Election Publications Bill [Lords]
House of Commons, 4 April 2001.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. This short, one-purpose Bill has been introduced following representations by all three main political parties. The issue arose from discussions between the Conservative party and the Electoral Commission, which established that the Conservatives were concerned about the new legislation. The Conservative party discussed the issue with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, and all three then made representations. The Bill is in response to their concerns. The Bill postpones the operation of the new requirements relating to the imprint on election publications, which were introduced by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I emphasise that we are not repealing those new requirements, but simply delaying their commencement to assist political parties. The Bill is not about correcting defects in the 2000 Act.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to set out what the Bill does, I shall happily give way to him. The Bill reverses what, in hindsight, may have been an overly rapid implementation of two provisions in the 2000 Act, given that political parties were not yet in a position in which they were prepared or able to comply with them. In those circumstances it is right that we listen to representations. From the start, we have said that we wanted to make progress on the legislation on the basis of consensus and consultation with political parties, and we have tried to take that approach throughout.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
rose—
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
Perhaps I may advance my arguments a little more, then I shall happily give way to Opposition Members. It may assist the House if I briefly explain the background to the Bill. By definition, all right hon. and hon. Members have been candidates in one or more previous elections for Parliament. I trust, therefore, that we are all familiar with the long-standing requirement in section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 that our election leaflets and posters bear an imprint stating the name and address of the printer and publisher. In its old guise, section 110 applied only to material that sought to promote or disparage a particular candidate; it did not apply to national material promoting or disparaging a political party. Section 143 of the 2000 Act made good that omission. Paragraph 14 of schedule 18 to that Act substituted a new section 110 in the 1983 Act. The new section 110 sought to make the provenance of any election material clearer.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
Not at the moment, but when I have set out what the Bill is about I shall happily give way to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
Do not forget me.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I will not forget the hon. Gentleman. How could I? He is a neighbour of mine and regularly appears in my local press. Indeed, I sometimes think that I cannot get away from his smiling face in the newspapers. The new section 110 sought to make the provenance of election material clear to everyone, and did so by replacing the requirement to name the publisher with a requirement to identify the promoter and the person on behalf of whom the material is being published. The promoter is the person who calls for the material to be published and would normally be a candidate's election agent; the person on behalf of whom the material is being published would normally be the candidate himself. The new provisions relating to national electoral use deploy identical terminology.
Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
If the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall explain what the Bill is about and then happily give way. Following Royal Assent, we consulted the main parties on the timetable for commencement in relation to section 143 and the new section 110. We proposed that they should come into force along with much of the rest of the 2000 Act as quickly as possible—that is, on 16 February. Unfortunately, at that time, none of the parties dissented and the order was made accordingly.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
The hon. Gentleman is very persistent, so I shall give way.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
One of my tasks was to take the 2000 Act through Committee on behalf of the Opposition. Will the Minister concede that one feature of discussion in Committee was that both the principle of various changes and the practicability of their implementation could be explored? Because he denied the House the opportunity to discuss section 143 when it came back from the House of Lords, there was no opportunity for Members to apply their practical experience to the difficulties that its implementation might cause. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the letter from the Government makes no reference to section 143 or the problems that might surround its implementation.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
The hon. Gentleman doth protest too much. He knows, as does everyone who watches proceedings in this place, that sometimes the Opposition—I suppose that it applies to almost any Opposition—seem to judge the quality of legislation by the length of their speeches, rather than by the quality of the drafting and the objective of making good law. The part of the Bill under discussion was inserted in the legislation in July last year. There was plenty of time for consultation. We have always made sure that we were open to representations on the Bill from the Conservative party and any other political party. We have always emphasised our desire to move forward by way of consultation and consensus. The hon. Gentleman knows that there were opportunities for the Opposition to raise the issue in consultation or in other ways. With regard to the letter, it is a matter for the political parties to examine the legislation and decide whether they have any points to raise. That is the purpose of the letter. We did not intend 10 set out the entire Bill in the letter that we sent to the political parties. We wanted to know whether they had any objection to our inserting particular provisions into the law.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
