Elections Bill

Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Tuesday 15th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

My Lords, I just want to intervene, not about the substance of the matter we are debating but about the process. We have two very interesting parallel amendments which have what one might call different routes to market. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, said she did not really mind which was followed. I think she should worry, for reasons I shall explain. We tend to pass by—too easily, in my view—guidance, statutory codes, as just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, regulations and rules. Who devises them, who decides what they are, who implements them and who enforces them? I think it is important that, at some point in the debate on the Bill, we take just a moment to think about the different ways this cat can be skinned.

In the debate on Clauses 14 and 15 in the last day in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is not in his place, led the charge, assisted by several other noble Lords from around the House, to give my noble friend the Minister a kicking. I think the idea behind those speakers was to buttress, protect and safeguard the independence of the Electoral Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Stunell, referred to this earlier. Well, up to a point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I are absolutely as one about the need to improve the way we scrutinise secondary legislation in this country; it is clearly deficient and no longer fit for purpose.

The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, under my noble friend Lord Blencathra and now under my noble friend Lord McLoughlin, produced a report at the end of last year about the democratic deficit. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which I chair, produced a report on government by diktat. My noble friend the Minister will be fed up with me going on about this, but we are going to go on and on and talk to our colleagues in the Commons until we begin to get a better balance in the way we handle these things. That is, of course, a debate for another day, but in those two reports, we draw attention to the danger of what one might call tertiary legislation—that is, rules and regulations made by bodies that have little or no democratic control over their self-standing and no parliamentary control. It is important that I used the phrase parliamentary control, not government control. I am talking about control by the legislature, not by the Executive.

What I am saying is in no way a criticism of the Electoral Commission, but times change, commission members change just as Ministers change, and I am not convinced, as a matter of principle, that the Electoral Commission should be given too much independence in devising and implementing processes that go to the heart of our democratic system. We may feel that the system for scrutinising secondary legislation is not good enough, but we do at least have a chance to debate it and talk about it in public, here in your Lordships’ House and in the House of Commons. We cannot amend it, and I know that is a weakness, but we do provide a focal point for people who wish to comment on it, raise issues and express their support for it, discontent with it or opposition to it.

I see the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, in her place. The SLSC was very unhappy about some aspects of the procedure the Government followed about GMO and the new regulations, and therefore last night there was a lengthy debate. Could the regulations be amended? No, they could not, but there was a great deal of opportunity for people to express their concerns about that particular regulation. If the Electoral Commission produces a code, ex cathedra, there is no point at which that debate can take place. People can complain about it or write in, but there is no forum where Parliament—again, I say Parliament, both Houses of Parliament—can say its piece about whether it is fit for purpose. After all, it is Parliament that will be most concerned with and most expert in what is being proposed.

I favour Amendment 25, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, which says it should go through the Secretary of State. I assume that when she revises her amendment, she will say “by regulation”: he or she is not just going to write it, it will be by regulation that it would come into force. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, that if he were to amend his amendment to say that the Electoral Commission has to produce a code which will become a statutory code, I think that would also serve the purpose. At present, we need to be very clear that the Electoral Commission is not the answer to everything. There is a need for the democratic process to have some input into the way this is all moving forward, or else we will have a situation where a body may be moving away from the central ethos of what the two Houses of Parliament believe is the right way to conduct things.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

This is an important principle. The noble Lord and I have spent some time looking at the Charity Commission, on which he is much more expert than I am. I used to be able to quote CC9 and other bits of Charity Commission guidance by heart when I was a trustee of a charity. Does he think that the principle he is enunciating should apply to most of these commission regulatory bodies, or is the Electoral Commission a special case?

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

I think the Electoral Commission is a special case because we are talking about an elections Bill, but it goes wider than that. My noble friend Lord Blencathra is hot on this. He has a list of bodies that are, as he would say, running too free, but the Electoral Commission is a special case because of the nature of the Bill we are discussing. A subsidiary question is, do we need more codes elsewhere? I have some amendments down later on, which we shall get to on Thursday, which will provide a way of clarifying and giving third-party campaigners some security and safety about what they are doing— I think that is much more important. However, that is a discussion for Thursday.

My last point is to the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about his Amendment 30B. We have said again and again that we need to have our election law in one place. The fact we are having to discuss RPA 1983 in connection with this Bill in 2022 shows how urgent this is and how the points made across the Committee need to be taken on board by the Government, who at some point need to find time to pull this all together.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Monday 6th July 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I must remind the noble Lord that on the previous day that this Committee sat he made a very powerful speech about the need to define rather more clearly some of the elements in the Bill. He now seems to be arguing in entirely the opposite direction.

