Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2015 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

62: Schedule 5, page 55, line 41, leave out “, on request,”

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, the amendments in the group proposed by myself and my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town concern the work done after the petition process is over and the MP has either been recalled or not. The Electoral Commission in recent years has reported on election returns and highlighted both good practice and areas where things have not gone so well, or highlighted minor infringements or inconsistencies in what has been sent back by election agents. This has been a good, helpful process and has enabled better advice and guidance to be produced that has been helpful to everyone involved.

Whoever the campaigners are in a recall petition, we can definitely say that they will be new to the process and may be new to any sort of campaigning. If people break the rules, there are processes to be followed and action to be taken as appropriate, but I think it is right that the Electoral Commission should look at the returns submitted by campaigners.

We all hope that this Bill when it becomes law will never have to be used. I think we can confidently agree that if it is used it will be very infrequently. Because of that, we have to ensure that asking the Electoral Commission to look at the returns is a sensible and proportionate move. The problem with the wording in the Bill at present is, on page 55, line 41, the words “on request” and, on page 57, line 32, the word “may”. That for me is too loose and leaves an air of doubt. For such an important matter, the Electoral Commission must be sent a copy of all the petition returns and accompanying documentation and should produce a report on the actions taken or not taken in respect of the recall petition. This is far too important a matter to be left to the vagaries of “on request”, “may” and other similar words.

In conclusion, as my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, has said, I am disappointed with some of the responses by the Electoral Commission to this Bill. I say that as a former member of the commission; I was a member only a few months ago. I am getting quite cross now, particularly with the comment that these are local events with a local feel. I live in south London, and in our times of 24-hour news, to suggest that the only people who will be interested in a recall by-election in south London will be the South London Press, published every Tuesday and Friday, is ridiculous. I really think we have to get rid of this idea. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. However, I do not know whether he is aware that the Electoral Commission has in the past produced reports on every single local election, whether it be for the whole of London or of Derbyshire or Nottinghamshire. That is hundreds and hundreds of returns, while we are probably talking about one or two returns over a number of years—a very small amount in comparison, so it would not be a big or onerous task. He made the point that the commission has no investigatory powers but, if it looked at returns and found wrongdoing, it could refer that matter to the police. That is what it should do but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 62 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, Amendments 63 and 67 have been drafted by the Law Society of Scotland. They would remove the power of the Minister to question the outcome of the petition. Instead, any suspected irregularities would be subject to judicial review, so they would take it out of the political arena and put it into the legal framework. I beg to move.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, Amendments 63 and 67 relate to issues raised by the Law Society of Scotland as referred to by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and concern matters raised by the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House. My noble friend makes a powerful point about the questioning of the petition and the powers this Bill gives to Ministers to make regulations.

These are very serious matters and I have some concerns about things not being very clear in the Bill. Can the Minister explain carefully why the Government are not being more specific about their intention? Can he also confirm by what process these regulations will be approved by Parliament? Am I right in saying that if anyone were unhappy they could seek the intervention of the court through the judicial review process anyway and that nothing here proposed would stop that? Amendments 64 and 73 in this group tabled by myself and my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town seek to address concerns expressed by committees of your Lordships’ House in respect of excessive powers being placed in the hands of Ministers. In particular, we have concerns as to why the Government think it necessary to give a Minister powers to create new criminal offences by statutory instrument. There is, for what in effect is quite a small Bill, far too much left in the hands of the Government to make decisions through the use of statutory instruments.

We support the principle of recall, but it is very disappointing that the Government have waited until the last few months of this Parliament to bring forward a Bill that was in the coalition agreement. As noble Lords have said before, a paper was due in 2011 and here we are in 2015. Leaving so much unresolved is not good enough. Will the noble Lord tell the Committee why so little preparatory work has been done in advance of this Bill coming forward? Will the noble Lord give us some indication where or what these new offences might be that he may have to regulate on?

Amendment 73 would remove the words “(including this Act)” from the Bill. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee thought these words could permit the infiltration of quite substantial and significant additional provisions into the Bill, and we agree. Can the noble Lord explain clearly why the Government think it is necessary to take such wide-ranging powers with little or no explanation?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, Clause 18(1)(b), which Amendment 63 would remove from the Bill, allows for regulations to detail the process for questioning the outcome of the petition to be made. It does not say that Ministers shall decide but allows for regulations to detail the process. Amendment 67 would amend subsection (5) to make it a requirement for the judicial review process to be followed.

