Scotland: Smith Commission

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend makes an interesting point, which I am sure my colleagues in the Treasury will note. I recall considering APD during the Calman commission. First, there is no guarantee. My noble friend says that the current policy of the Scottish Government is to abolish it or change the rates, but if they reduce one tax, they have to find the money for some of their spending commitments, which are not small, somewhere else. Therefore, I do not think we can necessarily be sure how that power, when devolved, will be used. Many other factors will come into a passenger’s choice of airport other than APD. If one was travelling, let us say, from Hull, I am not sure that one would want to take on the extra journey to go to Edinburgh, bypassing Newcastle, to start a journey. APD is only one part of a passenger’s choice.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, if my noble friend Lord Maclennan is right and this is the first step towards devolution—I must say that I thought that we had had a few already and that there are more to come—are not those steps all a ratchet turning in one direction, which is towards the independence of Scotland? Secondly, if we are granting the right to raise income tax in Scotland and, incidentally, corporation tax in Northern Ireland, does that not completely undermine the single currency of the United Kingdom?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not believe that this is a one-way street to independence—far from it. The majority of the Scottish people on 18 September clearly indicated that they wanted to be part of the United Kingdom. The terms of reference of the Smith commission were that these proposals should be consistent with the integrity of the United Kingdom. The principles agreed by members of the commission were that the proposals had to be in the context of a United Kingdom.

That leads into the second part of my noble friend’s question. With regard to Scotland’s fiscal framework and borrowing powers, the report states:

“Borrowing powers should be set within an overall Scottish fiscal framework and subject to fiscal rules agreed by the Scottish and UK Governments based on clear economic principles, supporting evidence and thorough assessment of the relevant economic situation”.

Therefore, considerable tax powers, including on income tax, the definition of a taxpayer, personal allowances, taxation of savings and investment income, will all still be the responsibility of the United Kingdom Parliament. The proposals have to be considered in the context of the remit that was given: to be consistent with maintaining our United Kingdom.

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

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 119, I shall speak also to Amendment 119A. We had a long debate on this subject in Committee and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments that I used on that occasion. In Committee, it was quite clear that support for the amendment was overwhelming. Apart from the two Front-Benchers, and the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, no one spoke against the amendment. Everyone supported the amendment as it was phrased on that occasion. Perhaps I should clarify at the beginning of my contribution what my amendment would do. It would incentivise a system of donations by individuals by allowing taxpayers to reclaim the basic rate of tax on their donations to political parties. It would limit the relief to the standard rate and operate in the same way as gift aid to charities or covenanting to your local church.

This issue has had much support over the years from all political parties and all the organisations associated with political debate. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, recommended essentially this amendment in 1998, some 15 years ago. The Electoral Commission’s report of 2004 on the funding of political parties recommended a similar change in the law, with a £200 cap. In 2006 the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the House of Commons made a similar recommendation in line with my amendment. The Conservative Party’s Tyrie report of 2006, entitled Clean Politics, also made reference to an amendment of this nature. In 2004 the Liberal Democrats called for a scheme of tax relief of a similar nature, and indeed in 2009 moved a very similar amendment to this during the proceedings on the Political Parties and Elections Act. When the Labour Government established the Hayden Phillips inquiry in 2007, they recommended a tax relief match funding scheme that bore a close resemblance to the scheme that I am proposing, but on that occasion with a £500 cap on contributions.

Over recent weeks I have not found a single Member of this House, apart from those supporting the hierarchies of the political parties, who is opposed to my amendment. Everyone I speak to cannot understand how it is that sane politicians in sane political parties can possibly oppose what is deemed to be a perfectly reasonable and sensible amendment. They all ask, “What is the problem?”. I intend to set out briefly what the four principal objections are and how they are being answered.

First, I am told that there is a need to continue negotiations. Indeed, a colleague sent me a note on my BlackBerry today to say that that was one of the reasons why my colleagues were being advised to vote against my amendment. The fact is that no negotiations are going on. They terminated earlier this year and anyone who suggests that they are continuing is actually fibbing and not telling the truth. There are no negotiations. They fizzled out and there are people in this Chamber today who were party to those negotiations and know exactly what the position is. Indeed, I understand that Mr Clegg has stated in the other place that the negotiations have finished and, obviously, will not be reopened until some time in the future, perhaps under a separate Government. My view is simple: negotiations on these matters will not work and the only way in which we will get change is by introducing incremental improvements—a little bit here, a small change there—and over a period of time we will see a new regime established for political donations in the UK.