I recognise that the public benefit test has to be left relatively broad, and indeed both these amendments say so. I also recognise, with regard to the use of the word “fully”, that there are ways in which this amendment might need to be reconsidered.

All that we are attempting to do here is to make it clear that there is an expectation of public benefit, as we have both said. Different schools demonstrate that in different ways, and we all expect them to do so. I have to say that many of us are a little worried about a small minority of schools that now seem to have a large proportion of overseas students, for example, and have raised their fees to such an extent that they are a very long way from the original charitable purposes for which they were founded. If we are nudging them—nudging is, after all, one of the things that this Government are extremely keen on—in the right direction, it is this sort of wording that seems to be pushing them in that direction, and that is what we wish to do. I do not think that we are going down the route of politicisation; we are, however, reminding them—and providing them with some examples—that charitable status is a privilege and public benefit is an expectation.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I entirely agree that charitable status is a privilege. The question is whether that status is better enhanced by statute or by guidance. I am saying that the test should be made clear but it should be a Charity Commission guidance test rather than be put in statute, with all the inflexibilities and ancillary problems that may flow from that.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I have three amendments in the group, Amendments 18A, 18B and 20A, which follow the noble Baroness down the rabbit hole of definition. However, I have to say that the advice I am getting—I am not going to pretend that I drafted these amendments—is that the Bill as drafted does not do what it says on the tin. I should like to take a minute to explain why that is the case and why the Government should be considering amendments along the lines of these three. I am supported in this by members of the Charity Law Association.

Perhaps I may back up for a moment. We spent quite a lot of time in my review on social investment, which obviously presents tremendous opportunities if we can set it up right and make it work effectively. As I said at Second Reading, that is not just in terms of this country. We in the UK have done so much heavy lifting that we are in a world-leading position in this new area. We heard from my noble friend on the Front Bench at Second Reading that the Law Commission carried out a consultation on these and various other proposals to remove unnecessary impediments to the growth of social investment. That consultation ended in July 2014 and the commission’s final report underpins much of what lies in Clause 13. I do not doubt for a moment the Government’s good intentions regarding social investment, but there is a view held by specialists in this area that the current drafting of the clause—specifically, proposed new Section 292A—does not capture the results of the Law Commission’s consultation, which the Government have accepted and which I think this Bill was supposed to implement. It is worth quoting from the summary of its conclusions at paragraphs 6 to 8 of the report:

“6. We recommend that a new statutory power should be created, conferring on charity trustees the power to make social investments, so as to put the law beyond doubt.

“7. A social investment is any use of funds from which charity trustees seek both:

(1) to further one or more of their charity’s objects; and

(2) a financial return, which might include (i) income, (ii) capital growth, (iii) full or partial repayment, or (iv) avoiding incurring financial liability at a future date.

“8. We recommend that the new power should apply unless it has been expressly excluded or modified by the charity’s governing document”.

The consultation paper produced by the Law Commission contains a splendidly clear diagram of how this works and sheds light on what is a pretty technical area. At one end are the grants where the money is given and at the other end is investment where there is a financial return. But in between, close to a grant, there are what is known in the trade as programme-related investments, which support the charitable objectives of the charity but do not expect a financial return. As you inch towards financial investments by moving across the spectrum, you reach something known as mixed-motive investment, a title that I find quite appalling because a mixed motive sounds like an ulterior motive. I wanted to change it to “mixed-purpose investment”, but that was altogether a bridge too far and we are still stuck with the terrible title of mixed-motive investment. Never mind; we can leave that for another day.

There is concern among charity lawyers that the Bill permits programme-related investments but does not give an adequate statutory power to mixed-motive investment, which I like to call mixed-purpose investment. That is because of the general drafting, particularly the use of the word “directly”, of subsection (2)(a) of Section 292A to be inserted in the Charities Act 2011 under Clause 13. Charities may not always act directly to further their charitable purposes. They may do so through a third party, which may not be exclusively charitable.

I have received examples of how this might work. First, a diabetes charity seeks to invest in a company developing foods calculated to reduce the impact of diabetes on sufferers but which are available to the general public. The investment will achieve some mission benefit for the diabetes charity but the fact that the foods will be available more widely means that not all the activities of the investee will advance the objects of the charity because there is a commercial element. The object therefore will be advanced only in part, which is why we need to get the words “in part” in the rephrasing.