Judicial review, as noble Lords will be aware, is a type of court proceeding in which a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body. In other words, judicial reviews are a challenge to the way in which a decision has been made, rather than the rights and wrongs of the conclusion reached. The process for challenging the result of an election requires an eligible person to lodge a petition with the relevant election court.

The role of the election court is to establish whether procedural irregularities have occurred, whether an election result should be declared void, and whether any individual or individuals are guilty of offences in relation to the election. As the grounds for challenging the result of a recall petition are also likely to concern irregularities of a type that an election court will be familiar with, this body may be the most appropriate to hear such challenges.

The method for questioning a petition will be set out in regulations, as is the case at other polls where legislation has been made in recent years—for example, European parliamentary elections. The Government do not anticipate the method varying substantially from the established process for challenging the outcome of elections and therefore we do not see a special need to specify the process in primary legislation.

The Government will need to consider the details of the regulations further, but our approach will need to have regard to achieving an appropriate degree of consistency with the established process. We would see it as very much being in line with that.

Amendment 64 on the power to create criminal offences would again affect Clause 18(2)(d). Clause 18 provides:

“The Minister may by regulations … make further provision about the conduct of a recall petition”.

Subsection (2)(d) provides that such regulations may,

“make provision creating a criminal offence”.

Such regulations are to be made by statutory instrument —subject, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to the affirmative resolution procedure.

In its report of 15 December, the Constitution Committee stated:

“The House may wish to scrutinise why the Government consider it necessary to empower Ministers to create new election law offences by statutory instrument”.

The Government have not yet responded to the committee’s report but will do so as soon as possible. However, I say here that the power is in the Bill to enable Ministers to apply the existing electoral law on offences to the recall petition process, with suitable modifications. Again, this is a matter of adapting existing legislation, not extending or creating new offences.

In order to ensure the integrity of the recall petition process, a number of criminal offences will be required. However, the Government do not consider these to be new offences as they will mirror, with appropriate modifications, well established offences that apply at elections and referendums. The intention is to use the power only to replicate or apply criminal offences that already exist in relation to elections, adapted as necessary for the recall petition process. Examples of the kinds of offence that we anticipate are that it is an offence to impersonate another constituent and sign as them, known as “personation” at elections, as set out in Section 60 of the Representation of the People Act 1983; that it is illegal to tamper with signature sheets, which will be based on Section 65 of the 1983 Act; and that the details of the printer and promoter of petition campaign literature must be included on the literature itself or else an offence is committed, based on Section 110 of the same Act. The Government consider that it would be inappropriate to include in the Bill full details of all the criminal offences, as each offence will be attached to a breach of the detailed rules that will themselves be set out in regulations.

The noble Baroness has tabled Amendment 73, which would amend Clause 21(4) of the Bill to remove the power for regulations in relation to the conduct of the petition to be able to amend this Act itself. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in turn, questioned this. Again, the Government will respond to the committee’s report as soon as possible. Ahead of that, I will provide an answer to that point here. Clause 21(4) enables regulations relating to the conduct of the recall petition process to amend primary legislation, including the recall Bill when it is an Act. This power was included in the original draft Bill that was published for pre-legislative scrutiny in 2011.

The power in question refers only to the conduct of the petition, as it relates solely to regulations made under Clause 18 and can be used only to make amendments that are consequential, supplementary or incidental to the regulations made under that power. It does not, for example, enable the amendment of the three triggers, or conditions, for initiating a recall petition in the first place. The power was originally included to allow for amendments to be made to the Act to allow for amendments made in other areas of electoral legislation, such as the introduction of individual electoral registration. Since the publication of the draft Bill, the legislation for individual electoral registration has now been put in place.

The Government are considering the committee’s recommendation on this point. As a general point, it is important that we take such powers with care, and only when it is reasonable to assume they will be needed. The Government will continue to consider the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and reflect on the views expressed in this House, and I am sure that we will return to this issue on Report. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 14th January 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Maxton]

I agree with the most of that, but the commissioner’s report makes a recommendation on sentence as well. In most cases—not all of them—the committee will agree with that report. However, I accept that, given the circumstances that we are now in—which is why I support the amendments—that might change and the commissioner’s report would not necessarily be upheld in the circumstances that the noble Lord outlined. At the moment, the commissioner gives a recommendation as to what sentence should be given. In quite a lot of cases, that recommendation is that the Member should appear before the House of Commons and apologise for their behaviour; it is often no more than that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, this group of amendments contains amendments for which I am able to offer the support of the Opposition Front Bench and amendments for which I am not.

