Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, the other place has passed a Motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 26 and 27. As noble Lords well know by now, these amendments would narrow the range of activities that would count towards constituency limits. I do not propose to take up time once again by making the case for why constituency limits are needed, but perhaps I could express my gratitude at the outset to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. We had a discussion about these amendments yesterday that I found very helpful both in respect of this Motion and the next one, which is on staffing costs. It was clear from our discussions that we have very much narrowed down the differences that there are between us, and I very much hope that we may be able to persuade the noble and right reverend Lord not to press his amendment in lieu.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said at Third Reading last week that,

“there should be real restraints in place to stop large sums of money distorting an election result at constituency level. There is therefore no disagreement about the purpose of this clause”.—[Official Report, 21/1/14; col. 587.]

That was very welcome and I turn now to Amendment 26B, tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in lieu of his Amendments 26 and 27. Perhaps I might observe that Amendment 27 was thought to have been a consequential amendment. I think that parliamentary counsel thought that it was unnecessary and might be confusing. Having discussed this with the noble and right reverend Lord, I know that he will no longer seek to insist on that amendment.

Debating Amendment 26B shows that there is little difference between us, or between the Bill as currently drafted and what the noble and right reverend Lord wishes to achieve. He is understandably concerned about the workability and enforceability of constituency limits, and that is what his new amendment now seeks to resolve. I believe that this amendment is also aimed at addressing the concerns of campaigners, who argue that they are for the most part organised on a national basis and that to split expenditure along constituency lines is not always straightforward. Those campaigners that are not arranged on a national basis but across a small area have similar concerns about appropriately allocating expenditure across a small number of constituencies. Very often in these debates, the example of the HS2 campaign has been cited.

Lords Amendments 26 and 27 were initially put forward last week with a view to making constituency limits more workable by narrowing the activities that they would apply to. The Government have listened to and recognise the concerns expressed but we believe that they are misplaced. While I am grateful for the efforts which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has gone to, he too now realises that those Amendments 26 and 27 were not addressing the issue at hand.

Amendment 26B seeks to make it clearer when expenditure should be attributed to a constituency. Most crucially, there is an omission from this amendment of something in the one which the House considered last week on Third Reading. His amendment now moves away from seeking to apply the constituency limit to just a narrowed range of activities. The House has already agreed that it is appropriate to make third parties account for their expenditure against an expanded range of activities. The House has also agreed that constituency limits are necessary. As I have raised before, narrowing the range of activities that would apply to the constituency limits in turn limits the very effectiveness of these constituency limits. The reason this Bill widens the range of activities that count towards controlled expenditure is to cover a potential gap in UK election rules. Therefore, the amendment in lieu in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is very welcome in recognising that.

I do not agree, however, and I hope I can explain why. Some of the concerns, while I understand why they have been raised, are perhaps misplaced. I do not agree with the view that attributing expenditure to constituencies is as difficult as is sometimes being suggested, either for the commission to provide guidance on and enforce, or for campaigners to undertake. Of course there will inevitably be difficult cases, but that is always the case, and the Electoral Commission is there precisely to provide the guidance to campaigners that they may need.

I did take the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack last week, and passed on to the Electoral Commission his very constructive suggestion that there be a round-table discussion where a number of these issues could be addressed with regard to guidance in this area.

Amendment 26B has been drafted so as to require that the “significant effect” of expenditure is taken into account and not its geographical location. This is exactly what is already provided for in the Bill in Clause 28. What Amendment 26B further seeks, however, is to introduce a second test to determine whether expenditure is incurred in a constituency or not. This second test asks whether it can also “reasonably be inferred” that electors or households have been specifically targeted in a constituency.

I am not sure whether that was a throwback to the earlier amendment which talked about leaflets being specifically targeted in a constituency, but we believe that it is an unnecessary additional test. I fear that it would not add to any greater clarity.

The Bill's provision on constituency limits has, after all, been drafted in line with current PPERA rules and Electoral Commission guidance. Although bringing constituency limits is new, noble Lords will recognise that under PPERA expenditure must currently be attributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why there are separate spending limits for each part. Expenditure must be attributed between each part of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom on the basis of where its “significant effect” is felt. The Electoral Commission has clear guidance on how to allocate expenditure in this way and the same process will apply to constituency limits.

If a third party holds a rally in one constituency with a view to influencing the electoral success of a party or candidates in another constituency, that is where the “significant effect” is likely to be felt. The expenditure will be attributed to that constituency where the effect of that activity is intended and felt. That may be one or other or conceivably both of those constituencies.

The other point that has been raised is in terms of some of the difficulty of calculation. Where a significant effect is felt in several constituencies, the expenditure will be equally split between those constituencies—that is in the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment and is indeed already in the Bill. There is no requirement for a detailed calculation of the precise amount or proportion of expenditure in each constituency, as has sometimes been suggested.

Inevitably, there will be minor overlaps. Again, the Electoral Commission already has guidance to this effect. That guidance notes that where a third party’s spending in one part of the UK has a minor effect in another part, the spending should be allocated to the part of the UK the spending was aimed at.

I give an example from existing PPERA provisions that are reflected in the commission’s guidance. If there were a major issue in Wales and a third party advertised in a Welsh newspaper that is also distributed or spills over—a minor spillover—into part of, say, Shropshire, then the entire spending would be allocated to Wales because that is where the effect is intended. Of course, this exact same principle will apply to constituency limits. The areas are smaller, admittedly, but the principle is the same.

Third parties and the commission will be required to assess attribution of spending on a qualitative basis—as indeed they are required to do at present. I simply add that the constituency limits are also almost equal to the current £10,000 PPERA registration threshold for England. As the Electoral Commission already enforces this limit, I do not see that there is any merit in claims that the commission will have difficulty in enforcing £9,750. It is perhaps easier to identify £9,750 when it is spent in a single small area than £10,000 being spent across England.

The reason given why the Commons disagree with Amendment 26 is:

“Because a wider range of expenditure than it provides for should be included when attributing a third party’s expenditure to a particular constituency for the purposes of determining whether a limit on expenditure in that constituency has been exceeded”.

The amendment that we are debating today in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, addresses the reasons that the Commons have given. What we are left with are concerns about significant effect, which, as I have indicated, is in the Bill already, and an equal measure among the constituencies in which there has been a significant effect, which is also in the Bill. I also indicated that the extra part that the noble and right reverend Lord has added does not actually add to the clarity. This is appropriately a matter for the Electoral Commission to give guidance on. I do not think that there is then a huge amount between us. On the basis of that explanation, I ask the noble and right reverend Lord not to move his Motion and I beg to move.

Motion B1

Moved by Lord Harries of Pentregarth

As an amendment to Motion B, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 27 but do propose Amendment 26B in lieu.”

26B: Page 16, leave out lines 10 to 23 and insert—

“2A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, “third party constituency expenditure” means controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a third party.

(2) Third party constituency expenditure—

(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or

(b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if—

(a) there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies, and

(b) it can reasonably be inferred that the third party selected the relevant electors or households (or both) or otherwise distributed the material wholly or substantially to contact electors in the particular constituency or constituencies and not a wider section of the public.”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, this amendment on constituency limits is a significant revision of the amendment passed by your Lordships but rejected by the Commons. It leaves out the first part of our previous amendment in order to meet the reasons for disagreement as stated on the Marshalled List—the Government’s wish to include a “wider range of expenditure” than was previously suggested.

As the noble and learned Lord said in the House at Report stage, he thought that public meetings and events should be brought within its scope. In leaving out the first part of our previous amendment, we have accepted, for the purposes of the Bill where it now is, that this is what the Government wish to do, without necessarily being fully persuaded by their arguments. We have therefore concentrated entirely in this revised amendment on trying to achieve greater clarity about how controlled expenditure could be attributed to a particular constituency.

Sub-paragraph (2) of the amendment states:

“Third party constituency expenditure … shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or … shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be”.

I give as an example a campaign against a motorway extension that goes through three constituencies. On the basis of heading (a), the controlled expenditure would be split three ways in equal amounts. I give as another example a public meeting opposed to a new development. The development is taking place in a marginal constituency but the public meeting opposed to it is taking place just over the border in the next constituency. On the basis of heading (b), the controlled expenditure would be attributed to the marginal constituency because this is where the meeting was trying to influence voters. This amendment would in fact be a tightening up of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out on Report, the Bill as it now stands would enable the kind of public meeting that I have indicated to take place without being caught by the Bill, although the noble and learned Lord has now faced that one and suggested that it might. However, we believe that this part of the amendment would help the Government in trying to stop abuse.

The third part of our amendment states that,

“the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if … there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies, and … it can reasonably be inferred that the third party selected the relevant electors or households (or both) or otherwise distributed the material wholly or substantially to contact electors in the particular constituency or constituencies and not a wider section of the public”.

I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that if the House of Commons were able to accept this amendment, that sentence confining it simply to leaflets might need to be widened to other activities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. To those who mentioned that the House of Commons considered your Lordships’ amendments within 24 hours, I point out that it accepted 94 out of 97 amendments, which shows the considerable changes that this House made to the Bill. All bar three of the changes—or four, if you include the small technical one—were accepted by the other place.

My noble friend Lord Tyler spoke again on the constituency limit of £9,750. As I said last week—and I recognise his strength of feeling on this—a balance needed to be struck with attempts to remove some of the administrative burdens that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about. That is why we decided to raise the limit to £9,750 for the period from dissolution to polling day. It was originally about £5,000. That was intended to help many groups.

I turn to the amendment spoken to by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. First, I generously acknowledge that his amendment seeks to address the reasons that the Commons gave for not agreeing to the amendment carried at Third Reading last week. That is very important, because it means that we are now looking at some of the detail. In moving the Motion that proposes the amendment, the noble and right reverend Lord talked about the importance of trying to get greater clarity. First, he focused on the fact that proposed new paragraph 2A(2) in his amendment says:

“Third party constituency expenditure—(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or (b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be.

The Bill, as brought to your Lordships’ House, says at new paragraph 2A(2) in Clause 28(5):

“Controlled expenditure whose effects are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency—(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or (b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be”.

With regard to (a) and (b), the words are exactly the same. They are already there in the Bill.

The noble and right reverend Lord then gave the good example of agriculture shows where leaflets of a generic nature on a particular campaigning issue are distributed. He said that that should not be attributed to a particular constituency just because the show field happened to be in that constituency, as the show brought in people from a wide area. I know exactly the kind of event that he is talking about and his example is a good one. I do not think that it is intended that that should be seen as a narrow constituency issue. He said that, to address that, Amendment 26B states:

“For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if—(a) there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies”.

The Bill as brought to your Lordships’ House says:

“For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)”—

the numbering is different—

“the effects of controlled expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if they have no significant effects in any other constituency or constituencies”.

Again, the words are almost exactly the same. The only real difference between what the noble and right reverend Lord is proposing and what the Government already have in the Bill is in proposed new paragraph 2A(3)(b) in the amendment, which says that,

“it can reasonably be inferred that the third party selected the relevant electors or households”.

That might be relevant in terms of written material, but it is difficult to see its relevance in other things such as transport or media events—press conferences or rallies.

Therefore, the words are almost identical bar that one example and, like my noble friend Lord Tyler, I do not honestly believe that the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment provides added clarity. In fact, I think it is less clear with that additional paragraph. The Electoral Commission is the body charged with giving guidance and it will seek to give guidance, as it has already had to do, in terms of the national distribution of expenditure. The difference in the wording is very small, but I fear that what the noble and right reverend Lord has put forward does not add clarity—it makes it less clear—and the other parts of his amendment are already in the Bill. On that basis, I ask him not to insist on the amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his words and welcome the idea of a round-table conference where some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, can be addressed. There seems to be no substantial difference between us, except for the fact that it did not seem at all clear to charities and campaigning groups that what was involved in their campaigning at constituency level was already in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord suggested that a combination of what is already in the Bill and much more detailed and careful guidance from the Electoral Commission will meet the point. However, campaigning groups and the Electoral Commission would generally welcome something along the lines I have suggested being firmly in the Bill. This would make it absolutely clear what is allowable and what does or does not come within the scope of the Bill. I therefore feel I should test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

As an Amendment to Motion C, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do insist on its Amendment 108”.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, this is about the exclusion of background staff costs from regulated expenditure. First, let me emphasise that campaigning groups fully support the idea of a wider range of activities being brought within the scope of regulation than were originally in PPERA. They fully support this in the interests of greater transparency. This range of activities is set out in proposed Schedule 8A of PPERA, which refers to material being made available to the public, such as leaflets, canvassing and market research, press conferences and media events, transport costs, rallies and public events. The amendment before us reads:

“Nothing in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 1 shall be taken as extending to any expenses incurred in respect of remuneration or allowances payable to any member of staff (whether permanent or otherwise) of the third party”.

The reference is only to sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of the controlled activities referred to in Schedule 8A of PPERA—that is, to press conferences and media events, transport, rallies and public events. It would mean that background costs in relation to those events would not count as controlled expenditure. Let me stress that the cost of the events themselves would count—the cost of the hall, for example, or the cost of any canvassing, or the cost of transport or market research. What would not count would be the background costs, which are the occasional phone calls or e-mails in the course of a working day that might be connected with such events.

The Government gave no reason for their rejection of our original amendment, but just reiterated that all staff costs should be included. The amendment is not about the amount of money that could count towards controlled expenditure, it is about burdensome, unenforceable regulation. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has repeatedly emphasised that aspect and recommended that no staff costs should count towards controlled expenditure in 2015—after which, of course, the whole issue of controlled expenditure could be looked at again in the light of real experience rather than hypothetical threats.

The noble and learned Lord suggested that there had been no real problem in the previous two elections for campaigning groups or the Electoral Commission in trying to ascertain what those background staff costs were. I suggest that, in fact, people were not really aware of the regulations during the two previous elections; they have only just woken up to them. It is very dangerous to use the example of the two previous elections as a guide to what should happen at the next one.

The Government have indeed made some changes to the bad Bill that first came before this House, but these changes do not make the process of identifying and accounting for staff costs any easier. The Bill very significantly reduces total spending limits by 60% in England. Introducing a wide range of additional staff costs at the same time in effect makes the spending limits even tighter. That is not a problem for smaller charities or campaigning groups; they will not reach the registration threshold. We are grateful that the Government have raised the threshold so that they will not come into it.

However, in addition to those smaller groups there are the big groups, such as Hope not Hate, and coalitions of charities and campaigning groups, such as Stop Climate Chaos. They are very concerned about that aspect of the Bill. I remind the House that all that campaigning potentially comes within the scope of the Bill, even if it is not particularly directed towards any particular party or candidate, because of the subsections to Clause 26 which provide that you do not have to mention the name of the party and it does not have to be your first intention, but you can still be reasonably interpreted as being biased towards one party or another. Any campaigning by those big organisations becomes problematical under the Bill.

The Government recently announced proudly that they were doing away with about 800 regulations for small businesses, but here they are imposing a huge regulatory burden on campaigning groups, groups which are now so fundamental to the effective working of our democratic process. Do the Government seriously expect charities and other groups campaigning now to log every phone call and e-mail concerned with organising a particular public event separately from all other calls and e-mails and then try to calculate what they cost?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and right reverend Lord asks whether the Government mean for every phone call to be logged. When I was moving the Motion, I said that we do not expect a five-minute timesheet to be ticked off. That is not what is anticipated—nor, indeed, what has happened among the number of organisations which indeed registered in 2005 and 2010.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I was aware of the noble and learned Lord’s point, and I was going to come to it. I take that point—he said quite unequivocally that he did not expect campaigning groups to log all those small items—but the fact is that they are expected under the Bill to take staff costs into account. That is what the Bill states. If they are expected under the Bill to take staff costs into account, presumably they are expected in some way to provide a note of what those costs are. They have to go about that in one way or another, and that involves a lot of scrutinising of the cost of what they do and adding it up.

This is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is no accident that the Electoral Commission is reluctant to support the Bill on this particular issue. It is no wonder that political parties have resisted taking staff costs into their accounts for this very reason of complexity.

This amendment does not have any bearing on the situation about which some politicians have expressed concern, in which a third party may want to second staff to work for a party or a candidate. That is not a situation regulated by third-party rules. Such costs would either count towards a party’s spending limit or a candidate’s spending limit, depending on the timing and nature of the secondment. Ensuring appropriate enforcement, rather than changing the rules, is the appropriate response to such concerns.

This amendment does nothing to frustrate the Government’s purpose of trying to prevent big spenders from distorting elections through third-party campaigns, and it is one that matters very much to charities and campaigning groups, because of the regulatory burden. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, on this final group of Commons disagreements, I am much more at one with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and much more dispirited that the Government have not been able to move on this issue. Again, it does seem a relatively minor difference between what the noble and right reverend Lord has been suggesting and what my noble and learned friend has been saying about the way the Bill is intended to be explained and implemented by the Electoral Commission.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his assiduous commission originally suggested that no staff costs should be included in election expense returns submitted by non-party campaigners. I did not agree with that and I do not now, since some of those costs—for example, in relation to producing and distributing election material—are significant. I think we are all at one on that now, and they could be very significant in particular circumstances. Those costs are already regulated under the Labour Government’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and rightly so. Non-party organisations have had to account for those in both the 2005 and the 2010 general elections.

Staff costs in relation to canvassing could also be very relevant to election outcomes in particular circumstances. Clearly paying people to canvass in a way that could promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate is significant. The amendment therefore seeks to exclude staffing costs from consideration only when it comes to organising press conferences and rallies and in relation to transport, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has said. I do not know if my noble and learned friend can give adequate reassurance now on those points. I heard what he said just now, but I hope he may be able to go into some greater detail about the guidance that will be given to campaigners. Perhaps he can say that despite what the Bill says, somehow the incidental costs of someone travelling to a rally or booking the room for a press conference will not be included. However, I do not see where the de minimis provision is in the Bill. How will the Electoral Commission guidance deal with this level of detailed accountancy and audit?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has raised a number of important issues, some of which we have been over many times during our exchanges on this Bill.

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for his amendment, which refers to “background staff costs”. If he had managed to find the elixir or the magic potion that defined background staff costs, he might well have found that we were much more amenable to accepting his amendment. Unfortunately, his amendment does not do what it says on the tin, because it would allow substantial staff costs to be excluded, not just background ones. For example, it could be that a campaigning organisation decides to employ someone for the regulated period to run rallies or press conferences. That would be their specific job, and if it fell within the definition of controlled expenditure under the amendment as it stands, it would not be caught. I do not think that is simply background staff costs.

There is not much difference between us. As we have indicated, we are not looking to have five-minute breakdowns of how time is spent. That is not what is intended. Let us go back to the origins of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said it is the issue that perhaps came up more than any other in all the discussions—possibly coalitions was a close second or perhaps just slightly ahead. From meetings which I attended with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who attended a lot more than I did, I am certainly aware that the issue of staff costs came up.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, when we were conducting these discussions, the difficulties that many of these organisations expressed were about the extension of staff costs into areas such as press, media and transport costs, given that the threshold originally proposed was £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There was genuine concern, not least among charities, that inadvertently some of the work they were doing could take them over the threshold. The Government recognised that. For those issues of canvassing and election material and so on, staff costs will now need to be accounted for, but that will be against a background of a £20,000 threshold in England and a £10,000 threshold in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Horam pertinently pointed out, we are also now looking at a regulated period of just over seven and a half months, rather than just under 12 months as was originally proposed in the Bill.

We did listen to charities and other organisations. About the biggest thing we have done is to raise these thresholds. If you are spending £20,000 to campaign on an issue that falls within the definition of controlled expenditure, I honestly do not believe that it is something that you inadvertently slide into. It must require quite serious thought to do that. That is the reassurance I would give to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who expressed the views of the charities.

We had a debate on charities, and I am not going to go over all that ground again, but I think it was clear from that debate that it is thought that on only a very narrow band of activity could charities be subject to both Electoral Commission regulation and Charity Commission regulation. Indeed, most charities would not want to take up a position. Historically, they have not taken on positions where they would have been seen to be partial to a particular party or candidate. It is important that we put that in context.

The other thing that I want to put in context is that, in fact, there is nothing in this Bill that relates specifically to staff costs. What we have done is to use the architecture of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, brought forward by the party opposite when it was in government, and that architecture applies to the additional range of activities. One cannot say that the whole idea of staff costs is new; it is not. When the party opposite was in government, it brought in a regime in which third parties had to account for their costs and expenditure, including staff costs in regard to election materials. The noble Baroness is shaking her head, but there is nothing more in terms of the definition of staff costs in this Bill than that. I accept that this extends to media events, press events, rallies and transport. However, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, the Electoral Commission would like to see all of these included for political parties.

