty, but it might in fact decide that an offence had not occurred. It appears that these amendments could create potential for unnecessary administrative burdens on the commission where there was no need. If the commission were presented with evidence of a breach, it could decide to act on that evidence. As a regulator, it should not be seeking "express agreement" from those regulated in order to perform its duties. Moreover, if the purpose is to provide an option to encourage co-operation and compliance, that is of course admirable. However, we argue that it is unnecessary as the Bill already provides for such co-operation in the form of enforcement undertakings, to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred. An enforcement undertaking is where a person enters into agreement with the commission and gives an undertaking to take a particular course of action. The amendments seem in some sense to seek to alter discretionary requirements to make them more akin to enforcement undertakings. We do not think that that is either necessary or desirable. So far as concerns the commission’s view on this, as we understand it, it agrees that removing the word "prescribed" would give flexibility, but it expects that Parliament would want to give a view, which is the Government’s position. I am grateful for the short debate on this and for the amendment moved by the noble Lord. However, it is not an amendment that we can accept.