Although the non-government amendments are, I believe, only probing, enabling us to debate issues around this important Bill and the provisions concerning recall that it contains, the Labour Party manifesto at the last general election gave a commitment to introduce a system of recall of MPs for wrongdoing. We support the Bill on that basis.

Amendment 5, tabled by my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hughes of Woodside, would delete the second condition of recall, as spoken to in detail by my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton. The conditions of recall were debated during the Bill’s passage through the other place. It is right to have a condition of recall that responds to the report from the Standards Committee into the behaviour of a Member of Parliament, where the House of Commons on receiving the report suspends the Member for the requisite period. While I have the greatest respect for my noble friends who have spoken in this debate, I am unable to support the amendment today, as I do not think that it would be right, when the other place has taken a view on a matter of such a serious nature as to suspend a Member, for us to change that.

Amendment 7, which was also supported in addition by my noble friends Lord Campbell-Savours and Lady Taylor of Bolton, increases the period of suspension before the recall provisions are triggered from 10 to 20 sitting days. Amendment 8, again in the names of my noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hughes of Woodside, is consequential and takes the period in any other case up to 28 days. These amendments, in effect, reverse the positions agreed in the Commons on an amendment proposed by the Opposition Front Bench. When these issues were debated in the Commons my honourable friend Mr Thomas Docherty made clear from the Dispatch Box the reasoning for the amendment: that, despite concerns raised inside and outside Parliament and the reputation of Parliament being damaged with Members doing wrong that resulted in a suspension, with this threshold in place over the past 20 years on only two occasions would it have been met, as my noble friend Lord Grocott said. Those Members who were suspended in the 1990s for taking cash for questions, which was hugely damaging to Parliament, would have escaped the recall provisions. My colleagues in the other place thought that was unacceptable and brought forward the amendment that was agreed to reduce this trigger to 10 days’ suspension.

Amendments 12 and 36 in the name of my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock remove the words “or otherwise” in both cases from the Bill. Looking at these amendments I am not sure whether they will have unintended consequences and that is why I am unable to support them. I can see a situation, as my noble friend Lord Grocott said in a previous debate tonight, where an MP finds that they have triggered the recall provisions, maybe by serving a term of imprisonment for one day for demonstrating in support of or with some of their constituents, as other noble Lords have referred to. Rather than waiting for the recall to be triggered, the MP may in fact just resign their seat and fight a by-election immediately. They would certainly in those circumstances have avoided lots of campaigns against them, all spending money to have them recalled, and the by-election would be held with strict election expense limits. It seems to me that by deleting these words in the two amendments we could be denying the Member of the other place that option, and that would be regrettable.

Government Amendments 6, 9 and 10, which have the full support of the Opposition Front Bench and have also been signed by my noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town, in effect seek to future-proof these provisions as far as possible. We are aware that the Commons is or will be looking at these issues in respect of the processes to deal with Members who have done wrong, and these amendments seek to ensure that, whatever the process, the provisions of this recall Bill apply.

The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said—and I agree with him—that the House of Commons is an honourable institution. Members of Parliament from all sides act honourably, work hard on behalf of their constituents and serve people well. Dishonourable Members are very rare and we are all very well served by Members of Parliament. I also agree with the comments of my noble friend Lord Maxton about the denigration of democracy. I also regret that my noble friend—

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, before the noble Lord finishes his remarks, I take him back to the justification which he gave for the 10-day issue, which was that two colleagues who had committed serious offences in the past would not have been caught. Does he really think in the current climate, whatever the number is—whether it was 10 days or 20 days—that they would not have found themselves subject to recall? Therefore surely the logic of his position is incorrect. By setting it at 10 days, we limit the spectrum of penalties that can be put forward. To argue that because in the past a view would have been taken that was less than 20 days does not actually fit in with the spirit of the age. If this Bill is passed and becomes law, it is inconceivable, I would have thought, that the Standards Committee would not look beyond 20 days. This is a self-fulfilling argument that has narrowed the scope for the House to show that it has taken a tough line.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I do not agree with the noble Lord. The amendment was tabled by the Opposition Front Bench because these are serious matters. Members who committed serious wrongdoing would have got away with not being recalled. By tabling the amendment, we wanted to reflect that their punishment was not enough; they should have been recalled. We wanted to give a clear signal to Parliament and to the country that, in future, 10 days is the right length after which that should be dealt with.