It is a matter of judgment as to whether this should be done for the 2015 election. I argued earlier that, given there will be a review, it might be better to have a review based on some experience. However, the experience that we have had with the approach adopted by the Electoral Commission in two elections is that it appears not to have caused problems. It is the case that some 30 organisations were recognised third parties at the 2010 general election and those that incurred expenditure included their staff costs in their spending returns. We were not aware of any difficulties in calculating these costs. Hope not Hate, which was referred to in the debate, was one of these registered organisations. It is worth while to get some context: of these 30 organisations, only two were charities. As I have said already, we have also raised the threshold quite significantly.

My noble friend Lady Williams asked about volunteers. As I indicated, volunteers are excluded in the current legislation and I am advised that personal expenses are also. I hope that gives her reassurance.

We share a common objective in not wishing to have the additional burden of more administration, and we believe that the Electoral Commission has an important role there. It has done so until now, using the approach in its guidance of “an honest assessment”. While that is our common objective, I think that the difference between us is that the amendment which I, on behalf of the Commons, am seeking to reject is one that does not just deal with background staff but would drive a coach and horses through the whole idea of including staff costs. For example, in the case of a third party being able to employ someone to run a whole series of rallies over the regulatory period of seven and a half months, that would fall within the definition of controlled expenditure. That goes far further than what would simply be described as background staff costs.

I therefore urge the noble and right reverend Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble and learned Lord and the other speakers who have spoken in this short debate. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that he is more sympathetic to this amendment than he was to our previous one. I hold out hope that perhaps those who were convinced by the Government’s answer to the last amendment —that what we wanted was already in the Bill or could be dealt with by regulation—might be more sympathetic to what we are saying in this one, because this one matters very much to charities and campaigning groups.

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, pointed out that the Electoral Commission is very keen for the staff costs of political parties also to be taken into account. However, it is also true that it is very resistant to that because of this very issue of complexity. I am not aware that the Electoral Commission has rescinded its original advice, despite the shorter regulation period, that for the 2015 election staff costs for third-party campaigners should not be taken into account.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

I respect everything the noble and right reverend Lord has said, but just to clarify my position, there are two ways of dealing with election finances: there is cash, and in kind. My worry is that the third-party group can be given support, perhaps even unwittingly, in kind rather than with cash.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble Lord. However, the issue is primarily one of bureaucracy. We can see the kind of muddle there is because the noble Lord, Lord Martin, said that of course telephone calls and e-mails and the costs of those can be accounted for, while the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench said that that is not really needed, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out that this is such a rough guide that it is too vague to be enforced. I therefore feel that we should test the opinion of the House on this issue.

Division on Motion C1

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

11: Clause 29, page 18, leave out lines 5 to 18 and insert—
“(1) For the purposes of this Schedule “third party constituency expenditure” means controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a third party in relation to—
(a) election material falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule 8A which is addressed to electors (whether addressed to them by name or intended for delivery to households or otherwise distributed within any particular constituency or constituencies), or(b) unsolicited telephone calls falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 8A, made to such electors or households which can reasonably be regarded as intended to ascertain or influence their voting intention,where the effects are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency.(2) Third party constituency expenditure—
(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or(b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency,as the case may be. (3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if—
(a) there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies, and(b) it can reasonably be inferred that the third party selected the relevant electors or households (or both) or otherwise distributed the material wholly or substantially to contact electors in the particular constituency or constituencies and not a wider section of the public.”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I recognise the great importance of constituency limits, and believe that there should be real restraints in place to stop large sums of money distorting an election result at constituency level. There is therefore no disagreement about the purpose of this clause. However, as the original draft did, the current version has grave drawbacks.

First, in its briefing before Second Reading, the Electoral Commission said in effect that it was unworkable and unenforceable. Its exact words were that, even if it were given extra resources,

“it will be challenging to obtain robust evidence to determine and sanction breaches in specific geographical areas, for example, regarding the effects of a leafleting campaign or mobile advertising in different constituencies ... it is likely to be difficult to demonstrate that a breach meets the necessarily high test for using a stop notice to intervene to halt campaigning activity”.

Secondly, campaigning groups have pointed out many times that for the most part they are not organised on a national basis, and it would be a huge administrative burden to divide up national expenditure on constituency lines.

Thirdly, a number of campaigns—for example, against a hospital closure or a motorway extension, let alone HS2—cross a number of constituency boundaries. It would be difficult to allocate expenditure in a transparent way that could be policed by the regulator. With a view to keeping constituency limits, but making them more workable and enforceable, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, brought forward an amendment on Report, but withdrew it in the hope that the Government would bring forward their own amendment to meet these major concerns. In the event, the Government have not done this. I have therefore tabled this amendment, which builds on the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to take into account the point made by the Minister in his response. It also takes into account legal advice to make the wording more precise, clear and therefore workable.

The fundamental principle behind this amendment is to capture, for the purpose of controlled expenditure, activities that can be clearly monitored, costed and enforced. This means,

“election material … which is addressed to electors whether addressed to them by name or intended for delivery to households”.

This was the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I have added the phrase,

“or otherwise distributed within any particular constituency or constituencies”.

This is to meet the point made by the Minister, who said:

“A third party could therefore freely distribute leaflets by hand in a town centre, or, indeed, in shopping areas in different parts of a constituency, in the knowledge that, because they are not being delivered to voters’ homes, the associated costs need not be accounted for in that constituency’s limit”.—[Official Report, 15/01/14; col. 302.]

So, under my amendment, that activity would be captured and would count towards the constituency limit.

The second activity included in the amendment is,

“unsolicited telephone calls … made to … electors or households … which can reasonably be regarded as intended to ascertain or influence their voting intention”.

Sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) proposed in the amendment provide a more detailed definition of what is meant by targeting one or more constituencies. In principle, activities would be subject to constituency limits where the distributional contact is “wholly or substantially” due to their location in one or more particular constituencies. This avoids mailings based on general issues becoming subject to constituency limits where the location of recipients is primarily chosen because they are affected by an issue, or have expressed a concern about it, rather than on an electoral basis. These mailings may be subject to controls on a national level even if they are not subject to the constituency-specific limits.

The amendment before the House today differs from Amendment 52 as tabled on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and others in that it would include material distributed other than by delivery to addresses, such as through distribution in shopping centres, and in that it provides a more detailed definition of what is actually meant by targeting one or more constituencies. My proposed new sub-paragraph (3)(a) is, I think, uncontroversial in that it simply repeats wording already contained in Clause 29. Proposed new sub-paragraph (3)(b) is a response to the response of the Electoral Commission, which, in an earlier briefing, said:

“In principle, we support amendment 52, tabled by Lord Tyler and others … We see benefits in defining the scope of activity covered by the constituency controls more narrowly than in Part 2 of the Bill generally. For example, costs relating to material sent to specific addresses can be identified and evidenced with some confidence”.

However, in its further briefing for Report, while reiterating its support in principle for the amendment, the commission was concerned about general campaigns on an issue and how costs associated with them would be allocated to each constituency:

“If Parliament wishes to narrow the scope of the constituency controls so that they only apply to mailings and unsolicited phone calls, we recommend that this should only apply to campaigning that appears intentionally concentrated in particular constituencies”.

Sub-paragraph (3)(b) proposed in the amendment addresses that point, in relation to both telephone calls and leafleting, much more carefully, because it tries to define what is meant by a constituency. In its final briefing, which we received just before this debate, the Electoral Commission says:

“On balance, we support this amendment, which should make the new constituency controls more practicable for campaigners and more enforceable”.

Given the concern this part of the Bill has aroused among third-party campaigners and the concern of the Electoral Commission about its enforceability, and taking into account the additional wording in this amendment to meet the concerns of the Minister and of the Electoral Commission, I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept it. I beg to move.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, my name is also on the two amendments in this group. I start by very briefly saying that, on some aspects of the Bill, the Government have clearly listened and responded positively, for which we are all grateful. That makes it harder for me to say, as I stand up yet again to carp and complain, that I hope that they will not dismiss the words that I have just used. The reality is that the Government are determined to have Clause 29, which I suspect—even if this modest amendment is accepted by the House today—will have little value except to serve as a warning to future Governments tempted to make constitutional changes without first thinking very carefully about them and the consequences.

The constituency limits introduced in the Bill, which, as we all know, reduce the spending limit to £9,750 in the year of an election, do not do that for candidates or political parties but only for non-party campaigners. We were told at the outset that Clause 29 is necessary to reduce the perception of undue influence. That is curious, because there is no evidence—I have not heard any in the course of any of the lengthy debates—to support a claim that there is any such public perception or that the current combination of PPERA and the Representation of the People Act has been in any way ineffective in relation to non-party campaigning so far. There is no evidence that non-party campaigners are currently exploiting the existing law by focusing their spending on a particular constituency. Indeed, no data are presently available on third-party spending by constituencies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The noble Lord knows that I value simplicity even more than he does. Would he not agree that it was right to try to respond to what the Minister said about the distribution of leaflets, and that if you were doing that, you had to try to define what was meant by focusing on a constituency or influencing the voting intentions of people in a constituency? Would he not also agree that, while there was, of course, a qualification at the end of the last advice from the Electoral Commission that there were probably difficulties remaining, the difficulties with this Bill are now far less than they were originally or even, perhaps, with his own amendment at an earlier stage?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, in response to that, I certainly agree that the Bill is greatly improved and I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord for the amazing amount of work that he and other noble Lords have undertaken to achieve that purpose.

I regret very much the speed with which we have moved from Report to Third Reading and that we did not have a genuine opportunity—we only had a comparatively few hours yesterday—to look at this together. I regret even more that any amendments passed today, whether government amendments or others that are passed by your Lordships’ House, will be considered by the other place within 24 hours. The short period for discussion of any necessary improvements is very unfortunate. Had his amendment simply brought in the point raised by the Minister about leafleting, and therefore stuck rigidly to the simplicity of the first provision in his amendment, I would be much happier about it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it was probably at one of the consultation meetings that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire held when we were discussing these matters that we heard about one substantial organisation that spent a considerable amount of money at the last election—and, indeed, registered the fact that it had done so. It was made clear that one of its activities was to focus on individual constituencies. I do not criticise that organisation for doing that, but if people are going to do such things, there should be proper limits so that there is proper transparency.

With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack, whether I speak personally or on behalf of Ministers and officials, I think that a conference with the Electoral Commission to ensure clarity of guidance on the constituency limits could be very worth while. I say “guidance” because interpretation is, ultimately, a matter for the courts, not the commission. I am not even sure—I am making this up as I go along—whether it should be restricted to Ministers, or whether it might also include the Opposition and other parties, and representatives of campaigning groups. Some sort of round table discussion might be very helpful before the final guidance is produced by the Electoral Commission. On the basis of what I have said, I again invite the noble and right reverend Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Before I focus on what the Minister has said about the amendment, may I thank him, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for responding on a whole range of issues to the concerns that have been expressed in this House? The Government really have moved a significant way; there is no doubt about that. But I think we are all aware that the Bill as it came to us in the first place was an appalling piece of legislation. A parliamentarian of very many years’ experience said to me that it was the worst piece of legislation that they had ever seen in a long parliamentary career. “Not quite”, I am hearing, so there must be some other cases as bad.

Again, the value of this House has been shown, as has the willingness of Ministers in this House to listen, so I genuinely thank them. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported some of the amendments tabled in my name and in the names of others. Not least, I thank members of the Electoral Commission, whose expertise I have had the privilege to share. The people there have worked extraordinarily hard. When I look at my e-mails in the morning I find that, night after night, they were sent off in the small hours of the morning; that gives you some indication of how hard they have worked.

Focusing on the amendment, I am disappointed that the Government have not been able to respond more positively. We made a genuine attempt to meet the point that they made about distributing leaflets, and the need to define very carefully what was or was not meant by a constituency in which there was an attempt to affect people’s voting intentions. Rallies have just been mentioned, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, if people want to get round restrictions on rallies they could easily do so by having a rally just outside a constituency where there is a narrow majority. There are all sorts of ways round, even as the Bill now stands.

My final point is about the Electoral Commission. I reiterate that it supported the amendment that has been moved today in my name and in the names of others. It said that there were still some difficulties with monitoring, but those would be nothing like the difficulties that it will have if the Bill goes through with the provisions on constituency limits unchanged. That will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Electoral Commission. It is slightly surprising that the Government have not listened more carefully to what it has said. I think that the strength of feeling in the House on this issue is such that I ought to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

12: Clause 29, page 18, line 24, leave out “controlled” and insert “third party constituency”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

21: Clause 39, page 39, line 41, at end insert—
“( ) The report under subsection (6) shall be laid before Parliament not more than 18 months after the date of the first relevant parliamentary general election.”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I need not speak to this amendment for very long. We very much welcomed the Government’s commitment to have a review of the Act after the 2015 general election and that they will set up a person to monitor the election itself. That is all very much to be welcomed—not least of course because, even with the amendments that the Government have accepted, there is still a great deal of concern about this Bill.

We all know that there is a tendency for reviews to be spun out and spun out. That is why some of your Lordships were very keen to have a sunset clause. I believe that Amendment 21 will ensure that Parliament has a proper opportunity to see that review and respond to it well before the election following the 2015 election. We believe that 18 months is about the right time for a proper review to take place and for all the consultations that are necessary. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I want very briefly to support the amendment but also to remind your Lordships’ House that the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concerns about the implications of the Bill for freedom of association and freedom of expression. I would be very grateful if the Minister, in responding, could assure your Lordships’ House that the effects of the Bill on freedom of expression and association will be part of this review, the importance of which was underlined when discussed in Committee—although I do not think that this particular point was raised.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has indicated, the Government brought forward at Report an amendment so that there will be a review. The Government are committed to appointing a person to undertake the review within 12 months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. That came out of one of the meetings that we had with one of the campaign groups, which suggested that it might be useful to have someone in place during the election. We thought that that was a very sensible suggestion and one for which we have provided.

I have discussed with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the merits and demerits of perhaps putting more in the Bill about what the review might or might not do, and we concluded that the minute we start adding things it begs the question as to what has been left out. There is no intention to limit the review, and I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. If people wish to make representations on that point in terms of the review, we would not anticipate anything stopping it—certainly there is nothing in the Bill that would stop it. I emphasise, however, that we believe that freedom of association and expression are vital. They are not impinged by the Bill; rather, what we have is transparency. We are not trying to stop people campaigning, but if they are campaigning in a way that seeks to influence an election it is not unreasonable that that should be transparent.

The next scheduled general election will be the opportunity on which the Bill will operate, and will provide a timely opportunity to review the effectiveness of those controls. On completion the person conducting the review must produce a written report which must be published and laid before Parliament by the Minister. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, tabled the amendment proposing that the report must be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the general election. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the outcomes of the review well before the following 2020 election. It is appropriate that the review is done to an established timetable, and the Government are therefore pleased to accept the amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the amendment. I do not know whether he can give any kind of indication, or feels that he would like to at this stage, about the groups or constituencies of people who would be consulted as part of the review. Perhaps he is not yet in a position to do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not want to pre-empt the person who is appointed to undertake the review or in any way constrain what he or she will do. It might be an opportunity to reiterate something, not just in the context of the review, but on the point made in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Cormack. I accepted the point that he made on the constituency issues: there might be merit in having groups—not just parties, but campaigning groups—involved in any guidance that emerges from the Electoral Commission. I readily expect that any review would involve submissions from the political parties that have been involved in the election, from charities, non-charitable campaigning groups, and people who have something relevant to contribute. As I said yesterday, we can always bet our lives that some issue will emerge that none of us has thought about, in spite of our very exhaustive discussions and debates. That is why it is important not to be prescriptive.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Government for their willingness to accept the amendment.

Amendment 21 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, concerns have been expressed about this government amendment allowing a Minister to have these powers on an Act which will go to the very heart of democracy—they are rightly called Henry VIII powers, I believe. The Government have given assurances that these powers are strictly limited and that they will consult the Electoral Commission. In view of the lessons learnt as a result of this Bill going through the two Houses, they may think that it is worth consulting more widely if they feel the need to bring orders before this House. It should be put on record that concerns have been expressed, but we are grateful, from what the Minister said, that the powers are strictly limited.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is almost inevitable that concerns are expressed when an amendment of this nature comes forward. That is a quite proper function of the House, and the Government should be made to justify putting forward such an amendment.

First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that the proposed clause has nothing whatever to do with the fact that there will be Commons consideration of Lords amendments tomorrow. The concern is that because the agreement on the provisions relating to coalitions came so late in the day, we want to be certain that we can deliver the policy which we reassured the campaign groups that we would deliver, and that if things emerge at a later stage, not necessarily in the next 24 hours, there will be an ability to do so. I am reassured by the comments of my noble friend Lady Thomas that, as clauses of this nature go, this one is limited and consequential. Indeed, it has a sunset clause and I also welcome the fact that this was noted by my noble friend Lord Tyler.

My noble friend Lord Horam raised the Electoral Commission’s remit, which is being amended by Clause 38. The Government believe it is appropriate to emphasise the importance of the commission’s regulatory role and to remove any potential understanding of its responsibilities. Clause 38 requires the commission to,

“take all reasonable steps to secure”,

campaigners’ compliance with campaigning rules. The Bill further provides for transparency of the commission’s work by introducing a new requirement for it to set out in its annual report what steps it has taken to secure compliance with the relevant provisions of PPERA. By requiring an account of its activities, the Government are seeking to make clear that the commission’s work is vital and that its regulatory approach is being empowered by the Bill.

The point was made by my noble friend Lord Horam, and I have heard it mooted in other quarters, too, that every small, malicious or vexatious complaint or query would have to be investigated. We do not agree, as the provision in Clause 38 imposing a duty on the Commission to investigate complaints does not mean that the commission would have to investigate complaints that it knows to be unfounded, malicious or vexatious. However, I believe that any change to the Electoral Commission’s remit could and should form part of the review of Part VI of PPERA, to which your Lordships have already agreed and which was the subject of further discussion earlier today.

In relation to the Electoral Commission, perhaps I might also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of what I said in moving this amendment. We agree that it is important to consult the Electoral Commission before any use of the powers in Amendment 24. I assure the House that that is indeed what we would do before making an order under this power. My noble friend Lord Horam suggested that the power in this amendment might be used with regard to any changes in the Electoral Commission’s remit. In disappointing him, perhaps I might reassure the rest of your Lordships that we think it unlikely that any changes to the commission’s remit could be considered as consequential provisions under this power, and therefore would not be within its scope. However, it would be appropriate if the review we discussed were to look at the remit of the Electoral Commission.

Finally, I take this opportunity on this last amendment to say thanks to many people but particularly to your Lordships’ House for the scrutiny which the Bill has had here. I can say without doubt that the Bill returns to the House of Commons much improved, and in doing so we have shown evidence of the value and merit of the revising role that this House undertakes, which it does with great seriousness.

I acknowledge with thanks the kind words that have been said about my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and me. In turn, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for their excellent work on the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. They have made a valuable contribution to the work that we have done in this House. Along with them and other members of the commission, I thank the many organisations which have engaged with us and them: third-parties and campaigning groups, charities and non-charities, all of which have made an important contribution. We have not necessarily always agreed, but they have contributed to making the Bill better.

I also thank those who have contributed in other ways through amendments and speeches: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Hardie, my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lord Horam, Lord Tyler and Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who have at times contributed to our debates. Although there are many people in your Lordships’ House who have had experience as Members of Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, brought a welcome reminder in his contributions that these are practical provisions which affect people who actually fight elections.

I also thank my noble friends on the ministerial Bench, Lord Wallace, Lord Gardiner of Kimball and Lord Younger of Leckie. I also acknowledge the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to the officials—some in the Box and some not. On their behalf—because, obviously, they cannot speak—I express appreciation of that and add mine. They have worked with considerable equanimity and good humour. At least one of them attended almost every meeting which we have had with groups and they have assisted my colleagues on the ministerial team greatly. I certainly very much value the work that they have done and the very long hours, including over Christmas and New Year—one sometimes noticed the times and dates when e-mails were sent. I express appreciation for that.

Having said that, I very much hope that your Lordships will agree to the amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I gave a range of thanks before and I shall not repeat them, but there is one group of people who have not been mentioned and thanked. For a person who is not a very experienced parliamentarian, such as me, those people been particularly helpful. They are the staff of the Public Bill Office. They have been very helpful in guiding me on what might be allowable and possible. I express my thanks on behalf of others to them.

Amendment 24 agreed.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

34: Clause 26, page 12, line 45, at end insert—
“unless the expenditure relates to legislation before Parliament during the regulated period”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, before I focus on the first amendment—

[Baroness Anelay of St Johns]

May I assist the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries? We allow some latitude, of course, at the beginning of any stage when Members are exiting the House in some large number, but may I advise any other Peer who leaves that they should not walk in front of the person who is moving the amendment? It was impossible for those on the Front Bench, who were listening to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, even to hear the first word. I am sure that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, may now wish to resume.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble Baroness very much.

