Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Stunell

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, I was delighted to sign this and could see from the Minister’s face that he was thoroughly in agreement that it is a very good move. It is a constructive suggestion of something that desperately needs doing. We are rushing to pass legislation in this final week or fortnight of the parliamentary Session, but this is an early request to the Government to include an election law consolidation Bill in the coming Queen’s Speech. It would be very practical and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, said, it would have cross-party support, so it would be a rather nice note to start the new parliamentary term on.

A lot of the groundwork has been laid already. The Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee produced a report on this in 2019 and the Law Commission has done extensive work as well, which culminated in a 207-page report with 106 recommendations. That sounds a very practical document. The recommendations include consolidating and modernising our election law, which is currently spread across 55 Acts of Parliament and over 200 other pieces of legislation, most of which are derived from centuries-old rules and regulations.

Modern electoral rules would make the administration of elections more straightforward and more accessible to the public. Better democracy is better for everyone, as we have been saying all afternoon, but this will be particularly important for independent candidates and smaller parties, because at the moment they are navigating a minefield. There is always a risk of innocent mistakes.

I hope that the Minister will respond very positively to this and that we can look forward to supporting him wholeheartedly on a Bill in the next Session.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I support this amendment. It is about as modest as it could be without doing anything. It is saying that there should be a review over the next 12 months, at which point the Minister should publish a timetable for undertaking a wholesale review and consolidation of electoral law. A senior civil servant commissioned with producing an amendment which kicked something into the long grass could hardly have come up with something better, so I very much hope that the Minister can accept.

Picking up one point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman of Ullock, made, the core of this is the complexity of existing legislation. It is not even that it fits together like a neat jigsaw. It is several different jigsaws which must be made to fit together to produce certainty by those who are conducting elections or participating in elections.

I draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that he has explained that what to some of us look like extremely threatening changes to the law proposed in the Bill have been described by him as simply clarification where things were uncertain or unclear or where people had come to different conflicting conclusions. That is the situation we are facing as far as all the legislation governing elections is concerned.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has already referred to the Law Commission’s report. The work is there; it is ready. The Electoral Commission, in its briefing to noble Lords this week, talked about the complexity and difficulties for campaigners, candidates and their agents in finding their way through the current forest of legislation and the difficulties that electoral registration officers have in interpreting how each bit might apply in particular circumstances. The fact is that, as amended or not, the Bill is adding another layer—a different jigsaw—with overlapping patterns and places which will make it more confusing to get through.

I notice that the Minister several times said, “Don’t forget that a lot of the people conducting elections are volunteers.” He did not add that, in many cases and particularly for agents, they are not volunteers at all; they have to be press-ganged into doing a very difficult and challenging job. They surely deserve to have a simple playbook in front of them which incorporates all the legislation that they are expected to have regard to and to take account of.

Having said “have regard to”, that was a key phrase in our earlier discussion. The difference between “consulting” and what the outcome of that might be and “having regard to” and what the outcome of that might be is central here. PACAC has produced a report which I would like the Minister to have regard to. CSPL has produced recommendations about consolidating electoral law, which I would like the Minister to have regard to. The Law Commission has produced a draft set of proposals, which I would like the Minister to have regard to. I do not want him to consult on all this; I want him to have regard to it and to get on with it.

In default of that, I strongly support Amendment 64, which gives him an escape hatch from confronting the issue I have put in front of him. All we are asking for is that, over the next 12 months, he draws up a timetable for undertaking a wholesale review and consolidation of electoral law. It could hardly be a lighter-touch amendment seeking to see this legislation consolidated as it should have been a long time ago. I hope that in the interests of clarification, which the Minister is so keen on, and in the interests of having regard to advice, he will proceed by accepting this amendment and taking a small step forward to improving the lot of agents and candidates across the country.