In conclusion, I regret that my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours is not here tonight, as many other noble Lords have said. I wish him a speedy recovery.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, let me speak briefly to the government amendments, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, remarked, are consequential to amendments tabled by the Opposition Front Bench and passed in the Commons by a significant majority. We have also tabled three amendments, Amendments 6, 9 and 10, to future-proof the second edition by ensuring that the reference to the Standards Committee captures any other committee that in future exercises the relevant functions. Perhaps I should mention that the Standards Committee is at present reviewing its arrangements, including the role of lay members—although I suspect that it is more likely to expand the role of lay members rather than to do what the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, would like, and dismiss them.

The amendments therefore make it clear that any other committee doing that function, whatever it is called, will continue to be given that function. They also make it clear that it is the report of the Standards Committee from which suspension follows and has to relate to the conduct of a particular MP, rather than, for example, a report about conduct or suspensions more generally.

The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, has tabled several amendments. Amendment 5 is a wrecking amendment, which would render the Bill unworkable by making the first condition ineffective and by removing the second condition. Amendments 7 and 8 would overturn the will of the other place, which voted on Report by 204 to 125 to support an amendment tabled by the Opposition Front Bench to set the threshold at 10 sitting days, as has been remarked on. I suspect that those who were absent were doing other things elsewhere, rather than sitting outside determined to abstain but frightened that the Daily Mail might see what they were doing, which is what I think some noble Lords were suggesting.

Amendments 12 and 36 would amend how the seat might otherwise be vacated by deleting the phrase “or otherwise” from the Bill. Another way of future-proofing the Bill is to emphasise that the seat may be vacated for a number of other reasons—disqualification, death or other causes which the Commons may in future decide for itself. That would of course mean that no recall process was necessary. If the MP’s seat becomes vacant for whatever reason, the MP will not need to face a petition. Those words are therefore needed to stop unnecessary recall petitions being started where the seat has already been vacated.

Perhaps I may say a few wider words on the tone of our Committee so far, because what I hear is a number of noble Lords saying that we have to save the Commons from itself—we know better than the other place. I wish that when we had been debating House of Lords reform, we had the same sense that the other place knows better about us, but I did not hear that sentiment from noble Lords—particularly those here at the time. We have to be very careful not to have nostalgia for British politics of the 1960s as a golden age in which we had two-party politics, mass parties, respect for MPs and Parliament and deference.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Grocott]

That is absolutely right, but of course we know why the five-year provision was enacted in the first place. We owe it to David Laws, who gave us an explanation in his book, which I would recommend noble Lords read, if they have not done so already: 22 Days in May. In it he states that in the course of the negotiations between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives:

“We mentioned that our own policy was for four-year, fixed-term parliaments. George Osborne made the point that five-year parliaments were better, as they allowed governments to get into implementing their plans before having to start worrying about the timing of the electoral cycle. We—

that is, the Liberal Democrats—

“made no objection to this, and Britain was on its way to five-year, fixed-term parliaments”.

So, as described by David Laws, the five years were introduced so as not worry about the timing of the electoral cycle, which I think is a polite way of saying “without having to worry about the electorate”. Will the Minister at least acknowledge that the best way of dealing with this business of accountability may be to have rather more frequent general elections?

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, the amendments and clause stand part in this group look specifically at the role of the Speaker in the recall process; how the Fixed-term Parliaments Act relates to the provisions of the Bill; at what point on approaching the general election do these provisions no longer come into effect; what do we do if the MP who is under threat of recall happens to be the Speaker of the House of Commons; and is there a role for your Lordships’ House and the Lord Speaker in matters relating to the other place?

During my contribution at Second Reading, I raised the point that there appeared to be an omission in the Bill. What happens if the MP subject to the recall provision also happens to be the Speaker of the House of Commons? I am pleased that the Government have tabled Amendments 68, 69 and 70 to deal with this and put provisions in place to deal with this event if we find ourselves in a position where the Speaker has triggered the recall provision. The Chairman of Ways and Means is the principal Deputy Speaker and quite rightly the person who should undertake these functions if the circumstance arises.

Amendments 54 and 59, put forward by my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, require the Lord Speaker to lay before your Lordships’ House any notices required by Clauses 13 or 14 that it is proposed are laid before the House of Commons. Each House of Parliament has procedures that enable it to conduct its business, regulate its affairs and deal with issues and problems. With the passing of legislation, for example, there is co-operation and agreed procedures to get a Bill on to the statute book.

