Cash Network
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(2 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Agnew of Oulton (Con)
My Lords, I think what has happened is that people have discovered the ease of not using cash for a number of transactions. Indeed, retailers would not be turning down cash if their customers were objecting to it.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Security of Ministers’ Offices and Communications
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend reflects a concern that has been expressed across the House about the potential security implications of such devices being in ministerial offices, the capture and use of such material and how wide it might be. That has been commented on by a number of noble Lords. I am sure that those responsible for the investigation, which is being supported by the Government Security Group, will take those points into account.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed.
Deregulation Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
“(10A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made so as to come into force before 1 April 2017.”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, the Government are very clear that the review of the TV licence enforcement regime is a high priority. The overriding aim is to ensure that the system is appropriate, proportionate and fair, and that it represents the best value. This independent review, led by David Perry QC, will identify whether the current enforcement regime is appropriate and proportionate, and will ensure that there is a strong, evidence-based case for any potential changes to the TV licence enforcement regime. Due to the importance of this issue, the decision was taken to commence this review in advance of Royal Assent, while retaining a clause that commits the Government to carry out the review to ensure that this important piece of work is completed in a timely manner. The findings of the review, which will be complete by the end of June 2015, will be laid in both Houses of Parliament and presented to the BBC Trust.
The proposed amendments made in the other place in lieu of Lords Amendment 38 place additional reporting commitments on the Government, but still require that any changes to the licensing regime may not come into force before 1 April 2017. The amendments require the Government of the day to consider the report promptly and properly, setting out their response and the next steps to be taken within three months of the report’s completion. The Secretary of State must report to the House, setting out whether the Government propose to exercise the power to change the sanctions that apply to the failure to have a TV licence, and, if so, detailing the next steps to be taken and to what timetable.
As I have said, the proposed amendments also require that any regulations may not be made so as to come into force before 1 April 2017. We have always maintained that the report’s findings, and potential next steps, should be considered in the context of charter review, and this remains the case. The BBC’s current charter expires on 31 December 2016. The Government will not begin charter review until after the general election, and there is no set process for how the review should be conducted, or when. It will be for the Government of the day to take forward any further actions as they see fit.
We must not pre-empt the recommendations Mr Perry will make, particularly as the public consultation element of this work is currently ongoing. However, it remains the case that any next steps will need to be considered within the scope and timing of the charter review, and it will be for the next Government to ensure that the right enforcement regime for licence fee payers, the courts and indeed the BBC itself is in place. Our amendments ensure that the Government of the day will be committed to consider whatever recommendations David Perry QC wishes to make and to set out their intentions. Any changes that may be introduced must follow a clear timetable to be set out in the Government’s Statement, leading up to when the Secretary of State’s regulation-making power commences in April 2017. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, following the successful vote in your Lordships’ House a week or two ago, we are very pleased to see that the Government have accepted our important amendment to the Bill by including it in their own Motion A. What we now have before us is a cast-iron guarantee that any proposed changes to the licence fee enforcement regime will not take place until at least 1 April 2017 when the current licence fee settlement expires.
In particular, I would like to thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson, Lord Clement-Jones, and Lord Grade, for their invaluable support in this matter in signing the original amendment. This cross-party support demonstrated the broad strength of feeling on this whole issue. Any changes imposed before April 2017 would without doubt have had an impact on the BBC’s revenue. The consequences for the BBC’s funding need to be fully considered. Funding, along with everything else to do with the BBC, must be looked at in the context of the upcoming charter review and licence fee settlement.
We recognise that the David Perry QC review into licence fee enforcement is currently taking place, and I understand that the BBC is engaging with the review. Our amendment, now included in the Government’s Motion, does not affect the review’s recommendations or seek to change the outcome, but focuses on the timing of any implementation and ensures that the recommendation can lead into wider discussions that will affect all licence fee payers.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and indeed a number of other noble Lords who I have engaged with on this issue. We have, both in the Chamber and outside, had some very useful and constructive discussions. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, for her generous remarks welcoming the Government’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said that he would remember. I know that if I look back I shall remember this Bill for a number of issues. We have had a fascinating journey, as it were, but on this particular issue we have provided the reassurance of timings. When we had the discussion I said that we were not very far away and I did not think that we were because by the time all the work was going to be done, we would be very close to 1 April. But we have reached that degree of certainty, which I know noble Lords were keen to achieve.
I am particularly pleased that the BBC is engaging in the review. That is what I would have expected from one of our great institutions. From all I hear, Mr Perry is dealing with this matter with the rigour that one would expect of a QC of his experience. That is also extremely important.
I am pleased that this has produced an opportunity for the alliance between my noble friend Lord Grade and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, to break out in such good measure. But we are now in a position where we are able to consider decriminalisation with the sort of evidence that we needed. There has been a lot of feeling about this, but the review will mean that a thorough piece of work has been undertaken and with these government amendments we will be in a position for the next Government to come to a view and bring this matter forward in a proper fashion. We will have considered the matter properly.
This has been an important feature of your Lordships’ House. It may have been inconvenient to me at the Dispatch Box to lose by three votes, but we have probably found ourselves in a position where there is clarity for the BBC and certainty, which is very important. This has been a valuable exercise.
Motion agreed.
Recall of MPs Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 4 would reduce the petition signing period from eight weeks to six weeks. On Report, we debated the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, to reduce the signing period to three weeks. The Government felt that shortening the availability of the petition to this length of time would make the petition process unworkable, especially for those who wished to sign by post. However, it was clear from that debate that the decision to increase the number of signing places to a maximum of 10 could allow us to consider a reduction in the signing period.
We have listened carefully to the arguments put forward for reducing the signing period and believe that a reduction to six weeks is a sensible and practicable step. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who is not in his place today, whose amendments at previous stages of the Bill’s consideration have raised this question. Having reflected on the issue, we consider that a shortened period of six weeks would strike the right balance between tightening the process and enabling proper access to signing. It would allow sufficient time for electors to consider the campaigns for and against signing the petition and enable those who wish to sign by post to make an application.
Additionally, the revised period would still allow the petition officer to check and approve postal applications in good time for signing sheets to be issued and returned, including making the important check that an elector has not already signed the petition in person. A further benefit of shortening the signing period, which was referred to in previous debates, is that constituents will find out the result of the petition sooner, and if a by-election is to be held, this would enable the election of their Member of Parliament more quickly.
In considering this issue, we have taken very seriously the views of your Lordships’ House and we believe that the amendment is a sensible improvement to the operation of the recall petition. The amendment has the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for which I am most grateful. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for their characteristic generosity and their willingness to reflect upon the issues that were raised in the debate on Report, to meet me and my noble friend on the Front Bench, and the decision they have reached to reduce the signing period from eight weeks to six weeks.
There were four essential arguments in connection with this. One was that, as a result of the most welcome amendment which the Government themselves brought in on Report increasing the number of signing places to up to 10, there will not be the same difficulty for registered electors to find their way to somewhere where they can sign.
There is also the question of cost. We do not want to prolong this process and its associated costs any longer than is necessary. Maintaining no fewer than two staff, I should think, who will work quite long hours for eight weeks and in up to 10 signing places, with the costs of premises and equipment, will be pretty expensive. Indeed, I would be interested to know if the Government have made any calculation or estimate of how much per week they anticipate this process to cost. Anyway, it is highly desirable that it should be kept to the minimum.
Another argument was very strongly made by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town that it is most important to minimise the period during which citizens in a particular constituency would not have the services of their MP available to them, whether in the constituency or in the House of Commons.
Finally, what is for me the most important argument is that it is desirable to minimise the period of what I think will be an intensely unpleasant political process. We will see journalistic vultures circling around what they take to be political carrion. As people witness this experience—I hope to goodness that they never will and that the provisions of this Bill never have to be operated in practice—I fear that the unpleasant nature of this political process will deepen the revulsion that many feel for politics and that any gain in accountability will be more than offset by an increase in public disaffection with politics.
While I do not want in any way to be churlish, I think that the Government have perhaps been unduly timid in reducing the signing period from eight weeks to only six weeks. My amendment on Report proposed a period of three weeks and that was perhaps a little optimistic, but I would have thought that the necessary processes could be transacted in four or five weeks. I was unpersuaded by what was a key argument put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, that ample time should be made available for people who do not already have postal votes but decide that they would like to sign this petition by way of a postal procedure to be able to apply to do so. I think that that is a bit of a luxury that is not really needed. At all events, the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, pointed out to us in an earlier debate that a whole general election can be conducted in four weeks; we are about to have a general election conducted over a period of five and a half weeks including the Easter holiday. So I think that insisting on a period of no fewer than six weeks for a petition, which would find its conclusive result if only 10% of the electors sign it, is unduly timid.
