Royal Albert Hall Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Tuesday 10th September 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I want to say a few words before we move to accept the Motion, which I fully support. It is right that the House knows a bit of the background. This appears as an unopposed Bill, but in fact objections were submitted to it so an Opposed Bill Committee was set up, on which I had the privilege to serve for the first time under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale. However, when we met, the Bill’s promoter, the Royal Albert Hall, contested the bona fides of the objectors to have any say, as they did not meet the very narrow definition in our rules of who has the right to be heard on a private Bill. The surprise—to me, at least—was to discover that the general public had no right to be heard.

To some extent that is mitigated by the Attorney-General’s duty to put his or her view to the Opposed Bill Committee. In this case, the then Attorney-General expressed considerable disquiet about elements of the governance of the Albert Hall, as had the Charity Commission on a number of occasions, but she found no compelling reason to object to the Bill subject to the removal of the most contentious clause, which would have increased the number of privately owned seats whose owners would then be entitled to vote at general meetings and to elect members of the charity’s council.

On the issue of procedure, rather than the merits of the Bill, our Opposed Bill Committee was forced to conclude that the objectors did not meet the somewhat strict criteria as to who could have their voices heard. Thus the objectors effectively disappeared, and with them the rationale for our committee, which was promptly dissolved as the Bill became an unopposed Bill and went straight to an Unopposed Bill Committee, which comprised the Senior Deputy Speaker sitting with counsel.

On 22 May he heard from representatives of the Albert Hall and agreed the Bill as amended by the removal of the contentious clause, which would have increased the number of privately owned seats that the owners can sell on the open market for performances. On that very day, but before the Bill had the chance to return to your Lordships’ House for Third Reading, the election was called. The Motion before the House today is to permit the Bill to continue on its passage rather than start de novo. If agreed—and I hope it will be—there will be a Third Reading on a date yet to be set.

However, in the light of the debate in the then Opposed Bill Committee, led by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Hale, its membership decided to draw the wider matter to the attention of your Lordships’ House by way of a special report published on 25 April. This allowed us to put before the House the part of the Attorney-General’s letter that expressed her

“disappointment that the Bill is not more ambitious”

and does not deal with the potential conflict between the private interests of seat-holding trustees and the hall’s charitable objectives, an issue of concern to the Charity Commission. The Attorney-General had earlier urged the hall to resolve these conflicts, hence her regret that the Bill did not do so.

However, the Attorney-General cannot insist on changes to the Albert Hall’s governance, and it is refusing to make the changes desired by the Charity Commission and others—an “impasse”, as our committee noted. Today is the only opportunity for the committee to have these voices heard, which is why I am standing today. We concluded that

“these matters should be drawn to the attention of the House and of the Government”,

including at further stages of the Bill,

“so that a way forward can … be found to address the concerns raised”

by the then AG.

As we said:

“The Royal Albert Hall plays an iconic part in the life of the nation and there is a strong public interest in ensuring that its governance”


is

“consistent with its charitable status”.

That matter is not one for debate today, and I hope the Motion will be passed for the Third Reading of the Bill to take place. I have been advised that there is no Report stage—the amended Bill is, in fact, the report—and the Bill will come to your Lordships’ House for Third Reading on a date to be agreed.

I thought it right to bring the matters raised by that committee to the attention of the House today, but I hope noble Lords will support the Motion.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I had the pleasure of sitting and watching the noble Baroness’s committee in action over a lengthy period, and perhaps I may take up the story. I was not a member of the committee, but I have had a long-standing interest in the affairs of the Royal Albert Hall. I, along with other Members of your Lordships’ House, am very concerned about the central problem of the governance of the Royal Albert Hall—not the operation of the hall, which is a great cultural institution, as the noble Baroness said, but the way it operates.

The group of which I am one is a cross-party group. There is no party-political angle on this; all parties agree that it needs careful further examination, as the noble Baroness said. No less significantly, we are supported in our endeavours by the Charity Commission, the sector regulator, which has been trying for some years to get the Royal Albert Hall to consider, reflect on and address this problem, so far without success.