Before I focus on the first amendment in this group, I thank the Minister for responding to a good number of concerns raised by the commission which I have the privilege of chairing. He has responded to quite a lot of our concerns, in particular, I note, with government Amendments 41 to 44 in this group, which we are glad to see. All these issues were mentioned in the second report of the Commission on Civic Society and Democratic Engagement. The government amendments deal with issues of safety and security, particularly in Northern Ireland, extra expenses due to disability and travelling expenses, and they take out the time of volunteers. They also include translation from Welsh to English, although I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has his own amendment to include production costs as well as translation costs, and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on that. I am very grateful on behalf of the commission to the Minister; he has taken a lot of trouble to listen.

However—and it is a big however—there remain a significant number of concerns, on which we are hoping to have a positive response from the Government. I have in my hands a petition which was started only last Thursday by the commission and, since then, has gained the support of more than 130 NGOs and 160,000 signatures from charities and campaigning groups that are still concerned about the effect of the Bill on the workings of our democratic society.

Briefly, the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, is about the distinction between the general public and supporters. The commission put forward an amendment to try to widen out the definition of a supporter because, in a digital age, a supporter cannot simply be considered as somebody who gives money to a charity. As that petition indicates, with its 160,000 signatures, the term “supporters” now has a much wider character. Although the Government did not accept the amendment which we tabled earlier because they thought it was too wide, I hope that they will look sympathetically at that of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler.

To focus specifically on Amendment 34, my amendment concerns legislation before Parliament during an electoral period. It is absolutely fundamental to the healthy working of democratic society that people should be able to campaign quite freely, without being inhibited by too much regulation, against legislation that is going through Parliament during the electoral period. I was disappointed that the Electoral Commission, which has been helpful at a number of points in supporting our amendments, does not support this one in its latest briefing. I will examine its arguments as to why not.

The Electoral Commission says that, if the amendment were allowed, it would allow unlimited spending on what may promote or procure the election of any particular candidate or party. Secondly, it suggests that the range of topics is potentially wide, even if it is covered by primary legislation indicated by the Government. Let us take an example and test that out. In election year, the Government decide to start legislation for, let us say, a new town of 500,000 people not far from an area of outstanding natural beauty. This policy is strongly supported by the Government of the day, but is opposed by the two other parties; it is a highly political issue. Furthermore, the town will actually cover three constituencies where there is a narrow majority.

Surely people ought to be able to campaign either for or against that quite freely without an excessive regulatory burden, even during an electoral period. Otherwise, think what would happen. The Government could save their most controversial legislation until the beginning of the electoral period and bring it forward then, knowing that the opposition to it would be more muted than if it were outside the electoral period. We must remember that one year in five will be an electoral period. This will severely hamper and inhibit the proper workings of our democratic society.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I always know it to be dangerous when the noble Lord stands up and says he has been thinking about something—and so it was.

I took the fixed-term Parliament legislation through your Lordships’ House and I do not recall—nor, indeed, have I seen at the present time—anything that suggests there is going to be any change. Of course, that means that there still will be a period during which Governments are not allowed to do this; but I have not seen any proposal to reflect the fact that there is a fixed-term Parliament. When that period will arise will become more apparent, or more foreseeable. If I have got that wrong, although I do not think I have, I will inform the noble Lord.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendments and the other amendments to which my name has been attached and I thank the Minister for his response.

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, drew attention to some of the unfortunate consequences, as he understands it, of this legislation at constituency level. However, what I had in mind was primarily what happens at the national level. He suggested that political parties would be limited in what they can campaign; but the Government, in pursuing their legislation, are not limited in the amount of money they can spend in order to get legislation through Parliament, and nor are the Opposition.

Suppose you have two third parties: one, the Countryside Alliance, which wants to campaign against a new town, and the other the National Housing Federation, which wants to campaign in favour of more housing. Why should they be inhibited by the Bill in a way that the political parties would not be inhibited? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out, we are not talking about the post-Dissolution period, so a lot of the ill effects that the noble Lord suggested might happen at constituency level would not be allowed by this amendment, because we are talking about only legislation going through Parliament and that ends when Parliament is prorogued. Therefore I believe that this is a crucial issue that goes to the heart of our democracy.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and right reverend Lord indicated, when referring to what my noble friend Lord Horam had said, that it had not been his intention to engage in constituency expenditure. Does he accept that if this is not controlled expenditure, it could lead to expenditure in a constituency up until the time when the Representation of the People Act kicks in?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I accept that there are certainly implications for what might happen at local level. However, I ask the noble and learned Lord to continue to think about it because this issue goes to the very heart of the democratic process. I very much hope that, having talked to the Electoral Commission to see whether there might be a way forward, he might give the very clearest statement at Third Reading, which would then be translated into advice for the Electoral Commission. We need something here to safeguard the fundamental rights of campaigners to campaign during this period. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 34 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for that. My noble friend is lucky in having had a letter. When I finished the conversation, the Charity Commission said to me that it would send a new communication forthwith to everybody who received the first one to make clear that this statement did not relate to the law as it will be after the passing of this Bill. That is just one small example of—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am fortunate enough to have the original letter before me. I wonder what the noble Lord makes of the statement:

“We do not believe that in the best interests of public trust and confidence in charities an exemption for charities is the most appropriate method for the regulation of charities during an election period”.

There cannot be anything clearer than that. I know it is very disappointing for the noble Lord, but the Charity Commission has come out unequivocally in opposition to his amendment and I think he will have to face that.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is actually addressing a different issue in this letter. I was dealing with paragraph one. He is dealing with paragraph two, about public trust and confidence in charities, which I was about to come on to and which, if I may, I will deal with in a second.

I emphasise the fact that the Charity Commission has delivered to those in this House who are particularly involved with this issue some guidance in relation to the law—comparing electoral law with charity law—that leaves us at best in a state of some confusion. I think, as I will say in a minute, that the approximation of charity law and electoral law is now so close that to all intents and purposes it is in practical terms the same. However, as we know better than anybody on earth, the capacity of lawyers—and not only lawyers—to argue about that is infinite. When you get a letter such as this from the Charity Commission, you can see why.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Does the noble and learned Lord not accept that the Electoral Commission has come out exceedingly strongly against this amendment? It is not just the Charity Commission but the Electoral Commission, which has a specific statutory duty.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

I understand that, but I do not understand why they have come out against it, because it must be based on an understanding that charities could in fact engage in activities that are regulated by this Bill.

[Lord Best (CB)]

My Lords, I think that I shall go with the suggestion that we defer debate on this until Third Reading. I will just throw one or two thoughts into the pot that have not yet been fully explored.

Charity law is currently very much under review. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, has reported on the workings of the Charities Act 2006 and the Select Committee on Public Administration has looked into the operations of the Charity Commission. Both the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the Select Committee on Public Administration issued reports last year recommending changes, and the Government have accepted many of those recommendations. In addition, the National Audit Office recently issued a report calling for a reform of the Charity Commission, and the Law Commission is looking at charity law and will report this year.

It is almost certain, therefore, that there will be significant reforms to charity law in the near future, so if charities are taken out of the lobbying Bill, which is the proposition here, there will be an opportunity, if necessary, to amend charity law and to see changes of this kind in a broader and wider context at a later date. The many arguments on why charities should be taken out of this particular Bill stand on their own, I think, and although we are giving great deference to the quangos, I find the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and others to be compelling. Possibly we should not be debating all those details if legislation that is specifically about the future of charities, charity law and the Charity Commission is in the pipeline. It would be better to defer our debate until then, but I would be very happy to see this brought back at Third Reading.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Perhaps the House will allow me just a couple of minutes to put the opposing point of view to the noble Lords who have spoken so far. Their proposal is superficially very attractive and would be possible if the definition in Clause 26 were different. If the definition of “controlled expenditure” in the Bill said that it was expenditure whose prime purpose was the promotion, or procuring the election, of a particular candidate or party, it would be possible to take out charities. They should be taken out because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, rightly said, charities are not allowed to have as their prime purpose the support of political parties.

However, that is not what the Bill says. Clause 26—and we have heard it thousands of times—includes two important points, which are that you do not have to mention the name of the party and it does not have to be your prime intention. Therefore, you can campaign on an issue and still be caught by the regulation of the Bill. That is why—

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for giving way. Does he not agree that to be caught by the legislation the expenditure has to be “intended” to procure that effect?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The whole point of those provisions, which is where the sting is, is that you can campaign on and focus on an issue and that can be reasonably regarded as indirectly supporting a particular candidate or party, or you can even do so inadvertently. Let us be quite clear: charities are able to campaign on issues.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord for giving way, but he really cannot get away with that. You cannot inadvertently satisfy the requirements of Clause 26 when it says that you “intend” to promote or procure electoral success. Intention is not the same as inadvertence at all, and it is a very strong test. The fact that there are other matters that you are trying to advance at the same time does not get away from that test.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Then why does the Charity Commission guidance—and I have read carefully both its main guidance and its guidance in relation to the Electoral Commission—include a series of examples, just like the Electoral Commission, where charities may or may not be caught? This is a borderline area. Charities are able to campaign and to campaign vigorously, and many trustees encourage them to do so. Therefore, it is always possible for them to come within the scope of this provision.

If you take out charities, only two courses are open to you. Either you have an unlevel playing field so that you have a charity campaigning against a campaigning group which is not a charity, and the charity, if it were taken out, would be able to spend an unlimited amount of money, whereas the non-charitable campaigning group would have very strict limits on what it was allowed to spend, or the Charity Commission could set up a much stronger policing body than it has at the moment—one which would match that of the Electoral Commission.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord and I apologise for intervening again, but does he not agree that we are continuing to get bogged down in technicalities about the interpretation of very detailed points in this clause? If the point is taken that there will be discussions before Third Reading and we can look for something more fully considered to come back then, it will make a lot of sense to put into that review the points that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is dealing with at the moment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I take the point but it was important to state the argument because some people are understandably initially very attracted to this idea. It would lift the regulatory burden, and people are attracted to the idea of taking out charities. However, there are very strong, compelling and rational reasons why this should not be done, and that is why it is opposed by the Electoral Commission, the Charity Commission, the commission that I chair, the NCVO, ACEVO and all the others.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

The NCVO has taken up—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace has said, I and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend Lord Cormack have a subsidiary but quite important additional amendment, Amendment 39A. I am sure that all four of us welcome the recognition that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace has given to the fact that the 2000 Act—this is not about this Bill; it is about the 2000 Act—has caused real problems for any organisations that were encouraged to work together in what were then called coalitions. Since then, the term “coalition” has gained a different connotation, so perhaps we should talk just about “working together”. The way in which this matter was handled in 2000 has caused real concerns. I know from reading Hansard that this confusion was caused at the last minute by a government amendment during the Committee stage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, as it then was, in this House.

It is curious that, over the years since 2000, very few of us seem to have heard of the problems that were caused by those provisions. Neither the Electoral Commission nor the Charity Commission ever came forward and said that these matters needed review and either repeal or revision. However, we now know, because a large number of organisations have been in touch with many Members of your Lordships’ House saying that this is a real practical problem—hence the Government’s amendment, which is excellent so far as it goes. However, as I shall seek to explain in a moment, there is one additional problem which I hope my noble and learned friend will be able to say he can look at again, since, as he just said, there will be some additional clarification at Third Reading.

As my noble and learned friend has said, the new provisions should be a major help to smaller players in those joint campaigns, ensuring that others can account for their spending, but the approach in Amendment 39 does not go quite far enough. The fundamental problem with the so-called coalition arrangements in the 2000 Act is as follows. If, let us say, Friends of Earth intends to spend £300,000 on a campaign about climate change and does so in coalition with, for example, Oxfam, which contributes £25,000, under PPERA both are deemed to have spent, or to plan to spend, £325,000. Clearly, that is absurd, because that would mean that Oxfam, which had contributed only £25,000 to that campaign, might well then be precluded from doing anything else on other issues, which it is clear was not intended by the 2000 Act and which, I hope, is not something that we would intend to do today.

To prevent people working together and therefore having to multiply the spending limits under the 2000 Act by a factor equal to the number of organisations involved seems to be most peculiar. Removing the rules altogether would create another new loophole. I keep saying to colleagues in the third sector, “We’ve got to be very careful that we don’t increase flexibility for what we think is a good cause only to create a loophole for much less meritorious campaigning activity”. However, what is unfair about the rules is not that some spending on common campaigns is counted together to prevent an overall breach of the limits but the fact that spending by one organisation on one campaign can then restrict the campaigning of another organisation on a totally different campaign. In my example, Oxfam would be deemed to have spent £325,000 not just for the purposes of that climate change campaign but for all purposes. It would then be very close to the limit, which would then mean that it would have to worry about whether any of its other spending on, let us say, development targets could,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a party or candidate.

If that organisation’s trustees believe that the future spending could be so regarded, they would be left with a very small amount of headroom in the national spending limit even though they had contributed a relatively small amount of money to the tune of £25,000. Therefore, £25,000 spent on climate change would mean very little room left for spending on other development targets. I am sure your Lordships will see that that would not be just and right and does not meet the objectives either of the existing law or of this Bill.

Our Amendment 39A would build on the progress made by the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace in setting out the principle that there should be an overall cap on spending by any one joint campaign or by any one individual organisation. However, new subsection (6B) proposed by my amendment states that,

“expenditure by a third party within the limits set out in Schedule 10 in pursuance of any matter unrelated to an arrangement and which could not reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve a purpose common to an arrangement”,

should not be so restricted by the coalition rules in PPERA 2000.

The amendment would provide for some affected organisations a silver lining in the passage of this Bill. In short, it would remove a very unjust element of the existing law which has caused quite unintended problems for many non-party campaigners. Their arrangements would be improved immeasurably. The amendment would also improve significantly what the Government have so far managed to come up with. I hope that my noble friends will recognise that the problems with the 2000 Act are considerable. This was one very specific problem that was caused to a large number of organisations. I hope therefore that before Third Reading, when, as my noble and learned friend has already indicated, there has to be some further clarification and therefore amendment of the set of amendments that he is putting before the House today, he could look also at this additional problem, which otherwise will go unresolved and continue to cause considerable difficulty for all sorts of organisations.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for the government amendment, which is a positive response to the suggestion put forward in our commission’s report, as he acknowledged. I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I shall not repeat the reasons that he has already put forward, but it is an important amendment for charities and campaigning groups generally because they do a huge amount of campaigning not just with one coalition but with a whole series of coalitions. For instance, aid agencies may be engaged in a coalition on overseas aid and, at the same time, be engaged in a coalition on climate change. That is the way in which they work.

I want to make a point that has not been made so far in any of these debates. It concerns the fundamental purpose of this part of the legislation and whether it will achieve what the Government hope. The purpose of the legislation at this point is to stop front organisations drawing on large sums of money to distort campaigning, but I suggest that the legislation as we have it now will not have that effect. Let us take a hypothetical example. Six very strong anti-Europeans have dinner together. They have access to large amounts of money from various sources. They go away to different parts of the country and they decide to start six different campaigning organisations under different names. But, in fact, everybody knows that their purpose is to get Britain out of Europe. Would they be caught by this legislation? No. I have read carefully the briefing note presented by the Electoral Commission, which says that you are not working together—that is, you are not engaged in co-ordinated campaigning—if you have informal discussions with other campaigners but do not discuss your plans with them in any detail—all this party will have done is have dinner together; if you speak at an event organised by another campaigner but do not participate in other ways—they could even speak at each other’s events; and if you do not consult other campaigners about what you should say in your campaign or how you should organise it. However, it goes on to say that you can sign a joint letter together. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take seriously the fact that the legislation as it now stands will not have the desired effect of stopping big money coming in and using front organisations. We firmly support the intent but we do not think that the Bill will achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

45: Schedule 3, page 57, line 14, at end insert—
“Exclusions of background staff costs1AA Nothing in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 1 shall be taken as extending to any expenses incurred in respect of remuneration or allowances payable to any member of staff (whether permanent or otherwise) of the third party.”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, this amendment is very important for campaigning groups and charities, but I can move it very briefly: it is quite clear and simple.

First, let me say that the charities and campaigning groups, as part of the commission, very much support the aim both of transparency and accountability, and with that aim in mind support the extension of activities that should be regulated and are set out in new Schedule 8A. This amendment is about removing the background staff costs from those activities in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of that schedule. They refer to press conferences and media events; transport costs, when those are directed towards obtaining publicity—for instance, a campaign bus; and public rallies and other meetings.

We agree that all those should of course be brought into regulation, but this amendment is about excluding the background cost: that is, the cost of the member of staff of the third party. That is not primarily on cost grounds, but because of the additional bureaucracy that it would involve. How do you delineate the amount of time that the staff member spends—let us say, on mounting a public rally—from the amount of staff time they spend on their campaigning work anyway?

It is easy to assess the amount of money you are going to spend on hiring the hall for a public rally; you get an invoice for that. You do not get an invoice for a member of staff or the 10% of their time spent over four weeks doing that. Therefore, we think that the best thing to do is eliminate the background staff costs from the regulated costs in those three areas. It should be noted that the Electoral Commission recommends the removal of all staff costs, at least for the 2015 election. We are not going as far as that; we refer only to the background staff costs in relation to these three activities that are being brought into regulation. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his amendment, because I, too, recognise that this issue has been regularly raised in many of the meetings that we have had—as did my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment seeks to exclude those staff costs associated with staff directly employed by a third party from the calculation of controlled expenditure for transport, press conferences and organised media events, and for public rallies and public events.

The starting point is to recognise that the PPERA Act 2000 has always required third parties to account for staff costs. I acknowledge that the Bill extends the range of activities that may incur controlled expenditure; these are the activities that the noble and right reverend Lord seeks by his amendment to remove from staff costs. The Bill seeks to retain the need for staff costs to be included. As I said, I recognise that there has been concern, first, over the unfairness of third parties having to account for these costs when political parties do not. I think that my noble friend Lord Tyler mentioned that. Secondly, there has been concern about the difficulty for third parties in calculating the staff time attributable to activities giving rise to controlled expenditure.

On the issue of third parties having to account for these costs while political parties do not, your Lordships will be aware that when Parliament passed the 2000 Act it felt that it would be transparent and proportionate for a third party to account for staff time. This was on the basis that a third party undertakes campaigning activities other than simply political campaigning, and where a third party enters into political campaigning its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent. I am sure that that was the underlying thinking behind the 2000 Act. I would at least hope that someone who is employed by the Liberal Democrats during an election is actually working for the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I am sure that the other parties would hope the same on behalf of their staff. It is as transparent as it possibly can be.

Regarding the concerns of third parties over the difficulties associated with calculating staff time, this is an existing element of the regulatory regimes. Its operation in the last two general elections, alongside Electoral Commission guidance on this, highlighted that such costs can be accounted for without becoming overly burdensome. The Electoral Commission takes a proportionate approach in current guidance to the calculation of controlled expenditure, including staff costs, by clearly stating that third parties should make an honest assessment of the costs that need to be reported.

I have shared with a number of the groups which have come to see me since Committee the fact that we did examine whether it would be possible to put in a de minimis exemption. Quite frankly, having seen what its terms would be, it would give rise to more concern about legal definitions than it merited, particularly if we had a de minimis exemption in statute. That would make it much more difficult for the Electoral Commission to take that proportionate approach to the calculation of controlled expenditure which it has done through its guidance.

It should also be noted that with the increases in the registration threshold the smaller organisations to which my noble friend referred, be they charities or campaigning organisations, will not be subject to regulation and the need to calculate staff costs. The best way of addressing the de minimis question is by what we have done in raising the threshold and taking so many of these organisations outwith the scope of controlled expenditure altogether.

My noble friend quite properly paid tribute to the work done by volunteers, not only for charities but for so many campaigning organisations. In many respects, they are the people who make the wheels of campaigning and democracy go round. However, volunteer costs will continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled expenditure. In Amendment 44, which the House has just agreed, volunteer costs are excluded from the calculation of staff costs by virtue of paragraph 1A(1)(c) of new Schedule 8A. They were excluded under the existing regime, but it is important to emphasise that volunteer costs will also be excluded under what we are proposing. There is a world of difference between volunteer costs, which will be excluded, and the great advantage that there can be to candidates or political parties of third parties putting paid staff into campaigning activity in constituencies, or into running media events, press conferences or rallies.

The result of the amendment proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, would be to exempt that kind of expenditure associated with paid staff being moved in at the time of an election to facilitate the electoral advantage of a particular party or candidate. It is for that reason that the Government do not feel able to accept the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment, and I invite him to withdraw it.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am disappointed with the noble and learned Lord’s reply. This was a very simple step that the Government could have taken to ease the regulatory burden on charities and campaigning groups. It is disappointing. He stressed the fact that staff costs were already in PPERA. With due respect, that is no good reason for continuing them, if we have an opportunity to improve that Act and make it not just workable but one which eases the burden on charities and campaigning groups.