However, as I say, I do not wish to be churlish and I am genuinely grateful. A reduction from eight weeks to six weeks is 25% off, and that is pretty good. I thank both noble Lords and I am happy to support the government amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I add my thanks to the Minister for tabling this amendment, to which we have added our names. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport, who argued persuasively both on Report and today. Given the move from four to 10 signing places, we really did not need the lengthy period of eight weeks. I hope that, for costs and other reasons, there will now be less need for people to apply for postal votes, and it will be easier for people to arrange to meet one of the signing places. While we would not want to rush the petition, we think that both the MP and the constituents deserve to have as swift a result as possible so that the MP is not taken away from their normal parliamentary duties for an inordinate period, as has been outlined by my noble friend Lord Howarth. We see six weeks as being an improvement on eight and look forward to this amendment passing shortly.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been a short but important debate. I am glad that we have been able to reach what I think is a sensible arrangement, after compelling arguments. I beg to move.
Deregulation Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Jones of Birmingham (CB)
My Lords, before the Minister sits down, could I just draw on two aspects—
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, we are on Report, and the Companion is very clear about Report stage. I suggest that the noble Lord may not be in a position to speak.
Lord McNally
Another gem is lost to us from the noble Lord, Lord Jones. Let us not confuse this issue: the protection of a statutory instrument is not the same as the protection afforded by being in primary legislation. It is that protection of primary legislation that I want to give to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.
I have no doubts about my noble friend’s commitments, but we live in strange times. For most of my life, the concept of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights has been accepted as part of our world governance. We live in an age when people think of the concept of human rights as somehow a western imperialist invention, but I believe that this country’s role in championing human rights since the Second World War has been a very great one, of which we should be proud. David Maxwell Fyfe drafted the European Convention on Human Rights, and when Eleanor Roosevelt launched the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, she called it a Magna Carta for all mankind. There was no need for a translation of what she meant.
This is an exceptional case that I am arguing. I know all the objections of the barrack-room lawyers and draftsmen to specifics in primary legislation, but by putting this in primary legislation, I believe we will be keeping faith with our tradition of protecting human rights and be giving the EHRC the strength to carry on its excellent work. As I have indicated, I would like to the test the opinion of the House.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am reading from the Companion, and I am afraid that the noble Lord should sit down while I do so. It says:
“Arguments fully deployed either in Committee of the whole House or in Grand Committee should not be repeated at length on report”.
The noble Lord is on nearly his 17th minute and I think that we are starting to contravene what is in the rules of the Companion.
Lord McAvoy (Lab)
Will the Minister perhaps answer the point that we have repeatedly heard arguments tonight from Tory Peers which were quite clearly used in Committee for any length of time? They may not have taken as long as my noble friend has, so far, but collectively they have kept the whole thing going on their own particular interests.
Recall of MPs Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, Amendments 7 and 8 make a small change to Clause 3, which details the appeal period that must expire before a petition can open following an appeal by an MP against a criminal conviction or sentence that has met the first or third recall conditions. The Bill makes provision for the recall process not to begin until the appeal period has expired, which ensures that the MP has the opportunity to bring an appeal. In addition, an MP may bring a second appeal, including bringing a judicial review to the High Court, against a decision of a lower court in England and Wales, and also in Northern Ireland. The usual time limit for requesting a judicial review in England, Wales and Northern Ireland is three months. Judicial review is not available in Scotland in relation to a criminal law conviction. Such reviews are rare but the possibility that an MP may wish to bring a judicial review against the initial appeal would prevent the recall process starting until a further three-month period had expired, starting with the date the initial appeal is disposed of. This is the case even if no judicial review is brought. The recall process would be unable to start earlier even if the MP in question indicated that he or she did not intend to bring a judicial review, as the MP would have the right to change his or her mind.
Although the right of appeal is important, and an MP subject to the process must be guaranteed a fair hearing, the recall process must also meet constituents’ expectations. This amendment would ensure that the recall process could begin in good time once the initial appeal had been disposed of by limiting the period in which a second appeal could be brought to a maximum of 28 days or the usual period for an appeal to be brought, whichever was the shorter. Other, more common types of further appeal would, in any event, have to be brought within the 28-day period in order to be “in-time” appeals. I should note that all relevant appeals in Scotland have a time limit of 28 days or less.
The amendment does not preclude a judicial review being brought as a second appeal but simply limits the timeframe in which bringing a judicial review for a second appeal will stop the recall petition commencing. If that time passes without an appeal being brought, the recall process will begin. In the unlikely event that a judicial review was brought following an initial appeal and after the 28-day limit, it would not stop the recall petition process commencing. If the court overturned the conviction, the Speaker would have to order the early termination of the process under the provisions in Clause 13.
Amendment 9 would alter Clause 4 to remove the requirement for the court to inform the Speaker that a former MP had been convicted and sentenced after the person had ceased to be a Member of Parliament. As drafted, the Bill requires the court to inform the Speaker if it convicts an MP and sentences the MP to be imprisoned, or if it convicts the MP of an expenses-related offence under the third trigger. This requirement stands, however, even if the MP has vacated the seat in the mean time, or after being convicted and before the appeal is heard, and is therefore no longer a Member of Parliament. That is an unintended consequence of the original drafting and would not serve a practical purpose. First, the Speaker would already know that the MP had vacated their seat and, secondly, the conviction would of course be irrelevant to the Speaker and the recall process. The amendment addresses that by clarifying that the court is not required to inform the Speaker where the person in question has ceased to be an MP. I beg to move.
“( ) A court is not required under this section to notify the Speaker if, at any time since the application of the section, the MP’s seat has been vacated (whether by the MP’s disqualification or death, or otherwise).”
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this amendment would increase the number of signing places that a petition officer can designate in their constituency from a maximum of four to a maximum of 10. Noble Lords may recall that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommended that there should be a maximum of four signing places, and it is for this reason that the Bill included it as a maximum. That said, the Government have listened to the concerns expressed both in the other place and in this House during debates about the potential difficulties that a cap of four signing places could pose in certain circumstances, such as in constituencies that have a large number of population centres or are far flung and where it could be difficult for some constituents to attend a signing place in person.
Indeed, during the debate in Committee on the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, which sought to introduce a minimum of four signing places, we heard how some electors in the noble Baroness’s home constituency of Brecon and Radnor could face a round trip of an hour or more by car and up to half a day by public transport if they wished to sign the petition in person. These concerns were shared by a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, who reminded us that constituencies such as Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles are made up of a number of islands served by ferries, which makes the choice as to where to designate signing places particularly important to those who live there. Having listened carefully to these arguments, the Government accept that, in some circumstances, petition officers may wish to designate more than four signing places.
In reaching the decision to increase the maximum number from four to 10, the Government have consulted those returning officers whose constituencies could benefit most from raising the cap. I am particularly grateful to the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, which provided views on the subject, and, through them, the returning officers for the Western Isles and for Argyll and Bute. They were clear that a limit of four could pose particular challenges in large rural constituencies or those with a number of islands, and felt that a raised limit would afford them helpful flexibility.
We do not propose to make this an open-ended provision whereby petition officers can designate a considerably higher number of signing places, and nor do we propose to impose a minimum number of signing places that is greater than one. As we said in previous debates on the subject, the petition will be open for eight weeks and there will be an option to sign by post. In some constituencies, it may be that one or two signing places will be sufficient, as has been argued by the Association of Electoral Administrators and the Electoral Commission. I am of the view that we must ensure that petition officers can take a proportionate approach to the provision of signing places.