However, the Bill concerns how we deal with MPs who have done wrong and have met the conditions of recall. The procedures for notifying the Commons are clear in the Bill, whether it be notification of the termination of the process or notification that the petition was successful. In those circumstances, I do not see any role for either your Lordships’ House or the Lord Speaker—although I agree with my noble friend Lord Foulkes’s comment in the previous debate that there are other roles for the Lord Speaker to take, and we should look at that another time.

It would be confusing for one House to notify another House about matters that concern one of its Members. I think that we should also remember that this Bill, when it gets on to the statute book, will, I hope, be rarely used. When it used it will receive considerable media attention. This is no local event and it will not have a local feel. I have no doubt that Members of your Lordships’ House will be fully aware of what is going on.

My noble friends Lord Foulkes of Cumnock and Lord Hughes of Woodside have also tabled Amendment 35, the effect of which is to reduce from six to three months the period before a general election when the provisions do not apply, the Member is already subject to a recall petition and the seat has been vacated. I can see that this reduces the time that the Member is exempt from the provisions, but I think that the reduction to three months makes things very difficult in practical terms.

It is proposed that the petition is available for signing for eight weeks and if successful a by-election is held, which can easily take four weeks—we are at three months. For these and similar reasons, the six months on the face of the Bill is the correct length of time, because it deals with the practicalities of this process and allows a reasonable period of time which is in no way excessive to deal with the practicalities we face.

I hope that my noble friend Lord Foulkes of Cumnock understands why I am unable to support this and his other amendments—although I have a feeling that they will be coming back in amended form on Report.

Recall of MPs Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 17th December 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the Second Reading debate today. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Temple-Morris could not speak in the debate as he was not here at the start. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Cooper of Windrush, on his excellent maiden speech. Like other noble Lords, I look forward to future contributions from the noble Lord in your Lordships’ House. I saw in his list of achievements that he is a former official of his party. As a former official of my party, I am delighted to welcome him here.

We have heard a number of powerful speeches from Members of this noble House who, before serving in this House, were honourable and right honourable Members of the other place and gave equally distinguished service there. That is where I want to start my remarks today. I agree entirely with the comments of my noble friends Lady Corston and Lord Dubs. Members of Parliament are people who have put themselves forward for election and have been elected over the years since elections were first held. In all but the tiniest minority of cases, they are very honourable people who serve their constituents tirelessly. They work long hours, they represent their constituents and they speak up for people. They take up causes—sometimes unpopular causes—they campaign, they challenge conventional wisdoms, they win public support, they change the views of Governments, they change laws and they make our country better. Being a Member of Parliament is an honourable thing and we are very lucky in the United Kingdom that we have people of honour, calibre and ability who are prepared to put themselves forward from all parties and sometimes no party.

Those remarks apply equally to noble Lords in this House. Although not elected, they are people of honour and ability right across the House who seek to improve legislation, take up causes and say what needs to be said. My noble friend Lady Hayter was right when she pointed out the honourable campaigning role on a range of issues of Members of the other place, including gay rights, the end of capital punishment, a woman’s right to choose, and, more recently, opposition to fracking. If Members were sentenced to a period of imprisonment for a peaceful protest, they would run the risk of being subject to recall.

At the general election, my party backed the principle of recall and we back legislation that enables the public to have a right of recall over their Member of Parliament. We have to be careful to respect the decisions that the other place has taken. However, at the same time, we must seek to improve the Bill. It concerns how we deal with people who are Members of the other place and have been convicted of an offence and imprisoned and, with the appeal process exhausted, suspended from the service of the House for a period of at least 10 days.

When this Bill becomes an Act, I hope that it never needs to be used. A look back at history suggests that it would have been used fairly infrequently, as my noble friend Lord Grocott pointed out, and I am pleased about that. I am also aware that the Standards Committee in the other place is presently undertaking a review of its procedures and the Bill is drafted to take account of that, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said. I think it is right that how the committee operates is a matter for the House of Commons and not the Government or your Lordships’ House to decide.

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to the amendment moved by his honourable friend in the other place, Dr Julian Huppert. The other place decided on that issue when the amendment was pressed to a vote and defeated. I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that as the other place has decided on that issue these Benches will not support that amendment if it comes before this House.

As other noble Lords have said, far too much of this is left to regulation rather than being specific and clear in the Bill. I do not think that is right. It is worth noting that there is nothing in the Bill that stops the other place expelling a Member if they have done wrong. The other place has had that power for a considerable time but has used it very infrequently, as my noble friend Lord Howarth of Newport pointed out. I also agree with my noble friend’s comments about the amendment moved by Zac Goldsmith in the other place. We cannot have MPs hounded by blogs and other electronic forms of communication referred to by my noble friend Lord Snape.

