Political Parties and Elections Bill

The amendment would require the Secretary of State to provide a written response to reports issued by the Electoral Commission under Section 6 of PPERA within six months of publication. If the Secretary of State is unable to respond within that time frame, the amendment requires the Secretary of State to provide the commission with reasons no later than the six-month deadline. The noble Lord was good enough to remind us what Section 6 said. It enables the Electoral Commission to submit reports to the Secretary of State on various matters, including elections, referendums, the redistribution of seats at parliamentary elections, the registration of political parties and the regulation of their income and expenditure; and the law relating to these matters. As he also told the Committee, the Electoral Commission publishes a significant number of reports. Some reports make recommendations to government, while some make recommendations for others, such as electoral administrators. A proportion of these reports does not make any recommendations at all, so it may not be necessary for government to respond to them. We note that the Electoral Commission supports this amendment. I have been quick enough to say when it does not support an amendment, so it is only fair to say when it does—although I am hardly surprised and understand absolutely its reasons for doing so, given where it sits. However, I hope that noble Lords will take the point that pressures on government time are significant and it is important that issues are prioritised. It could create a real burden on government resources if we were compelled to respond to all reports within six months of their issue, irrespective of their subject matter. Moreover, depending on the nature of the issues covered by a particular report, requiring a response in every case within six months could prejudice government’s ability to consider the issues fully or engage with other stakeholders. I am sure that we can all agree that a fully considered response to a report that requires a response will be of more benefit than a response that is prompt but is less detailed in its analysis. However, I am obliged to oppose the amendment on a more basic and fundamental ground—