I recognise the need to ensure that there is enough flexibility to ensure reasonable access for constituents, especially in larger constituencies or those with particular geography. The Government believe that increasing the maximum number of signing places that can be designated to a maximum of 10 allows petition officers to designate the appropriate number of signing places based on the characteristics of their constituency. I also note that the Electoral Commission has stated in its briefing for this debate that it welcomes the change provided for by this amendment to allow greater flexibility for petition officers. I thank those noble Lords who participated in the earlier debates. We have reached a sound conclusion and I beg to move.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I am delighted to see that my noble friends have been able to respond to the views expressed right across the House on this issue in Committee. Geography, scale and lack of public transport were certainly features in my former constituency of North Cornwall, as I referred to in Committee. But I am even more delighted to witness the fact that my noble friends on the Front Bench seem to be listening a little to what has been said in the House on this Bill—just a tiny little bit. I hope that between now and Third Reading we see some more evidence of flexibility from my noble friends.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I am going to be a little more generous than the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and thank the Minister for listening to the debate on the amendment that we moved in Committee. He will not be surprised that we are delighted with this. Not only is it the right answer in itself, but I also think that it will reduce the demand for postal votes. That will save the resources of the petition officer—their time, their staff and their money—because there will be less need for people to apply for postal votes. So we are very happy to support this government amendment.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful for the generous comments that have been made. As I said, this has come forward because it makes practical sense. If there is an unfortunate instance of recall, it is important that constituents, wherever they are from—the islands or the large constituencies—have the ability to sign if they so wish. So far as my noble friend Lord Norton is concerned, as I said at the beginning, our basis for the maximum of four signing places was because that was what the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee had recommended. If I have further particulars on that, I will of course write to him, but that was the basis for four. However, what has happened in the other place and in your Lordships’ House has ensured that sense has prevailed, so I commend the amendment to your Lordships.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport has made a good case for considering whether and why eight weeks is somehow the perfect period for the petition to run. We remain unclear on the question that my noble friend Lord Hughes raised as to why the Government chose this period—a question to which they never gave a clear answer in Committee. As I said before, two weeks, as it was then, did seem too short a period if it was to include the run-up to the signing period—in other words, the time to get the signing issues out and for everyone to get to know about them as well as the signing period itself.
The Electoral Commission thinks eight weeks is, in its words, a relatively “long signing period”. Certainly, in democratic terms, two months is a long period for an MP to be effectively out of the Commons and fighting to retain his or her seat. However, the period does have to be sufficient for people to know about it, to hear the debate and to come to a view, and three weeks probably is too short if it is to cover the whole of the public awareness period—I do not like the word campaign—as well as the actual signing period. Amendment 12, as it stands, might not be the right one, but it will be very interesting to hear whether the Government can give us any reason why they chose eight weeks and, even more interestingly, whether they are willing to consider some movement on this.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for tabling this amendment; we have had a very interesting debate. I appreciate that an eight-week period may seem lengthy, but the main reason why it was considered appropriate is that we thought it was important that constituents are given sufficient time to consider any available information from the Member of Parliament or from those concerned with the petition. I very much hope, as I said before, that we do not have these recall petitions. I hope and expect that the behaviour of Members of Parliament will be of the highest standard, and that this will not happen.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
Does the Minister accept that one of the problems of an eight-week period is that someone who signs in the first two or three days might well reflect after five, six or seven days that he or she has made a mistake? There is no provision if someone changes their mind. For the process to work properly, if it can work at all, the shorter the period in which people make up their minds, the better.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Another interpretation is that if you have too rushed an arrangement and want to vote by post, along with the problems that I have outlined about three weeks, this will be a serious and rare event. In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, I think that there should be a time in which mature reflection is permitted. If someone knows that they have a decent length of time either to send their vote back by post or to go to the signing place, this encourages them rather than causing in them a knee-jerk reaction from the last thing they read in the press. Because this is a serious move, a period of calm is required and would be provided.
If it was all to be condensed into a very short period, we could possibly have the hiatus and the cherries and the Madame Defarge scenario, whereas we want this to be taken seriously by Parliament; and if that happens, we want it also to be taken seriously by electors who will not in my view feel rushed by the arguments of one or the other side. They should have some time in which to reflect properly on the matter.
While I understand the kind and good intentions that the noble Lord has portrayed in not wanting to seek an unattractive scenario, I think that the eight weeks provide the calm reflection that I hope there would be abroad for this very serious matter, and so I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Howarth of Newport
My Lords, I am very grateful to everybody who has spoken and certainly to all who have expressed support for the principle of what I was trying to achieve in putting this amendment forward.
Even at this stage, I hope that I can persuade the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, who has been conciliatory and flexible on the number of signing places, to be equally conciliatory and flexible on the matter of the duration of the signing period. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, put it so strongly and effectively, there should be an interaction between these two factors. The Government have helpfully and constructively moved on the one, but so far the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, has given us only half a loaf. If he is prepared to reflect on it he will see that there ought to be an interaction between these two considerations.
I have not at any point sought to suggest that we should so abbreviate the signing period that it becomes in practical terms impossible to conduct its administration properly. I also do not think that these decisions about recall should be taken hastily—far from it, because I agree with everybody who has stressed just how important these decisions are. Equally, we do not want to be dilatory about this process, partly for the reasons that I developed as I moved the amendment. We run a risk of some extended, gratuitous unpleasantness that is bad for political life and for our country. I know that the Minister fully understands the significance of that.
There are other factors. There is cost. These are stringent times. How can it possibly be justified to keep these signing places open, staffed by paid officials, for more weeks than they are genuinely needed? My noble friend Lady Hayter made another important point for which I am most grateful. She drew attention to the fact that if the petition signing period runs for eight weeks, and should there not be the 10% of registered voters signing the petition, the Member of Parliament whose future is in question will be absent from the service of his or her constituents, and absent from the House of Commons, for the whole of that period. That seems to be a very important case.
The Minister has expressed in very general terms the desirability of people not being made to rush their judgment in this matter. I think there is realistic scope for a compromise to reduce the period of eight weeks to what would be the necessary minimum to enable constituents to reflect adequately on the important decision they have to take and to implement that decision by way of signing the petition, whether directly or by post. Is the Minister willing, between now and Third Reading, to think further about it and perhaps meet us to discuss it? I hope that he will not be as adamant as the first part of his remarks just now seemed to suggest. I invite him to tell us now whether he sees an opportunity for some further consideration of this—which, it seems to be agreed all around the Chamber, it is desirable to do—to reduce the signing period to the necessary minimum and no longer. Is the Minister willing to give us that undertaking?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I do not think I am in a position to give an undertaking. The truth is that thought should be given towards any stage in your Lordships’ House. But I cannot promise to bring anything further back because, for the reasons I have outlined, the Government are of the view that three weeks is not sufficient and they think that eight weeks is the right length for mature discussion. Of course, I am always very happy to see the noble Lord, but I am not in a position to promise that I would be able to support anything beyond the Government’s current position.
Lord Howarth of Newport
I completely understand that the noble Lord is not in a position to give a solid undertaking that he will introduce an amendment that changes the signing period. But I take it from what he has just said that he is willing to enter into a discussion with his ministerial colleagues. He has said that he is willing to talk to some of us about this. That would be genuinely desirable. I think that somewhere between three weeks and eight weeks, we can arrive at a better span of time which should be agreeable to everybody. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Recall of MPs Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the proposed amendment would alter Clause 21 to remove the power for the Act to be amended through regulations relating to the conduct of the recall petition process. Noble Lords will recall that this recommendation was made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its report on the Bill, and an amendment to that effect was tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, in Committee.
The power to amend the Act relates only to making regulations about the conduct of the recall petition process. It was originally included to allow for changes in other areas of electoral legislation, in particular the introduction of individual electoral registration. Now that such reforms have been made, we do not believe such a power is justified in this case.
The Government have since responded to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, agreeing that such powers should be taken with care and that, in this instance, the power is no longer necessary. The Government have therefore tabled this amendment to remove the power to amend the Act through conduct regulations. I beg to move.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 25 removes the words “including this Act” from the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought that these words would permit the infiltration of substantial and significant provisions into the Bill, and we agree. This is the amendment that my noble friend Lady Hayter moved in Committee, and I am delighted that the Government have listened to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Opposition in this respect. We agree with them that this was a step too far. I support the amendment.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
I thank the noble Baroness for that. In return, I send our good wishes for his rapid return—not necessarily to voting, perhaps, as we never approve of the way in which he votes, but we like to hear his voice. He has our good wishes for a speedy recovery.
The principle of reviewing this new part of our democratic institution, which could be a significant part, is right. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will say something positive—although he never says anything positive to me—about the possibility of a proper review of this measure, once it has been put into use.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government are fully persuaded of the merits of post-legislative scrutiny as a general principle. There are frequently valuable lessons to be learnt for the future, and the Government are always happy to listen to and consider recommendations arising from such reviews.
As noble Lords have said, the Government have included review clauses in several of their Acts this Parliament, including ones affecting constitutional or electoral matters. However, the Government have some reservations in this case. My noble friend’s amendment commits to a review after five years. That is a reasonable period in some respects, but it is of course by no means certain that there will have been a recall petition by that point. In fact, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, was getting very close to that. A review of an Act which has not had the opportunity to operate as intended would be severely limited in its usefulness. It would be unable to consider the operation of the recall process, and its conclusions would have to be to some extent hypothetical.