rose—
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I am conscious of the time. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once, and other hon. Members have also asked me to give way. I give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for the last time.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
I thank the Minister. He says that the Opposition did not respond, but presumably his own party did not respond, either. I understand that at least some of its national literature and posters do not conform with the requirements of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
That is not quite true. In the consultation period from December to January, the Labour party did not respond on the particular point. Although it did not object to the implementation of the provisions that we suggested, the Labour party did comment on them in July last year, in a telephone call, but that is all. There was no objection from the Labour party, the Conservatives or any of the political parties. Subsequently, by 16 February, the parties and candidates throughout the country were already preparing for the county council elections. Many of us have experience of unpacking boxes of old leaflets and posters, and re-using them in later elections. Any such material would have borne the old "printer and publisher" imprint. In many cases, new material would have been commissioned without taking into account the new imprint requirements. What is to be done in that situation? One option would have been for the parties and candidates to pulp the existing stocks of material and to arrange for new leaflets and posters to be printed. The political parties could have done that, at enormous cost and with some difficulty. However, the three main parties have made it clear to us that such an option was neither practical nor realistic. After due consideration, we accepted that, and in line with our wish to proceed by way of consensus and consultation, we agreed to accept the representations made by the three main parties.
Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I shall give way to the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant), then to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), and then to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh).
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
In his introduction, the Minister said that the Bill represented not a cancellation of legislation, but a postponement. It may be my lack of drafting skills, but I cannot find the date until which the legislation is to be postponed. Can the Minister clarify that?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
The postponement is not until a particular date. We believe that the matter should be dealt with through consultation with the political parties. We want to enter into discussion not only with the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, who in the past have been willing to discuss such matters, but with the Conservative party. I hope that, having learned its lesson that consultation is important, the Conservative party will engage seriously in discussions not only about this part of the political parties legislation, but in relation to other issues in the legislation that has already been passed but which has not yet come into force—where commencement provisions have not yet been enacted. I hope that the Conservative and other parties will engage in consultation about the effect on them and on the political process. We need to get it right. We are dealing with a new aspect of law and it is unsurprising that there are some teething troubles with a new area of regulation. The difficulty in question is one of those teething troubles. With the benefit of hindsight, I can say that we commenced the new imprint requirements too soon. The best course is, therefore, to suspend the process and to re-establish the status quo ante.
Alan Beith (Liberal Democrat, Berwick-upon-Tweed)
Will the Under-Secretary confirm that a further problem came to light only a few weeks ago? I refer to the difficulty of obtaining consistent and practical advice—a difficulty that was faced by the Electoral Commission, among others. Some of the advice suggested that the name of every candidate in a multi-candidate election would have to appear within the imprint. In the light of that lack of consistency, surely it is necessary for some agreement to be reached before the Bill is enacted on what constitutes a proper imprint.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
The right hon. Gentleman raised that issue when he met my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and myself. I think that that meeting occurred two weeks ago. It seemed to us that the legislation was unclear. We believe that we can deal with the matter through consultation and, if necessary, by providing clarification on the way in which we should proceed. The Bill gave us the opportunity to proceed in that manner. Clause 2 sets out how we propose to proceed in relation to election publications.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
In my experience, when a Bill is enacted, it is usually supported by at least one of the political parties that are represented in the House. The provisions were wrong in the first place because there was not sufficient time to consider them. The Under-Secretary will have noted that we have to finish Second Reading, the Committee stage and Third Reading by 11 o'clock. If we proceed by order and then counter-order, disorder will be the eventual result. We are now in the counter-order stage of our proceedings. Is not he worried that we might be rushing things again? Does he plan to allow the other place to give these provisions more detailed consideration? Let us get it right this time.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