The Royal Albert Hall has been a charity since 1967. A central tenet of charity law is that you should not benefit personally from the decisions you take as a trustee of a charity. The hall has a governing body of 25, 19 of whom—three-quarters—are seat-holders. It is they who decide which concerts the seats are to be retained for. They may then either use the seats personally or sell them externally for whatever price the market will bear. It has become an exceptionally profitable activity. For example, Members of your Lordships’ House might like to attend this Saturday’s Last Night of the Proms, for which they will pay up to £1,000 for a £100 ticket. If your enthusiasm takes you to want to buy a seat, which will have another 700 years to run on the lease, they are currently selling for about £300,000 each. This is a charity.

The Bill before us, which we will discuss in detail later, will not address any of these issues. In fact, some argue it will make them worse. So, the group of which I am a member will be tabling some amendments for discussion, to address the issues, as far as we can, within the provisions of the Long Title of the Bill, at Third Reading.

To conclude, I am astonished that the promoters of the Bill have decided to bring it back. It received an exceptionally rough ride at Second Reading on 19 October last year. The then Attorney-General in her report on the Bill expressed disappointment that more had not be done to resolve the conflict issue in this new Bill. As the noble Baroness said, our own in-house committee reported extremely unfavourably on the way the proceedings were handled. Those arguments are for another day, but in nodding the Bill through, I would like the House to be aware that a significant number of your Lordships are very concerned about what lies behind it.

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her contribution and for informing me beforehand, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, for doing so also. For private Bills, a revival Motion is a standard practice at the beginning of a Session where a carry-over Motion could not be passed at the end of the last, as set out in Private Business Standing Order 150B. The Bill passed a number of stages in the last session. The remaining stage in this House is Third Reading. Should Members wish to debate or object to the Bill, the appropriate time to do is, as has been advised, at Third Reading and on the Motion that the Bill do now pass and, as I think has been accepted, not on this Motion.

To assist noble Lords ahead of Third Reading, paragraphs 9.53 and 9.54 of the Companion state that any amendments proposed to be moved at Third Reading must be submitted at least two days in advance of the stage to my office or the Private Bill Office, and that it is a courtesy that any noble Lord who wishes to speak without proposing amendments notifies my office of their intention to do so. Such remarks should be made on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, not on the Motion for Third Reading. With those housekeeping matters for future stages, I beg to move.

Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Tuesday 31st January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

The noble Lord makes an important point, but with regard to this committee I am saying that there is a solution, which is that the committee and its chair, as has been done with other committees, decide that some will serve for three years while some remaining members may serve for two years rather than three. It is in the hands of the committees that feel very strongly about this. I have to say that I communicated with some other committees where there was going to be a considerable change, and it was the view that that would not be taken forward. I think we should have confidence in the fact that we have seven excellent members to replace seven excellent members.

To conclude, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that I think there is a remedy and a solution. By the summer, I simply do not know who may be the casual vacancies. Casual vacancies have a bearing on the issue of the rotation; we see all the time that there are casual vacancies. I understand the points that have been made, and I am happy for the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, and his committee to bear in mind what has happened today and that there can be solutions to the key points.

Obviously I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will feel that what I have said, and the solution that I believe there is, will enable him not to press his amendment. I could not support it because I cannot identify with the suggestion that the quality of service would be put in jeopardy, particularly given the seven members who we have put forward to take on the great work of those who are rotating off. I am in the hands of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, but that is why I sincerely could not support his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am grateful to everyone who has participated and made their views known. I am grateful to the members of the committee who have spoken out, to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, from another committee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, for his powerful analysis of the situation that we now find ourselves in.

I have to say to my noble friend Lord Forsyth—he was combative as ever and I would expect no less—that, with great respect, the treadmill nature of the work of the SLSC actually puts it in a different category from many of the committees that he was talking about. He talked about finding ways to fill casual vacancies but we are not trying to find a few; we are having seven out of 11 every third year. This is not a casual exercise but a complete bouleversement every third year, including the chairman. As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, pointed out, there is a perfectly sensible way forward, which we have tried to explain in our amendment.

Again, if I may shoot this fox, we are saying nothing about the people who are coming forward. I do not want the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, or the Senior Deputy Speaker, to get away with the idea that we are trying to undermine the quality of the people who are coming in. I want to be clear about that.