When we consider the Bill in Committee and on Report, we will look very carefully at a number of specific provisions in the Bill. We will look at how they will operate and say what we think needs to be amended to improve on what is proposed. Those issues include what would happen if the MP who was the subject of the recall also happened to be the Speaker. The Bill is fairly silent on that and Clause 19, as it stands, does not satisfy legitimate concerns in this respect.

My noble friend Lady Hayter of Kentish Town explained to the House the concerns we have in respect of where the balance is drawn between what is public and what is private, and of the appropriate protections both for the Member of Parliament who is the subject of the petition, who has the right to be treated fairly, and the constituents who are registered to vote in the constituency, who have to understand clearly their rights and responsibilities and what is public and what is not. My noble friend made a very important point about the marked register being made public. That is the end of the secret ballot in the UK because, if you go to sign the petition, you are voting only one way. The noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Epsom, made an important point about the organisation of the petition.

My noble friend Lord Lennie made a number of important points with which I am in total agreement. We have to be much clearer than we are at present about the role of petitions officers and how they discharge their functions. In my opinion, there is a lack of clarity about the status of the petition. Is it public or private? What are the arrangements for inspection and challenge of any of the names on the petition? How can we ensure that people are treated properly?

My noble friend Lady Corston was right to refer to the number of offices where electors can go to sign a petition. I have lived in various constituencies in either cities or boroughs as my work took me around the country. There was the old Southwark-Peckham constituency, the Coventry north-east constituency and Nottingham north. I currently live in the Lewisham-Deptford constituency. Four places for residents to sign in each of those constituencies would not be enough, let alone in a large rural constituency.

It is very disappointing that the Electoral Commission does not have a formal role in ensuring compliance or monitoring of campaign spending and donation rules in respect of recall petitions. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, can tell us why that is the case. I believe that the Electoral Commission should take a leading role here and it is not good enough to leave this to local petitions officers. As my noble friend Lord Lennie said, any suggestion that these events would have a local feel is nonsense. Let us be clear: if a Member of Parliament is the subject of a recall petition, that is not a local event with a local feel. It will be a national news story and a national event that will get intense media scrutiny. What we need is consistency, clarity, definition and certainty. Leaving these matters in the hands of local petitions officers will not give us that, nor will advice and guidance from the Electoral Commission alone.

Along with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, who is not in her place today, I was one of the first electoral commissioners appointed by a political party and saw first hand the skills and expertise that the Electoral Commission has. When political parties submit their donation reports, they are checked by commission officials. Feedback is given and, if there are problems, they are taken up with the parties concerned. Commission officials also work with parties at times other than when returns are being submitted. To leave it to campaigners and petitions officers to make sure they have got this right is just not good enough.

What testing of the question, as detailed in Clause 9, has taken place? We need to be reassured that the question is fair, balanced and objective. The Electoral Commission has the people with the expertise to do that. It has tested questions before and did excellent work on the question for the recent Scottish referendum. Its report was accepted in its entirety by the Scottish Government and the question was changed to a much more neutral one. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Electoral Commission has tested the question, or been asked to test it? If the answer is no, can he please tell the House why not? When will the Government ask the Electoral Commission to carry out this important work?

I am also not happy with where we are in respect of numerous local campaigns working to unseat the sitting Member all apparently being set up with a limit of £10,000. Surely, we should seek to get a more level playing field here, with campaigns to unseat or keep the Member in their seat having similar expenditure limits. Not to seek to do this is clearly unfair. As I and other noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, have said, if the MP has a record of championing unpopular but honourable causes, certain people and organisations may not like that. The MP may take part in a peaceful protest, be arrested and spend a day or two inside. All of a sudden they are at risk of being recalled, following dozens of well funded campaigns, all spending £10,000 to get 10% of the electorate on to a petition. That cannot be right. Such MPs could find that all sorts of people and campaigns are working to unseat them. As I say, that cannot be right. Can the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, give some indication that he is willing to work with the Opposition to try to put in place some sort of protection or scheme to stop that situation arising?

I agree very much with the comments of my noble friend Lord Grocott when he called for the repeal of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. It is shocking to realise that, had that Act been in force, there would have been only 13—not 18—general elections since the Second World War.