The Minister stressed that the Electoral Commission had found it possible to regulate this, but the fact is, as he knows, that charities and campaigning groups find this whole area very burdensome. I really do not see how the Electoral Commission can possibly police this area and work out what percentage of the time has been allotted, let us say, to the mounting of a public rally. What kind of receipts or statements is it going to get from the charity concerned? I am afraid that I find it very disappointing and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My noble friend is right. He and I have relatively recent experience of these things. The normal figure is around £12,000 during the election period. As I will come to in a moment, that could be swamped under these proposals, and therefore this is an absurd anomaly. I understand why the Government have arrived at their position. Their formula sounds simple, but it may be so simple as to be unequal to the task in hand. Equally, the move in Amendment 53 to do away with different limits for constituency spending seven months before an election, and constituency spending seven days before, seems to me to lose what is an important and not particularly complex distinction in the name of simplicity—and I am not sure the Government have got this right.

I ask the Minister to consider carefully the horror story that could emerge. Imagine: a campaigning group could come into a constituency and spend £19,999.99 in the last seven days of the campaign with the aim of affecting the outcome in that constituency, and it would not need to register. A second group, unrelated to the first, could, during those seven days, do the same. It would not register. A third group, unrelated to the other two—not a coalition, not working together— could do the same. In the last few days of a campaign in a marginal constituency, just under £60,000 could be spent, completely swamping the amount permitted for a candidate and a party, which is around £12,000, in one constituency. The candidates are, as I say, limited in those final four to six weeks.

Because this spending would not be registered, it might not be revealed until after polling day. Think of the mess that that would cause to our electoral law. Because such groups, though technically in breach of the law, would not need to register, no one would be any the wiser about what they had been up to. My noble and learned friend has said that he is looking at this section with a view to some clarification, and I think he will have to agree that there is a major loophole looming in front of us. I therefore request that he look carefully at Amendment 46ZA. He may find a better solution but a solution must be found, otherwise political parties and those who will be looking at this legislation when it goes back to the other place will not have seen this particular problem, because until now the registration threshold has not been so high. It is only under the present Government’s changes in this House that it has been raised to this height.

I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give some reassurance to those of us on all sides of the House who are concerned about such spending that the Government are not prepared to accept this loophole.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, Amendment 46A in my name concerns the spending cap for England. First I would like, on behalf of the commission, to warmly welcome the raising of the registration thresholds by the Government. I think that has done more than anything else to reassure the smaller charities; we give the Government a very warm thank you. We also warmly welcome the raising of the spending cap for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The spending cap for England, unlike that for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, has been reduced by 60%. That reduction has taken place with an increase in the number of activities to be regulated and without taking inflation into account.

It is true that not many campaigning groups and very few, if any, charities would spend a high figure coming anywhere near that. The one I have checked that does spend quite a lot of money is Hope not Hate, which campaigns against racism all over the country. It is not a charity but a campaigning group. In 2010 it spent £319,231. That is very nearly the limit for England as we have it under the Bill, which is £319,800.

There was no evidence of abuse with the previous spending caps for England, and no rationale has been given for this reduction by 60%. Even if the Government are not willing to revert to the PPERA limits for England, I ask the Minister whether he sees any scope for some kind of compromise between the drastic reduction which has been brought about by the Bill and the spending limits there were for PPERA.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I will add just a few words to what I said a few minutes ago. I fought 12 general elections, in 10 of which I was elected, to go to the other place. In every one of those the expenditure that I was allowed was very clearly defined. The returns that one had to make afterwards were minutely examined, and there have been cases within our memory where candidates have been challenged on their returns because they were a little careless in submitting them. We have to be extremely careful. The last election I fought was in 2005, and if I remember rightly I was allowed to spend around £8,000 or £9,000. My noble friend says that it is now about £12,000, and I accept that—I am sure he is right. It was all very carefully defined, and we have to be careful, much as we all want to protect free speech and engagement in campaign and all the rest of it, that the expenditure of candidates who stand for particular political parties or as independents is not put into the shade by the expenditure that is allowed to campaigning organisations within individual constituencies. Although I do not suppose that my noble friend Lord Tyler will push his amendment to the vote, I hope that the Minister will reflect upon what he and I have said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, this amendment, which I am moving on behalf of a number of noble Lords in different parts of the House, deals with some small changes to a previous amendment that we looked at in Committee on constituency limits, but they are changes that I know will be very welcome to a number of organisations which have been in touch with several Members of your Lordships’ House. It received considerable support across the Chamber in Committee and has two compelling advantages to recommend it.

First, it retains the Government’s intention to have a constituency limit. That is surely central to the Bill. As I have said consistently, I strongly support that and I know that a large number of other Members of your Lordships’ House also think it is important to retain that. However, even if we were to take it out, as some have suggested, I would certainly expect that Members of the other place would need no whipping at all to put it back in, for the reasons that were advanced so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Cormack a few minutes ago. Surely even Labour MPs would want it to be put back in.

The second advantage to the amendment is that it very closely and carefully defines what the constituency limits should apply to. As many charities and NGOs, big and small, have pointed out to me and to other Members of your Lordships’ House, they are not used to dealing with constituency boundaries; they have quite a different sort of geography from those of us who are involved in politics. Therefore, trying to assess the relative effect of, say, a rally in different constituencies would be quite problematic. It would be problematic for the political parties too, and for that reason we, as politicians, are not asked to account for it.

I shall give a practical example. I once chaired a rally for the five constituencies, as they then were, in Cornwall, and it took place in one particular constituency. It just so happened that we won all five seats but that did not have anything to do with my chairmanship at that rally. However, how would the costs of that rally be allocated to each constituency? You could allocate the costs to one constituency but what about the other four? That clearly is not what this Bill is all about. It really is not possible to measure the effect of a rally, or indeed a billboard or a press conference, on the result in an individual constituency.

I have one other example. I lost a lot of hair—or, rather, most of it went grey—in two elections arranging the national tour of the battle bus for the then joint leaders. Your Lordships may remember that at one stage we had two leaders in the alliance—the two Davids—although they did not always see eye to eye. That caused me a great deal of aggro. However, how I would ever have accounted for five minutes in this constituency, 10 minutes in that constituency and an hour in that constituency if I were running a campaign on behalf of a non-political organisation is quite beyond me.

Amendment 52, on which I am very grateful for the support of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would limit the scope of the constituency regulations to just activities where people communicate with specific voters. The one advantage of this amendment is that it ties down very specifically the activities that target specific people at a specific address in a specific constituency—letters or leaflets sent or delivered to voters, or telephone calls directed specifically to them—and which try to influence or ascertain their voting intention. Other activity would still have to be accounted for but only on a national basis. Therefore, if it is the national tour of a battle bus, arranging rallies or whatever, that has to be accounted for nationally but under the more generous national limits.

What has been made clear to us by many organisations which think that they may be involved in the activities covered by the Bill is that, if they are asked to account only for those activities that specifically target specific individuals, that will make their lives a great deal easier. It will retain the central purpose of the Bill, which is to stop big-money campaigns dwarfing the limits that candidates have to adhere to—my noble friend was very eloquent on this point a few minutes ago, as was my noble friend Lady Williams—and it will mean that the additional costs of activity directed at specific candidates can be identified neatly, clearly and succinctly.

The Electoral Commission has very clearly endorsed this amendment and expressed clear support for it because it makes simpler the guidance that it will have to give and the subsequent monitoring that it will have to undertake. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I support the amendment for the reasons that the noble Lord has set out. Constituency limits have been of very great concern to charities and campaigning organisations. I am fully aware of the kind of concerns raised by the noble Baroness, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, indicated, this issue has also been a very great concern for the Electoral Commission because it does not see how it can regulate and enforce this area. The noble Lord’s amendment will make it far easier for charities to be regulated by the law and for the Electoral Commission to regulate it.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, an amendment that can produce a joint letter from the National Secular Society and the Christian Institute clearly deserves careful consideration. When they take into account that the Electoral Commission also believes that there is good sense in this proposal, I hope that your Lordships will feel likewise. I hope that we will not have to exercise ourselves by going into the Lobbies. I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to indicate at least a significant degree of sympathy with this and, if he cannot accept these precise words, that he will undertake to come back at Third Reading next week with something similar.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

52A: Clause 28, page 16, line 31, leave out “0.05%” and insert “0.1013%”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, Amendment 52A concerns constituency spending limits. It proposes that the spending limit for constituencies, instead of being 0.05%, is 0.1013%. I think your Lordships are well aware that campaigning groups and charities have found the regulation regarding constituencies exceedingly burdensome and the Electoral Commission has found them unenforceable. We take very seriously all that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said about ensuring that big money does not come in. Nevertheless, we think that the constituency limits are too low. Raising them by this percentage, which reflects the wider percentage of caps, would give that greater degree of freedom which the charities and campaigning groups would like. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we have Amendment 62A in this group. In order that the notes in reply can be thrown away, I give notice that I will not speak to it. Essentially, the issues were covered in the earlier group. Nevertheless, we retain our concerns about constituency limits and would very much like to have voted on the previous amendment, but there we are. However, we support the other amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has tabled an amendment which would raise the constituency limits from being the equivalent of 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit applied to political parties to 0.1013%. This would amount to almost £20,000—specifically, £19,753.50. As the noble Baroness indicated, we have already debated the issues on constituency limits. I have explained the necessity of constituency limits being in place. Without these limits in place, a third party could otherwise be able to focus the entirety of its spending power on a small part of the United Kingdom, outspending even candidates and parties in that location. That point was forcefully made by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Tyler. It is important that those limits are set at an appropriate level and it is our view that the noble Lord’s amendment would not be appropriate.

I will not repeat the earlier points. We wish to promote accountability and transparency. Constituency limits relate to campaigning for or against a particular party and instances where a campaign is intended, or may reasonably be regarded as intended, to support groups of candidates who might hold particular views or support particular policies. Where such campaigning is subject to a national limit, it is also right that it is subject to a proposed constituency limit but we believe that that must be at a proportionate level. The comments we heard in earlier debates suggest that the limit we have set is too generous. Indeed, even my noble friend Lord Tyler might think it. However, we think that the limit we have set is proportionate, especially as we have removed the distinction between spending throughout the regulated period and spending during the period between the dissolution and election day. The limits are intended to remove undue influence, particularly by those campaigners who can afford to spend significant amounts of money. I do not believe that the noble and right reverend Lord’s proposal would be proportionate. It could allow substantial sums of money—sums, as we have heard, such as £12,000, which is the candidate’s limit. To have a third-party sum that is almost half as much again does not appear to be proportionate. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I can well appreciate the noble and learned Lord’s answer to that. The issue that is continually raised by the commission I chair is the rationale for always linking third-party spending and regulation to political-party spending and regulation. That has never really been fully set out. I take the point that the noble and learned Lord has made but I hope that he will take on board the fact that there is continuing concern among charities and campaigning groups about constituency spending, and not just the spending but the regulation for campaigning in constituencies. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there is also great concern in the Electoral Commission. Even if he is not prepared to consider this amendment again, will he look seriously at Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler? That would help significantly. If he is not sympathetic to my amendment, I hope that he might be able to look again at Amendment 52 and bring something back in relation to it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52A withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Tyler, particularly for Amendments 81 and 89, which concern nil returns. It was extraordinarily difficult to justify to people why nil returns should be made. I am also very grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for his reassurance about the interaction with the coalition working returns that we discussed earlier.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, while I welcome the government amendments, I draw the attention of the House to the report of the Electoral Commission on Amendments 74 to 81, 83 to 97 and 99 to 106. It says that it supports the amendments,

“which go some way to simplify the donation reporting requirements”,

but it goes on to say:

“We regret that the Government has not adopted other recommendations we have made to reduce burdens on registered campaigners further without affecting transparency”.

It indicates what these are and ends:

“We continue to recommend these changes … we now recommend two further changes to reduce burdens further”.

Will the Minister, even in the short time between now and Third Reading, have further conversations with the Electoral Commission to see whether some of its recommendations could be accepted by the Government? From the point of view of the charities and campaigning groups there is still a huge amount of regulation to be carried with the Bill.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendments that have been put forward by the Government, as far as they go, but as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, there is more work to be done and it would be excellent if the Government would commit to come back at Third Reading with further amendments. This might seem a bit curmudgeonly, because the Government have received plaudits throughout our debate this afternoon for having moved a long way and tabled many amendments. However, if it had not been for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, his commission, which has also received praise this afternoon, and the excellent work that it has done, the Bill would still be the exceedingly bad Bill that it was when it arrived in our House, precisely because it was rushed, did not have proper pre-legislative scrutiny and a great deal of it was not necessary. So while I thank the Government for having listened—and they have moved—I place on record that none of that would have happened without the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his fellow commissioners, who undertook the consultation that the Government themselves should have undertaken in the first place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I will not trespass on the delicate field of remuneration; but I would like to congratulate the Government on doing what they said they were going to do in putting this excellent review in the Bill.

I will add something that I can only say because of my parliamentary background. It would be immensely helpful if it could be understood that the person who conducts a review will, in the course of doing so, consult and listen to evidence from parliamentarians of all parties engaged in the campaign. They are likely, at grass-roots level, to know more than—with great respect—most leading lawyers or leading statesmen are likely to know. I very hope that it will be indicated to the person who conducts the review that he or she will be expected to invite evidence from people who are standing for Parliament and to consider the particular evidence they would like to bring to his or her attention.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

It is a great relief to be able to welcome an amendment without any qualification at all; but it might be worth reminding ourselves why a review is so essential. First, with the existing PPERA, most charities were not even aware that they were regulated; it is only recently that they have come up against it. Therefore, there are fundamental problems with PPERA that have only just been revealed, and probably we have not yet had proper time to put them right.

Secondly, we have had a very short time to think about and amend the Bill before us. As we know, there was no pre-legislative scrutiny and no six-month period for consultation—which we recommended. We have had only a very short five-week period. The commission that I chair has always made it clear that the recommendations we put forward were only for the 2015 election, because we could not see the answer to a number of issues. In particular, the issue of coalition working keeps coming up and we have not yet found a satisfactory answer to that. Therefore, it is extremely good that the review body is going to be set up and that it will be in time to watch what happens with the election. It is going to have to report within a year, which of course meets the concern raised earlier by the noble Baroness about a sunset clause. It will now have to report within a year.

I have only one question: why have the Government decided that the review should be done by one person, rather than by a committee of Parliament?

[Lord Tyler]

I very much welcome the initiative that my noble friends have taken on this. It is vastly preferable to a sunset clause, precisely because it will start at the right moment. The timing is going to be critical, as the noble and right reverend Lord and my noble and learned friend said, because it will see right through the process of the next election and beyond. For that reason it is preferable to a sunset clause.

I, too, wonder whether the precise definition of a “person” is appropriate to this, but we will have to judge it on its results. Because my noble and learned friend has put into his amendment that a copy of the report will be laid before Parliament, the process thereon is extremely interesting. If major changes are required in this legislation, we will need to know quite quickly in order that we do not run into another period of rapid digestion, as we have on the Bill.

I particularly want to underline the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, just now. We should have this review of the 2000 Act. I take some responsibility, because I sit on a little, totally informal cross-party advisory group for the Electoral Commission. We were never forewarned of all the problems with the 2000 Act that have now come to light—not least, the coalition issue to which the noble Lord has just referred. It has been 13 years; the Electoral Commission never forewarned us of the difficulties it was encountering in giving appropriate advice to organisations that wished to campaign in this field. The Minister has taken elaborate and proper precautions to make sure that the situation never arises again, and I congratulate the Government on that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, certainly raises a very important point, which I am glad we are discussing, even though it is rather a late hour to do so. We should have some reassurance from the horse’s mouth: he mentioned that the Government have made various points, he has made various points and he has talked to the Charity Commission—presumably the Charity Commission for England and Wales—and the Electoral Commission. However, I remind the House and read into the record that our briefing from the Electoral Commission says specifically, under the heading, “A joint introductory guide for charities”:

“We are committed to working with the UK’s three charity regulators”—

that is, the one for England and Wales, the one for Scotland and the one for Northern Ireland—

“to ensure that charities have clear and reliable guidance about how to comply with the rules. The Electoral Commission and Charity Commission for England and Wales will produce a joint introductory guide for charities that need to understand if their activities are covered by non-party campaigning rules”.

It goes on to make various sensible points about testing its guidance, about taking campaigners’ views into account and about supporting and advising campaigners. That is all part of a process of being available in a sensible and practical way to charities and to campaigners who are not charities—which is equally important.

Given that the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission are, I believe, working along the same lines and intend to produce joint guidance for charities and non-charity campaigners, and given the clear commitments being made, I think that it would be unnecessary to put this provision in the Bill. Neither the Charity Commission nor the Electoral Commission has the slightest doubt that it has to produce something sensible in this area. As a result of the amendments that have now been made by my noble and learned friend, there is time to do that before September, before the new arrangements kick in. While I support the spirit of my noble friend’s amendment, I think that it is unnecessary in the light of the clear commitments which have been made.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am happy to have added my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, for the reasons that he articulated so clearly. Reading through the guidance provided by the Charity Commission, both its general guidance and its specific guidance for election periods, it is clear that it covers the same kind of ground as the guidance of the Electoral Commission—it has to give the same kind of detailed guidance—and it must make total sense for the two bodies to produce some co-ordinated guidance. I do not think that we need any reminding that guidance for future elections will be crucial. There are so many complex areas here, and this whole subject has been so raised, that charities and campaigning groups will need to be crystal clear as to what part of their activity is covered by the regulation and what is not. I am therefore very happy to support the amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

I am glad to add my name to the amendment. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Horam had to say, but I see no harm in putting this provision into the Bill. I hope that when my noble and learned friend the Minister replies, it will not just be with honeyed words but with a promise of a taste of honey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this is the final group of amendments. There has been much discussion about the regulated period for third parties and whether it is indeed of an appropriate length. Many have argued that 365 days is simply too long. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, proposed in Committee that the regulated period should be shortened to six months. As noble Lords know, there are different regulated periods for different elections. For the general election it is 365 days. For elections to the devolved Administrations and the European Parliament it is four months.

What is the purpose of a regulated period? It is the time before an election within which financial limits on expenditure apply and campaigning rules must be adhered to. It is the time during which expenditure incurred for campaigning purposes must be reported. Noble Lords will know that the Bill already reduces the regulated period for the next general election in 2015, so that it will commence on 23 May 2014, which is the day after the European elections. The reason for this is that the original regulated period would have been a combined period for the 2014 European parliamentary election and the 2015 general election and would have started on 23 January 2014.

However, as the Bill makes changes that would have affected third party campaigning in European parliamentary elections, it would not have been sensible to have those changes take effect in the midst of the regulated period. The two regulated periods are therefore separated by the Bill, so its changes will take effect for the first time only for the 2015 general election.

The Government have now tabled Amendment 128, and Amendments 131 to 134, to shorten further the regulated period for third parties. These amendments will shorten the regulated period so that it commences on 19 September 2014. That is the day after the Scottish independence referendum. Although this Bill does not affect campaigners in the referendum—it is important that we make that clear—for the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure that there is no confusion, the day after the referendum has been chosen as an appropriate start date for the regulated period.

This step has been taken in response to calls from third party campaigners that they will need further time to fully understand the implications of the Bill and to ensure that they know how to comply with its provisions in the run-up to the 2015 UK parliamentary general election. I should stress that we are not reducing the spending limits to take account of the shorter regulated period. Campaigners will still be able to spend up to £319,800 in England, up to £55,400 in Scotland, up to £44,000 in Wales and up to £30,800 in Northern Ireland on promoting the electoral success of parties or candidates.

However—and this is crucial, not least as a follow-on to the previous amendment—delaying the start of the regulated period will give campaigners crucial time. The move has been supported by the Electoral Commission, to give it and the Charity Commission sufficient time to produce clear and easy to follow guidance. As has already been said, we believe that it is essential that campaigners have the clarity they have been asking for, and shortening the regulated period will allow the Electoral Commission enough time to test the appropriateness and clarity of its guidance with the campaigners themselves.

I should make clear here that only the regulated period for third parties is being amended. The regulated period for political parties will still begin on 23 May 2014, as under the existing transitional provision in Clause 42. It is also the case that for future general elections the period of one year will apply—although, given that there is to be a review, no doubt people will wish to raise this then. I just make it clear that the reduced period is for the 2015 general election.

The Government have also tabled Amendments 126, 129 and 130. These are minor and technical amendments to improve the drafting of Clauses 41 and 42. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this shorter regulatory period for the 2015 election, for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord stated: it will enable the Electoral Commission to prepare the guidance to educate the people who will have to conform to it. However, I express the hope that in the review, the review body will look seriously at the recommendation of the commission which I chaired, that for third-party campaigners there should be a six-month period. This seven and a half-month period is absolutely right for this election but a six-month period should be reconsidered afterwards.