Elections Bill

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Stunell

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Thursday 10th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, we can all agree that the Government are constantly overreaching themselves and trying to accrue more and more powers. It is perfectly acceptable to try to ensure that the Government do not do so in this case. The Electoral Commission must be independent of both the Government and Parliament. This is a way to avoid any sort of conflict of interest for all MPs and, at times, for us. While we normally support any efforts to subject decisions to parliamentary scrutiny, it would be a false solution in this case. The strategy and policy statement must be removed from the Bill absolutely and entirely, rather than simply adding Parliament’s conflict of interest to that of the Government. We heard from noble Lords earlier who said, “Let’s get rid of the Bill”. Let us get rid of as much as we can on the way.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, the merits of the amendment are secondary to the replies that the Minister gave on the previous group of amendments. I thought that he might like a second go when responding to this group. I sum up the Minister’s defence of the strategy statement as standing on two legs. The first leg is that it is vital to the proper conduct of future elections that the Electoral Commission has a government-sponsored strategy statement in its toolbox. The second is that any strategy statement which this Government could devise would be so bland, inoffensive and harmless that it would make no practical difference to the way in which elections are conducted. That was a phrase the Minister used in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, in the previous group. Would the Minister like to have a go at seeing which of those two legs he wants to stand on when replying to this group?

Perhaps he could also scoop up the third argument he deployed: that flexibility is essential and speed may sometimes be needed, and this would justify missing out any consultation. He further said that every Government would want to see consultation take place. I can think of quite a few Governments who very much did not want consultation to take place. It is very commonly the job of Oppositions to remind Governments that consultation is a necessary preliminary to getting good legislation. I am delighted if, somehow, he has been taken in by the idea that every Government would want to see consultation. However, I would remind him that even during the coalition’s time—when I saw behind the scenery slightly more than I was expecting—it was a constant fight within departments for my colleagues and I to persuade his colleagues that consulting properly before legislating would be a good step forward. I hope he will be able to reconcile his two conflicting arguments about why we need it, while tackling and giving a response to the circumstances in which avoiding consultation might be—at least in some way—justified, rather than simply for the convenience of a Government at the time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, it is quite sweet to have these two amendments in the same group. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, knows which one I prefer.

Clearly, you have to make the political parties pay attention. At the moment political parties face higher fines for data protection breaches than they do for breaking election law, which is really inappropriate. The risk is that fines for breaking election law just become part of the cost of doing business for political parties, especially those with the deepest pockets and richest donors. That is clearly not the Green Party, but it could be other political parties represented in this Chamber.

Amendment 18 would mean that the penalties for breaking election law would actually hurt the law-breakers. It follows the same logic as the general data protection regulations by implementing proportional fines so that big organisations have to pay attention.

[Lord Stunell (LD)]

My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend and Amendment 18 and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, who, once again, trumps everybody by having been the Minister, which is a bit of a theme in the debates he has contributed to that I have heard. He is all the more welcome for that, and I hope that in due course his DNA may reappear on the ministerial file so he can complete the job.

I think the case has been made very clear. In fact, the noble Baroness from the Green Party, whose name has just evaporated—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I do beg her pardon—made the clear comparison between the fine a party might get from screwing up on its data protection and the fine it might get from screwing up on its election expenses. I think any ordinary member of the public, and indeed any rational Member of this House, would think that if one offence were worse than the other, the election offence is surely the more serious. I hope we shall hear that, subsequent to the new Minister picking up the file, he has been able to talk to the relevant officials who decide these things on his behalf and will be able to give us some idea that the Government will produce their own amendment on Report, or perhaps will assist the noble Lord, Lord Young, in tweaking his, so that it is at an acceptable level for his officials to approve.

I want to make the case that we and my noble friend Lord Rennard set out very clearly to make this proportionate to the fines and the impact that other regulators can have on the behaviour of the organisations they regulate. This may not be entirely in the best interests of those of us in this room, because it could be our political parties that end up paying significant amounts of money. That, of course, is the trouble, because whether the turkeys will vote for Christmas is always a difficult question to answer. Actually, it is an easy question to answer, but how do you overcome the natural reluctance there is to impose on ourselves the burdens that we willingly impose on other people when they offend regulatory standards?

I hope to hear something from the Minister. If he cannot come in at £500,000, could he at least, for goodness’ sake, come in at £50,000 and give those of us here who think this system urgently needs uprating some glimmer of hope that progress is being made?

Leasehold Reform (Ground Rent) Bill [HL]

Debate between Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lord Stunell

Committee stage
Monday 14th June 2021 Grand Committee

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]]

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Grender, on her clear exposition of her very sensible amendments. It is obvious to everybody that rogue landlords have an easy ride in this country. It is far too easy for such unscrupulous landlords to get away with far too much, and that extends to freeholders abusing leaseholders with exploitative ground rents. In shorthold tenancies, a lot of wrongdoing occurs unintentionally by uninformed or incompetent landlords, but that is not the case in freeholder-leaseholder relationships, where the freeholder is usually a big corporate entity that is professionally managed and legally advised. For that reason, any breach of this Bill is likely to be wilful, intentionally exploitative and involve large sums of money.