In conclusion, today’s debate has highlighted a number of issues that will need detailed consideration by your Lordships’ House when we return after the Christmas and new year break. I look forward to taking part in that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord said that the petition wording had been developed in consultation with the Electoral Commission. Has the question actually been tested? That was the point I raised.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Officials are now arranging the use and testing of the wording of the petition and are in contact with the commission about the form that that testing will take. We can discuss that further—if necessary, off the Floor.

Political Parties: Funding

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 10th December 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for introducing this debate. I agree with him that he is a happy and friendly noble Lord. I always enjoy our conversations together, whether they are in the Bishops’ Bar, outside the Table Office when we are waiting to put our Questions down, or anywhere else. I see the points that he makes about politicians and the low feelings in the House of Commons. Unlike the noble Lord and my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, I have never served in the other place but Members there and Members of this House are honourable and only a few exceptions cause problems.

The funding of political parties is an extremely important issue, and having healthy parties is crucial to our democracy. Whether locally or nationally, most people elected to public office stand on a party ticket. Those elected to form the Government of the UK, the Opposition or devolved institutions or to form the administration of a local council are drawn from people who, in virtually all cases, are elected from party tickets.

However, before we get to the point of seeking elected office, parties must have structures and procedures in place. They must have built up organisations and developed the skills to undertake campaigns. All this costs money, and everyone in this debate wants the funding of our political parties to be transparent, open and free from suspicion of people buying influence or seeking favours.

Over a number of years there have, as my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, been a number of attempts to reform party funding. The present interests or concerns can be traced back to the 1990s and the last years of the Conservative Government led by John Major. The biggest reform followed the report undertaken by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which led to the 2000 Act commonly known as PPERA. It introduced spending limits for national election campaigns, the regulation of donations, the publication of what money had been received in each quarter by the parties and the publication of annual accounts, among other things, including the establishment of the Electoral Commission.

Since then, there have been other problems. After the 2005 election, we saw allegations of cash for peerages, which went on for well over a year. We then had the review by Sir Hayden Phillips, to which other noble Lords have referred, but the interparty talks were suspended in 2007. Then we had the election of the coalition Government, whose agreement said:

“We will also pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics”.

We have had the inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life into party finance, published in November 2011. It is a good report with lots of sensible recommendations on how party funding could be reformed. However, the biggest problem is that the public—the taxpayer—would not accept additional public funds going to parties when we are in such difficult economic times and when efforts to improve the public finances and the economy are set to continue well into the next Parliament, no matter which party or parties are in government after May next year. That is the real issue and one that the parties cannot ignore.

The interparty talks again failed to reach agreement, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said, and the Government moved ahead with their lobbying Bill. There have been other developments. In terms of my own party, my noble friend Lord Collins led a review which fundamentally changed the relationship we have with the trade unions, with individual union members having to opt in, as the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, said. That in itself may bring about other changes regarding the funding of political parties. These are difficult issues to resolve but I am firmly of the opinion that they must be resolved by agreement between the parties and that that agreement must not produce winners or losers. It needs to be a fair funding settlement whereby, in effect, every party has to give up something or make changes but where every party also gains as well. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made some powerful points about how important it is to look at what impact that might have, particularly on the smaller parties. A deal can be made only on that basis and that is the real challenge for everyone who wants to seek a resolution to this problem.

The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee came to similar conclusions in its report published on 29 January 2012. It said that a solution perceived as partisan would undermine any positive impact on public opinion which would otherwise be achieved by resolving this issue.

I want to move on and look at some of the suggestions that have been made in recent years. Some have considerable merit and others not so much. As I said before, additional state support for parties in our present economic climate is not something that, in my opinion, the public are going to accept, but the proposals put forward by Andrew Tyrie MP, John Denham MP and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—particularly in connection with making savings on things such as the freepost costs and possibly using that money in a different way—are certainly worth exploring further. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, has any idea of the sums of money that would be involved, which might be used in a different way. Would it be possible for this money to be used to begin to limit the size on donations received by a political party? I do not have any figures but could a start be made? It would be good to get the noble Lord’s views on this.

Often when people look at party funding reform, it is suggested that there should be some reduction in the national local spending limits to curtail expenditure and stop the development of an arms race. In a previous life I was the director of finance for the Labour Party. A political party is not shielded from the everyday cost pressures that any other organisation faces. I refer to things like mortgage payments, rents, pay claims, IT costs, insurance and other office costs. Many of these limits for campaigning in national elections have not risen for many years. I really do not want to see an arms race, but parties must be able to mount effective campaigns with reasonable expenditure limits.