Perhaps I might end on one final point. We are all very much aware that this whole process has, towards the end, been extraordinarily compressed. Normally, the Government would listen first, bring forward amendments in Committee and then report those back on Report. We did not have any government amendments in Committee. The Government listened, and I am glad that they did, but this means that this Report stage has been a kind of compression of Committee and Report all in one. The implication of this is that I very much hope that the Minister will take seriously those amendments that we did not press to a vote, while hoping that he might come back at Third Reading having thought again. Because of this very compressed period, that would be a great help to the House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, following on immediately from what the noble and right reverend Lord was saying about this compressed period, I particularly hope that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said in withdrawing his Amendment 52 on constituency limits, the Government will bring that back at Third Reading. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, believes that the Government made a commitment to do so. That was the basis on which he withdrew his amendment. I do not wish to have a discussion this evening but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at it.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and my noble friend Lord Tyler have fought this issue pretty well. I will make a short contribution to the debate on this important topic. Amendments 167 and 168 accept that there need to be limits, but seek to change as little as possible. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, the reason for this is that there is not evidence that the limits so far have caused great difficulties or given rise to many problems. The amendments therefore seek not to reduce the amounts from £10,000 to £5,000 and from £5,000 to £2,000, but merely to restore the purchasing power of those figures. I must say to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench that I think £2,000 for a single constituency is a very low sum indeed. Hiring a hall and some audio equipment would make a very sizeable dent in that sum.

The Bank of England’s inflation indicator, a wonderful thing to play with of an afternoon, enables you to check purchasing power on any day from 1750 to 2012. The purchasing power of £1 in 1750 is equivalent to £187.76 in 2012, just as an aside. The relevant figures are from 2000 to 2012. The purchasing power of £1 in 2000 was equivalent to £1.42 in 2012. In other words, inflation has averaged 2.9% per annum, and therefore the purchasing power of £1 is now only 70p. On that basis, applying that across the piece, you come out with a figure of £14,200 from £10,000, or £7,100 from £5,000. I have merely rounded it to the nearest £1,000.

The reason for my contribution to this debate is that I think we want as few changes as possible. This matter was debated at great length during the PPERA proceedings, and all we seek to do is restore the status quo ante in terms of purchasing power. I hope that the Government will look with favour on this contribution to the debate on an important topic.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 167A and 167B. The Government have indicated quite clearly that they will raise the registration threshold, so the question at issue is what the sum should be. We have had various alternatives put before us already today. The recommendation of the commission that I have the privilege of chairing is £20,000 for England and £10,000 for the other three nations.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, reminded us of the Neill committee’s recommendation in 1998 that the limit should be £25,000 and that that should be the figure also for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. He posed a very sharp question: why should the registration thresholds be lower for those nations? Although our commission eventually plumped for the figure of £10,000 for those three nations, we were very tempted to put it higher, particularly because of all the difficulties in Northern Ireland, the key role that charities are playing there and their great desire not to be identified with any particular political party at this time of emergence from conflict to democracy. There is therefore a very strong case for Northern Ireland’s registration threshold to be higher.

The reasons for the raising the thresholds are obvious. The Electoral Commission says that they should be raised to at least the present PPERA levels. The argument for raising them higher than that is, first, the increased range of activities—even if you take out staff time, as we hope the Government will, there is still an increased range of activities which will cost more money. The second is inflation. Perhaps most important of all is the stated aim of the Government to give smaller charities in particular more freedom of manoeuvre without the fear that they might overstep the line.

In our report, we summed up what all smaller charities were saying. They had said that,

“they limited or stopped altogether some campaigning activity in order to ensure they did not get close to the registration threshold. For many organisations, the perceived issue of reputational risk associated with registering as a third party was important in addition to the administrative burden. The reputational risk was a particular concern to some NGOs”.

This was the case with Oxfam. Evidence gathered for the report stated that:

“Oxfam deliberately chose to ensure their spending was capped under £10,000 so they didn’t have to register, because for charities, they see it as a real brand reputational risk, they have to register as a third party because we are meant to be really apolitical NGOs. But yes they do have large budgets but have chosen not to spend them on election campaigns”.

That question of reputational risk for charities in particular is an important consideration.

So much of this legislation, and the lowering of the thresholds in particular that we are talking about now, represents an attempt to escape the influence of the super-PACs in this country. It is as though a huge net has been thrown in order to catch some great fish which might swim across the Atlantic, but the only effect of which is to trap smaller fish quite legitimately swimming freely in the waters of democracy. I hope that the Government will raise the threshold very high indeed in order that their stated aim might be achieved; that is, that smaller charities can get on with their legitimate business of campaigning on policies without fear of being caught.

On Monday, the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, referred to his 15 years working with the Countryside Alliance. He said that,

“we were punctilious about not promoting or procuring the electoral advantage of a party or candidate”.

I am sure that they were. He continued:

“We were punctilious about these matters”.—[Official Report, 16/12/13; col. 1097.]

In fact, we understand that the Countryside Alliance had specific legal advice that its activities would be subject to PPERA regulations if it spent enough on materials to breach the registration threshold. It did not register, but that is only because it did not spend enough on printed materials. As the case study in the second commission report shows, it would clearly have needed to register under the Bill because of the new activities subject to registration. Its activities were not just to become transparent through regulation but would have been restricted because of the lower spending cap and the very low constituency limits.

In our report we set out the particular case of the Countryside Alliance and the difficulties that it would find itself in as a result of the Bill, and I wonder whether the Minister was aware of that legal advice at the time. The Government have given lots of reassurances to charities that they are not in the business of promoting or procuring the electoral advantages of a particular party, but that reassurance does not work because the sting is in not that sentence but the qualifications. A charity campaigning on policy can suddenly find that inadvertently, even if it has not mentioned a political party, and even if its primary purpose is something else altogether, it is coming up to the line where it might be caught by this regulation. It is this in particular that the commission wishes to draw to the attention of the Minister as we debate this amendment on thresholds; they need to be as high as possible in order to allow the maximum freedom that should properly be allowed in a democratic society.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

I ask the noble and right reverend Lord to give us his view about the last part of the amendment spoken to by my noble friend Lord Tyler. All the way through this, we are trying to find a balance between the very legitimate arguments put forward by charities, not least by the noble and right reverend Lord himself, and the real danger—I am sorry to have to say this again—of there being very heavy expenditure within one or a few constituencies that might, almost inevitably, alter the outcome of an election, despite the fact that it was not the intention to elect a particular candidate. At a certain point the level of material, campaigning and so on begins to reach such a high volume that it is very hard to make that distinction; indeed, it is an unreal distinction in those cases.

Secondly, it is crucial that we hear from the noble and right reverend Lord on the issue of bunching together different kinds of campaigns in a particular constituency. Does he recognise that it is not difficult to find all kinds of ways around our incredibly complicated registration and election regulations? It is therefore true that those small fish can grow to be quite big fish, and there is a temptation to follow the examples elsewhere. Not only does that give an illegitimate basis on which to hold the election but, perhaps equally important, it discourages people of moderate income from standing for Parliament because of the very large figures that they are supposed to meet. Will he address that part of the issue before he completes his presentation?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I have listened with great attention to what the noble Baroness has said, as I did on Monday when she suggested that the commission had not taken that point seriously enough. I was going to address it when we came to talk about constituency limits because there are a whole range of issues related to them. I notice also what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said about constituency limits, and I take very seriously what he has said: there is clearly a major issue there that has to be addressed. There are other issues connected with constituency limits that also need to be taken into account, though, not least all the complications of trying to ascertain which constituency it might be attributed to. I take seriously what noble Lords have said but, if I may, I will address it when we come to address the amendments on constituency limits.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, Amendment 169B also stands in my name.

The issues here are similar to those raised in the previous group of amendments, except that they apply to the total control of expenditure that may be incurred by a recognised third party in the various constituent countries of the United Kingdom. The current limits are contained in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 10 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act Act 2000. Clause 27(2)(a) proposes to alter these limits by substituting them for,

“2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit in that part of the United Kingdom”.

The effect of that provision is that the relevant figures for the countries are: £319,000 for England, reduced from £793,000; £35,000 for Scotland, reduced from £108,000; £24,000 for Wales, reduced from £80,000; and £10,080 for Northern Ireland, reduced from £27,000. My concerns about these reductions are similar to those about the reductions in registration limits.

I will not repeat the figures, but I will ask the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General to justify the changes in this particular paragraph. The activities subject to control have been extended, yet it is proposed to reduce the total permissible expenditure. Moreover, the period covered is 12 months before an election. At Second Reading I drew attention to the following anomaly: in the context of Scotland, I doubted whether a campaign group could fund a national rally about an issue of importance to it, within a budget of £35,000. Even if it could, such a rally would exhaust its budget, leaving it unable to campaign effectively in any other way.

The unrealistic level of expenditure is highlighted when one has regard to the provisions in paragraph 5 of Schedule 10 to the 2000 Act about elections to the Scottish Parliament. The relevant figure for controlled expenditure is £75,800 and the relevant period is four months prior to the election. At the risk of showing my lack of the mathematical expertise that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has, I say that a simple arithmetical approach of multiplying that figure by three would produce an equivalent annual figure of £227,400. But that, I acknowledge, is oversimplistic, as the greater part of any allowance will be expended in the last few months prior to an election. Accordingly, although probably still higher than the current annual figure of £108,000, the equivalent extrapolated figure would be approximate to it. If the proposed figure of £35,000, represented by the 2% introduced by Clause 27(2), is implemented, the discrepancy between the allowance for UK elections and elections to the Scottish Parliament is vast. Such a discrepancy for the same country in the same schedule to the 2000 Act demands an explanation and justification. In his reply will the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General provide the House with the required explanation and justification for this disparity?

The deletion of this subsection will restore the status quo as far as limits are concerned, although the burden on that expenditure will be greater if the definition of controlled expenditure is expanded as proposed. I invite your Lordships to conclude that the effect of Amendment 169 would be to restore some public confidence in the democratic process and to avoid the absurdity and likely confusion that will arise from such disparate figures in Scotland, where campaign groups will be subject to different regimes within the same geographical boundaries.

Amendment 169B was tabled in case the previous amendment was not accepted, and the Government remained determined to reduce the overall figures and could justify such a policy. This amendment is a proposed compromise. By increasing the percentage from 2% to 5% the figure for England is more approximate to the current figure, and might even be slightly higher; but the decreases for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are less dramatic. The equivalent figure in Scotland would be £87,500. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 169A. I would like to ask the Minister what the rationale was behind such a drastic reduction in the spending limits. For England it was a 60% reduction; for the other nations it was 70%. This is a vast reduction, for which no reason was given. The commission which I have the privilege of chairing simply wishes to revert to the original PPERA figures plus inflation. Those are written in the amendment, and would mean £1,125,000 for the year for England; the comparable figures for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be £155,000, £86,000 and £40,000. We are simply recommending the original PPERA figures plus inflation.

I will give one example of a big spending campaign which is concerned about the cap. In the 2010 general election, Hope not Hate registered £319,231 of spending in England with the Electoral Commission. It is a national grass-roots organisation that seeks to challenge and expose openly racist political parties, candidates and policies. It works on the assumption that there is a risk that far-right racist policies might be campaigned on vigorously at election time, and it wishes to oppose that with racially tolerant policies. For example, in an area like Barking and Dagenham in 2010 where it mobilised people, its spending included printing of leaflets and Hope not Hate newspapers, staff time to write campaign literature, media coverage costs, communicating the campaign to supporters, and its battle bus bill. Of course, an organisation such as this, quite properly, needs to register and needs to be totally transparent in what it does, but the spending limits proposed in the Bill would severely reduce what that organisation would be able to do. It spent in 2010 £319,231, which is above the limit in the Bill. There is clearly a strong case for reverting not only to PPERA but to PPERA plus inflation on the cap.

[Lord Tyler]

I wonder if I may ask the noble and right reverend Lord a question. He and his commission have justifiably encouraged us to see the package—how different elements of the Bill stick together. I draw his attention to the fact that his amendment, combined with other amendments to remove all constituency limits that he and his colleagues have proposed, would, if they were to be implemented, mean that the sum of £1.25 million could be spent in a small number of target marginal constituencies. That is a huge sum of money. When we come to the other sections that deal with constituency limits, will he think about the implications of the interaction between those two propositions from his commission?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The commission is keen to emphasise that every aspect of the Bill is integrated with every other. Clearly, constituency limits have to be taken into account very seriously when we are thinking about raising either the threshold or the cap.

[Lord Horam (Con)]

I intervene briefly to support the Government and oppose the amendments put forward from the Cross Benches because the overall argument about undue influence is important here. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has just said in his intervention, it is not only a question of the total amount of money spent but of the way in which it is deployed in any geographical area, whether it is in one constituency, a number of constituencies, Scotland, Wales or England. That is the problem and that is why the Government are right to try to reduce the spending limits, with a view to reducing the possibility of undue influence.

There has been some discussion of the figures of a 60% or 70% reduction, and I obviously do not know exactly how they were arrived at in detail, but I know, as we all know, what happened at the last general election. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, rightly pointed out, spending by the Hope not Hate campaign throughout the whole country totalled £319,000. It was the third biggest spender, and only two registered third parties spent more than the Government are proposing—the public services union, Unison, which spent £671,000, and Vote for Change, which is a Liberal Democrat-backed organisation wanting change to the electoral system. Those are the only two organisations, apart from Hope not Hate, which spent anywhere near or above the amount proposed by the Government.

I fully accept that there will now be a different definition of controlled expenditure, and on previous amendments I pointed out that the Government should look very carefully at what is included in controlled expenditure, particularly in relation to staff costs. If they were to be removed from the definition of controlled expenditure, most of the problems in that regard would be solved. However, leaving that aside, the fact is that the spending of most other organisations that registered—all the fuss is about only the 30 or so organisations that took the trouble to register in the last general election—was way below £319,000, which is the limit proposed by the Government in the Bill. There is plenty of headroom there for people to run a proper campaign, given that they can concentrate those resources in a particular area. However, it is the overriding view of the Government that such a campaign should not unduly influence the result in any particular constituency. It is therefore entirely consistent with the logic of their position to reduce the spending limits as they propose.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I hope that the noble Lord is not suggesting that the Hope not Hate campaign unduly influenced the election with that £319,000, which was spread right across the country. Was it not a fundamental expression of democratic rights that that campaign should have been able to do that? I am sure that he would not want its work to be hindered.

[Lord Horam]

I would not want its work to be hindered but there should not be undue influence in any particular set of constituencies or a constituency. That is what concerns me. If the noble and right reverend Lord says that this campaign was across the whole country, then clearly there was not an undue influence. None the less, if a campaign is focused on particular areas there may be undue influence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, again we are grateful to the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Hardie, for introducing this part of the Bill and the consideration of the overall spending limits. As no doubt the Committee is aware, third parties are subject to limits on the amount of controlled expenditure that they may incur during the regulated period of a United Kingdom parliamentary general election. The initial figures set out in PPERA 2000 set the limit at £988,500 for the whole of the United Kingdom and this Bill, as has been heard, seeks to amend that limit to £390,000. The limit in either case is of course the aggregate of individual limits of each part of the United Kingdom. That means that expenditure is allocated in accordance with where its effect is most significantly felt. If a body has its head office in Scotland, for example, but undertakes and targets its campaign work only in England, then that spending will be allocated to the English limit and not the Scottish one.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has tabled amendments so that the spending limit for third parties remains as it is in PPERA 2000, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has proposed limits that would take the spending limit to £1,406,000 across the United Kingdom as a whole. This substantial increase, as I understand it, is to reflect inflation since the original limit was set 13 years ago. There has been considerable discussion, not just in this House but also in the other place, about third-party campaigners and the potential to incur significant amounts of expenditure in campaigns. This was spoken about very eloquently by my noble friend Lady Williams. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that her party has no desire to see the cost of politics increase, nor, indeed, do we want to see a disproportionate effect on elections by those who have lots of money to throw around.

There is also the potential, given that limits are imposed on political parties—let us remember that, if we look at this in its full context, there are limits on political parties—that we would undermine that regime if their supporters could still demonstrate their backing by diverting funding to a formally or informally aligned party. Allowing very large sums to be spent to the benefit of parties that are candidates in this way risks, I believe, undermining the basic rules that have evolved over the years in terms of restriction of political spending in elections. The nature of third parties means that controls on their spending are necessary. I do not believe that we have really debated limits, but I do not think that anyone has challenged the principle that there should be some control on substantial spending.

There is some evidence of third-party expenditure increasing. In 2010, eight third-party organisations spent more than £100,000, although, as I think my noble friend Lord Horam correctly pointed out, most who were registered—and only 30 were registered—spent considerably less than that. Indeed, some who were registered spent nothing at all. Although there were eight who spent more than £100,000 in 2010, in 2005 only two groups did so. I believe, and we have said all these things many times, that it is about trying to strike the right balance to ensure transparency. We believe that the figure in the Bill is a reasonable limit for national third-party campaigning. Most campaigns in the last election did not spend anywhere near either the total amount that was available then or the amount that is proposed in this Bill.

It has been argued that these previous campaigns did not require third parties to account for a much wider range of activities, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the Green Party, a political party, spent £330,000 on its national campaign in the 2010 general election. That campaign activity included incurring expenses on advertising, unsolicited materials, manifestos, market research, transport, media events and rallies—all activities that third parties should also account for. No one can doubt that the Green Party had a very strong voice in that campaign and indeed succeeded in getting its first ever Member elected to the House of Commons. It was a voice within a national debate. In fact, only four out of well over 100 registered political parties spent more than £390,000 in 2010: the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independence Party.

We are setting a limit which, as I said, only four political parties exceeded in 2010, and a party that was recognised as having played a full part, albeit without standing in every constituency, in a national election in all its activities spent less than £390,000. We do not believe that third parties should be dominating the electoral landscape—by “third parties” I do not mean political parties but such as we have discussed in this debate, as of course I think third parties have an important role to play in the party-political scene—and creating campaigning inequality among political parties. We believe that the spending limits are appropriate and proportionate.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, drew attention to the differential that exists in Schedule 10 to the 2000 Act, and I accept that this Bill is looking at the UK limits. It will also recognise that while you might have a campaign to be undertaken on a pan-UK basis, it is not quite the same as if you were focusing solely on Scotland for a Scottish election and so I think that there is some scope for a differential.

We believe that, having reduced the limit to a sum that has not inhibited, or would not have caught, the Green Party at the last election or indeed the vast majority of third parties that were registered and campaigned, this is not an unreasonable balance to be struck. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Will the Minister not acknowledge, in relation to the spending by the Green Party, that of course it did not have to include staff costs in the figure that he quoted? As the Bill now stands, third-party campaigners have to include staff costs, so there is not an even playing field. Furthermore, will he acknowledge that the whole political landscape now is very different from what it was, say, 20 or 30 years ago, with a dramatic decline in political-party membership and the rise in membership of third-party campaigners? Does the apparent indifference of so many people, sadly, to political-party campaigns and their enthusiasm and commitment to third-party campaigns not indicate that third-party campaigns should be treated equally seriously as a fundamental feature of our democracy along with political parties, particularly at election time?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, makes a fair point that, as a party, the staff costs were not included, but I think one of the reasons was referred to by my noble friend Lord Gardiner on Monday. Political parties’ staff are fully committed and are very transparently fighting an election, whereas one might reasonably assume that, when larger organisations undertake political campaigning—and we accept that they are registered because they believe that their campaigning could reasonably be judged to give an electoral advantage, or disadvantage, to one party or another—their staff’s time is not entirely taken up with it. He makes a fair point, but there is also a distinction because it would not be the entire staffing costs of a particular organisation that would be taken into account.

I wholly accept the point that has been made about the richness of the debate, with groups contributing in ways they have not done before, much of which is made possible, I suspect, by electronic media. Those of us who have had to stuff envelopes in the past probably realise that there are easier ways of campaigning and getting the message across, as well as being cheaper than the printed material which the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, mentioned in his earlier intervention. In some respects, campaigning costs themselves have gone down over the years because of the nature of much of modern campaigning.

--- Later in debate ---

Our amendments in this group are designed to help make the constituency limit do what it is intended to do but without doing what it is not intended to do. Our approach avoids bogging people down needlessly in accounting for things that do not matter very much at a constituency level. It adds much needed clarity to the whole concept of a constituency limit and acknowledges the role of local campaigning and local fundraising. In exactly the same spirit as the noble and right reverend Lord’s commission, this is a practical package. It could be implemented and is workable, but it meets the extremely important objective of this legislation, which is to ensure that we still have proper controls over spending at the constituency level. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said and what earlier on the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said. Clearly, if there is a possibility of abuse, that must be guarded against. The commission takes that seriously. However, we must also take into account a number of other factors, not least that the Electoral Commission regards constituency limits as they are in the Bill at the moment as unworkable and unenforceable. It states:

“In our previous briefings on Part 2 of the Bill we have noted that except in extreme cases, the new year-long constituency controls may be unenforceable within the regulated period, given the difficulty of obtaining robust evidence to determine and sanction breaches”.