Before I close, I want to ask the Senior Deputy Speaker a question. Next week, my noble friend Lord Hunt could come along and say, “We have sorted it out; two people who will be appointed today are going to leave in a year from now”. Could he do that, and could we be certain that the Committee of Selection would allow it? It seems to be a cockeyed system, but it would provide a partial answer to the point we are making.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

If members of the committee decided they wished to retire early, that would be entirely a matter for them. That is how casual vacancies occur. Picking up the noble Lord’s point, I would have hoped and thought that this is exactly what I and the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, were alluding to. There is a way forward. It is not as if this is static. The chair and the committee, perhaps hearing what has been raised today, can draw some conclusions.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I am grateful for that comment. We either have a system where we do one-third, one-third and one-third, or a system organised by the committee chairman—maybe now or maybe not—and different committees then have different amounts. That is a much less clear system for dealing with the rotation on committees than having a one-third rotation each time, which is what our amendment proposed.

We have hacked this issue to death. Clearly the usual channels and the Committee of Selection have made their decision. I do not believe in gesture Divisions. Therefore, although I greatly regret the position we find ourselves in, for the effective operation of the House I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Liaison Committee

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Thursday 15th December 2022 Lords Chamber

[The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord Gardiner of Kimble)]

The noble Lord makes a very important point. Obviously, these matters come under our consideration. If there are areas where there is devolved policy-making, we are very keen that part of the consideration by the special inquiries is on what is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom. If there were a situation where a policy had a devolved arrangement for all of the Parliaments or a number of them, we would be keen—this is part of our suggestion and strong advice—for that always to be kept in mind. I can definitely reassure the noble Lord today, but it is useful for him to have put it like that, as a constant reminder that we are a United Kingdom and our discourse is on that basis. If there are no further questions—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I understand that we will not have any post-legislative scrutiny committees this year. Learning from our mistakes is one of the most important things that we can do when things have not gone as well as we wished. Could my noble friend the Senior Deputy Speaker explain why we felt on this occasion that there were no lessons to be learned?

Kew Gardens (Leases) (No. 3) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Committee: 1st sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Tuesday 21st May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, my noble friend the Minister has been extremely courteous and accepted interventions from all sides of the House, which is very good of him. He may be regretting the briefing he provided for us before Second Reading, at which he was unwise enough to say, “I hope some of you are going to take an interest in this Bill and we get enough speakers”. He may have put his head into the lion’s mouth there.

I thank my noble friend Lord Eccles, who brings a wealth of experience and insight to this and brought out the difficult balances that are to be struck—no one is suggesting that what we are trying to tackle is easy. To the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, I say that of course we understand that Kew needs the money; but we need to make sure there are appropriate checks and balances and that we are not chasing the money too much. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her general support.

My noble friend made three important points. First, he said that the focus is on seven residential properties but there are no immediate plans to go beyond that. That is a careful set of words. Secondly, he was very careful and courteous also in dealing with the “core” and “non-core” point, brought up by my noble friend Lord Eccles.

Finally, as I understand it, the legal advice is that this amendment does not have effect because the Crown land has no link with a charity and therefore with the Charity Commission. I am therefore not quite sure why the department needs to sign an MoU to ensure compliance with charity law because if it was just—

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

This is because the MoU relates to the plants, collections and functions, not to the land.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

That is very helpful. So the MoU is narrowly drawn in that sense. I am grateful for that. I want to make sure that somewhere in this legislation we know how big a set of opportunities we are offering Kew and make sure that there are no unnecessary opportunities for side deals which may release funds for Kew in the short term in a way that does not deal with its long-term objectives, which we all support. We will carry on the discussion. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Following on slightly from the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, can the Minister address the nature of the leases? These will presumably be repairing and insuring leases, in the sense that at the end of the term of the lease Kew will want the property back in the state in which the lease was granted. It would be worth while if my noble friend could confirm that, either now or in writing later.

The one amendment in this group with which I have particular sympathy is Amendment 7. This seems to provide a way to get some of the answers to the questions posed by my noble friend Lord Eccles about core and non-core land and to the wider concerns in the House about whether this is a one-shot deal or whether there is—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, just said—around the periphery of the properties a whole series of small plots of land that might at one time or another be envisaged as falling under the provisions of this Bill. Some work on Amendment 7 could provide some answers and reassurance to those of us concerned at the nibbling away that might take place over a period of time in circumstances that are hard to foresee now.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling these amendments. Without going on for too long, I should like to take the opportunity to place on record a number of points.