Recall does not have to be regularly used for the power to be a good addition to democracy. Indeed, as I have said before—and I hope noble Lords will understand my good intent—the Government fervently hope that no petition is triggered because Members’ conduct is of the highest standard expected. I am sure that noble Lords would not suggest that Parliament’s disciplinary powers should lapse simply because Members’ behaviour does not cause them to be used.
It is, of course, open to Parliament and to the Government of the day to review legislation on their own initiative, without a statutory requirement to do so. It would be entirely appropriate for a parliamentary committee to conduct its own post-legislative scrutiny at such a point as it felt that it would be useful to do so. I am sure that the Government of the day would be more than happy to reflect on any considerations that might be brought forward in that case.
I hope that we will not have a recall because the standards of Members of Parliament are very high, so will not need a review. The Government are not happy about my noble friend’s amendment and we ask him to withdraw it, because in this case we are not convinced that it would be of the use that we know he intends. If there has not been a trigger, it would not be the sort of valuable review that we would like were we to have reviews. I hope that he feels able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is clearly not familiar with my reputation. The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may find himself rather busy in five to six years because this will probably coincide with the review of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I suspect he will be only too happy to volunteer to serve on that review as well and to reach similar conclusions on both. I may be able to allay the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, on the content of the amendment in terms of how the review would take place. This also relates to what my noble friend the Minister said. It stipulates a review but there will not necessarily be any action in the light of the committee’s investigation. It may find that it has had a deterrent effect and there is not too much to be done, which might be worth celebrating. It would not be in the scope of the amendment to cause more problems or give an opening to those who want to pursue a more radical measure. It would only be if the committee came up with recommendations for repeal or amendment of the Act as it stands. It does not necessarily open it up for everybody to come forward with alternatives.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, that the underlying principle is the important point. The content of the amendment is not set in stone. I put it in its current form because the Government had already accepted it for the Fixed-term Parliaments Act and I thought this would make it a bit more difficult for them to say no to this. The arguments on both measures are identical. If you accept the arguments for the review of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act—which might be working wonderfully, so why do we need to review it?—those same arguments apply to this Bill. You either have some provision for both or neither. That was the reason I drafted it the way I did: to entice the Government in this direction rather than setting something in stone. I would be quite amenable, if it was felt appropriate, to coming back to this with a differently worded amendment to achieve review.
This will clearly be subject to post-legislative review by the relevant department after five or six years. It needed to be a wider review and be on record as more formal, as is the case with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. I have made the case for it and I hope the Government might reflect on it, even at this late stage. It does not undermine the principle of the Bill; it just makes a sensible provision that we should look at these things in terms of how they work out. They may not be working as intended but that does not mean they have gone completely belly up—which is when we tend to do something about it—but they might merit modification. However, I do not intend to pursue it further at this late stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Deregulation Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, once again, we have had a very good discussion about this topic. Although much stress was placed on the unanimity of view last time, I seem to recall myself being somewhat isolated and not in favour of what was proposed. I plead on this that I was simply arguing for good governance and not for a radical change in approach, because I share many of the views that have been expressed today. I simply think that the complexity of the matter is undervalued. The technological changes and all the other things that people are asserting without much evidence need to be tested by proper evidence-gathering and a proper report.
Like other noble Lords, I think that the way forward is to do something with Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. There is some obvious logic in having the primary legislation already banked in order that it can be implemented when the time comes, but the right process would be to carry out the review to be absolutely certain that the complexities which are present are properly analysed, that the regulatory structure—in so far as it can be—is made future-proof, and that we come forward with a proposal in a coherent and proper way. I hope that the Minister will be able to shed light on the complicated manoeuvrings that are going on behind the scenes but have yet to see the light of day.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his amendment. We certainly missed him in Committee, when we had an excellent debate—and we have had a similarly excellent debate today.
The amendment would create the power for the Secretary of State to repeal in whole or in part Section 73 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. Section 73 permits the retransmission, on cable, of the main PSB channels by providing that the copyright in the broadcast is not infringed by such retransmission. The resulting effect of Section 73 is that public service broadcasters are not able to charge cable operators for the retransmission of their services. This is clearly an area where many competing interests, particularly those of broadcasters, platforms and viewers, must in some way be balanced.
The Government’s approach is not to abolish Section 73 without exploring these interactions within the wider framework of regulation that impacts the balance of payments between platforms and PSBs. As has already been mentioned today, the Culture Secretary announced last October that the Government were looking at whether the time was right to remove Section 73 of the 1988 Act, which could allow PSBs to invest more in high-quality content.
Our view is that, rather than doing so in isolation, we need to look at this in the wider context, examining the framework of regulation that governs the balance of payments between broadcasters and platforms. I have heard it said in my short time in your Lordships’ House that when the two Front Benches agree, we are into very difficult territory—but this is an area of complexity that we need to look at properly.
We are very sympathetic—I emphasise, very sympathetic—with the aim of this amendment, which seeks to give Ministers the power to repeal Section 73 following consultations, but our view is that it would not give us all the powers necessary to repeal it fully. As I think everyone accepts, Section 73 does not exist in isolation. It underpins complex commercial arrangements between the cable operator Virgin and the public service broadcasters. We need to consider carefully what the impact of the repeal would be on these existing arrangements and consider what consequential and/or transitional provision would be needed when repealing Section 73. Parliamentary counsel advised that the amendment as drafted does not give Ministers the powers to make such a provision.
The Government intend to consult shortly. I fully understand the impatience, frustration and perhaps more than that, which many of your Lordships have expressed. I want to take this opportunity to run through the detail that I have available to me. I do not have all the answers, but I would like to explain the following. Part of this issue has been complicated by the Court of Appeal case, and we still await the judgment. But my understanding is that the consultation will definitely be before the election; in fact, we are proposing for it to be launched in a week or so. I understand that it will take eight to 12 weeks to complete, and then it will have to be assessed. I will make sure that all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate receive a copy of the consultation document so that it is available immediately.
It will be a broad consultation on the whole infrastructure, obviously including Section 73. However, it is important that Parliament has evidence of what may be the unforeseen consequences: for example, with arrangements for addressing areas that are difficult to broadcast to, such as houses in very steep valleys. As with all these things, it is the unintended consequences for the viewer that we need to watch out for.
I understand my noble friend’s frustration and am sure that in his winding up remarks he will stress that he does not think that the Government have acted as expeditiously as he would like. However, it is important that we make sure we get this right. As I said, we could not accept this amendment in any event because it is defective so far as parliamentary counsel is concerned. Our proposal is that we will consult—as I said—and then bring forward legislation to repeal Section 73 once the process and all the permutations and unforeseen circumstances that there potentially may be have been properly addressed. It is for those reasons and not for reasons of delay or lack of concern that I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
It is really unfortunate to have drawn the straw following that contribution. The noble Lord has spoilt my day, but that was a very nice way of doing it; I thank him very much.
I was going to start with a little riff on why the true author of this amendment was being withheld from us, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, mentioned that he had not been able to be in Committee. It is an irony beyond irony that the first amendment in his name was the rather beautifully named “parasitic packaging” amendment, for which he produced a parasitic package—the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, who not only replicated every word and phrase that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, would have used but did so in such a brilliant and concise way that he immediately won the hearts of all of us in Committee. We welcomed back the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for round two, on the amendment to remove Section 73, which was not quite so successful but was pretty good, and then he went on to busking. Busking was a tour de force; it was almost as good as what we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Deben, because he listed every one of the blooming regulations—I think there were 11 of them—that we are told are inhibiting busking in our greatest world city. I have to say to him, though, that he had obviously missed three because the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has now done even more research and produced another few that he has added to the list.
I absolutely buy what the noble Lord, Lord Deben is selling today, that this is a ridiculous farrago of regulation that needs to be sorted out. There has to be some clarity about what the authorities want out of the regulations that they wish to put forward. There has to be some sense of equity between those who wish to perform and those who wish to listen, and the rights and responsibilities of neighbourhoods in terms of pollution and other things. There has to be the clarity of a single piece of legislation that everyone can refer to.
When the Minister responded in Committee, he used a ridiculous phrase, a chilling remark that I still sometimes wake up and think about in the middle of the night:
“the Metropolitan Police have a desire to retain necessary powers”.—[Official Report, 11/11/14; col. GC 48.]
Come on. It is so easy to say that, and so difficult to get up the energy to say, “Okay, let’s know what these things are”. What are these necessary powers, and what exactly is this desire that the police seem to bear in their corporate bosom to do something about those who wish to entertain and perform in a way that I would have thought to most people would be a very appropriate thing to do in such a major city?