The Bill was introduced at the request of the Conservative party and of all the main political parties. We hope, therefore, that there is broad agreement on it. We have done our best to ensure that the drafting is correct. I thank the parliamentary draftsmen and officials who worked very hard at short notice to ensure that the Bill was in a proper condition to come before the House. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like also to extend such thanks in relation to the Elections Bill, on which officials and draftsmen also worked hard.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
The Under-Secretary made it clear in his answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) that the existing legislation is defective and needs amendment. Why do the Government think it reasonable to amend that legislation by issuing a fiat in a Henry VIII clause, without providing any opportunity whatever for the House to consider amendments?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
We are not repealing the legislation. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to my opening remarks, he would be aware that we are postponing commencement in relation to a part of the legislation. We still intend to proceed with new section 110 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, but only after we have had the opportunity to consult the political parties. I hope that they will engage in the consultation with more alacrity and clarity than they have in the past. The measure is not defective and we propose to proceed with it. It is a question of when we commence that process. We could have dealt with the existing legislation in many ways. We could have said that Parliament had decided the law and that our candidates should pulp what they had done wrong. However, we did not think that such a course of action would be consistent with the consultative and open-minded approach that we sought to adopt in order to gain the support not only of other Opposition parties, but of the Conservative party. There was no opposition to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The Conservatives did not vote against it. If I remember rightly, they abstained on Third Reading and did not dissent. I think also that, a number of times, they gave broad support to the general principles of the Neill report, whose implementation they wanted. There was much in that Bill that had broad support. It is all too easy for hon. Members to criticise our parliamentary draftsmen. Drafting is an art, and they are experienced, but not infallible. Hon. Members should be careful in criticising public servants who work very hard to try to ensure that they do their best for Parliament. [Interruption.]
Michael Martin (Speaker, Glasgow Springburn)
Order. There is far too much noise. The Minister is entitled to put his case.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
No, I will not. Clause 1 rescinds the commencement of section 143 of the 2000 Act and new section 110 of the 1983 Act. The natural consequence of that is to restore the position as at 16 February. In effect, it is as if the old section 110 had continued to operate after that date. Because we still see merit in the new imprint requirements, clause 2 enables them to be reactivated by order, and it is our intention to do so in due course. I cannot at this stage offer the House a date, not least because we want to consult the Electoral Commission and political parties before we make a decision.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Will the Minister give way?
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
Not at the moment. I hope that all the parties and the Electoral Commission will engage in that consultation. Clause 3 includes a saving for any election publication that complies with new section 110. That saving will apply from 16 February 2001 to the date on which new section 110 is restored. During that transitional period, local material that complies with either the old or the new section 110 will be lawful. I hope that that reassures hon. Members and political parties. Although that option is there, my advice to anyone producing new material would be to comply with new section 110 so that any stocks left over from this year's elections could be reused at a later date. Of course, many Conservative candidates may well want to try their hand again after they have lost. The circumstances surrounding the Bill are clearly a little unusual, but it is a necessary measure to deal with—
Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is there anything that you can do to protect the House in this situation? We now have 28 minutes left for the Second Reading, Committee, Report and Third Reading of the Bill, and the Minister has not yet concluded his remarks. Are you satisfied the House has sufficient time to discharge its responsibilities in the complete passage of a Bill, when the Minister is still on his feet with 28 minutes left?
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
The time for which the Minister speaks is entirely a matter for him, but I hope that the whole House will bear the time very much in mind.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I hear what you say, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have taken many interventions because I wanted to ensure that hon. Members had the opportunity to contribute, but I shall accept no more because the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) takes the view that Ministers who do so should be penalised. I am trying, genuinely to assist the House, and the right hon. Gentleman seeks to use that to score cheap points. That is uncharacteristic of him; normally his points are much better considered. Given that the county council elections will occur within nine weeks if the other place agrees with the Elections Bill passed by the House. I hope that the House will understand the need for this Bill to be enacted as quickly as possible. That will require the all-party support that was evident in another place, and I hope that the Bill will receive that here.