That seems to be a key point. If the Electoral Commission believes that these controls cannot be enforced, there must be something fundamentally wrong with the law.

It should also be noted that political parties’ national campaigning during the year before a UK general election is not subject to limits on spending at constituency level. Why is there one rule on this for political parties? Perhaps I can ask the Minister to reply to this. Why, when according to the Bill there is to be a limit on what third-party campaigners can spend, should the political parties have a rule that says that there is no limit on what they can spend in a particular constituency? Furthermore, PPERA did not contain the provision for constituency limits. We have heard a lot about the threat of abuse at constituency level, but there was no clear evidence of abuse at the 2010 general election.

The Electoral Commission states:

“The existing controls for constituency level campaigning are set out in separate rules under the Representation of the People Act 1983 (RPA)”.

These controls cover constituency campaigning by candidates who are standing for election and spending by non-party campaigners who campaign for and against those candidates, as, for example, in “vote for this candidate”. Earlier on the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, made a point of this. Any potential abuses of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, have pointed out are the responsibility of the police to investigate. The Electoral Commission does not have any enforcement powers in relation to these rules.

The main burden of the commission’s report, backed up by a number of vivid case examples, is that it would be impossible to comply with this law because a fair amount of campaigning crosses a number of different constituencies. For instance, the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign operates across three parliamentary constituencies. So far, the campaign has collected and spent around £36,000. The hospital serves a number of different constituencies. How on earth would the campaigning groups involved in the campaign allocate the different amounts of expenditure per particular constituency?

A similar problem arises in relation to Stop HS2. As well as the national organisation, there are 120 local action groups. In the Kenilworth and Southam constituency alone, there are 11 separate action groups. Stop HS2 goes through a whole range of different constituencies. How are the groups that are part of this campaign to allocate their expenditure to the different constituencies? Even if they were able to do that, how would the Electoral Commission be able to enforce it?

I shall not repeat other examples because of the shortage of time. They are all set out at the back of the report. One example relates to stopping climate change. We must take seriously what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has said. It may be possible for the Government to bring forward a very sharply focused amendment to deal with that problem. As it stands at the moment, for the reasons I have given, it would be difficult if not impossible for campaigning groups to comply with the law and the Electoral Commission would have great difficulty in enforcing it.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

My Lords, I, too, intend to oppose the Question that Clause 28 stand part of the Bill. I shall be brief.

Clause 28 needs to come out altogether. First, it is written in gobbledegook. At Second Reading I took up some of the House’s time by reading out part of Clause 28. I recommend it to the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for his insomnia. It is impossible for a criminal lawyer like me, not a charity lawyer or an electoral lawyer, to begin to understand it. It is inconceivable that any small charity or campaigning organisation without its own legal team would be able to look at it and understand it. They would be bound to have to seek expensive legal advice that would take money and staff away from the objects and the work that they were doing. Whatever else happens in relation to Clause 28, this present clause should be taken away and written in English.

Secondly, if the Government insist on having a clause of this nature, perhaps I may also point out, as has already been done by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, that it is unworkable. It is impossible to divide some of the expenditure by campaigning organisations between constituencies. Where does it leave the rally that draws people from a number of different constituencies? Where does it leave the battle bus that drives around the streets and crosses some constituency boundary? How on earth does an organiser who is running a national campaign apportion the particular pieces of his time to the various constituencies that may or may not be covered?

Thirdly, it is unenforceable. The Electoral Commission, comprising the people who are meant to be doing that, has said so, as your Lordships have just been reminded. One can well imagine the avalanche of complaints that are likely to be made to the Electoral Commission during and after a campaign, especially if a result has been close. Its resources are now stretched beyond what it is being required to do. It is unlikely that it will receive adequate additional resources to help with the Bill. If it does, they will be inadequate for investigating and dealing with the process of investigation and adjudication of these complaints.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness about the way in which this clause has been written. I thoroughly applauded her speech at Second Reading in which she drew out the extent to which this is incredibly complicated, even for someone with some arithmetical skills, which I do not possess, let alone any understanding of law by a non-lawyer. None the less there is a supremely important principle in this clause and my noble friend Lord Tyler drew it out perfectly. In many ways it is the heart of this Bill.

The fundamental issue is that spending by political parties is controlled because we do not want there to be a free-for-all spending-wise in this country in the way there is in America. Therefore, we have control of political parties’ spending. We have control at a national level and we have control in a regulated period; we can argue about the length of the regulated period but we have one. We have control at the constituency level. That control must be strong. Therefore, we are really arguing about what the level of control should be.

I am quite amazed that the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said quite specifically that there should be no constituency limits on spending by third-party campaigners. That must be absolutely wrong in principle because they are not standing in the election. Why should they have an unlimited influence in a particular constituency as opposed to the people who have actually got the guts to stand for election and put their name, personality and fortune on the line in the hope of coming to Parliament? It must be wrong for them to be outbid financially by some third party, who is not willing to put their name and person up for election in the way the candidate has had the courage to do.

I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord will reflect on this. The idea that there should be no constituency limits is wrong in principle. Therefore, I think there should be a clause of this kind, although I would hope it would be very much better drafted than the one we have at the moment.

Secondly, the argument is put forward by the commission that any limits placed are unenforceable. Obviously, the commission is making the point that it is being asked to do a new task. Previously, the commission has looked post hoc at what has happened in a general election; here it is being asked to do it in real time, during the course of the election, to find out exactly what is going on and whether the system is being abused. That is a very difficult task and the commission is right to say that it is having tasks imposed on it that it has not done before and which therefore may well be very difficult to enforce, to the point of being unenforceable in some circumstances.

Those of us who have fought elections know that the existing limits on what parties can spend in elections are very often unenforceable in practice. As I know to my personal cost, parties find all sorts of devious ways around the amount that can be spent in a general election and it is very difficult to track them down. In that sense, the existing rules are unenforceable, but they do have a restraining effect. As a candidate in a general election, when I came to fight the election I knew that I had to get a little war chest together. The general assumption was that you had to try to get together about £10,000 to fight an election.

I will say in passing that most associations and local parties are extremely poor. Getting together £10,000 is quite hard to do. At the penultimate general election, when I was defending a majority of 269 against the Liberal Democrats, I reached £10,000 only by having a gift from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, of £6,000; otherwise, I and the local party would have had to fork out. We are living in a poor world. Local parties do not have the resources of Oxfam and all those large organisations that want to home in on an election and put their view—as they rightly should, within proportionate limits—to the people who stand in elections.

Having constituency limits acts as a clear restraint on what parties think they can spend and what third parties think they can spend. Therefore, if there was a restraint of the kind the Government recommend, that would exercise a good influence on the whole electoral system.

The issue has been raised, in relation to the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign, that you cannot have a spending limit related to one constituency. There are three constituencies in Lewisham; of course you could have the expenditure divided between three constituencies. Some expenditure would not be allowed in a particular constituency. In Orpington, for example, there was always a huge banner, usually taped up by the Labour Party, in one main road in my constituency and it was never accounted for in the local expenses of the Labour Party in Orpington although it would actually influence people going round the M25 and other roads nearby. These things can be dealt with and there is no real difficulty in trying to apportion expenditure in the way that is described.

It is all perfectly possible, it is doable and it is essential if we are to have a proper democracy in this country. Indeed, I would argue that what the commission is proposing is actually anti-democratic.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I feel I ought to point out something that the commission made quite clear at the beginning of its report: that its recommendations were for the 2015 election only and that there should be a proper review post-2015. We had only six weeks to consult, despite the recommendation of a lot of bodies, including ourselves, that there should have been a proper three-month or six-month review. In the six weeks, we could not find a workable solution to this, so for the 2015 election our recommendation was that we should not have limits. We could not get our minds round this to find one that is really workable. The Government may be able to do this—we will just have to see—and they may accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. In defence of the commission, I point out that this was only for the interim because we had such a short time to consult.

[Lord Horam]

I understand what the noble and right reverend Lord is saying and I accept that. None the less, I want him to understand that, in running a proper democracy, at a constituency level this is a very important issue.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Debate on whether Clause 29 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, in putting my name down to oppose Clause 29 standing part of the Bill, I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what this whole clause is really about, and what mischief it is intended to block. I went to the Public Bill Office, whose staff have been extraordinarily helpful on this occasion, as on so many others. In order to run through my amendments and to make sure that I understood the Bill properly and what I was putting forward, I asked about this clause, and what it really meant. I said to them, you are all highly trained lawyers; you will be able to tell me what it is all about. They said that they deliberately do not have lawyers in the Public Bill Office because it is very important for people to understand legislation, and that is why they are lay people and not lawyers. I said, “That’s very good—I’ll leave this with you for a day, and perhaps you can tell me what all of this is about”. I went back the next day and they said that they were very sorry but they did not think they would be able to help me with this one. I then contacted the lawyer who specialises in electoral law who has been advising the commission, and asked her. She sent me a reply. I am still not quite sure that I understand what it is all about, but this is what she says:

“Clause 29 imposes limits on the amount non-parties can spend on activity that could reasonably be regarded as promoting a particular party and none other, to £38,500, unless they have the party’s authorisation. This limits the freedom of expression association beyond the limits of proportionality”.

She adds:

“Although not a focus of the commission’s work, it is another position that would leave groups open to inadvertence, and the onus on what parties do, as opposed to campaigners’ intent. If the rest of the commission’s recommendations are implemented, this would be a highly peculiar—and, from a regulatory viewpoint, bizarre—provision to remain”.

I hope that the Minister will be able to explain what this clause is really about, and what mischief it is intended to block.

[Baroness Mallalieu (Lab)]

My Lords, my name is also down to oppose the question that Clause 29 stand part. We had some powerful speeches from Welsh Members of your Lordships’ House the other day about the living language that is Welsh. This is another part of the Bill that is written in the living language of gobbledegook, although that is living only in parts of Whitehall. I, too, was completely puzzled by it. I obtained the Explanatory Notes, read them with care, and was none the wiser at the end of it. This, I hope, will also be included in the undertaking that the Minister gave when he said that he felt an obligation to look at those parts of the Bill that are incomprehensible. This certainly needs translating; it has been written by lawyers for lawyers—of a specialist sort—yet not for the people who have actually to apply it, particularly those in small charities and organisations. They have to be able to understand the detail of the Bill. I hope this clause can be completely rewritten, if indeed large parts of it are at all necessary.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled this proposed new clause with my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady Tyler of Enfield and, in a private capacity, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. We have given it the heading:

“Third parties acting in concert”.

We think that that is a better definition of the problem that has been brought to our attention on many occasions than using the word “coalition”, which might have other overtones.

Among all the groups that we have met, the present PPERA 2000 rules on this type of working between different organisations have emerged as a major area of concern. Indeed, they have caused great confusion and, more than anything else, given rise to the alleged chilling effect among smaller organisations. I checked with the Electoral Commission earlier this week about what exactly is meant by the present rules. Suppose organisation A contributes £15,000 to a combined operation, which acts in concert in some form of policy coalition. Then organisation B contributes £375,000 to that same campaign. Therefore, under the present rules, A and B have to record £390,000 as having been spent. However, vitally, organisation A, which has spent only £15,000, is recorded as having spent right up to the total of £390,000. That creates an extremely difficult situation for small organisations. Just by being caught up by some joint operation, they get clobbered because they might very well want to take on some different campaign activity that is nothing to do with that original campaign, and then find that they have already exceeded the limit. That is the nature of the present law, and that is the nature of the present problem that so many organisations have drawn to our attention.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his colleagues have a good amendment that would deal with this for small organisations making a contribution below the registration threshold and, of course, that is welcome. Our amendment goes further: it embodies the principle that any one group or any one campaign should be capped at the level of the national or constituency limit. We do this by engaging in the amendment with the phrase,

“common plan or other arrangement”,

which is already referred to in the 2000 Act. We are effectively saying that the money spent on that plan should be capped—it should not then be carried forward for any other campaign of a different nature—or that that money spent by a different organisation should be capped. If, in my example, organisation A was spending only £15,000, that would be the limit of the restraint on it because it clearly would not be contributing a huge sum. Just because organisation B has spent a considerable sum in pursuance of the common plan, it should not be effectively restricted by what has happened with one of their allies.

There is a way around these rules at present, which is to set up an umbrella organisation to accept donations from all the different organisations involved, but if they simply campaign together then they will be caught by the present rules. There is a defect in the 2000 PPERA rules and the Bill is our opportunity to deal with it, remove that uncertainty and assist a number of organisations that feel that this is a real constraint on what they are permitted to do. I should say briefly that, on these Benches, we strongly refute the case for Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, which would seek to take away all the coalition rules. It would mean no constraint whatever on organisations, allowing them simply and artificially to multiply and then provide multiple spending limits. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is not here to explain exactly the rationale for those original 2000 PPERA rules, which were thought at the time to be both necessary and desirable. Unfortunately, they have proved to be, to a large extent, not very effective and, in some respects, a discouragement to small organisations being involved in perfectly proper campaigning operations.

The amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, goes a long way to dealing with the problem, but we think that our approach goes a little further and we hope that the Government will accept the direction in which it is going. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 170M. First of all, the charities and campaigning groups have indicated very strongly that what the present Bill puts forward on coalition working is totally unacceptable. All charities are encouraged by the Charity Commission and by their own trustees to work together in coalitions. We have seen many very successful examples of coalition working, but under the law as it is put forward in Part 2 of the Bill, the total amount of money spent by the coalition is attributed to each single member of the coalition. This must be, by any standard, totally unfair. We have racked our brains for the past six weeks and do not feel that we have come up with any solution to the fundamental problem. Therefore, in the first week after we come back, we will be calling a round table conference to which the Minister has agreed to come and various other people will be invited, to see whether, together, we can crack this fundamental problem of coalition working and how it can be fairly regulated. I am sure that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to which I put my name in a private capacity, will be very much on the table to be considered at that point.

However, as he mentioned, our Amendment 170M will go some way towards solving the problem for smaller groups. In that amendment, we mark the difference between a minor third party and a nominated third party. A minor third party is one that has not yet reached the registration threshold. If it is working in coalition with other parties, on the basis of my amendment it will be able to nominate another party, called the nominated third party. With the agreement of both the third party and the nominated third party, the money that the minor third party spends on that campaign will be attributed to the nominated third party as part of its overall expenditure and the minor third party will simply be able to indicate to the Electoral Commission that it is below the threshold and has, as it were, contributed this amount of money towards the nominated third party, which is very likely to be regulated. We believe that this is quite a neat way of ensuring that smaller parties—those which do not hit the registration threshold and certainly are very anxious to work in coalition —will not be brought within the scope of regulated expenditure. The Electoral Commission, in examining this amendment, remarked that it is “attractive in principle”, but wants to think about it further to see whether there are any unintended consequences.

The issue of coalition working is one of the key areas about which charities and campaigning groups are concerned. I will not go through any of the examples set out at the end of our report, but I would draw the attention of noble Lords to the Human Rights Consortium in Northern Ireland, which has been referred to at least once in this debate already, where something like 180 NGOs work together on a crucial issue. That gives some indication of why getting coalition working right is absolutely fundamental to the charity sector and, indeed, to the workings of our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

170L: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Controlled expenditure
(1) Schedule 10 to the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (limits on controlled expenditure) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 3(3)(a) for “365 days” substitute “six months”.
(3) In paragraph 3(3)(b) for “365 days” substitute “six months”.”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, this is a blessedly simple and straightforward amendment. It would reduce the regulatory period from the current one year to six months. There are two reasons for the amendment. The first is that a year is a very long time for charities to be burdened with the regulation of electoral law. In the debates today and on Monday, we have begun to see exactly how burdensome that could be. It would be a huge relief to charities if they could focus on what is required of them for election purposes only in the last six months leading up to the election. The second reason for the amendment is that it is supported by the Electoral Commission, at least for the 2015 election. I do not want to say that it is committed to it beyond that but it supports the measure for the 2015 election.

There are particular complications about this one year length in other parts of the British Isles. For example, Oxfam reports:

“Oxfam Scotland is concerned that Scottish organisations may end up being in a regulated period repeatedly for the next three years, with the UK elections in 2015, and Scottish national elections in 2016. It seems to be a disproportionate amount of time for a regulated period”.

Obviously, if the regulated period was six months rather than a year, the problem in Scotland and elsewhere would be lessened.

It might be argued that if the Government accept this amendment, or the other amendment which we are to debate, there should be a change in the registration threshold and the cap—that both of those should be lowered. But to anticipate that argument, the charities have made it quite clear that their expenditure—if there is any—during campaigning, in so far as it is directed towards an election, is loaded up very close to the end of the election period. They do not start thinking about the election right at the beginning of the period. This simple and straightforward reduction from one year to six months would be a huge help to the charities and campaigning groups generally. I cannot see that by making that change there would be further opportunity for abuse by unscrupulous organisations or people. I beg to move.

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and also added Amendment 170P in the spirit of what the Army refers to as KISS: “keep it simple, stupid”. That is because there is already an allowance that the Bill reduces the period to four months before European elections and elections to the devolved Administrations. I know that a number of organisations would be very happy if the period were four months rather than six months, because it would mean that there was one period for all elections. That is why I have tabled my amendment. But the great thing is to have the period reduced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am happy to explain that. The very nature of the expenditure that will fall to be covered by Part 2 will be expenditure that is very much geared towards an election, the same election in which the political parties will be fighting. It would seem rather odd if the political parties themselves are restricted in what they can spend over a period of one year. If, for example, we were to accept the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for eight months of that year other third-party bodies, some of whom would be endorsing quite unashamedly the policies and perhaps the candidates of one of the political parties, would be able to spend freely without any restriction at all while the political parties themselves are campaigning with restrictions. That is why I make the comparison because it would create a sense of unfairness and imbalance if those who are actually fighting an election, those whose heads are on the block on polling day, as it were, were under restrictions but third parties did not have any such restrictions for a substantial part of that time.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his support in principle for reducing the regulation period. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the Electoral Commission, at least for the 2015 election, is supportive of a six-month period. It will be reviewed after 2015, but there is a great deal to be said, at least for the 2015 election, in support of testing the six-month period. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170L withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

170N: After Clause 30, insert the following new Clause—
“Returns as to controlled expenditure
(1) Section 96 of the Political Parties Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (returns as to controlled expenditure) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) after “expenditure” insert “in excess of the limits in section 94(5)”.
(3) After subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Where—
(a) during any regulated period the total controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party is below the limits in section 94(5) in any relevant part or parts of the United Kingdom, and(b) that period ends,the responsible person shall submit a declaration to the Electoral Commission that it has not spent in excess of the limits in section 94(5) in respect of the relevant part or parts of the United Kingdom.””

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, this amendment is about reporting requirements, and I shall speak also about the two clauses included in the grouping. I think that the Government are sympathetic to the idea that the regulatory burden, particularly on charities, should be reduced if at all possible. The Electoral Commission has noted that the current provision in the Bill appears to be onerous as far as reporting procedures are concerned. At the moment, charities and campaigning groups have to report every month, and every week during the post-Dissolution period. Amendment 170N provides that those organisations which register because they think that they will be above the registration threshold, but do not in fact go above it, will simply have to report that they have not spent above the limit. They would not have to submit detailed accounts, they would just note the fact that they had not spent above the limit. It is a simple way in which the regulatory burden on them could be lessened.

I have called for a debate on whether Clauses 32 and 33 should stand part of the Bill because we need to go way beyond that. Surely it must be possible for smaller organisations in particular, but even slightly larger ones, to make a single report of expenditure after the election period rather than having to submit monthly reports and, in the post-Dissolution period, weekly reports. I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to doing all they can to minimise the regulatory burden, particularly on charities. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I have tabled a couple of amendments in this group. They follow the line of attack of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and they deal with reporting requirements. They are quite simple and entirely deregulatory. As regards Amendment 173, if at present a body makes a donation which has to be reported under PPERA rules as part of the quarterly reporting procedure, that triggers a requirement to make returns in subsequent quarters even though the body may not have made any further donations; that is, the body has to make a nil return.

This situation becomes rather more pressing during an election campaign, where a single report of a donation may require a series of weekly nil returns during the rest of that campaign. That arrangement will apply to all charities and all non-party campaigners under the new regime. I have argued quite strongly that nil returns are superfluous—indeed, they may be worse than superfluous, in that a blizzard of nil returns may distract the Electoral Commission from its regulatory role. Amendment 178 seeks to achieve a position where, if a reportable donation is made, it must be reported, but if no further donations are made, then no further reports are required—we dispense with the requirements to make nil returns.