It is up to the Minister to come back on this amendment. I hope that he can step up to the mark and give us a bravura performance, on whatever instrument he chooses, but he should pick up on one point that was raised in discussion in Committee by my noble friend Lord Rooker, who said that there is an obvious and clear remedy for this. The Law Commission exists to tidy up exactly this sort of arrangement, and the Minister said that he would go off and consult on whether it was the appropriate body. First, of course, he said that it was not the appropriate body, but then he was told in no uncertain terms—because that is what my noble friend does—that the commission does indeed look at these things; it is quite happy to update, refresh and reform legislation or regulation that needs it. Surely that is the way forward, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister—in music.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his amendment because it has precipitated a most enjoyable debate. As has been said, these matters were considered in Committee. I assure my noble friend that, following that debate, we have looked again at these issues even more thoroughly. However, I repeat my own sentiments from Committee: the Government are clear that live music and street entertainment play an important role in community life, and can generate a positive atmosphere that can be enjoyed by all. Indeed, only this morning a guitarist in Westminster station was doing precisely that. If I might digress and respond to my noble friend Lord Deben, my definition in life is “drains and radiators” as to how people perform in their lives.
The Government therefore do not start from the position that busking requires regulation and control. However, in our view it is important that backstops are in place on those rare occasions when an anti-social busker does not respond to requests from the police, or when other legislation, such as that relating to noise or anti-social behaviour, is found to be insufficient. It is in those circumstances that we believe the two pieces of legislation mentioned still have a role to play.
As I explained in Committee, the Metropolitan Police Service has advised that it still uses the powers under the 1839 Act for operational and tactical reasons. I am sure that I am not going to satisfy all my noble friend Lord Deben’s demands. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for mentioning the intervention from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker; that helpful intervention precipitated officials having detailed discussions with the Law Commission regarding Section 54 of the 1839 Act. The Law Commission has advised that it would be able to recommend repeal of a specific provision only if it appeared, following research and consultation, not to have any practical utility. In this case, the Law Commission has advised that it would be highly unlikely to recommend repeal in the face of sustained opposition from the police.
Lord Deben
I do not know whether my noble friend will understand this, but it is often difficult to know the division between Westminster and Camden and between Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea. Unless we have a London-wide agreement, it puts buskers in an extremely difficult position. I am sure that my noble friend, like me, has wrongly put money in a parking meter because different local authorities have different times for parking. Is it not sensible to say that if there are going to be special local authority arrangements, they should at least cover the whole of the central part of London so that people do not need to take a local authority map to discover that in Camden they would be arrested but in Westminster—a very good council—they would not?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That is extremely helpful of my noble friend as it allows me to reinforce the efforts of the excellent Mayor of London as the honest broker in trying to get a London-wide code of practice. I think that there have been very constructive discussions with local authorities. I am sure that my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones will have more detail on that than I do. However, I think that that is precisely the way forward that my noble friend Lord Deben would find most agreeable.
Busking is undoubtedly a legitimate activity which often contributes to the vibrancy of a local area, and, per se, we do not believe that it does need control. However, it is important that backstop powers are available for specific circumstances. I know that this will not suit many of my noble friends but I hope that I have explained our reasons. Picking up the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, we have looked at this with the Law Commission. I hope that, on that basis, and for the other reasons I have given, my noble friend will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones
My Lords, we have had quite an interesting jam session on busking deregulation. I thank all speakers in the debate, starting with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. I am glad that he referred to Jonny Walker of the Keep Streets Live! campaign, who has been so instrumental in trying to get some sense into busking regulation and to get a code of conduct agreed in so many parts of the UK. He made some important points about the need for national guidelines, if possible, to create some coherence across the UK, and pointed out that local councils should not simply go in, in a knee-jerk way, with all guns blazing.
I very much thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who made a wonderful speech that was passionate, persuasive and, indeed, life enhancing. He was spot on about the London boroughs; they do vary in their attitudes. I was at a meeting yesterday morning with almost all the London boroughs, including Camden. Progress is being made on the creation of a Busk In London code. We hope that it will be launched with the consent of all the London boroughs on 18 March. The mayor has been absolutely instrumental in this; the use of his bully pulpit has been so helpful.
After hearing the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, I thought that he had set my noble friend some pretty impossible tests—and indeed that was the case: I do not feel that my noble friend met those tests in his response. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made one very provocative remark—thought it is not provocative on these Benches—when he described London as the capital of the European Union. I am sure that he will be challenged on that aspect of his speech.
I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for starting to make the constructive suggestion about the Law Commission; that is extremely important. The point is that we should be making the policy. I see the noble Lord, Lord Condon, in the Chamber. I am sure he was ruminating over the 1839 Act because I am sure he used it every day when he was a young constable. I doubt whether more than one in 20 police constables has a clue about the 1839 Act. It is produced for absolutely no purpose, in extremis, because a particular group of residents wants to see a result. It has been used totally inappropriately. I am afraid that, whenever it is used again, it will be used totally inappropriately, because there are many other powers.
I thank the Minister for some aspects of his response, in particular his positive approach. He says that busking plays an important role in our lives; that it generates a positive atmosphere; that we do not, per se, start on the basis that we must somehow control it; and that we need backstops. I want to see the end of these powers because they are not backstops, they are front-stops: in many cases, they absolutely stop busking unless it is licensed. That does not seem very satisfactory.
We have had a good debate. I hope the Law Commission will take this on. You can certainly count on the busking community, and the many who support them, to carry on and to try to get the culture of enforcement right. Enforcement should be undertaken only against inappropriate busking. We should allow busking that is musical and positive and that brings joy to our streets, particularly in London, so that they can flourish. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to address three areas of concern regarding the noble Lord’s proposals: the impact on the current consultations; the impact on public confidence; and the impact on the National Lottery. We exchanged views on these issues in Committee but I want to reiterate some of the concerns.
The current DCMS consultation closes on 4 March. At the same time, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is separately investigating society lottery regulation and should report its findings fairly shortly. We have argued for a detailed study of the proposals and their consequences.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, says, but it is not just the National Lottery that may have concerns. Smaller lotteries and other charities have raised concerns that they may be squeezed by large society lotteries, which could expand and push the smaller ones to one side. Certainly, we on this side of the House would want to discuss the implications of that in detail before we consider any changes. Changes to this sector must be proportionate and evidence-based. We must not risk negatively impacting on the perception of charities—and, in turn, on the levels of public trust and confidence.
It is difficult to come to any conclusion on whether to substantially increase the sizes of prizes, of the individual draw or of annual proceeds caps as there is insufficient information available on this market. Without understanding how many lotteries are hitting the prize limits, the individual draw or the annual caps, and which would therefore benefit from being able to sell more tickets with higher prizes, I do not think that we can say that there is sufficient evidence for a change in policy.
There is a strong case for making more information available—certainly for increasing the data available on each society lottery’s ticket breakdown. We would like to see the Gambling Commission maintain up-to-date and publicly available data tables that show the proportion each lottery divides between good causes, prizes and expenses. It is fundamental to public confidence that the people who buy tickets understand the choices that they make. What are they supporting? How much of the money that they contribute will go to a good cause? That really is important.
I have also raised before, in the Chamber and in Committee, concerns over lottery operators, and in particular the loophole exploited by the Health Lottery. It is supposedly made up of 51 separate companies, yet they have the same three directors, the same office and the same branding. In effect, it operates as an alternative to the National Lottery. I do not think we can disregard concerns about the National Lottery. We do not fully understand the consequences. If we deregulate this market and other people come in, we are looking at a serious potential threat to the National Lottery.
The National Lottery was established on a monopoly basis for a very good reason: to balance people’s desire that the money goes to a good cause with the effect of gambling. There is no doubt that people participate in a lottery because they want to win; it is not simply about giving money to a good cause. From the way the Health Lottery and other operators market themselves, we can see that if we deregulate without properly considering all the consequences, we could have new entrants to the market. The market might grow, but it could certainly be distorted. I have mentioned this before: we could have companies such as Tesco, which has the infrastructure to mount a lottery, becoming a lottery operator, and, no doubt, giving 20% of its money to good causes—but we still do not understand how that could impact on the National Lottery.
As we have heard in previous debates, the National Lottery is not just about great big amounts of money going to big exercises. A huge amount of money—80%—goes in small amounts to local causes, which would not otherwise have been able to raise the money themselves. It has made a huge impact on our society, and we should not risk it without fully understanding the consequences.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for tabling these amendments. He is certainly tenacious in these matters.