Amendment 5 seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish, within a month of the Act being passed, an impact assessment covering any property that could be involved in these leases and any related financial liabilities and income projections. I understand that the aim of the amendment is to ensure public transparency on the scope and impacts of the leases that may be enabled under the Bill. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for allowing me to put on record the detail already published in Kew’s annual report and accounts, which includes the valuations set for Kew’s heritage assets of land, buildings and dwellings, as well as those assets under restoration.

Kew has already estimated the value to Kew of the properties affected. I understand that the £40 million was in 2015. Since then, the assessment is that the value of leases and avoided renovation costs in the short term would be up to £15 million. This estimate is based on the seven residential leases, of which two are currently unoccupied properties that require substantial renovation. This means that there cannot be any more quantified projections other than those that Kew has given at this time.

The need to scrutinise the impacts of lease proposals will be fulfilled by Kew in taking specialist advice and preparing proposals for consideration by, first, its executive board and board of trustees and, ultimately, the Secretary of State. This includes the involvement of Kew’s finance committee, audit and risk committee and capital development committee, as well as Defra. As I have said, and as we have all realised, Kew will focus on the seven residential properties currently let on assured shorthold tenancies or empty. As I have said, Kew has no immediate plans beyond that.

I find it really rather alarming that everyone is determined that dreadful things can happen. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has already said that this is one of the most protected sites in the country. No Parliament can bind its successors. All we can do is use our best endeavours now, with the protections that are there in legislation. I am looking at the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. If a Parliament decided to amend the National Heritage Act in an adverse way, of course we would regret it, but it is for future Parliaments to decide those matters. What we can deal with today is having all the protections we possibly can. I have sympathy with all that the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, is seeking, but it is on record—even from the noble Lord—that this is the most protected part of the kingdom.

The development of all aspects of the Kew estate will remain subject to the approval of its board of trustees and in line with Kew’s world heritage site management plan, just as any shorter-term leases already would. Although I fully endorse the desire for meaningful transparency in these leases and the motivation behind the amendment from the noble Baroness, the degree of variation means that it would be best served through Kew’s existing proposals and commitments. Indeed, the lease would be publicly available at the Land Registry when the sale completes.

It is the view of my department that this amendment would risk providing information that would not be precise. Of course, it is subject to market conditions. In addition, the Secretary of State has to follow the guidance in Managing Public Money, formerly the Treasury Green Book, which requires value-for-money assessments.

The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, referring to Amendment 6, made some important points about the local planning authority. I understand and share the wish of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, that any refurbishment or development should require the correct approval so that it does not compromise the property—which is Crown land—the world heritage site or Kew’s functions and activities in any way.

Kew’s activities, including any lease under the Bill’s provisions, are overseen by Kew’s board and the Secretary of State. The discussions and negotiations about leases would be initiated by Kew in accordance with its governance. This includes the trustees’ code of best practice, the National Heritage Act 1983 and the framework document between Kew and Defra. The lease itself would be prepared for and on behalf of the Secretary of State using specialist property lawyers and specialist commercial advice.

There will be numerous bespoke conditions in the lease agreement itself that shall offer the appropriate and relevant protection to Kew under this amendment. As I shall detail, these would deal with the unique nature of the land at Kew and, in particular, the listed buildings on Kew Green and, in doing so, provide complete protection for the Secretary of State and Kew.

As well as conditions bespoke to Kew, which I shall turn to in a moment, the usual lease conditions would apply. The usual leaseholder covenants include obligations not to do anything that contravenes planning; to comply with any estate regulations that may be drawn up; not to make any alterations to any part of the internal or external structure of premises without freeholder consent; to submit plans to the freeholder if consent for alteration is required; not to sublet or transfer premises without freeholder consent; not to interfere with or obstruct the performance of a freeholder in carrying out its duties; not to use the property for anything other than the use specified in the lease; not to access the property other than as specified in the lease; and not to cause a nuisance from the property. In addition, I assure your Lordships that all Kew leases will expressly include a leaseholder obligation not to do, or allow to be done, anything that will bring into disrepute the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, including its status as a world heritage site or the listed building status of any house, for example.

Some of the houses will contain features typical of buildings of this age, such as plasterwork ceilings and cornicing. Given their listed building status, features such as these may not be altered, so any lease would provide that such features must be preserved and may not be damaged in any way. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the local planning authority, advised by Historic England, is responsible for deciding whether a proposed development, or even internal renovation, should be allowed to go ahead.