Amendment 174 takes us back to the challenge from a couple of groups ago about the reporting of coalition working, where groups and charities collaborate to work on a particular issue. I referred a moment or two ago to the quarterly and then weekly reporting requirements. Extraordinary though it may seem, as we heard in the earlier debate, every member of a coalition has to report the record of all the members, even of expenditure for which they have no responsibility. That of course is immensely time-consuming and duplicative.

I will give the Committee a quick example. A group of charities may wish to raise the issue, say, of the export of live animals. They establish an agreement and a budget of £200,000. One large charity puts up £150,000 and five smaller charities put up £10,000 each—all are therefore above the reporting requirement. The consequence is quarterly reporting, and weekly reporting during the general election, for all six organisations, which have to make the return to the Electoral Commission. This surely cannot be a sensible use of resources for any of the parties involved, not least the Electoral Commission itself.

Amendment 174 would permit a coalition of charities to nominate a lead charity, which will make the return on behalf of the group. My noble and learned friend may fear a loophole being created. Indeed, in his remarks when we were discussing coalition working an hour ago, he hinted at this particular concern and fear. However, I am not sure that he needs to be concerned, because the lead charity will have to take the responsibility —and all that implies under electoral law—for all the activities of all the members of the syndicate. It is unlikely to take on the leadership role unless it is satisfied that its fellow coalition members will behave properly and legally. Amendments 173 and 174 are supported by the NCVO and have the support, in principle, of the Electoral Commission. They are of course also in tune with the Government’s general deregulatory approach and policy. I hope the Government will study the amendments, which are in a purely probing form at the moment, and perhaps come back with some reaction on Report.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 170N would insert a new clause that would remove the requirement for recognised third parties to provide a spending return after the election if they had not incurred controlled expenditure above the registration threshold. Instead, a recognised third party would be required to submit a declaration that they had not spent in excess of the registration threshold.

Amendment 173, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, would amend Clause 32 so that a recognised third party would not have to submit a nil report where it had not received a reportable or substantial donation. Amendment 174 would amend Clause 32 so that a recognised third party would be able to appoint a responsible person who had been a responsible person for another recognised third party.

I will give some background before addressing specific amendments. To improve transparency and to ensure that people can see who is funding a third party before the poll takes place, third parties will be required to report any large donations in advance of the poll. This will align the reporting requirements of third parties more closely with those of political parties, and will take two forms.

First, recognised third parties will be required to provide quarterly reports of donations for each reporting period that falls within the regulated period for a UK parliamentary general election. Secondly, between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day, recognised third parties will be required to provide weekly reports of any large donations.

I am not sure if I heard correctly whether the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, suggested that the quarterly and weekly reports also applied to spending. To clarify, the quarterly and weekly reports prior to the election apply only to donations—of more than £7,500—and the spending return will continue to be a requirement after the election.

Both the quarterly and weekly donation reports would be submitted to the Electoral Commission, which would publish the information. The quarterly reports must be accompanied by a signed declaration from the responsible person of the recognised third party, stating that all reportable donations accepted were from permissible donors. The Bill introduces measures that are necessary to achieve this increased transparency. The Bill proposes that third parties provide information about large donations in advance of the election, in quarterly and weekly donation reports.

At present, recognised third parties have to provide details of their campaign income and expenditure to the Electoral Commission after a UK parliamentary general election, and after the poll for certain other elections. To improve transparency by providing a clearer understanding of the finance of those involved in elections and to align the reporting requirements of third parties more closely with those of political parties, a statement of accounts would form part of the return third parties already provide to the Electoral Commission.

To ensure that this additional obligation is proportionate, individuals are excluded from this requirement. The Government believe that not to exclude individuals would result in an unwarranted intrusion into their personal financial matters, although they will still be required to provide details of their campaign income and expenditure, as is currently the case. Third parties, such as companies, charities and trade unions, which are required to prepare a statement of accounts under another legislative framework would be able to submit these accounts as part of their return to the Electoral Commission. I hope that this is an example of proportionality.

Turning to the amendments, I hope that noble Lords support the principle of providing information on reportable donations during the election period. However, the Government acknowledge that the correct balance has to be struck between increased transparency and overly burdensome requirements. With this in mind, the suggestions of the Electoral Commission in relation to nil reporting have provided a very useful starting point. The Government want to consider these matters very carefully and to revisit them on Report, to ensure that adequate and proportionate reporting requirements are included in the Bill.

Amendment 174, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, concerns the role of the responsible person. When a recognised third party seeks registration with the Electoral Commission, they must nominate a responsible person who ensures compliance with the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

It is for the recognised third party or coalition to nominate a responsible person who they feel is best placed to ensure compliance with legislation. That could be a person who is already a responsible person for another third party. There are therefore no restrictions placed on who the recognised third party can nominate as a responsible person, except where an individual registers as a third party, where they will automatically become the responsible person.

In relation to Amendment 170N, the Electoral Commission made a similar suggestion in its June 2013 regulatory review. The Government see merit in the suggestion, which underpins our aim that smaller bodies should not be subject to overly burdensome reporting requirements. As a result, the Government will want to consider this issue carefully and revisit it on Report.

We have heard the—understandable—strictures from my noble friend Lord Deben. In that spirit, I ask the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is probably the most positive response we have had this afternoon—it must have been the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which tipped the balance. He has been useful on one or two things on that side in recent years.

I accept the Minister’s assurance that the Government will do all they can to reduce the regulatory burden on both donations and expenditure. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170N withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, Clause 31 is entitled, “Notification requirements for recognised third bodies”. My plea to the Minister is simple and straightforward, as it was with the earlier clauses. The regulatory burden under this clause should be as small as possible for charities and other campaigning groups. The great list under subsection (3) includes company directors, friendly societies, building societies and so on. At the very least, someone will have to give some very clear guidance—I presume that it will be the Electoral Commission—not only to charities, to which the measure might be clear, but a whole range of campaigning groups to which it may not be clear who is the governing body or the accountable body among them. Again, I look to the Minister to give some assurance that the regulatory burden regarding notification requirements will be kept to a minimum.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, in respect of the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, I have some further positive news. The Government acknowledge that, as 13 years have now passed since PPERA was enacted, there may be other bodies which should now be added to the list. My noble friend mentioned a number of bodies, including the Law Society. Organisations incorporated by royal charter are among them. The Government would like to consider what other bodies should be added to the list of bodies which can register with the Electoral Commission. The Government are committed to ensuring that those bodies which would like to register as a third party are able to do so.

I entirely agree with the noble and right reverend Lord that it is important in all that we do that we do not overburden organisations, be they small or indeed large. Looking through the list, it is my understanding that for companies the relevant participators would be the company directors; for trade unions, it would be the trade union officers; for building societies, it would be the directors; for limited liability partnerships, it would effectively be the partners; for friendly societies, it would be the management committee; and for unincorporated associations, it would be members or, if there are more than 15 of them, the officers of the association. It is certainly not intended to be an extensive list, but it is important to ensure that the activities of third parties are transparent. We think that the change will assist that, but, clearly, we do not want to burden people. Being a director of a company myself and a partner, I know that one has always to put down the names of the directors of the company or the partners, but, certainly, one does not want in any way to make this a difficulty for charities and non-party organisations. That is why these details are included in Clause 31. I hope that, in these circumstances and with that positive news, my noble friend will feel encouraged to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Before the Minister sits down, it is crystal clear in the case of company directors and lawyers who are in partnership, but if you take, let us say, Save Lewisham Hospital, a great campaign group with perhaps lots of other little groups, it may not be at all obvious who it has to put on its paper to report. Then there is the Stop HS2 campaign, with thousands of smaller groups. It will not be obvious which is the organising group or body or the equivalent of directors for those kinds of campaign groups.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I tried to explain what would be the case with unincorporated associations but, given what the noble and right reverend Lord has said, I will certainly look into that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, as we approach this last group for debate I shall be as brief as I can. This amendment inserts a new clause into the Bill and provides for the operation of the Act to be subject to a review. Whatever one’s views on the purpose of the Bill and whether it is sufficiently necessary, proportionate and effective, whatever one’s views are on the process of the Bill and whether it is too quick or perfectly adequate or whatever one’s views are on the implications of the Bill, one thing is certain: it has proved controversial. If this were not so, I am sure that the Government would not have agreed to the pause during the past few weeks. As the NCVO said in its briefing on this particular part of the Bill, three senior parliamentary committees have raised their concerns about it: the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, the House of Lords Constitution Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Yet at this stage, all our views and opinions are so far merely supposition. We have yet to meet my noble friend Lord Tyler’s unintended consequences. This probing amendment is designed to ensure that the operation of the Act, in particular Part 2, is reviewed once we have had some real-life experience on its operation. My amendment suggests a review within two years of it coming into force. This will, I presume, mean a review commencing in the spring of 2016—that is to say, about nine months after the next general election, close enough that the lessons learnt in that election will remain fresh, but not so close that those lessons are distorted by the passions inevitably aroused during the campaign itself.

This approach, which is supported by the NCVO, offers the Government the opportunity to say to the doubters, “Let us see what happens in the run-up to and during the general election in 2015, let us then have a formal review and then Government, Parliament and the parties affected, including the charity sector, can decide and lobby for whatever changes need to be made”. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 181A, 181B and 181C, which all move in the same direction as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, on reviewing the Act. We made it clear from the standpoint of the commission, from the word go, that our recommendations, as a result of only a fixed five weeks of consultation, were only provisional for the 2015 election and we were very glad to learn from the Minister that he thinks that it should be reviewed.

Amendment 181B, also in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Ramsbotham, puts forward the recommendation that the review should be undertaken within six months of the next parliamentary election. Amendment 181C, also in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Williams of Crosby, provides that the review should be undertaken within one year. That one-year recommendation is closely linked to Amendment 181A, which provides a sunset clause so that the Act would cease to have effect on 31 May 2016, and therefore at the end of Amendment 181C we say that the committee set up by the House to review the Act should report on its conclusions and those should be debated in both Houses before 31 May 2016. There is a clear timetable for this, and I hope that the Government will accept it.

It has been borne in upon the Government that there are issues here which are far more difficult and complex than they first thought when this legislation was put before the other place in July. We have seen this in particular in relation to constituency working, in relation to coalition working, and in relation to what is the actual heart of this, which is the definition of controlled expenditure. These are major issues that will need to be reviewed after the 2015 election.

My final point is that it is clear that the Government have approached this legislation from the standpoint of how electoral law might be abused. It is the contention of those who are heavily engaged in the democratic process, charities and other campaigning groups, that in trying to clamp down on potential abusers, they have severely curtailed the legitimate activities of people who want to contribute during an election year. The Electoral Commission has said that much of the present Act would be a burden on charities and NGOs generally. When the Minister goes away and thinks about what has been said today, I hope very much that he will do all he can to give NGOs that want to contribute to the democratic process much greater freedom and the liberation to do so without fear of crossing registration thresholds and so on, as would happen if the present Bill goes through unamended. I hope that not only will he think about what has been said both today and on Monday, but that he will support the idea of a sunset clause and a review within a year.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support what has been said by the noble and right reverend Lord and to make two precise points. The first is that the original amendment provided for a period of nine months, which is too short. As we know from many experiences, there is a complexity about elections and everything does not surface as quickly as that. It is sensible and important, if we are to have a review, that it should take into account all that has happened during an election—some of that will be local and some national—and that it is allowed to take note of all the propositions that have arisen. That is because a review that comes too early is one that might well get it wrong.

My second point is the importance of the sunset clause, as has been mentioned by the noble and right reverend Lord. I am afraid that I am a little cynical about government reviews. In my experience they do not always happen, sometimes they happen with some very odd persons being involved in them, and sometimes they just disappear into thin air. The great thing about a sunset clause is that it concentrates the mind of Government wonderfully. It is like a wicket in cricket. It makes it possible to consider very carefully what is at stake. I therefore strongly support the noble and right reverend Lord in calling for a sunset clause to be linked to the review because the sunset clause makes it certain that the review will happen and be taken seriously. The Government of the day will then have to consider in detail, in the way that the noble and right reverend Lord has asked for, many aspects of this very complex law.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, my intervention will be brief. When I came into the Chamber, I did not imagine that I would find myself on my feet so soon. I have long admired the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, through a series of mutual experiences over 30 or 40 years.

The noble Baroness, Lady Blood, will recall the run-up to the ending of the first programme of Making Belfast Work. The right honourable—and now Sir—Richard Needham, who was then the Minister responsible for the programme, discussed with me whether it would be sensible to bring the communities, particularly those in west Belfast, together at Hillsborough on a social occasion, where the total agenda would be what we should do at the end of the first four years of Making Belfast Work, particularly on community relations. It was a high-risk thing to do, and we went into it slightly quaking. I cannot remember if the noble Baroness, Lady Blood, was there, but she is nodding, so I think she probably was and I would have expected her to be there. I hope she would agree that the evening was a tremendous success in terms of the meeting between the communities on both sides. I also greatly admire what she is doing in the context of integrated education.

I return to the first thing that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said about community development, which I regard as being an absolutely key part of the process of reconciliation within Northern Ireland.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, has raised the specific case of Northern Ireland, which he did in such a deeply felt and powerful way.

The Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which I have the privilege to chair, carried out two consultations in Northern Ireland—one before our first report and one before our second. It would be fair to say that, as a result, we became not just concerned but seriously disturbed by the possible harm that the Bill as it now stands could do in Northern Ireland. Consequently, we put forward a number of recommendations, reflected in later amendments which I am not going to mention now; I will speak to them when we reach them. However, I hope that the Government will pay particular attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said, especially about the manner of government in Northern Ireland, which is so different from that in Wales, Scotland and England. It may be that the Government will bring forward quite specific amendments—whether or not they accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker—in addition to those which the commission will be putting forward.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I do not have the same experience as my noble friends who have already spoken so powerfully about the dangers of this Bill for Northern Ireland, but I was privileged to be a member of the Opsahl commission on the future of Northern Ireland about 20 years ago. As part of that commission we invited anyone to give evidence about anything that concerned them. We were particularly impressed by the evidence that we received from local civil society groups, especially from the women in those organisations, working within and across divided communities to help bring peace and social justice to Northern Ireland.

As it happens, 10 days ago I was in Belfast with the Associate Parliamentary Group on Women, Peace and Security, which is undertaking an inquiry into the application to Northern Ireland of UNSCR 1325 on women’s roles in post-conflict situations. To my amazement, I discovered that our Government did not accept that Northern Ireland had been in a conflict situation, although there are groups currently campaigning on the application of UNSCR 1325 to Northern Ireland. When we heard from civil society groups, one of the overwhelming messages that we received was that women in deprived communities feel that they are being silenced, partly by the men in their communities and partly because their role in achieving peace and reconciliation in Northern Ireland is simply not being recognised. My fear is that this Bill will further silence these women who are active in local community groups.

My noble friend Lord Rooker talked about equality legislation in Northern Ireland. Again, the overwhelming message we received was that Section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is not producing gender equality in Northern Ireland; in the name of gender neutrality, women are being disadvantaged. Again, these are issues around which campaigning has taken place. As well as the implications for Northern Ireland—I hope that the Minister will take heed of my noble friend’s warnings in that regard—this issue also illustrates an important point made by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, which I congratulate on producing a first-class, useful report in no time at all. One of the issues to which it draws attention is the failure of the Government to provide a detailed equalities impact assessment. This is very relevant to the Northern Ireland situation where, as I say, women’s voices in particular could be silenced. The report says that the commission is not aware that any progress being made in this regard during the pause—that is, with regard to an equalities impact assessment. Therefore, I would be very grateful if, as well as referring specifically to the point about Northern Ireland, the Minister will advise your Lordships’ House whether any progress has been made on an equalities impact assessment in relation to this piece of legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I apologise for overlooking my scribbled note. As part of the impact assessment at the time the Bill was published, we said that 30 third parties were recognised by the Electoral Commission for the 2010 general election and that there were no robust equalities data covering these groups. However, we did not believe that these proposals would have an adverse equalities impact because of the wide range of groups that were registered. There is nothing to suggest that there was a preponderance of gender equality organisations. We therefore do not believe there is particular impact in that regard.

In the 2010 election in Northern Ireland, 10 third parties spent a total of £26,773 while £27,000 could potentially have been spent by each third party. The total for 10 third parties was, therefore, less than what one could have spent. Only two incurred expenditure above the current £5,000 registration threshold.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The Minister said he did not think that the Human Rights Consortium would be captured by the present legislation because it could not reasonably be interpreted as wanting,

“to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a particular party or candidate. However, does he agree in principle that in an election year, such a human rights consortium, which might be opposed by one of the parties standing for election, could actually be caught? There are some very important subsections in the Bill. Clause 26(4)(c) says that,

“though it does not involve any express mention being made of the name of any party or candidate”,

and proposed new subsection (4A) says that,

“it is immaterial that it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well”.

Therefore, there could be a human rights consortium, which as a result of those two subsections could possibly be interpreted as supporting a particular party or candidate. Real difficulties remain, even if that particular example would not be caught.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I think this is at the heart of much of this debate. As the noble Baroness, Lady Royall said, if the activity being undertaken included extensive polling, the purpose of which was to get a Government to act in a particular way, and one applied a test of,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a party or candidates, I do not think that it could be interpreted in that way, unless one had a very vivid imagination. It is a leap to see activity that is clearly directed towards trying to address or change government policy as being intended to procure the election of a particular candidate.

As I said in my opening remarks, there is quite an onus on the Electoral Commission and the guidance it has given. It has given guidance on this in two previous elections without any apparent problems; I think we will return to this issue more fully in the next group of amendments. It is stretching things quite some distance to think that what is actually the perfectly legitimate purpose of an organisation, to campaign on issues relating to establishing provisions to be included in a Bill of Rights, can be seen as an intent,

“to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a particular party or candidate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because I very much agree with the last points that he has been making. I think there is wide agreement in this House that we have to do our job to make that process to which he has referred a reality. I am grateful, too, to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and to all his colleagues. It was a formidable task that they took on; they did not stop at the first hurdle but kept going and have produced some extremely helpful and notable recommendations.

As is recorded in the register, I am a patron of many charities and I am sure that other noble Lords are too, but I have also had experience in the past as a full-time employee of Shelter, which is exactly the sort of charity and non-party organisation that we think is so important to civil life in our country. I am extremely proud of the work that such organisations have done and are doing, and I continue to support them. So I hope that your Lordships will understand that I come to these issues with very much the same background, interests and enthusiasm as members of the noble and right reverend Lord’s commission. I recognise that the work they have done is an extremely valuable contribution to the discussion of these issues.

Before I come to Amendments 160B and 160C, in the name of myself, my noble friends and others, I wish briefly to address the stand part debate which is also in this group. At Second Reading, I said:

“You could plot on a graph transparency on the one hand and bureaucracy on the other in very many areas of life. If transparency is low, the regulatory burden tends to be low, too. If accountability is strong, it is likely that the regulatory burden will be significant. The threshold is a question of where we plot this legislation on that graph. … It will be our responsibility in your Lordships’ House to get the balance right when we come to Committee”.—[Official Report, 22/10/13; cols. 902-3.]

That, surely, is our principal occupation today—to get that balance right, which is a crucial role that we have to undertake between now and Report in January.

After meeting a very large number of charities, community groups, third-party campaigning organisations and their representatives, it is clear to me that the amendment which I and my colleagues have put forward would go some way to meet that objective. However, I am the first to admit that I am no great expert when it comes to getting the amendment absolutely right. Many others in the House are greater experts in that regard. However, I endorse the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, that we must be careful about the unintended consequences that could arise if the Bill were implemented in its present form. That is why the amendments that I have tabled have had broad support from third-party organisations, which accept that there is a problem in ensuring transparency in relation to those who are campaigning.

The Bill refers to expenditure that,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

in respect of a party or candidate. There is wide acceptance that there should be greater transparency in relation to organisations that are determined to undertake that role. Indeed, everyone to whom I have spoken is absolutely clear that an extremely important part of the role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House is to try to avoid confusion and to deal with a lack of clarity and the excessive constraints of the 2000 Act. Indeed, that sentiment was shared by the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and he has endorsed Amendments 160B and 160C.

Amendments 160B and 160C deal with two discrete issues that have come up time and again in my discussions with a large number of organisations, and have been a feature of our debate this afternoon. They do not attempt to rewrite the basic definition, which the Electoral Commission has advised is not susceptible to constructive alteration. The benefit of that definition, as it stands, is that it has 13 years of practical experience attached to it and it is an objective test—namely, “What would a reasonable person think someone is doing?”, not “What did that person think they were doing when they did it?”. The latter would be much more subjective. We can never be sure of someone’s intentions but we can come to some conclusions about what a reasonable person would think those intentions were. The amendments seek to make these things clearer still.