The amendments seek to remove or relax regulations governing the amounts that society lotteries can raise and the level of prizes they can offer. The effect of the amendments together would be to allow society lotteries to offer jackpots of up to £5 million per draw and to hold as many draws as they wish. Our concern is that this could put society lotteries in direct competition with the National Lottery, and this might present a serious risk to the good causes funded by the National Lottery. The best way of raising funds is through encouraging people to play by offering them the life-changing prizes that are possible only through mass participation in a single national lottery. Indeed, the lottery was set up in 1994 to do just that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury, rightly suggested, the National Lottery has been an enormous success, raising more than £32 billion for good causes in its 20 years of existence. It has funded everything from very large-scale national projects to thousands upon thousands of small-scale local groups, and this has had a truly transformative effect across the United Kingdom.
Society lotteries have also been very successful at raising funds for good causes and they have grown significantly in recent years. We welcome that success and are clear that they are part of a wider good-cause landscape. However, we cannot let their success be at the expense of the National Lottery.
Even if all the amendments are not taken together, it is unclear what effect making changes to individual limits will have. The limits taken as a package have so far allowed society lotteries to flourish while maintaining the success of the National Lottery. If we wish to change these limits, either singly or as a package, it must surely be done on the basis of evidence and with a clear understanding of how any changes will impact on society lotteries, both large and small, as well as on the National Lottery.
The Government agree with my noble friend that it is now time to consider these limits. That is why we are currently consulting through a call for evidence, asking for views on how we can ensure that society lotteries continue to flourish alongside the National Lottery. In addition, as has been mentioned, the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee is currently investigating society lotteries and will be considering whether their current limits are appropriate.
We are currently gathering the evidence that will highlight whether any reforms are needed, and I believe that it would be unwise to make any changes now without waiting for that evidence. The Government expect to have it after the call for evidence closes on 4 March. Once we have this evidence, any reforms to monetary amounts or percentages can be made through secondary legislation. Therefore, I am confident that the Government could move to make changes if, indeed, it was decided that this was the right and sensible course of action. For those reasons, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mancroft
My Lords, I am not in a position of having to thank many noble Lords for taking part in this enormous debate; nevertheless, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and my noble friend for replying.
It was clear from the debate in Grand Committee that your Lordships did not appreciate the importance of the issue, and it is clear that your Lordships have not appreciated its importance today. It is, however, clear that over the past few years, while the voice of the BBC in your Lordships’ House has increased significantly, the volume of sound that comes from the charity sector has, sadly, reduced.
Society lottery regulations were designed 40 years ago, when society had rather a different view of gambling. The gambling industry has changed beyond recognition —in particular, the Government themselves are now the largest player in that industry through their ownership and promotion of the National Lottery. In his answer, my noble friend made it clear that protecting the National Lottery is rather more important than any of the other issues on the table.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, made some useful comments in taking this debate forward. However, I say to him that the information on ticket sales—the number of sales, which charity the money goes to and what percentage of the money goes to the charity—is in the public domain. Every charity files a return to the Gambling Commission, which is put on its website. Any member of the public can see exactly where the money has gone, how much was raised and how much went out in prizes. It is a requirement of regulations that societies do that and there is no question that that should not be changed. There is no reason why that should not continue. I am sure that the noble Lord knows that every charity lottery ticket has the name of the charity written on it. It is not difficult to tell where the money is going.
Palestine: Recognition
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Steel of Aikwood (LD)
My Lords, we might now add Spain to the words of the Motion. I am gratified that so many Members wish to take part in the debate, and I am conscious that the House expects to rise at seven o’clock. I join in that expectation, as I am booked on the last plane to Edinburgh, so I will attempt to be brief in my opening remarks.
First, I declare two interests. I was for seven years president of the excellent charity Medical Aid to the Palestinians. I am delighted that the current president, my noble friend Lady Morris of Bolton, will be taking part in the debate. Secondly, I am a paid-up member of the Friends of Israel, for the very good reason that I think that it is important always to distinguish between the State of Israel and the policies of the present Government of Israel. They are not the same, and too many people equate the two rather sloppily.
When I was leader of the Liberal Party, my Palestinian friends used to say, “It’s all your fault. It was under a Liberal Administration that the Balfour Declaration was first promulgated in 1917”. I am very proud of that, but I also remind people of the second part of that declaration, which states,
“it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine”.
I am afraid it is that section of the Balfour Declaration which has so often been forgotten.
As a young MP, I went on the parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the UN in 1967. I remember the excitement and enthusiasm of sitting in on the meetings with Lord Caradon, who was then our representative at the UN, when we secured UN Security Council Resolution 242. There was a sense then that this was the start of a really effective peace process, after the war in that area. How sad it is that more than 45 years later, we have to say that that optimism was completely misplaced.
Then in 1980, when I was party leader, I took a delegation of six colleagues around the Middle East to study the situation in detail. We were extremely well received by Heads of Government including President Assad in Syria—the dictatorial father of the current President—President Sarkis in the Lebanon, President Sadat in Egypt and King Hussein in Jordan. The one place where we were not received by the Head of Government was Israel. Why? Because Prime Minister Begin disapproved of the fact that in Damascus, we had had the temerity to have a meeting with Mr Yasser Arafat, the leader of the PLO. The fact that we had spent time in that meeting trying to argue him out of a section of the PLO covenant and into recognising the State of Israel was beside the point. We had spoken with the unspeakable. It is interesting how history repeats itself: just as it would not speak to the PLO then it will not speak to Hamas now, for exactly the same reasons.
On other occasions, I have visited the border towns in Israel of Sederot and Ashkelon. I therefore fully understand the sense of fear and terror under which they have to live, with the quite unacceptable raining down of rockets from Gaza on to these communities. These are not only disastrous but positively counterproductive for the peace process. The rockets of course inflict casualties on the citizens of Israel, but none of these casualties justifies the reaction of the Government of Israel in their two invasions of the Gaza Strip: in 2009, Operation Cast Lead, and, in 2014, Operation Protective Edge. In the first invasion, some 1,400 Palestinians were killed and in the second some 2,500—500 of them children. I visited Gaza again after Operation Cast Lead and I find it difficult to describe in the House the scale of the devastation that had been inflicted, never mind the deaths. Houses, schools, factories and even hospitals were destroyed in that operation. Indeed, I am surprised that there has not been a stronger reaction among the taxpayers of the European Union and the United States, considering that the airport opened by President Clinton in 1998 was destroyed. That airport cost us $86 million.
In 2002, the Arab Heads of State launched the Arab peace initiative, which promised to fly the Israeli flag in embassies in every Arab capital. It was an amazing breakthrough, repeated in 2007. Last year, some of us had the privilege of meeting upstairs in a committee room a group of Israeli businessmen. I say that they were businessmen because they stressed that they were not politicians. They were launching an Israeli peace initiative in response to the Arab peace initiative, and arguing that the peace process really ought to be conducted at international level by the Heads of Government. That is still a compelling process, given that the Israelis and Palestinians seem unable to reach any kind of peace agreement themselves.
Unfortunately, the present Government of Israel under Mr Netanyahu have consistently rejected those initiatives and continue to build settlements on the West Bank, now occupied by half a million citizens of Israel. They are, of course, totally illegal, as defined by the international court. Mr Netanyahu rejects that court: he even rejects the Israeli Supreme Court when it criticises the route of the security wall. Israel does not like the reference to apartheid, but the separate roads on the West Bank that can be travelled on only by Israeli citizens, and which I saw on recent visits, are strongly reminiscent of what I used to find in South Africa, as is the expulsion of Palestinians from Israel itself. In 2012, the 27 European Foreign Ministers issued a report saying that the attitude of the present Government of Israel threatens,
“to make the two-state solution impossible”.
The truth is that, under the present Administration, Israel has been losing friends. The one stroke of comfort we can take is that current opinion polls indicate that the Government may lose office in the coming election and be replaced by something a good deal better.
Why should we now echo what the House of Commons has already done? I use the words of our consul-general in Jerusalem, Sir Vincent Fean:
“The voices of moderation on both sides need encouragement. Those Palestinians who eschew violence and practise security cooperation with Israel need something to show for their pains—to prove that their peaceful efforts, not indiscriminate Hamas violence, will lead to two states”.
We are sending a signal from this House that we welcome and echo what the elected House has already done.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
I respectfully remind your Lordships that we have suggested an advisory time of four minutes to enable the House to rise at its customary time of 7 pm. It would be very much appreciated if your Lordships could keep to that advisory time.