Secondly, a charity that has purposes to relieve unemployment wants to invest in a social firm in the construction industry that employs ex-offenders at risk of unemployment. Once employed, the individuals employed by the social firm are not charitable beneficiaries because they are employed. The investment by the charity and the social firm may in part relieve unemployment but it also, in part, advances other purposes and benefits individuals who are employed by the social firm.

The worry is that almost any situation in which a charity is investing in a non-charitable social enterprise—picking up the point made by the noble Baroness—such as co-operatives, community benefit societies or community interest companies, will likely involve mixed-motive investment and will likely advance the objects of the charity in part and not exclusively. Without adequate clarification of the power, the Government risk introducing a statutory power which fails to achieve the clarity and confirmation that they seek.

Quite simply, Amendment 16A deletes the phrase,

“directly furthering the charity’s purposes”,

and replaces it with,

“furthering one or more of the charity’s purposes in whole or in part”.

The examples that I have just given underline that. Amendment 18B would insert a new subsection at the end of what will become subsection (7). It would state:

“A relevant act of a charity may be carried out with a view to furthering one or more of the charity’s purposes in whole or in part for the purposes of this section even where the relevant act may not exclusively further one or more of the charity’s purposes”.

Finally, Amendment 20A would make an amendment to new Section 292C, to which we will come later, headed “Charity trustees’ duties in relation to social investments”. At the end of subsection (2) it would insert,

“having had regard to the degree to which the relevant act is expected to further one or more of the charity’s purposes in whole or in part, and the expected financial return”.

That is all quite complicated, technical and difficult but it has important consequences. However, the charity law sector is concerned that we need to bottom this out. I am sure that the Government accept that, and I certainly believe that we want to put the ability of trustees to make mixed-purpose, mixed-motive investments beyond statutory doubt. I am sure that my noble friend will not be able answer all this today but I hope that he can take on board the concern about the technical details. I think that they have been raised elsewhere with the Treasury and so on, and it may be that we will need to have a discussion about it. I hope he can see what the sector is driving at. The sector is merely wishing to ensure that what the Government want to achieve can properly be achieved by the Bill. Currently, it does not think that the drafting achieves that.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord has said. Perhaps I may remind him that when I first went to a tutorial with him on charity law history, he said that part of the glory of charity law was that so many definitions were left loose.

Voluntary and Charitable Sectors

Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Thursday 26th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as I expected, this has been an excellent debate. As I came here I thought that it would be very difficult to respond to comments from noble Lords, many of whom know a huge amount more about this sector than I do. I have learnt a huge amount from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, in particular. I remembering him taking me through the evolution of regulation and charities law from 1601 onwards. I hope that he noted the recent remark made by an eminent lawyer, that charities law had been asinine since 1601. As we all know, charities law has evolved to cope with charities changing their view of what they should do, which remains a contested issue. I speak on behalf of the Government when I say how grateful we are for the work that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, has done, both in his statutory review of the Charities Act 2006 and in his contribution to the Civil Society Red Tape Taskforce. The Government hope that he will continue to play an extremely valuable role in that area.

When I went to east London to look at the work which a local Baptist minister, Mr Mawson—the noble Lord, Lord Mawson—had done, I also learnt a huge amount about local initiatives and local activity. When I first learnt about community foundations I went to Calderdale with the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, and was enormously enthused by the work which the community foundation there is doing and the way in which it is able to galvanise local philanthropy. I repeat what I said the previous time we debated this issue. Oversight of the voluntary sector is the sort of role which the House of Lords in its current composition plays very well. We ought to have regular debates on aspects of that area, because it is one on which the Commons does not focus very well. As the voluntary sector begins to deal with different challenges, we should look at how well it copes.

I start with some very broad issues about the importance of this area. We are now reaching a point where there is a degree of consensus across all the political parties in this country about the importance of striking the right balance between an open society, a free but regulated market, and a strong but limited state. We can all argue—and that is the place for democratic politics—about exactly how that balance should be struck: how large the state should be, how large a proportion of the economy it should control, and how large a proportion of national income it should take. Those are all difficult issues that we must grasp, but we all now understand that the state cannot do everything, that the welfare state cannot provide everything, and that a state that is too strong impoverishes its citizens. In an open society, we need active citizens who are not too dependent on the state.