Amendment 160B sets out the principle that the endorsement of a campaign by a candidate does not imply that the campaign concerned necessarily supports the candidate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, referred to a similar situation. This is a very worrying misconception about the Bill and is much featured in the case studies reported to us: that is, the notion that the endorsement of a campaign by a candidate can be construed as that candidate receiving support from that campaign. The more one thinks about that, the more illogical it is, but it is clearly a perception and, as is so often the case, a perception can be even more influential than reality.

I recall regularly speaking of the good work done by community groups in my former constituency. If, by so doing, I could have won the implied support of those groups, it would have been wonderful. If everything that I supported had automatically reciprocated that support, I would have got an even bigger majority than I did, but, of course, that was simply not the case. The policy objectives of non-party organisations will often receive flattering praise from a candidate, but the feeling may not be mutual. That is precisely the grey area that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to just now. It is not absolutely clear in the Bill that it is not reciprocal. We deserve to try to make sure for everybody’s benefit that the Bill is so improved that we know precisely where we are. That needs clarity. I hope that Members of your Lordships’ House will accept that our amendment is intended to do precisely that—to clarify the situation.

Amendment 160C gives an opportunity for the Minister to address some other matters that are ambiguous under the PPERA 2000 definition of non-party campaigning; that is, the extent to which the remotest praise for a candidate by a campaign can be said to be “promoting or procuring” his or her electoral success, or that of their party. In particular, we have all seen in the past—indeed, I think I prepared them when I was not a Member of either House—the score-cards of different parties’ positioning on different policies. These assess the policies of various parties against the policies of that particular organisation. Again, it may seem to us within the political system that it is perfectly logical that it does not automatically mean that you are seeking to procure or promote the election of a candidate, but we need clarity for everyone outside that that is the case. People are not normally involved in the political process. It is not absolutely clear at present whether this activity would or would not be regarded as promoting or procuring the electoral success of the party or candidate that comes out best in that score-card assessment. Again, a little more clarity would be extremely helpful. Even if we were forced back on to the 2000 Act, rather than producing this new Bill, we would be wanting to deal with that particular problem as a matter of urgency.

A remote suggestion that a candidate has done something right by, say, an organisation congratulating that candidate at a press conference for adopting a particular policy, is a grey area in precisely the terms that have already been referred to in this afternoon’s debate. It is important that we should make sure as soon as possible that this amendment could provide an opportunity to clarify the situation once and for all. The Electoral Commission advice is that a non-party organisation could not be accused retrospectively of “promoting or procuring the electoral success” of a candidate or party, just because that party or candidate had adopted some of the positions of the organisation. The House, however, is entitled to ask the Minister this afternoon to give that position his very clear attention so that we can be sure that we are clarifying the law as it stands and as it would seem to be intended in the Bill.

Can he also shed some light on the position after a candidate or party announces its support for a policy which is supported by a non-party organisation? My understanding is that, providing there is not a massive increase in the scale of the organisation’s campaigning clearly as a result of promoting the candidate who is supporting its view, then it would not reasonably be regarded as campaigning for that candidate simply by virtue of doing what it had been doing all along. Again, however, it is a grey area. I would welcome some greater clarity.

Some clarity on these issues is just what a lot of campaigners—be they charities or not—are asking us to undertake this afternoon. That is our principal task in your Lordships’ House. We generally do it very well. I hope that we are going to do it again today. These amendments are vital tests to see whether this Bill can be made both clearer and more workable than the present law. I hope, therefore, that they will be given the very active consideration of the Minister as well as other Members of the House.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I, too, should declare my interests as listed in the register; in particular the fact that I am a trustee of the Woolf Institute. I would like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for working so assiduously, conscientiously and sincerely to try to move this terrible Bill on from where it started off in order to achieve something that might be workable.

I should like briefly to comment on the attempt by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, to achieve a better definition of “controlled expenditure”. The commission thought very hard about that definition but, in the end, we felt that in the time available we could not come up with anything better than what we have at the moment. We reckoned that the political reality was that we had to work with what we have under the heading, “Meaning of ‘controlled expenditure’”. However, our strong recommendation is that this is one of the areas that is to be considered by the review, which the Minister has assured us will take place after the 2015 election. Certainly if the definition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, were to be accepted, it would immediately exempt all charities from the Bill because, of course, their primary purpose cannot be to promote or procure the election of a particular party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Is this not a fundamental threat to democracy? Let us take an English example. One party wants an extra runway at Heathrow. That is opposed by another party. If this is going through during an election year, surely campaigning groups should not be hindered in any way. They should have no curb on their election expenditure at all. It is a fundamental fact of democracy. They should be allowed to campaign.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, of course they will be allowed to campaign. I agree that it would be a travesty if they were not allowed to campaign. But if that campaign then crosses a line from campaigning on a perfectly legitimate issue to saying, “In our campaigning we advise you not to vote for A, B, C and D and to vote for F, G, H, J and K”, it is not that they are stopped from doing that; it is just that it becomes a regulated activity and they will have to account for the funds that they spend on promoting the election of particular candidates or the non-election of others—and there would be a top limit, just as political parties have limits on what they are allowed spend.

There is no question of them not being allowed to campaign. I fear that sometimes this debate has been unfortunate—as I say, we have all possibly been guilty of using loose language at times—because the impression has been given that we would not be allowed to campaign. It is not that we would not be allowed to campaign; it is just that if a campaign moves from a campaign on an issue to a campaign that seeks to promote or procure the election of a particular party or candidate, it becomes regulated expense.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am sorry to delay the Minister further, but with due respect I do not think he is really facing up to the difficulty of the present definition of qualifying expenses. I agree with him that if a particular campaigning group says, “Therefore you must vote A, B or C”, of course that would need to be regulated. But it still might be liable to be regulated even if it did not do that, because the Bill is quite clear that you do not have to mention a particular party, and that it does not have to be your primary purpose. It could be reasonably interpreted that if one party is supporting an expansion at Heathrow and one is opposing it, by implication the campaigning group wants one party elected rather than another. There are fundamental difficulties here.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That reflects some of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, lent his support. We are grappling with real issues here as to the clarity or otherwise of when people will cross a line. I accept that there are some cases which are quite clearly on one side of the line and others that are nearer the margins. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that some people had been advised by the Electoral Commission that what they were proposing to do would be regulated. I would say to them, “Take the advice of the Electoral Commission. If it says you should be regulated, then register”. There is nothing stopping people campaigning. In fact, they might campaign with a lot more confidence if they know that they are doing the right thing because they have taken the advice of the Electoral Commission.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment is in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Elystan-Morgan. I shall not take up too much time as I hope that the Minister will give assurances that I, and those concerned with the Welsh language, have nothing to worry about. The Welsh language is a devolved matter under Schedule 20. It is a matter for the Welsh Government. However, we must always be vigilant when Westminster legislation may affect it and might injure the proper use of the language. The foreword of the Westminster Welsh Language Act 1993, regarding the setting up of a board to promote and facilitate the use of the language, states,

“in the conduct of public business and the administration of justice in Wales the English and Welsh languages should be treated on a basis of equality”.

I can claim that, as a young Member of Parliament as far back as 1962, I was the first in a document to the Government of the day to use the expression “equal validity”. It was subsequently adopted and is now enshrined in Westminster legislation. Nothing should be done that might undermine that principle, even unwittingly. I have received representations from the Welsh Language Commissioner seeking assurances on this point.

Part 2 of the Bill regulates more closely the spending during election campaigns by those who are not standing and are not registered as a political party. It also reduces the number of spending limits by non-political parties and registered third parties. Organisations must comply with “controlled expenditure” limits for that organisation. This is defined as the expenditure associated with the production of material made available to the public at large. The Welsh Language Commissioner is concerned that the cost of translating election material falls within this definition and I tend to agree with her. The Bill makes no provision to reduce or offset the cost of such translation in relation to the Welsh language and could therefore adversely affect the present situation. Reduced expenditure as proposed in the Bill would adversely affect the provision of bilingual election material in Wales. It is possible to envisage a situation where some non-political parties and third parties chose not to issue bilingual election material for fear of reaching or exceeding the threshold. Hence, I need an assurance that the proposed spending limits should take account of the additional costs that come with providing election material in Wales. My amendment is drafted to seek to ensure that the limit in the Bill on expenditure shall not include costs incurred by the translation of those materials to Welsh or to English as the case may be. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 165B, 161A and 165C in my name, which I put forward on behalf of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. First, I pass on the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, who has a long-standing engagement and could not be here this evening. His name is added to the commission’s amendments. He has promised to be here on Report not only to speak but to vote for any commission amendments. Many noble Lords have been kind enough to recognise the quality of the report brought forward by the commission. I ought properly to pass on the thanks to those to whom it is properly due—the team of people from charities and campaigning organisations who have been working night and day in order to produce it.

Charities and campaigning organisations accept that a wider range of activities needs to be taken into account. It is part of their wider conviction that charities should be regulated and be transparent. There is absolutely no problem about that. As Amendment 165B points out, there are real difficulties about including staff time in expenditure that counts as a qualifying expense. There is the difficulty of separating staff time used on campaigns generally from that which is directed specifically towards elections, particularly if this is to take place during a whole year—the regulatory burden on charities would be quite disproportionate. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says in the report:

“Widening the activities that count towards controlled expenditure would require significant new reporting procedures, including time sheets to account for staff time connected with campaigns and systems for recording spending in regional offices. This would siphon money away from conservation work and amount to an unnecessarily onerous regulatory burden: more than the £0–800 per organisation for implementation estimated in the Impact Assessment”.

It is also important to note that the Electoral Commission, though its long-term view is that staff time should be included both for third-party organisations and political parties—for which at the moment it is not included—says quite clearly in its latest briefing that such are the difficulties of including this that it should not be included before the 2015 campaign. That is a very clear and strong recommendation.

Subsection (1)(b) of the proposed new section in Amendment 165B concerns translation. We firmly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, has said. The cost of translation from Welsh to English and English to Welsh should not be included. Our amendment goes slightly wider than simply translation because it would also include things such as Braille. The Electoral Commission also supports this although it says that production costs should not be included. I do not think the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement would agree with that because the production costs are also extra as a result of the translations. It is not just the job of hiring a translator but also the costs of printing the extra pages in Welsh.

Proposed new subsection (1)(c) concerns safety and security. This is obviously one of the concerns that arose from Northern Ireland. At the moment our amendment refers to safety and security for meetings. The Electoral Commission has very valuably added that “rallies” should be included here and I think the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement would certainly support that. Proposed new subsection (1)(d) refers to documents making material available for people who are either physically or in any other way disabled. That, again, is an extra expense which should not be counted as part of the qualifying expenses. I hope that the Government will also bring forward an amendment to ensure that extra expenses by disabled groups—for instance, to get them to meetings, which can amount to quite a lot—would be included in subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, which obviously concerns the safety of disabled people at meetings and rallies.

Proposed new subsection (1)(e) refers to communications with supporters. A clear distinction is made in the legislation between the general public, who are brought into the regulation, and supporters. However, “supporters” is defined rather narrowly in terms of donations. Of course, the modern understanding of “supporters” over all sorts of different media is much wider than that. The commission believes that it has a way of solving that by reference to the Data Protection Act, whereby those who have given consent to be contacted by the organisation, in accordance with the Data Protection Act, should count as “supporters”. We hope very much that the Government will look sympathetically at that as a way of making a sharp distinction between those who are supporters and the general public.

Amendment 161A refers to market research. The commission does not believe that general market research should count as a qualifying expense. It should only do so for the purpose of assessing people’s polling intentions; clearly, if it is designed to find out people’s polling intentions, it should be brought within the regulatory framework.

Amendment 165C would ensure that this entire clause could only be changed by primary legislation. The commission believe that this is such a fundamental issue of democratic rights that it should not simply be amended by a government Ministry. It should only be changed as a result of primary legislation.

Finally, I have added my name in a personal capacity to Amendment 163A in the name of my noble friend Lord Best, to which I am sure he will speak. The National Council for Voluntary Organisations did research independent to that of the commission but came up with virtually identical recommendations and one or two more. This is a recommendation that the NCVO was particularly keen to see implemented, which would exclude rallies and meetings from the list of activities which are to be counted as “controlled expenditure”.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, I support the amendment of my old friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and also support a parallel point which was advanced by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, about Braille.

I accept the arguments forcefully put by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, but one can take the matter slightly further. The issue is whether the translation of certain documents from Welsh into English or English into Welsh should be regarded as relevant expenditure under Clause 26. The next issue is whether the position of the Welsh language is so different from all the other cases of which one can conceive in this matter as to make it unique; that is also important.

To deal with that, I ask the Committee to indulge me for a few minutes in looking at the Act of Union of 1536; I appreciate that not many of us were around at that time. However, it has cast a long shadow over the land and nation of Wales over many centuries. The opening words of that Act were:

“ALBEIT the Dominion, Principality and Country of Wales justly and righteously is, and ever hath been incorporated, annexed, united and subject to and under the Imperial Crown of this Realm”.

It then goes on to say that there is therefore no Wales and never has been any Wales at all, as a land and nation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will want to reflect precisely on that but will just reaffirm that the Countryside Alliance was punctilious because it was an apolitical organisation. The person who chairs it is the Member of Parliament for Vauxhall, and I very much doubt that there was any suggestion at all that she was in any way going to be subject, shall we say, to an attack for an anti-Labour stance. I will reflect on the two points that the noble Baroness has made.

In conclusion, I will respond to any outstanding points, but at this juncture, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord might consider—

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Before the Minister sits down I express my appreciation of the fact that he has obviously given very detailed attention to a lot of very specific points and has indicated he will be responsive to them. I would just urge him on one thing. A particular concern for charities and campaigners, which he perhaps did not emphasise much, was this overall question of staff costs. They believe that it either is unworkable or would impose a huge regulatory burden. Will he take seriously the recommendation of the Electoral Commission that, for the 2015 election at any rate, they are excluded altogether?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I will want to reflect on that particular point. I am not in a position to say how the staff costs issue will be dealt with but I reassure the noble and right reverend Lord that it is part of the considerations. Perhaps I might ask the noble and learned Lord again whether he might feel in a position to withdraw his amendment.

Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill

Lord Bishop of Oxford Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness has given us a sobering picture of the future of US political funding. Before that, we heard from my noble friend Lord Phillips, who, as ever, is a passionate advocate and has a lifetime of experience in charity law. He and I have had many debates on this issue. One therefore has to listen with care to his explanation and how he places his case, particularly when it is supported by some experienced and heavyweight voices from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

However, I hope that he will forgive me if I say that I am not convinced—at least, not yet convinced—that charities should be exempted from the Bill. I accept the seductive simplicity of his argument, but I think that it is based on an ideal world that I fear no longer exists, if it ever did. In part, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, put her finger on it when she said that charities have a special status in the eyes of the public. They get it not just because of tax but because the charity number is seen to be something that carries with it a stamp of quality, and therefore charities have something that is not granted to people who do not go through the Charity Commission hoop.

I see two major challenges to what the noble Lord proposed. One is the role of the Charity Commission itself, first of all at an operational level. We have said that there are 160,000 registered charities and there are probably another 160,000 unregistered charities: that is a third of a million charities. The noble Lord made reference to this in his opening remarks. The commission therefore faces a huge operational challenge just to deal with basic charity law, and to hold charities to account in the most basic way. When he says that the Charity Commission has very rarely asked trustees to put their hands in their pockets, I accept that. Is that because nothing is going wrong or because the commission does not know what is going wrong? That is one of the issues we have to address; so there is an operational problem.

Then there is a strategic challenge to the commission. The commission is an organisation that is under a huge strain. Some noble Lords will have seen the National Audit Office’s report, which had some disobliging things to say about the way the Charity Commission operated. It faces considerable problems in respect of the public benefit test, the aftermath of the independent schools test and the Plymouth Brethren case, which is now before it. It has had problems with links to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Cup Trust and other tax-avoidance measures. It has also had a 40% cut in its budget. I ask my noble friend whether it is a practical proposition to ask the commission to take on another huge area and start to drill down on 335,000 charities to find out whether they are complying in a way that is, as the noble Baroness said, fair across the piece.

The noble Lord might say to me, “Of course it should have additional resources”. If it were an ideal world, that might be possible, but it is hard to argue that the Government should devote additional resources to providing the Charity Commission with the ability to enforce electoral law when the Electoral Commission already specialises in it and is up to date with all the arrangements of the way that matters are proceeding—as opposed to the Charity Commission, for which it would be one of about 10 major tasks it would have to carry out. That is my concern about the way the structure would work in real life.

My second concern is really the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie: the nitty-gritty point of the loophole. I fear that it will attract those who wish to push the envelope. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said that she thought the envelope was being pushed—and I am sure it is. In my review of charities, Members of the other place said to me, “Some charities are really getting into what we are doing as Members of Parliament”. There is a sort of concern that charities are doing things that get very close to the role of a Member of Parliament in representing his or her constituents. This amendment will open the way to the more adventurous and to the outliers who choose to become charities, because it will be seen as a way to minimise the regulatory burden and to evade some of the issues that we have just been discussing as part of this Bill.

It is the outliers who will most likely damage the sector’s reputation. The sector has historically had a very high reputation with the public, but this reputation is not immutable. We think now of the Cup Trust, as I mentioned. That has undoubtedly made members of the public consider charities and their role. We subsequently had a very public row about the payment of chief executives and senior staff of charities, and how that is commensurate with charitable status. I am not making any comment upon it; I am saying that the charitable sector has considerable challenges to answer if it is not to see some leeching away of the enormously strong public reputation it has historically enjoyed.

If we were to accept the noble Lord’s amendment—seductively simple and attractive though it is—we would run the risk of putting a burden on the Charity Commission that it will not be able to fulfil, and giving it tasks that it will find very difficult. The result could be that we will have difficulties, problems and issues with the public that, after the next general elections and elections thereafter, will be seen to rebound on the charity sector. We need to make sure that does not happen, because, as the noble Lord said, it is such a precious jewel in our crown. It provides a way for so many of our fellow citizens to put something back, to create something and to connect with their fellow members of society. It would be a tragedy to lose that. That is why I fear I cannot support the noble Lord’s amendment tonight.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

The commission did not support taking charities out, for the reasons put so fluently and eloquently by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu. I will not add to what she said, but I want to respond briefly to points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.

We are debating constituency limits in a separate set of amendments, so I will respond to that issue then. The noble Baroness has unrivalled experience and knowledge of the American system and the British system, and I do not doubt for a moment what is happening in America. But we have not yet been presented with any real evidence that it is happening in England. The precautionary principle is quite right: we have to beware what might happen. But we also have to make sure that our reaction is not disproportionate.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

There is already some evidence that American Crossroads, which is Karl Rove’s non-profit organisation—non-profit and non-political—has among other things financed young Britons to come to Republican gatherings where they are given instruction in the kinds of things that the Republicans and the Tea Party believe, at those organisations’ expense.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I absolutely agree that it is right to take precautionary steps, but I am sure that the noble Baroness would also agree that we must ensure that they are not disproportionate. The main complaint at the moment by charities and other campaigning groups is that this legislation is grossly disproportionate in the way that it bears upon them—I see the noble Baroness nodding her head.

I also have the utmost respect for the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, who is the leading charity lawyer in the country. But I have to agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. Perhaps I can approach the argument from another way. I carefully read CC9, which is the Charity Commission guidance. I also read the additional guidance that it provides for election campaigns. It makes it quite clear that charities are allowed to politically campaign. That is absolutely crystal clear. But as the noble Lord made abundantly clear, it is not always easy to draw a distinction between political campaigning in general and political campaigning that might be interpreted as supporting a particular party.

The noble Lord drew his hand across and said that there was a kind of hazy line. Does that not lead to the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, made: namely, that if charities were taken out, they would have to have their own separate regime, employ extra staff, and keep in day-by-day contact with the Electoral Commission to make sure that their guidance agreed with the guidance of the commission? Would that not be a waste of resources? If charities are in fact in the same position as other groups, would it not be better for them all to be under the same regime?

I absolutely agree that there is a major difference and that charities cannot have political campaigning as their prime purpose. That is absolutely right. If the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, about the definition of political expenses were accepted, of course charities could come out—but as long as they are allowed to politically campaign, that campaigning could be interpreted as supporting a political party or candidate.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

Does the noble and right reverend Lord not agree that it is one thing politically to campaign—which is what charities can do—but another to do that in a partisan way? They cannot do that. That is a huge and fundamental difference between them and non-charitable NGOs.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I could not agree more, but as the noble Lord made clear, the difference between the two is sometimes a bit hazy and judgments have to be made as to when a particular charity has gone over the line.