Secondly, I was told that a party might gain out of the proposals that I am making and indeed might abuse its position by unilaterally increasing the contribution threshold in future. I took that problem on board. In the amendment before the House today there is a change to ensure that the only way in which the contribution threshold can be changed in future is by way of primary legislation and not by regulation. A new Bill would have to be introduced in primary legislative form to change the thresholds in the Bill. In my view there is another argument in favour of the amendment. It is right to allow a scheme to percolate throughout the system to see how it beds in and whether it works. My view is that it will work and that at some stage in the future there will be a need to review the thresholds as set out in my amendment.

Thirdly, there is the cost of the scheme. When the Hayden Phillips report was published in 2007, there was a reference to a £500 cap on contributions. That cap is 25 times greater than the cap that I have set for the first year in my amendment and five times greater than my third-year figure of £96 per calendar year. My view is simple—and it is the view of others—that my proposal would cost but a few million pounds, perhaps £2 million or £3 million per year. We need to balance the problems of introducing that against all the malevolent publicity that surrounds political institutions today. Is it worth £2 million or £3 million to begin the process of avoiding all the adverse publicity that surrounds donations?

However, the fourth objection to my amendment—the one I found most ludicrous—is the view that it would be impossible to sell the principle of support for political parties through tax relief at a time of austerity. That objection surfaced during the course of discussions. It is always a time of austerity. There is never a right time to spend money, but we are talking only about a very small amount of money. However, again in a spirit of generosity, I have amended my amendment for proceedings in the House today to ensure that it would not trigger until the financial year that follows the next general election so as to avoid the very debate that people might be concerned about. I have made two concessions on my amendment, almost neutering it, but it would still stand on the statute book as a scheme to be introduced in the first year, 2016-17, at £16; in 2017-18 at £32 and in 2018-19 at £96—the threshold under which tax relief could be secured on a donation.

Today I can be even more flexible. If the Government, even after all these concessions, feel that they cannot give way, I understand that it would be possible for them to introduce an amendment to delay commencement of my proposed scheme pending an order to be brought in by the Secretary of State under the next Government. In other words, an amendment to Clause 41 could be introduced at Third Reading to allow for an order to be introduced to delay the date of commencement of the scheme.

I cannot understand, in the light of all the concessions that I have made on my amendment and the way in which I have bent over backwards to make it possible for the Government to deal with all the problems and objections that have been raised, how the Front Benches of both parties find it objectionable to introduce an amendment which I know is supported in reality in free debate by an overwhelming majority of this House as well. I say that having talked to colleagues across Parliament who simply cannot understand why the Government refuse to go down this route.

At the end of the day, the very credibility of this institution is at stake. We have had far too many scandals over the years; political scandals relating to money and politics. All I am doing in moving my amendment today is setting in train a course of events towards bringing in the embryo of a provision of change that might one day lead to a cleaner donation regime for British political parties. I am confident that, if the measure is presented in that form, as against all the scandals that we currently have in this area of political activity, the general public will support me. I hope that noble Lords will support me in the Division Lobbies later this evening. I beg to move.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because it is a very modest and necessary step to take towards taxpayer funding of political parties. None of us should be pleased, content or comfortable with the fact that political parties in this country are financed by the trade unions and, to a very large extent on all sides of the House, by extremely rich men who are seen to exert influence. I am not saying that they do exert more influence than anybody else who runs industries or anything, but they are seen to exert influence over policy. This does us no good at all and we should grasp this nettle and do something about it.

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has arranged that these measures would come into place after the general election. I would like to see a lot more done after the general election. I would like to see matched funding up to a certain limit, but now is not the time to talk about that. The fact remains that we are already paying opposition parties millions of pounds a year. We are paying the Opposition in your Lordships’ House Cranborne money of hundreds of thousands of pounds. I challenge anybody in this House to say that anybody has mentioned on a doorstep either Short money or Cranborne money. They do not know that it is happening. In terms of public expenditure, they are insignificant sums of money.

We should be grasping this nettle early on in a Parliament. I hope that whoever wins the election will do so at the beginning of the next Parliament and get the entire funding of our political parties in this country into a sleaze-free zone, where it should always have been. If we go on as we are, we will have endless problems. We will always be accused of having an unhealthy influence on the political system. This does nothing for politics in this country. I therefore support the amendment with enthusiasm.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my name is also on the amendment. I will make a slightly different point from those of other noble Lords who have spoken to it.