I have done most of my politics in Huddersfield, Manchester and Bradford. I remember particularly, when I was a candidate for a central Manchester constituency, arguing with local authority officials who were quite sure that they knew what was good for the people of Hulme better than the people of Hulme did. The people of Hulme sat around and had things done to them, and played very little part in managing their own affairs. Many of us have spent time in those big inner-city estates, and know the problems that that has led to. Part of what the Government have been doing with community organisers and the National Citizen Service has been getting back into those communities the idea that people are better off if they do some things for themselves. We all now know from all sorts of psychological studies that people who feel they have some control over their own lives, and play some active part in their local community, are happier and more fulfilled in their lives.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby talks about the end of the welfare state, but I simply do not recognise that concept. Indeed, in some ways the welfare state is expanding. Health reform in the United States is becoming embedded, and I suspect that that will not be reformed. The biggest democracy that has resisted that element of the welfare state is now embedding it. However, we recognise that the welfare state, if simply left, would expand to crowd out all other elements of public expenditure, and would then crowd out the private aspect of the economy as well.

To be maintained in its current state, the National Health Service needs an income that grows larger and larger each year. I am particularly conscious of that at the moment, having just had a new hip, and having discovered how many other people in my generation have also had a new hip. That makes me realise to what extent that sort of thing, as we all get older, is leading to the strains on the welfare state as publicly funded. I hope to make 97 at least, and the strain on the state from my state pension, my travel pass and various other things will also contribute to the problems of the welfare state.

Yes, we are all committed to the continuation of the welfare state, but we recognise that it has limits, that it is bad for us to be too dependent on the state, and that the voluntary sector alongside it has a great deal to contribute—including, of course, to the National Health Service. Just think about how much money is raised for medical research and other dimensions from the voluntary sector, and the excellent initiatives such as those that the Government have been supporting—the growth of dementia volunteers and King’s College Hospital volunteers to relieve the pressures on local hospitals. That is all part of what we must do to ensure that the welfare state continues to maintain its functions.

I follow the debates of such bodies as Policy Network and Policy Exchange, and I recognise that they are all discussing these questions. We cannot depend entirely on the state. Twenty years ago, when I was working for the University of Oxford, I was helping to raise funds for a range of international initiatives. Someone from a Dutch university said to me, “It’s actually very difficult to raise money for universities from the private sector in the Netherlands, because when you approach a possible donor he thinks, ‘If this were a good idea, the state would already have paid for it,’ so the fact that you are asking for a private donation makes people think that it’s not a very good idea.” But when we went to the Swiss, they understood. With a more limited attitude towards their state, they understood that it was a good idea to have both voluntary funding and state funding for higher education. One of the reasons why British universities are better than those in a number of other European countries is that they have both state and private funding.

We have heard a lot of comments on central state funding and local activity. I think that there is a consensus that we have become too centralised, in the UK as a whole but above all in England, and that decentralisation—both from Whitehall to local authorities and, as far as possible, from a relationship between large national charities and the state to one in which local authorities and other local bodies relate to local charities—is healthier. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, talked about the relationship between big charities and central government. Having stronger local authorities dealing with local voluntary organisations is a desirable state of affairs. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, who talked about the role of Near Neighbours within a number of local communities. There are many examples like that. Local giving, as the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, said, is easier to make a case for—local actions and local campaigns. In Saltaire we are just embarking on local horticulture, imitating Todmorden and others. That means growing local food in spare ground and making it available to people who do not have their own gardens. There are all sorts of local activities that we should be helping to support.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, asked what had happened to the big society. My answer to him is that a great deal is happening. I regret that the Prime Minister uses it less than he did, but I am extremely happy that the Labour Party is now accepting many of the Government’s initiatives into its own campaigns. I was a sceptic about the National Citizen Service myself when it started. It was a Conservative scheme that I was not entirely convinced about—but I became a convert as soon as I visited my first National Citizen Service scheme. I am happy to see that the Labour Party now proposes that that service should be extended. That means that all parties now accept that it is a highly desirable development.

I was equally sceptical about the Conservative proposals for community organisers when they were first made. But now that I have seen community organisers working in Bradford and Leeds, I am persuaded that that is a way of helping to energise shared local action within local communities that all of us, from all parties and perspectives, should be happy to support. That is what is happening on the ground, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, is as impressed with it as I have been.

We have talked about the problems of youth engagement, but there is quite a lot of encouraging evidence that young people are becoming more engaged in local volunteering. The National Citizen Service has certainly helped, and it appears that young people are keen to get engaged where they are given the opportunity to do so. I recognise that, as one or two noble Lords have said, community work placements can muddy the water, but part of the philosophy behind such placements is to give people some experience of working with others and for others, which in itself is a self-motivating experience.