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
It is astonishing that the Minister made no reference to the fact that all stages of the Bill were scheduled to be considered until any hour on Monday this week, when it could have been given proper scrutiny and attention. It is a disgrace that the Government are attempting to pass it in three quarters of an hour. The Minister was right to say that the Opposition welcome the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, we might want to change our minds. The Bill has cross-party support, and I know that the parties appreciate the way in which the Home Secretary has taken difficult decisions. In introducing the Bill, however embarrassing it may be for him personally or for his Department corporately, he is discharging his duties as Home Secretary. Despite the fact that the Home Secretary is providing a solution to the problem that the political parties face, the Bill could easily be renamed the Laurel and Hardy Bill, because it is the product of yet another fine mess the Government have got us into—and have even managed to get the Labour party into. I am sure that the Home Secretary does a very good Stan Laurel, but I shall not venture to suggest who in the Department is Oliver Hardy. As the Minister said, the Bill was tabled in response to concerns expressed by all the main parties about the changes that have been made.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
When we had discussions with the chief executive of the Conservative party, we made it clear that we were prepared to listen to representations from his party but that we did not want cheap party political points thrown around as the hon. Lady has just been doing. That cheapens debate in this place, and makes her appear more of a Laurel and Hardy figure than anyone else.
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
I am sorry that I took the Minister's intervention. A few weeks ago, I was doing a phone-in on the Ed Doolan show. I talked to a pensioner and then a mother with a young child. Suddenly we had a phone call from Mike of Warwickshire. He was apparently a constituent from Warwickshire who phoned in to ask my views on the Hunting Bill and how I intended to vote. I do not know who Mike from Warwickshire was, but when the Minister rose to make his intervention the word "prat", which went through my mind at the time, occurred to me again. I shall take no more interventions from the hon. Gentleman. He knows who he was.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
Does my hon. Friend accept that the issue is no longer the rights or wrongs of the Bill but the fact that, now that the Minister has sat down having opened the Second Reading debate, we have only 28 minutes for the remainder of Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading? That is unheard of, and—as if that were not enough—when the Opposition question the Minister, he says that all deals are off and that they are not allowed to criticise the Government. Neither time nor criticism is allowed. Are we the Supreme Soviet or the British Parliament?
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a disgrace that, although the Bill has all-party support, it arises from an Act of Parliament that was guillotined through the House. The very section that we are discussing was introduced in the House of Lords, and was never considered by the Commons on Second Reading or in Committee. It came back to the House and was guillotined through. It never had proper scrutiny in the first place. It is a disgrace for the Minister to praise the draftsmen. He should take responsibility for the Government's failure to allow proper scrutiny of the original Bill before it became an Act of Parliament, and not keep bringing back dregs to the House of Commons so that we can put right the mess that the Government have created. Yes, the Bill has all-party support, but these proceedings are typical of this new Labour Government—all spin, no substance and no acknowledgement of their mistakes. When this matter was discussed during proceedings on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, the Government tabled no fewer than 665 amendments in the House of Lords. The Minister mentioned July, but in fact this matter came before the other place on 18 October. Lord Bach spoke for the Government, but it was not even explained then. The detail of what the Government are now having to defer was never explained to the House of Commons, and nor was it the subject of detailed consultation with other parties. In an earlier debate, the Home Secretary kindly gave me a copy of a letter dated December, which was sent to other parties. It did not deal with consultation on the substance of the Bill, but was about implementation. This part of the Bill has never been subject to consultation with political parties. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying from a sedentary position that it is about implementation. Had the substance of this part of the Bill ever been seen or discussed by this place, perhaps even a Labour Member would have noticed that it was flawed, and we would not have had to go through this charade tonight.
Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)
rose—
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
I will not give way to allow any more silly comments to be made by Labour Members. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye during the 20 minutes that remain for all stages of the Bill to be completed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I must tell the Minister that it is a disgrace that we are having to deal with this matter. It is also a disgrace that Ministers have implied tonight that there was a lack of consultation, or an unwillingness on the part of the Conservative party—[Interruption.] I invite the Minister to tell me precisely where the letter is that indicates that the Conservative party was not prepared to consult on this part of the Bill. Where is the response that he received from the party saying that we did not wish to discuss the substance of the issues before the House? That was never offered to us. All that we received was a letter which—as the Labour party itself noted, because it failed itself to point out the Bill's inadequacies—contained no reference to what the Government intended by the change in regulations governing imprints in election material. That was never spelt out—not in another place, not here, and not even in the notices that the Government sent out seeking to advise people that they intended to implement the change. The explanatory notes containing the details were not published until March. That is why political parties on both sides of the House failed to register exactly what the Government intended to do.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
rose—
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
I shall be happy to give way to the Minister. I hope that he will justify the cheap allegations that he has been making about why the Conservative party did not respond. We were never asked to respond to the substance of the changes.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
Let me say first that, obviously—as a Member of Parliament—I was invited to engage in debate with the hon. Lady on the Ed Doolan show. I am not sure why she made those silly points, but there we are. Those listening to the debate can decide for themselves. Let me now deal with the substance. When my noble Friend Lord Bach raised these issues, Lord Cope said in reply: None of us would disagree with the intention behind these clauses."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 October 2000; Vol. 617, c. 1144.] Let me add that throughout the debate on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, and in Committee, it was clear that we were prepared to discuss all aspects of the Bill with the Conservative party. I cannot recall one occasion during the whole process on which the Conservatives entered into serious consultation with us on any part of the Bill. That is why I say now that we would welcome the Conservative party's engaging in serious consultation from now on, so that we can be sure we have a Bill that gets it right and has consensus behind it. I want that, and I want it to be taken seriously in future.
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
If the Minister is serious about taking debate in the Chamber seriously, he and his Government should allow adequate time for debate and scrutiny. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill was not given adequate time, and the result is the mess that we are having to tidy up tonight. There was no filibustering in another place—[HON. MEMBERS: "There was no filibustering here."] There was no filibustering here either; but the Government tabled no fewer than 665 amendments in another place. When those amendments came to the House of Commons, unseen by Members, debate was guillotined. That included the part of the legislation that we are dealing with tonight. There is much more that I could say—
Tom Levitt (Labour, High Peak)
The hon. Lady has not talked about the substance.
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
I could talk for another 15 minutes, if the hon. Gentleman wanted me to. I will end, however, by saying that if Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had lived—he was the Conservative Front Bencher who originally took the Bill through the House of Lords—he would have laughed long and hard at the situation in which this House finds itself tonight. He worked hard to improve the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, just as he worked tirelessly in support of many other measures. Throughout his political career he has contributed to many Bills, and in another place he attempted to contribute to that Bill. If it does nothing else, this legislation reflects very clearly his last remarks about it. He observed that a lot of the devil was in the detail."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 November 2000: Vol. 619, c. 1188.] I suspect that this is not the last time that the House will have to deal with the defects, flaws and lack of scrutiny of the original Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament. The House having been advised that it would have sufficient time to debate all stages of the Bill on Monday night, it is an absolute disgrace that we are faced with just three quarters of an hour to deal with a Bill of such importance. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't disagree with it."] No, we do not, but even if we do agree with a Bill, the suggestion that we should pass it through the House without scrutiny shows the lack of understanding among Labour Members of what the job of Parliament—
Andrew Miller (Labour, Ellesmere Port and Neston)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
Angela Browning (Conservative, Tiverton and Honiton)
No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. Other hon. Members have more sensible things to say in the short time that is left. I am sure that there is a lot more detail and many more devils to come out of that legislation, which the House will have to sort out. This Bill will have our support because it is in everyone's interests that the mess be cleared up, but it is an affront to democracy and to the House that the Government have allowed just three quarters of an hour for us to deal with this important matter.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I do not quite share the total outrage of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), but this is very much the "Carry on Corporal Jones Bill." We have blundered into an error which—let us be frank, although this is not usually the place where one is frank—no one saw coming: not in this House, not in the other place, not in the political party headquarters. When the interpretation of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act by the Electoral Commission filtered through to the parties, we realised that the meaning of the provision was going to place a heavy imposition on the political process.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I shall, but the hon. Gentleman will have to be brief.
Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)
The hon. Gentleman and I both served on the Committee that considered the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. Does he not agree that one of the features of the Committee stage of the Bill in the Commons was that there was a complete spirit of co-operation? In the course of that discussion, numerous instances of this kind emerged, were discussed and were resolved simply because they came up for scrutiny, could be examined and could be dealt with. It is the failure to do that which shames the House and the way in which we operate our procedures.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman on his interpretation of the procedures in Committee. Indeed, elsewhere, I have thanked the Minister and the Secretary of State for the Home Department for their approach to that legislation. That makes it all the more tedious and all the sadder that we have to revisit the matter tonight. The Liberal Democrats will support this Bill, but there is an amendment standing in my name. I was hoping that the Minister might give way when he was speaking, so that he could answer the point. I hope that he might seek to intervene now to answer it because it is important. The legislation that we are being invited to adopt tonight meets the immediate needs of the political parties and the political process, but clause 2 contains the bland wording: Introduction of new law … The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument provide". It is that re-implementation process with which my amendment sought to deal. We will not reach that this evening but I would like to hear clearly from the Minister the process that the Government are prepared to write into Hansard as being the way forward, so that we know that we will not be at the behest of some future Secretary of State with less good manners and perhaps less good intentions than the current Home Secretary when it comes to re-implementation.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I am happy to indicate how the Government would intend to proceed. This legislation, if Parliament agrees to it, will be able to stand the test of another year, I would have thought. In the meantime and certainly in the months to come, we would want to enter into serious discussions with each of the political parties, not just the three main ones, to get a view about how that particular provision and, indeed, other provisions of the legislation, should be dealt with. I anticipate that we could allow several months for that to occur. I hope that, towards the end of the year, we will be in a position to say how we intend to proceed, having completed consultations. Then, no doubt following discussions through the usual channels, we will be able to decide whether we need legislation and, if so, the precise terms of the instrument. I hope that that helps the hon. Gentleman. I will be happy to answer any other questions that he has.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I am grateful. The Minister referred in his speech to the electoral commissioners. It is extremely important that, having established the commission, we do not allow clause 2 to bypass it and the objective input that it was supposed to have in the management of the political process. We have been fortunate that, although the ownership of the electoral process has been in the hands of the Home Secretary, it has been so in a judicial rather than a political sense. We do not want the commissioners to be bypassed in a fudge.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government would want to consult the commissioners fully. Indeed, they were able to have advance sight of the clause. I understand that it went into the Bill in October but was drafted back in July.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
I am grateful. I hope that the record will show that we have had some reassurances that this necessary legislation has some of the safeguards around it that some of us seek. I welcome the Minister's offer of further consultation on wider matters, and I hope that all the parties, including the official Opposition, will take it up. It is clearly important to our democratic system to have widespread ownership of the electoral processes that we use.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am minded to table a manuscript amendment to give effect to some of the assurances that the Minister has given. Would such a manuscript amendment be acceptable to you, and how could it be debated in the eight minutes remaining, given that we have not finished Second Reading and five more hon. Members want to speak?
Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that that is a hypothetical question, because we have not yet reached Committee stage.
Andrew Stunell (Liberal Democrat, Hazel Grove)
Bearing in mind the time, I simply say that I support the Bill and that I am grateful for such assurances as we have had.