Recall of MPs Bill
Lord Gardiner of Kimble Excerpts(9 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I found the travels of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, around the highways and byways of Richmond Park interesting. When this Bill was first thought of, we were thinking it was going to be a Sheffield Hallam one with the NUS bussing in its students. So we have come further south from that early discussion.
Amendment 51 is interesting. As I said earlier, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, was not in his place at the time, the amendment could answer the queries that I had raised about whether the process is secret or effectively open. It is another way of dealing with that by allowing people to vote against and not just in favour of a recall by-election. It would certainly be a clearer option for electors who know that they have a choice. They can express that choice, having thought about the issue.
It is not, of course, what the Bill proposes so I am not able to offer support for it, particularly as it would negate a by-election simply if 10% voted against. You could have 30% wanting a by-election and 10% against. Under the amendment as drafted, the 10% would trump the 30%, which I am sure would not be a desirable outcome.
With regard to the increase to 20%, what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester was saying was interesting. From that, I might take the other view; if you get the 20% you have lost a fifth of your electorate. Effectively there will be no by-election. After having 20% against them, no one will possibly contest the by-election; so there would be a by-election, but not with the MP there. The purpose of the Bill, as it has been drafted, was that there should be the possibility of a by-election at which the MP refights that seat and tests the issue as to whether, despite whatever they have been found guilty of, they are nevertheless able to represent their constituents. My concern about the 20% is that it undermines the difference between a by-election and a recall petition.
I acknowledge that the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee recommended 20% but I do not think that we should pray that in aid given that it wanted no sight of this Bill whatever. I look forward to the Minister’s comments. The interesting thing is why on earth 10% was chosen and not 5% or 15%. The problem of 20% is that it effectively gets rid of the idea of having a by-election that the MP would fight. In that sense, it goes against the spirit of the Bill.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)
My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I have listened carefully and seriously to all the points that have been made. I know I am repeating this point, but it should not be forgotten that for a recall petition to be opened in the first place a Member of Parliament would have had to have committed serious wrongdoing and to have met one of the three conditions in the Bill. All of your Lordships know very well what those three triggers are.
The noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, raised the concern that a future Parliament might do this or that with other triggers. We obviously cannot bind what another Parliament might wish to do. This Bill before us is about three triggers which involve serious wrongdoing. That is the right balance. That is the point which the other place had come to as well. We believe that reaching the figure of 10% of constituents signing the petition would show a significant level of support for a recall and would trigger a by-election in which the sitting MP could stand.
Lord Howarth of Newport
The noble Lord is invariably fair-minded. Is he really relaxed about and content with arrangements whereby someone could be subject to a petition by 10% of their electors precipitating this trial by ordeal, which would then take the process beyond the eight week period through to a by-election, while it is entirely possible that 90% of their constituents thought that there should not be a by-election and that recall was the wrong thing to do but have no opportunity under the Government’s proposals to express that view?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I understand that, of course, but the whole purpose of the legislation is for the three triggers to be for serious wrongdoing. If a Member of Parliament has been found guilty, convicted or suspended up to the level, it is a view that there should be an opportunity for constituents to decide whether there should be a recall and then, if a certain threshold is reached—noble Lords have made different points about the level of that threshold—there will be a by-election. It will then be for 100% of the electorate to come to a view about what they want to do for their future representation.
Lord Howarth of Newport
Does the Minister accept the very powerful point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chester that in reality it is hardly likely that an MP who had been subject to everything that will have occurred in the run-up to the result of the petition would actually want to contest a by-election? Is he not actually being drummed out of Parliament through this process in a way that must leave the Minister deeply uneasy?
The Lord Bishop of Chester
My Lords, perhaps I may just add to my point. I take what the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, and I can see the argument both ways. I do not think that any political party would support a candidate in those circumstances. Maybe I am misreading this but, given the dynamics of the media, I simply cannot see the reality of a political party supporting the MP in those circumstances.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I think this goes to the heart of the issue. If one believes that the three serious triggers for serious wrongdoing that have been set and agreed in the other place are to be adhered to, there would be this opportunity for the electorate in that constituency to have another opportunity. We are obviously at the heart of whether or not there should be legislation. The Government believe, as I think do the opposition Front Bench, that for certain conduct there should be an opportunity for the electorate of that constituency to have their say again on who represents them.
We have almost got to a point where I know that there are noble Lords who are very unhappy about the Bill, but the point is that the Government and the other place feel that there should be triggers whereby recall should take place. It is perfectly respectable for noble Lords to oppose this, but I am afraid that I disagree with the view that there should be no opportunities for recall—hence this Bill.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
I am afraid that the Minister misunderstood what I said. The recall provision can be triggered only if one of the three things is invoked—there is no question about that. It then goes to the petitions commissioner—no question about that. However, the Minister and I, and indeed all noble Lords in this place, know that the discussion that takes place during the 20 days or however long it is will not be about the trigger at all. It will not be a discussion about how well or badly the MP has behaved; it will be entirely about political matters not connected in any way with the triggers. That is the dilemma that we are in. I am afraid that the 10% level makes it all too easy for that to take place. It is not a case of saying that there has not been wrongdoing, or that it has not been triggered. The question is: what will be discussed during the 20 days? If there are 20 days from the moment when the matter is referred to the petitions commissioner, the debate will take place entirely outside the Member’s individual behaviour.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I understand that. That is why I say that it comes to a different view and a different impression of whether there should not be a recall because of the issues that the noble Lord outlines. However, I think that there should be opportunities, where there has been serious wrongdoing, for there to be recall. That was in the manifesto pledges of the three main political parties and in the coalition programme. We are getting into a discussion—which I respect entirely—with noble Lords who do not like this Bill, but the point is that the other place, the Government and the Official Opposition are of the view that there should be certain opportunities, with safeguards so that representative democracy is not thwarted; of course we should defend that very strongly.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will continue and I hope that it will then unfold. Obviously there can be moot discussion as to whether it should be 5%, 30% or 40%; all sorts of figures could be suggested. However, if I may outline a bit more, the by-election itself would determine who was the MP; the petition would simply trigger the by-election. So while it could be argued that 10% of constituents signing the petition could mean that 90% of them wanted to keep the MP, if that were indeed the case, they would have a chance to show that at the subsequent by-election.
On average—I think this goes to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was seeking to wrestle with me about why 10% was chosen and not 15%, 20% or 5%—a constituency has around 70,000 to 75,000 constituents. With a threshold of 10%, around 7,000 to 7,500 signatures would be required to trigger a by-election. That is one of the reasons why the Government came to the view that that was about the right number; it was a serious number of people. Increasing the threshold to 20% would obviously require between 14,000 and 15,000 constituents to sign in order to trigger a by-election. Again, this is a matter of balance, but there was a feeling that raising the level to 20% would make it more onerous for constituents worried about an MP after serious wrongdoing to hold that MP to account.
One can have all sorts of interesting discussions about what the right percentage would be. The Government set out 10% in the coalition programme for government, and that was the figure contained in the draft Bill and which the other place was content with as the correct level at which to set the threshold. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, asked me for a straight answer. Those are the sorts of considerations that came into it.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean
My Lords, I apologise that I was not here for the earlier part of the debate; I was attending the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy. I do not think my noble friend really understands the practical point being made, which is not about the merits of the Bill; it is that if someone finds themselves in a position where they are subject to a petition, they are already dead and their political party will no longer adopt them as a candidate. In those circumstances, they are not going to get elected. So, as was pointed out at an earlier stage in our proceedings, the sensible thing for any Member of Parliament in those circumstances to do, if they still have the support of their party, would be to create a by-election and stand as a by-election candidate.
By creating this procedure, if a Member of Parliament is subject to this procedure and they still have the support of their party, then if the threshold is set at the lower level of 10%, all the people who do not like the Member of Parliament because he is a Tory or whatever will be able to campaign and undermine him. So this does not actually deliver what the Government say they want, which is a procedure that allows the electorate to decide, rather than the party machine or the House of Commons, whether someone should be deprived of their seat in the Commons. It just does not work.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My noble friend is of course entitled to his opinion and has made the point a number of times about whether a party would reselect the candidate. I do not think that any of us can say, and it would depend on every circumstance that came forward. As I say, this is the Bill that is before us, and I think that the three triggers are reasonable. If they were not reasonable I would feel very uncomfortable, but serious wrongdoing is a point—
Lord Martin of Springburn
One point of clarification would help me. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, put the case that cars—and quite luxurious ones for that matter—could be used during the course of seeking petitioners. Can the Minister say whether there will be a financial limit on the amount spent for that petitioning purpose? In every other democratic system there is a limit, and a very strict one at that.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I thank the noble Lord for that point. We will come to amendments on precisely those sorts of matters, so I am grateful to him for raising that.