There has also been much talk about elderly volunteers. We are all aware of that aspect. I have promised my wife that when I retire, in a few years’ time, I will go into voluntary service. I am very proud that when my mother finally stepped down from her last voluntary role, as chair of an old people’s home, she was herself older than a substantial number of the people living in the home. This is not an entirely new idea. The elderly fit are now very much part of those who hold voluntary action of different sorts together.

We have talked a lot about fundraising and funding, state contracting, and provision of public services. Of course, there is a problem with state funding of the voluntary sector, because public funds have to be publicly accountable. That carries with it a level of bureaucracy that does not exist in the same way with private donations. There must be accountability for public funding. The Government are, however, carrying through a number of useful experiments. There are social investment targets to fulfil, and so on, as well as social action proposals and Community First funding, which help to encourage the sector to innovate.

As I have come to terms with different elements in this sector, I worry about the parts of the voluntary sector that are over-dependent on public funding. If a voluntary organisation is dependent on the state for most of its funding, it ceases in some ways to be an entirely voluntary organisation. That seems to me a large issue for the future.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

I am extremely grateful to my noble friend and shall be very brief. He said some very nice things about me and I am very grateful to him for that. I do not want to bite the hand that feeds me, but before he leaves the issue of social investment, will he give a commitment to look at the wording of “necessary and incidental” and “necessary and proportionate”? Without that change there is a real danger that this important movement may be stifled.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I am happy to give that assurance and I will be in touch with the noble Lord later in terms of what precisely the answer is. We have asked the Law Commission to look at the content of social investment by charities within the confines of charities law, and I will come back to the noble Lord on that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, asked about the JustGiving report, to which I trust the Government will respond in good time. Payroll giving has developed a good deal. I am well aware from one or two members of my family who work in the City that payroll giving has spread across the City. It is a useful contribution from those who can afford to pay. We all also need to focus on philanthropy in our unequal society. That is the sort of thing that I hope archbishops and bishops will be saying loud and clear. When I think of those within the community I particularly recall the contribution that the Sainsbury family has made in all sorts of ways to medical research, the University of East Anglia, the National Portrait Gallery, et cetera, with the money it inherited. I regret that we have not seen from the City and the financial sector as much in the way of philanthropy from those who have been lucky and successful enough to give back to society what they have gained economically. I hope that we will hear from others on that theme.

A large number of other issues were raised. In terms of campaigning and advocacy, there should be a natural tension between society, the voluntary sector and the state. That is unavoidable. The last thing we would like is a voluntary sector that always said the state was good. I grew up in the Church of England, and it seemed to me that it was far too close to the powers that be. As a boy I would sing:

“The rich man in his castle,

The poor man at his gate”—

not something that I assume the Church of England sets as a hymn very often these days. Thankfully, Churches now see themselves as unavoidably criticising the status quo. Voluntary organisations, of course, should be doing advocacy and campaigning. I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that I am not sure that I do see a clear difference between campaigning and advocacy.

When I was doing the consultation on the Transparency of Lobbying Bill, I met the Alzheimer’s Society, which told me about its dementia campaign—an absolute classic of a campaign—to raise public awareness on an issue to which society, the state and the media had not been paying sufficient attention. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, talked about the carers campaign that had very much the same effect. That is precisely one of the many roles that the voluntary sector should have.

However, we all understand also that there is a point at which campaigning and advocacy becomes political in a partisan way, and therefore approaches a boundary over which campaigners should not step. I know Charity Commission paper CC9 almost off by heart now. CC9 is relatively clear and therefore the challenge made by the noble Lord, Lord Finkelstein, is one that is unlikely to be offered.

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

Debate between Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Wallace of Saltaire

Tuesday 5th November 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I recognise that this amendment, like some of those we were discussing in the previous group, is concerned with reinforcing the independence of the registrar in appointment, accountability to parliamentary committees and obstacles to what might be challengeable dismissal. Let me reassure noble Lords that the Government are committed to ensuring the independence of the registrar. The registrar’s ability to operate independently is clearly essential for the successful operation of the register.

The amendment specifically concerns potential dismissal. The Government are confident that the provisions as drafted will assure the independence of the registrar without those reinforcements. We will, however, continue to listen to and explore all suggestions for reiterating and firmly establishing that independence. Having given that assurance, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reassuring response. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Martin, for raising some of the practical issues. I tabled the amendment just to have a discussion about who can provide some back-up to the registrar, if needed. I think that the Minister has shown a willingness to listen. I am grateful for that and, in the circumstances, I am happy to withdraw the amendment.