I have a little problem with the amendment. It is not that I disagree with it, because in a sense I do—I agree with the fundamental feeling behind it—but I am not certain whether putting only this provision in the Bill is right. Would it not be better to pick up the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on the wider issues around the role of the commissioners? Perhaps some guidance can be given to the Speaker’s Committee, which is ultimately responsible, on what we expect of those commissioners, rather than having selective points included in the Bill. I agree that we must take notice of diversity and that we must have people with experience.
I want to pick up a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that he repeated two or three times. When he talked about people with experience, he talked about politicians. There are many other people who are not politicians and who have an enormous amount of experience, and who therefore may be better people to do this job. We must ensure that we do not see the situation only in those terms.
I support the Government’s proposal on the four places. As the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and others know, we spent a lot of time on this issue in the 2000 Bill and failed to persuade the Government, even though everyone around the House thought that it was a good idea to have some political involvement. The suggestion then was that we should have a second committee, meeting as and when, but not having an enormous amount of influence on what was happening.
Perhaps I may give an example and also declare an interest that I failed to declare yesterday. I am chair of the HS Chapman Society, a body that looks at election organisation and of which the Electoral Commission is a part. The society frequently received reports from the commission about its work, and I felt very sorry for a young man who appeared when the commission produced a series of educational documents for review. He was telling us how wonderful it all was, that all the documents were going out and that one had a week to reply. There was also all the nonsense that was going on at that time. I asked him, "And who actually decides the response to those documents? Who actually goes through the responses and says what is right or wrong?". He said, "Oh, well, as officers, we sit and do this". I asked, "And do you have any involvement in the political parties?". "Oh, no, never", he said. That could not have been a better example for having some political involvement. I have to say that I felt sorry for him because I felt that I had been a bit cruel to him.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Government are absolutely right to make these provisions: it is also absolutely right that there has to be experience of the democratic process. I make the point about politicians because a wider spectrum of experience is needed. The process would help the political parties to feel more comfortable with the Electoral Commission.
I have one little query on how the appointments are made. The review of the Electoral Commission by the CSPL makes the point that although individuals may be encouraged to apply by political parties, each post should be publicly advertised and candidates must satisfy all other criteria that apply to commissioner posts. It says that they must also be subject to a selection process based upon merit following the Commission for Public Appointments’ code of practice. I hope that that will be the process by which appointments are made. It is interpreted that this will somehow be a direct appointment from the leader of the party. I really have some reservation about that. It is not that I do not think for one moment that people cannot be independent—I am sure that many people around this Chamber have been appointments of their own political parties, but have ultimately stood in an independent capacity in those appointments. I do not feel that they would end up being the voice of the leader; I feel that democratically we ought to look seriously at how those appointments are made.
I repeat that I support the Government’s proposals, but I feel that what is in the Bill is not quite right.
Political Parties and Elections Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Gould of Potternewton
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 30 April 2009.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee proceeding on Political Parties and Elections Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
710 c115-6GC 
Session
2008-09
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords Grand Committee
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-22 02:02:59 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_552672
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_552672
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_552672