Those are the points on the 10%. I turn to the new clause proposed by my noble friend Lord Hamilton about the counter-recall petition, which would be available for signing alongside the recall petition. That would allow constituents to indicate that they did not want the MP to be recalled from the House of Commons, and for a by-election to be held. The proposed new clause provides that, if the counter-recall petition were to be signed by at least 10% of the constituents, regardless of how many people had signed the recall petition the MP would not be recalled and a by-election would not be held.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the figure of 30%, but I will take it further. If up to 90% of the constituents signed the petition calling for recall, yet only 10% signed the counter-recall petition, despite a much higher percentage and overwhelming public support for the MP’s recall in this case—and I use a hypothetical case to show our concern—a by-election could not be held.
The proposals in the Bill are not for recall on any grounds. Although it is fully understood what those triggers are, a number of noble Lords have brought forward concerns about whether it was on the case of any grounds. These provisions in the Bill are for recall in cases of proven serious wrongdoing; I emphasise that deliberately because those are the triggers that would have to be met. Such is the seriousness of them that all those three triggers—
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
For the last hour or so, led by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, everyone has gone on about serious wrongdoing. We are talking about any period of imprisonment. When one appears before a magistrate, they can decide either to say, “Seven days in prison” or “A fine of £500”. It is entirely in the magistrates’ gift to do that. Some magistrates have political views as well, by the way. Someone could be put in prison for seven days instead of being fined £500, and this trigger would take effect. Is that not correct?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
The legislation is very clear that if a Member of Parliament were convicted and sent to prison for seven days, they would be deemed to be in breach of criminal law. The point of the legislation is to enable a constituency or the electorate of that constituency to decide by the recall trigger and then by the by-election. The noble Lord is absolutely right: whether the figure is seven days or 11 months, as one knows, after 12 months there would be a disqualification under the Representation of the People Act.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
That is an automatic disqualification—I understand and accept that. However, the situation is that the magistrate has discretion as to whether to fine someone or send them to prison. I do not know if the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, has been a magistrate; I have. That could be a political decision, which could decide whether to trigger the recall petition. Therefore if I was sitting in the court and a Conservative Member of Parliament appeared before me, I could say, “I’m not going to fine him £500—that would be pointless. I’m going to send him to prison for seven days and immediately trigger that recall petition”. Is that not correct?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I would be surprised if any magistrate did that—I think of the requirements to be a magistrate. The noble Lord was a magistrate. I would be very troubled if a magistrate put themselves in a position where they could be accused of taking a political decision. That would be a very serious accusation of the magistracy to think that it would take a political decision of that sort. I am also concerned about the suggestions about the Standards Committee that we heard. Those are very serious matters.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I will finish this—I am sorry. It would be a very serious accusation to suggest that people in public office who have very serious responsibilities, or those in the courts, were taking political decisions. I would be extremely worried by that. The Bill deals with the situation in which someone is imprisoned for up to 12 months when there is a trigger if someone is convicted. That would be a trigger, but it would not remove the Member of Parliament. If such a case arose, it would be very interesting to think what the nation thought. If it was suggested that a political decision had been taken by a magistrate, that would be a very serious matter.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I have great respect for the Minister, but I am afraid that he is exhibiting a little bit of naivety with regard to that. If he thinks back to some cases in the past, he will see that on occasions decisions have been challenged as being made for less than dispassionate and objective reasons, so that can arise. I am saying that it is very easy for that trigger to be pulled in that kind of instance: a seven-day sentence would initiate it. That is not—as other noble Lords, such as the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, have described it—a very serious wrongdoing. It could happen because of a series of parking or speeding offences, or some other matter. All sorts of things could trigger that—such as getting your wife to say that she was driving your car.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that further contribution. The Bill is about these three triggers. The Government believe that they are the correct triggers for recall. Whether they are for serious wrongdoing or wrongdoing obviously is a matter of opinion; but the Government’s view is that these are three triggers that the other place viewed as being examples and the three triggers for recall.
I ought to make some progress on this. The intention of establishing the recall petition is to allow constituents to hold their Member of Parliament to account. We believe that 10% of constituents is the correct figure. In most cases that would be over 7,000 constituents. Under this Bill, the level of popular support that the Member of Parliament has would be properly tested at the by-election, not through a counter-recall petition.
I am most grateful to noble Lords for this debate. The Government remain of the view that the 10% threshold is the appropriate level, and therefore I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom
I am very disappointed with my noble friend, because I think that we proved very conclusively how very easy it is to reach this threshold. My other worry is that I suspect that this Bill is just a start for more recall Bills, given that—let us face it—people who believe in the recall of MPs are not remotely satisfied by the Bill and will be coming back with additional ideas of circumstances in which Members of Parliament can be recalled. In the mean time, we will have the 10% threshold locked into the Bill, which will be virtually unchangeable and, as I hope we have proved pretty conclusively, very easy to reach. However, although I am very disappointed with my noble friend, I will of course withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, the probing amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside raises the important matter of what is said about an MP in a campaign in connection with a recall petition. Many noble Lords who have spoken in our debates on the Bill have expressed concern that MPs who take up causes that are unpopular and then find themselves subject to a recall petition could find that opponents use campaigns or issues that have nothing to do with the issue in question to try to take advantage of the situation. That raises a very important point for your Lordships’ Committee.
My noble friend Lord Hughes was for many years the chair of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, but not so long ago not everyone was so well disposed towards that organisation and its aims. My noble friend made a point by giving examples of issues in his constituency, and I noted his comments about our reputation in the world with regard to the state of our democracy. He went on to make the particular point that there needs to be fairness in the process so that MPs are not allowed to be judged or abused on the positions they take as part of their job of being an MP and which have nothing to do with the actual issue in question. They should be judged on the subject of the recall petition itself. I hope that the noble Lord will respond carefully to the issues that my noble friend raised.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for his amendment, which intends that in the event of any material being written, spoken or broadcast that is unrelated to the wrongdoing which initiated the recall petition and which is detrimental to the MP, the petition will become null and void.
The Government believe that there are three significant concerns as to why this amendment presents difficulties. Indeed the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to the first, which is the principle of free speech—an issue which of course all of us in this House prize very strongly. I do not think that we should, in effect, severely restrict what individuals, including MPs, constituents and the media, may say or write for a period of eight weeks.
My second concern is the appearance that this amendment gives of particular and special treatment for a Member of Parliament. The noble Lord’s amendment states that it is only material unrelated to the wrongdoing and which is detrimental to the MP that will cause the petition to become null and void. That leaves the clear interpretation that there will be no such consequences to publishing material unrelated to the wrongdoing that is beneficial to the Member of Parliament facing recall. Indeed, while I realise the view of my noble friend Lord Forsyth on the Bill, here he is absolutely right. The third concern is that the proposals would make recall unworkable. Indeed, who would determine whether something is detrimental—and is that even possible?
I say by way of example that it would be impossible to conceive of an eight-minute period, let alone an eight-week period, which could pass without even one example of detrimental material being put into the public domain. The noble Lord’s proposals would make it very difficult for any recall petition to reach its conclusion because it would be quite simple for the supporters of a Member of Parliament to put out negative comments just to secure that outcome. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that I entirely understand and accept his good intentions, but, for the reasons I have outlined, I hope he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hughes of Woodside
Someone once said that the road to hell was paved with good intentions. In my initial remarks, I referred to the fact that this might well be seen as an attack on free speech. I appreciate that point very much indeed. Of course, it has been pointed out that people who use beneficial comments might also be struck out. The difficulty I have is that the recall petition is a kind of trial. If you are on trial for a road traffic offence, for example, extraneous behaviour such as that you got drunk the night before or were drunk during the trial would not be allowed in court because it could influence the result of the trial. Therefore, I am deeply unhappy because that is what, in fact, will happen. However, I do understand the problems.
My noble friend Lord Howarth raised an intriguing point about opinion polls. I had thought of that and was not quite sure how to proceed, but I had in mind that an amendment along the lines of banning opinion polls during the eight-week period might well be an amendment for Report. I am glad he has reminded me of that, and I hope it will be taken up, if not necessarily by me, then by others.
We are in extremely difficult times with this Bill. We are torn between trying to see justice for MPs and giving constituents the opportunity to exercise their rights in relation to their MP. In all the circumstances, I believe that the best thing to do is to withdraw the amendment.