I hope I can also reassure your Lordships that the Secretary of State would absolutely not grant a lease without the recommendation of the Kew trustees. The Secretary of State would take advice from specialist property lawyers as to the appropriate level of protection given Kew’s listed building status and the world heritage site. Therefore, I believe that robust procedures are already in place to ensure that the correct approvals are made. I am as concerned as anyone that none of these buildings be refurbished insensitively, but the terms of any standard lease, bolstered by special conditions for Kew and alongside the governance that the local planning authorities, Kew trustees and the Secretary of State provide, ensure that the points in the noble Baroness’s amendment are already covered.

Turning to Amendment 7, I am again grateful to the noble Baroness for the opportunity to clarify the criteria that would apply. Instead of taking three months, I hope I am able to put on record now these points. I re-emphasise that Kew’s current proposals extend to only seven properties, two of which are unoccupied and none of which is part of the core estate. These leases are being pursued to free up vital revenue for Kew, and will do so with no impact on Kew’s core functions. I am pleased to reassure your Lordships that these criteria derive from the various protections already in place, which I have strongly emphasised. It is, however, absolutely right that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to respecting the property, because that is exactly what we must do.

To preserve the protection of the property and Kew’s functions, obligations on the leaseholders would include the following requirements, which I will place on record in the context of Amendments 7 and 8: to repair and keep the property in good condition and decoration; to allow Defra or Kew to access the property to carry out any necessary works; to make good any damage caused by the leaseholder to the property or to the Kew estate; not to do, or allow to be done, anything that will bring RBG Kew into disrepute, including its status as a world heritage site; to comply with the provisions of any statute, statutory instrument, order, rule or regulation, and of any order, direction or requirement made or given by any planning authority or the appropriate Minister or court; not to alter any of the property internally or externally without the express written consent of Kew’s board of trustees and the Secretary of State; not to sublet any of the property without the Secretary of State’s consent; not to assign, transfer or sell their interest in the property without the Secretary of State’s consent; not to interfere with or obstruct the performance of the duties of the Secretary of State, or Kew by way of servant; not to use the property for anything other than the use specified in the lease; not to access the property other than as specified in the lease; not to leave the property unoccupied for a certain period of time; and, finally, not to cause a nuisance from the property. I want to be very clear that there has been proper consideration of this in reference to, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, the status and condition of the property.

The noble Baroness was right to raise also the issue of forfeiture. The right to forfeiture occurs when the leaseholder under a lease breaches an obligation contained within a lease. What these obligations may be are a routine part of lease agreements, and so are the conditions for termination of the lease—I have already placed these on the record—as to obligations that will ultimately result in forfeiture if breached under a Kew lease. As I said, the lease agreement itself will be drawn up by specialist property lawyers acting on behalf of the Secretary of State to reflect the various considerations and protections that need to apply in respect of the property itself, the world heritage site and Kew’s functions and activities. I should stress that lease agreements will need to be, and shall be, drawn up and agreed on a case-by-case basis by specialist property lawyers, even though they will have most conditions in common.

Forfeiture of a business lease and forfeiture of a residential property are not the same. This Bill does not seek to disapply any protection a leaseholder may have from unlawful eviction. The forfeiture clause in a lease cannot be one size fits all, since the court looks very seriously at any possession claim, and it is a complicated area of law. This does not, however, negate the fact that breach of leaseholder covenants under leases created by this Bill—such as an obligation to keep in good repair—can and will, if appropriate and if sanctioned by the courts following sufficiently serious breaches, result in the Secretary of State taking back possession of the property.

Abattoirs: Non-stun Slaughter

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Wednesday 7th February 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, we intend to lay legislation on this matter very shortly. I wish I could give the noble Baroness and the House a precise date, but we want to bring it forward as soon as possible. CCTV will be installed in all areas where live animals are present. We want animals to have a good life and a respectful end to their lives. I think this will advance that.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, of course we must wholeheartedly and unreservedly respect freedom of religious belief, but there are among us those who would prefer not to eat meat that has been slaughtered using a mechanism that we believe causes unnecessary suffering. Will the Government now grasp this nettle and arrange for a labelling mechanism so that those of us who do not believe in following this practice have the freedom of our own belief?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the labelling issue is very important. We think it is absolutely essential that everyone can make an informed choice. We will be considering this issue in the context of our departure from the EU. I also say to my noble friend that farm assurance schemes, such as Red Tractor and the RSPCA Assured scheme, require stunned slaughter. That is an important feature.

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

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, government Amendment 118 requires that within 12 months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, the Minister must appoint a person to review the operation of Part 6 of PPERA as it is amended by Part 2 of the Bill. Noble Lords will recall that in Committee there was some debate about the need for a post-legislative review of the provisions of Part 2.

I am most grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who tabled amendments in Committee to ensure that this important matter was discussed. As was explained during Committee, it is right that an assessment should be made of the entire system of rules governing third-party campaign expenditure. That assessment should of course extend to the changes made by the Bill. The entire range of existing and newly introduced rules should be carefully reviewed after their first operation, which is expected to be at the 2015 UK parliamentary general election. A commitment was given by my noble and learned friend that an amendment would therefore be brought forward at Report to require a review of the operation of Part 6 of PPERA as it is amended by Part 2 of this Bill. That is indeed what the Government have now done. The next scheduled general election presents the first opportunity at which all the third-party campaigning rules will be in operation, and it is a timely opportunity to review the effectiveness of those rules.

The Minister must appoint a person within 12 months of Royal Assent to allow the reviewer to start work during the general election campaign. The Government believe that it is particularly important that a reviewer should be appointed sufficiently ahead of the general election to allow him or her to fully assess the operation of the rules. The amendment requires that on completion, the person carrying out the review must produce a written report. That report must then be laid before Parliament by the Minister. I am sure that noble Lords will agree that it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider how to respond to the findings in the report. Noble Lords will also have noted that in its most recent parliamentary briefing, the Electoral Commission gave its support to the amendment.

Government Amendment 135 is a related but minor amendment, which clarifies that government Amendment 118 extends to the United Kingdom only. I beg to move.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I congratulate the Government on having brought this forward. It is really important, because so much of what we have been discussing is supposition. We are peering into the fog of the future concerning how things will work out. This will be a chance to see what the reality is. I have just one question. The amendment talks about the person—the lucky person—who will presumably be imposed for about a year, if they start in March 2015. There will be the aftermath of the general election, and the returns required after that will be six to nine months later, so they will have to be in post for a year.

The amendment refers to remuneration and expenses. One issue when people undertake such reviews is access to skilled manpower and a team who can help them. No matter what he or she is paid, if they are trying to do it on their own, they will undoubtedly be in a much weakened position. I assume, but I want to have it confirmed, that the amendment implies that adequate manpower resources will be available to the reviewer to ensure that he or she can carry out their work and appropriate investigations. I think it is an excellent proposal.

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

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

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

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

It is the fate of those of us who scrutinise legislation to spend most of our time pushing against a door that remains firmly shut. When the door suddenly opens, one is inclined to stagger into the room slightly off balance. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend on the Front Bench for that very constructive reply. I invite him to confirm that charitable incorporated organisations will be on the list that is being considered. If he cannot tell us that now, perhaps he can write and let us know. For the charity sector, that is going to be an increasingly important corporate form because of the limited liability that it affords to trustees, who otherwise have unlimited liability. As the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, would say, it will apply to Scottish CIOs as well. Can he give us any further reassurance?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I have a note that includes the CIOs. We will be looking into this issue, including the Scottish incorporated organisations, so I can give my noble friend as positive a reply as I am able.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

It is therefore with great pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

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

Debate between Lord Gardiner of Kimble and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I support this issue. If you are regulated by the Financial Services Authority you have to mention it. There is a very substantial series of penalties and enforcement procedures if you fail to comply with the authority’s regulations. We need to be clear in our own mind whether this is going to be seen as the kitemark, whether it is going to be permitted as the kitemark and, if it is, how we make sure the kitemark standards are achieved.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, first I thank the noble Lord for initiating what has been an interesting debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that parliamentary images should not be used inappropriately. At present the use of the Crowned Portcullis is governed by the following statement:

“The principal emblem of the House is the Crowned Portcullis. It is a royal badge and its use by the House has been formally authorised by licence granted by Her Majesty the Queen. The designs and symbols of the House should not be used for purposes to which such authentication is inappropriate, or where there is a risk that their use might wrongly be regarded, or represented, as having the authority of the House. The House symbol is primarily used to authenticate communications from Members”.

It is clear that the use of parliamentary images is the prerogative of the House authorities, and for that reason the Government do not wish to intrude on the existing arrangements, although I understand entirely the point that the noble Lord is making.