Public service in a parliamentary democracy is an honourable activity. I look around the House, and I could say exactly the same thing about the other place, and see a great majority of people who give of their time, talents and careers, and sacrifice their family life, to public service. That is something that we should recognise as being an extremely important part of our civic life.

Yet it is absolutely true, as noble Lords have already said, that it is somehow thought that to be active in politics is less reputable than, for example, supporting a charitable or voluntary organisation; many of us do that as well. That is exaggerated, underlined and repeated every time one of us contributes something to our local church or favourite charity and gets respect from the tax system for so doing, in exactly the way that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, has described. If politics is an honourable activity, why are we not allowing our fellow citizens to recognise that and, in their own way, be more active participants through the gift aid system?

It is not just because of the way in which politics has been supported in recent years by bigger and bigger cheques from smaller and smaller numbers of people, but also because millions of people feel disenchanted by and disconnected from the business of politics, that we have reached such a low reputation in the public mind. It is far more important to engage and incentivise millions of people than to engage and incentivise millions of pounds. In those circumstances, it is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships’ House, in addition to the points already made by my noble friend Lord Hamilton, that the taxpayer already makes a huge contribution to the business of politics. For example, the Royal Mail free delivery of election addresses for every single party and contestant in the European parliamentary election in May will cost the taxpayer something between £30 million and £40 million. The sums that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is referring to are a drop in the ocean compared to that. Yet it is far more likely to engage the individual citizen in the business of politics than the necessity for every single elector to receive a separate delivery from each of the parties.

It is perfectly true that there are already a number of proposals for a wider reform of the funding of political parties. Indeed, last year, I, along with colleagues from two of the other parties, produced a draft Bill that would have incorporated the latest proposals of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on this wider issue. We will not move in that direction between now and the general election but, in this modest way, we could put down a marker that we believe that the actual, practical financial support of our fellow citizens for the business of politics is just as honourable as their support for a charity or a church. It would be a very welcome development.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Lord Hamilton of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

My Lords, I have not contributed to this debate until now but was so moved by the oratory of my noble friend Lord Lang when he first put this prospect forward that I really thought it was important to back his amendment. There is no doubt but that it is an extremely modest amendment. I come from a position of serious disquiet, knowing that the person who is really pushing this Bill through Parliament is the Deputy Prime Minister. That adds a whole dimension of worry that the thing has been cobbled together in a rather hasty way. The whole idea of six members of the Royal Family being in this bracket is a number that came to him in the middle of the night and he thought, “Let’s just stuff it in”. I do not think that any serious thought has been given to this at all. I share many of my noble friend’s concerns that we live in a very dangerous age and that awful things could happen to six members of the Royal Family. Then, of course, we would all look incredibly stupid and six would be a number that was obviously much too small.

This is a very modest amendment and I hope that my noble friend Lord Fellowes is not right that this law will have to be processed through all the Commonwealth Governments if we change it. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Fellowes, as my noble friend, although he sits on the Cross Benches. If you have shared a flat with somebody, you cannot really think of him as anything other than your noble friend. I hope that that is not a concern but I do think that this is a very modest and very sensible amendment and I sincerely hope that this can be taken on board.

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords, I, too, support the noble Lord, Lord Lang, with his intelligent and thoughtful amendment. Can the Minister give some background to the situation? I, and I daresay your Lordships, would like to know how many times since Her Majesty the Queen came to the Throne have there been applications for marriages by descendants of King George III and how many times these marriages have been turned down. That would be interesting. As we are all interested in historical matters, this would be at least one contribution. It may seem an indiscreet suggestion but nevertheless it would be very useful to know.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, when we come to a later amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, I will be able to explain what the position is in the different realms. It would require agreement among the other 15 realms. I will explain this in detail when we come to a later amendment. I am not introducing a parliamentary procedure. As I have indicated, New Zealand is, and it already has a Bill before its Parliament with the number six in it. It would therefore require agreement; it would not necessarily require a parliamentary process. It is up to each individual realm to decide what to do, and some of them do not believe that they need a parliamentary process.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Are we simply saying that an exchange of e-mails would be quite adequate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sure that if it was just that, it would be simpler. Certainly, the experience of reaching agreement was far more painstaking and more work was put into it than a simple exchange of e-mails. I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, who participated in some of our earlier debates, worked in the previous Administration in No. 10 Downing Street, this was one of his responsibilities when the previous Prime Minister was seeking to get agreement. I know how much effort was put into getting the agreement at Perth, and subsequently into getting the agreement on this provision. It is not, therefore, as simple as an exchange of e-mails.