| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I am always delighted and surprised by the ability of your Lordships to talk wisely and learnedly about a specialised subject. That has certainly been the case in this debate. Great expertise and wisdom has been shown, and I am grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House who have taken part. I also thank the Minister for his final words about the acceptance of the need to use the final Doha development round of WTO negotiations to meet the important objectives of reducing tariffs and making access to markets more available for the developing world.
23 Mar 2006 : Column 457
I was reminded in the debate about the future of the sugar market. One of my noble friends—I think that it was the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles—said that there was little knowledge of what would happen next. Sugar, after all, is a commodity and an agricultural product. It is perhaps wise to remind ourselves of that. There was a hurricane in Australia a few days ago which is said to have wiped out Australian sugar production. That represents approximately 4 million
23 Mar 2006 : Column 458
tonnes off the export market. That will have a great effect on price and on decisions about which countries go on producing sugar. Perhaps that is a lesson that we all have to learn.
I thank friends and colleagues from all sides of the House who have taken part in this very useful debate.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past six o'clock.
23 Mar 2006 : Column 183
Thursday, 23 March 2006.
Grand Committee
The Committee met at two of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (VISCOUNT ULLSWATER) in the Chair.]
Electoral Administration Bill
(Fourth Day)
Links to other Grand Committee Sittings on the Bill
Clause 23 [Nomination procedures]:
[Amendments Nos. 98A and 98B not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clauses 24 to 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Offences as to false statements in nomination papers]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Baroness Ashton of Upholland) moved Amendment No. 99:
The noble Baroness said: Before I begin to talk about the amendment, I want to confirm what I said that I would confirm at our previous sitting, which was how we would handle the government amendment to come forward regarding loans on Report. Members of the Committee will recall that we had a useful discussion led by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who is not with us at the moment, about how we might do that. I suggested that an appropriate way forward would be if we saw Report as an opportunity to have a flexible Committee-style discussion around that amendment. I think that Members of the Committee felt that that was appropriate, and that we should have the capacity where it was felt appropriate to have votes on the amendment at Third Reading if, in the light of that discussion, noble Lords wanted more time. I have spoken to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and to my noble friend the Chief Whip, who is going to confirm that through the usual channels. I understand that that has been accepted, and am delighted that it is the procedure that we will follow.
In moving Amendment No. 99, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 100. These are simply technical and consequential amendments which have resulted from the removal of what was Clause 23, which permitted independent candidates to use descriptions of up to six words. In what was Clause 23(3), a provision to amend rule 8 of the parliamentary election rules was included which provided that an independent candidate must, in his consent to nomination,
"state that he has not been selected or authorised to stand in the name or on behalf of any registered party, organisation or other person".
Clause 27(3) makes it an offence to make a false statement to that effect. However, as this statement is no longer required to be made, there is no need to create an offence referring to it. I beg to move.
23 Mar 2006 : Column GC184
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Ullswater): I must advise the Committee that, if Amendment No. 100 is agreed to, I will be unable to call Amendment No. 100ZA.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 100:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 100ZA not moved.]
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 29 [Amount of expenses which may be incurred by third party]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 100A:
The noble Baroness said: As I understand the subsection, it would put back retrospectively the provisions of the clause. We are not content that there should be retrospection, so I recommend that subsection (6) be removed. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Indeed, this is an unusual step, in that it is retrospective. I briefly remind noble Lords that it was following the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Bowman v UK that the Government amended Section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 by means of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. That increased the expenditure limit for unauthorised third parties from £5 to £500. However, Section 75 remains ambiguous as to exactly what third parties may spend this money on. Clause 29 clarifies this and specifies that expenditure by unauthorised third parties up to £500—the level already set in the 1983 Act—will be allowed on holding public meetings or organising any public display and issuing advertisements, circulars or publications.
Although the Government agree generally with the principle that legislation should not be retrospective, there is a good reason in this case. By applying Clause 29(6) retrospectively—that is, application from the time that Section 131 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 came into force—the clarification provided by Clause 29 means that any third parties that may have, on one interpretation, contravened the ambiguous legislation from that time will be deemed not to have committed an offence. That is what we are seeking to do, because we believe that it is right to recognise the ambiguity. Although there are no examples that we know of, that ambiguity could have led someone to have committed an offence. By making it retrospective, we hope to have clarified that point in law. It is an unusual point, but one that is pertinent in this case.
Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for that explanation. In the light of what she said, I do not intend to pursue this matter today at least. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
23 Mar 2006 : Column GC185
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 [Meaning of election expenses for purposes of the 1983 Act]:
Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 100B:
Page 33, line 13, leave out "of four months ending with" and insert "from the notice of the election until"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 100B I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 100C, 100D and 100E. The amendments would abolish the requirement for a set four-month period to count as part of expenditure. Electoral expenses start kicking in for all candidates from the date of notice of the whole, and setting a four-month period before an election from funding can mean only that it is done retrospectively, which would probably be quite hard to calculate. The date of an election is not known four months in advance, especially with a general election.
As the Bill stands, there will be a situation in which election expenses are incurred without the knowledge of those who are incurring them, because they will not understand where the four-month period starts. There will also be a Catch-22 situation in which parties could have spent moneys unwittingly. That would undermine the financial planning of parties and their associations.
There is a real danger that a local party association might decide to campaign on any issue as a matter of course, locally, without that being intended to contribute to a general election campaign—in a way that is far outside what the general election is about—and that it might be unfairly restricted by election expenditure rules applied in retrospect. We viewed this as being retrospective, so will the Minister please indicate that she recognises the implications of the law being retrospective and confirm that that is truly what the clauses mean? I beg to move.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |