Elections Bill — House of Lords, 2022-03-10
Topic: Government Operations
George Young (Conservative, Centre-right): My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 19 in my name, which has been grouped with Amendment 18. When I tabled my amendment, I did not realise I had been gazumped by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who had the same objective as me but had put a significantly higher price on it, of £500,000 instead of £50,000. I will add a brief footnote to the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard I have two interests in this. The first is that I was the opposition spokesman on the original legislation to set up the Electoral Commission over 20 years ago. My party fully supported the establishment of an independent body to monitor elections in this country and, as a corollary, the need to give it powers to carry out its functions and to deter behaviour that undermined the integrity of the electoral process. My view is the same and, although the Electoral Commission has not got everything right, I do not join those who seek to undermine its independence, as we heard in earlier debates My second interest is as the immediate predecessor to my noble friend as Minister with responsibility for the Cabinet Office in your Lordships’ House and, in particular, responsibility for answering questions from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and others, about the powers of the Electoral Commission. Indeed, my DNA may still be on the folder in front of my noble friend Both experiences lead me to the view that the original powers to fine, untouched since the Act was passed, need updating to reflect what has happened in the intervening period, not least the erosion in the value of money Looking through the exchanges on which I took part on this very subject, I see that on 28 March 2018, in response to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I said: "On the specific question of the £20,000 fine, the noble Lord is correct that the Electoral Commission has expressed concern in the past that this might be regarded as simply the cost of doing business, and it is making representations that it should be enhanced to a higher level. The Government are considering those representations and, alongside any other recommendations that come out of the investigation currently under way, we will then consider what further action to take."—[Official Report, 28/3/18; col. 833.] On 28 June that year in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Cormack I replied: "My noble friend will know that the Electoral Commission has made requests for legislation, particularly to increase the sanctions that are available to it."—[Official Report, 28/6/18; col. 240.] Also, on 17 July that year in response to Lord Tyler—whose participation in these debates we all miss—I said: "On the question of legislation, as I have said, we are currently considering whether the Electoral Commission should have more powers; we know that the commission wants the maximum fine to be increased from £20,000 to a higher level". —[Official Report, 17/6/18; col. 1141.] I am now free to express views that were at the time constrained by the rules of collective responsibility—which I stretched from time to time but I hope never broke. I fully expected on the briefing I had received that, when we legislated on the Electoral Commission, we would increase the maximum fine available The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, reflects the recommendation of the CSPL. We should attach weight to that body because its first report led to the establishment of the Electoral Commission, and it has a paternal interest in its well-being. It recommended a maximum fine of £500,000 or 4%, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has generously rounded up to 5%. My amendment is more modest, seeking simply to retain the value of £20,000 to take account of inflation and rounded up modestly It is worth digging into the CSPL report to find out why it came to this decision. The Electoral Commission itself gave written evidence, saying: "Recent research indicates that the public believe that fines for breaking political finance laws are too lenient, given the amount of money that could be spent on campaigning. More than half of the respondents (52%) in our regular tracking research carried out in early 2020 said that a £20,000 maximum fine was not high enough. Only 27% felt that it was about the right amount" Although my party gave evidence the other way, the Committee on Standards in Public Life was robust in its conclusion My noble friend quoted with approbation the views of the CSPL in an earlier debate, and I will quote what it said on this subject, at paragraph 9.79: "We consider that an effective regulatory system must be backed by strong sanctions. The prospect of significantly greater fines will act as an incentive to ensure that parties and campaigners put in place robust systems to ensure that the requirements of electoral law are complied with. For anyone contemplating deliberately breaching the law, it should give pause for thought. It seems that the Commission’s powers have fallen behind equivalent regulators such as the Information Commissioner’s Office and we have concluded that this should be redressed" I agree. Finally, it went on to say: "We support the recommendation made by the House of Lords Democracy and Digital Technology Committee that the maximum fine the Electoral Commission may impose should be increased to 4% of a campaign’s total spend or £500,000, whichever is higher" I do not want to hark back to earlier debates, but it seems that this is further evidence of government antipathy towards the Electoral Commission. I hope my noble friend will be able to persuade me that this is not the case.