Andrew Tyrie (Conservative, Chichester)
The Bill addresses a problem that could have been foreseen if there had been adequate scrutiny. We are patching up matters with retrospective legislation, which is something of which we should always be wary. Indeed, I am not convinced that the Bill is needed at all. Why on earth cannot the Government simply instruct the Director of Public Prosecutions, through the Attorney-General, not to bring any prosecutions? If a private prosecution is brought, there is a well-established practice that the DPP can take it over and offer no evidence.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
We all support what the Bill is intended to achieve, but I am concerned that, in a few days' time, we may have to come back to it because we find a further lacuna, simply because there has not been adequate scrutiny. We do not have adequate time even for Second Reading, and we will have no Committee stage or Third Reading. We have only six minutes left. On 11 April 2000, I wrote to the Home Secretary about how imprints ought to be applied to parliamentary websites. He replied on 18 May: You will not be surprised to learn that much of what you ask is not currently covered by electoral law as it stands. Of course, it is for the courts to interpret present statutes in the light of the evidence". Although the Home Secretary went on to give some helpful guidance, it was merely guidance. If there had been more time to debate the Bill adequately, I would have tabled amendments—although I am surprised that the Bill does not already contain such provision—based on the Home Secretary's recommendations, so that people could be quite clear on the legality of websites appertaining to hon. Members and candidates in the forthcoming general election, whenever that is held. Currently, there is no clarity. We have only five minutes left to consider the Bill, and other hon. Members wish to speak.
Mike O'Brien (Labour, North Warwickshire)
On the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, and to ensure that there is clarity, my advice would be to use the new provision in section 110. All three categories—the printer, the publisher and the promoter—will be covered by that, so it is all there and all clear. Subsequently, when we implement the provisions, as I trust we will, the websites can be used. I hope that that provides some clarity. What we did not want to do was to catch out someone who still had some of the old material.
Michael Fabricant (Conservative, Lichfield)
I thank the Minister for that intervention. I know that it was intended to be helpful, but, sadly, it was not. The Bill does not, for example, deal with archival material or the use of the term MP in a uniform resource locator. They are dealt with in a letter, but not in the Bill. The Bill could have dealt with them if we had had adequate time to table amendments to it. Sadly, there is not time to do that. Sadly, yet again we see that the Government wish to deem legislation. My fear is that we shall again have to consider this legislation in a week or two, when we discover that it is defective. Neither this Bill nor the original legislation would have been defective if we had had adequate time to scrutinise them. Time and again, however, the Government seem not to be prepared to learn that lesson.
Eric Forth (Conservative, Bromley and Chislehurst)
This is a grubby, seamy little measure and we really should not be giving it House room at all. It has arisen, of course, because this arrogant Government legislated without proper parliamentary process. A deal has apparently been done among political parties which cannot get their act together. Now we, the legislators, are supposed to cover up for that and change a law that we had been told was necessary. Originally, the Government said that the current arrangements were unnecessary and that the new arrangement was absolutely necessary. Now, they are saying that that was not the situation at all and that it has to be sorted out. This is truly not the way in which we should use parliamentary process. It is not appropriate for legislation. What makes the situation worse is that, on Monday, we had an opportunity properly to debate, to scrutinise and possibly to amend the legislation. Then, the Government casually set aside that opportunity. Now, they have brought us here, under yet another guillotine, with 45 minutes in total to change the law of the land. That is utterly unacceptable and I hope that we will throw out the Bill.
Edward Leigh (Conservative, Gainsborough)
We have already had the debate on the amount of time allocated to the Bill, so I do not want to make that point again. However, almost every hon. Member is trying to tell the House that this is an entirely straightforward Bill. What really concerned and worried me about this process was the Minister's interventions in the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and the fact that the Minister clearly felt that he had to intervene to clarify to the House the Government's intentions. If the Bill were as clear as everyone is making out, why did the Minister feel that he had to intervene not once, but twice in the hon. Gentleman's speech? The hon. Gentleman was making a perfectly serious speech in which he was not attacking the Government at all, but the Minister felt that he had to clarify the Government's proposals. Is the Bill as clear as the Government say it is? I do not think that the Bill is clear. It deals with a very complex sphere of the law and with a matter that is of acute concern to all three political parties. One mistake has already been made. Can we, please, just pause for a second and get the legislation right? Can we have a proper Committee stage and not rush the Bill through in just one minute—which is all that we have now for the Bill's remaining stages? This is not good enough.
Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)
The Bill cannot be in compliance with the European convention on human rights because of the process by which it is being implemented. It is absolutely outrageous, and I shall vote against it.