It is obvious, then, that the penalties currently contained in the Bill are paltry and unsuitable to deter or to punish the criminal behaviour. As a proportion of these massive landowners’ revenues and profits, a minimum penalty of £500 is irrelevant. I would much rather see financial sanctions on companies being similar to those under the data protection laws, which specify penalties as a percentage of a company’s global turnover. That is how you get companies to sit up and pay attention. At the very least, these penalties should be much higher than they are in the Bill. I am sure that the Government know that, so I have no idea why they chose this figure of £500, which is absolutely ludicrous.

[Lord Stunell (LD) [V]]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Grender has clearly set out, the current provisions in the Bill to enforce compliance by those who are determined to do wrong will not work, and that view has been strongly supported by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. The three reasons for that are quite clear: the penalties themselves are trivial; the enforcement system will be ineffective; and rogue landlords will prosper.

First, the penalties themselves are trivial. The noble Lord, Lord Naseby, has made the point perhaps better than I can, but in many cases £500 will be less than the current annual leaseholder charge. Indeed, with escalation clauses in place, over the lifetime of the lease £500 might be seen as very small change indeed. The case for making these penalties bite is overwhelming, simply because the unscrupulous who carry on as though the law has not changed will readily write off these penalties as essentially meaningless. I shall not engage in a bidding war with the noble Lord as to how high we should go, but each of us in our different ways would make the point that £500 is nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent.

It is not just nowhere near enough to be effective as a deterrent; it is not anywhere near enough to pay for a sound enforcement policy. The enforcement system will be ineffective. It is supposed to be paid for by the pitifully small fines, which will be paid not by all those who offend but all those who are successfully prosecuted—only those fines will contribute to the funding of the trading standards department. It will therefore be the case that the trading standards department exercises passive power only, exercised, if at all, only when a big fuss is made about a particular case, perhaps by a local councillor or an MP.

It is extremely doubtful that any responsible financial officer of a local authority, when building a budget for the next year, would authorise the recruitment of staff to enforce legislation on the basis that it would be funded by £500 for each case that is won. Of course, it would need recruitment of staff because, as my noble friend Lady Grender pointed out, there has been a 50% reduction in staff in trading standards over the past decade and a loss of skills to go along with that. This new burden, to be dealt with effectively, would have to have additional resources. I am sure that the Minister is not content simply to put in place a deliberate paper tiger of enforcement—unless that does in fact suit the Government’s purpose: something that looks okay in the Bill but about which their landlord friends can be told, “Don’t worry, just keep your head down and carry on.”

That brings me to Amendment 16, to which I have added my name. We have to stop rogue landlords prospering. Of course, they already do prosper, and that is what the Bill is all about: stopping abuses or restricting behaviour which, though lawful, ought not to be. Those with a great deal of power in a contractual relationship, the landlords, are imposing oppressive terms on those with very little power, the leaseholders. And those who impose the most care the least. Rogue landlords will weigh up the risks and rewards and reach a commercial judgment. They can easily afford to treat the penalty system as a small marginal cost as it stands; they know it will not even cost them £500 per breach but only £500 per breach which leads to a successful prosecution—that is quite a different thing.

That successful prosecution will be rare without Amendments 14 and 15, which seek to generate the money for there to be a team of people who can enforce it. That is where the importance of Amendment 16 lies, in introducing an effective banning order regime. Only with a clear process for banning repeat offenders, driving them out of the market, can the stakes be raised sufficiently high to deter rogue landlords and, in the most egregious cases, drive them out of business.

I want to hear the Minister say to your Lordships that he genuinely wants this Bill to deliver an effective regime of penalties and punishments that will safeguard the good intentions of this legislation against the small minority of unscrupulous landlords who seek to bypass it and who continue to exploit leaseholders regardless. One way the Minister can do that is by accepting these three amendments. The Bill as drafted certainly does not give us those assurances. If he does not accept the amendments, he surely has a duty to your Lordships, and to leaseholders themselves, to explain what alternative mechanisms he proposes to put in their place instead.