I have always liked the idea of fixing limits, but then building in a process whereby an annual uprating for inflation is made as a matter of course. That would let you protect the original decision you made and allow for reasonable annual increases which would not become a row after a number of years because no one had actually dealt with the issue. Then you have to deal with rises to cover four or five years in one go.

I did this with the Labour Party membership fee. No one ever wanted to put the fees up and they were withering on the vine. After five or six years we would end up having a big row because the fees had to be put up. There was always trouble at conference about this, so I proposed, and it was agreed by the National Executive Committee, that in future our fees would be put up on 1 January every year using the October figure for RPI, rounded up to the nearest 50p. We had a standard rate membership fee and a reduced rate at half that which was for unemployed and retired people, and then we had a rate for elected people such as Members of the House of Lords. That was to be double the standard rate. It took the heat out of everything. There are no more rows about membership fees at party conferences or anywhere else. The system is simple, fair and reasonable, and everyone accepts it.

I have always been a bit reluctant to entertain schemes that involve tax reliefs, but I wonder if the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, could say a little about what thinking there is in government about them. My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours made some valuable points about this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, has kindly written to me this week about the question of the governance of the Electoral Commission. I know that we are not going to look at this issue until after the election, if at all, but I do think that if any of these changes take place, we must also look at how the regulator is held to account and is subject to proper challenge. I do not believe that speeches in the House of Commons present that proper challenge in areas such as the governance of the Electoral Commission. These are major issues that need to be taken on, so we need to make sure that they are done properly. I was for many years an electoral commissioner and my experience tells me that we need to look very carefully at the whole question of the commission’s governance.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dykes, for tabling this short debate. It is important that we have healthy political parties that can function properly and that the political system is free from the suspicion of acting improperly in relation to party funding matters. While we often sit and watch the TV or see in the newspapers an opponent’s party getting caught up in all sorts of funding nonsense, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has said, in the end we all lose because people begin to think that all the parties are at it. They think that the system is corrupt and we all suffer as a result. It is really important that we get this right. There should be no winners or losers, but a fair, functioning system that actually respects everyone.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I have been in the House for almost five years. When I filled in the forms I was in the bizarre position of having to explain that I was actually being paid a salary by the Labour Party. It paid me money.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I wish my party had paid me. The first time I worked for my party, in the 1966 general election, when I took four weeks off from writing my PhD to be the party’s assistant press officer, I worked flat out—probably 14 to 16 hours a day for four weeks. At the end of it, Lord Byers, who was then the party’s chair, presented me with a £50 note, which I had never seen before and which in those days was a substantial sum of money. I and a friend spent a very enjoyable holiday in France on the basis of that £50 note. That is the only occasion on which I have benefited from money flowing the other way.

There is a consensus on the need to limit the impact of money on politics. There is also a particularly negative campaign from the right-wing media that we are all in politics only for the money. All I say on that is that I would encourage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who pursues many very effective campaigns in politics, also to campaign to ensure that those right-wing newspapers pay their full taxes in the country which they seek to defend because we all know that they do their utmost to avoid that.

The problem for all of us is that political campaigning costs money and the public, as consumers of politics, expect the parties to put leaflets through their doors, to phone them and to maintain websites, Twitter feeds and so on. When I was out in Hull two or three weeks ago, people told me on the doorstep, “How good to see you. Hardly anyone ever comes round and asks us about our political attitudes”. I was glad that we were doing it there, but in quite a lot of constituencies, no parties really manage to do that actively. We know that it does not come for free and that maintaining a basic constituency organisation requires a level of funding. Voters complain vigorously when parties do not maintain contact with them but show no willingness to help pay for those activities.

That pushes us towards the question of donors. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, and other noble Lords asked whether all the political parties could manage on less money and depend more on volunteers—but we all face similar problems in how many volunteers we can attract. Perish the thought, but if UKIP had three or four really major donors, that might drive the three parties together to an eventual consensus on this issue.

We all know the context for this debate. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 introduced some important changes in the field of party funding. It established the Electoral Commission, about which the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has rightly raised issues today and on previous occasions. It required political parties to register with the Electoral Commission, set down accounting requirements for parties, introduced controls on donations to parties and their members, and controlled campaign expenditure within certain periods, both for parties and third parties in national election campaigns. I stress “control periods” because I suspect that all three parties have spent a fair amount of money in the last four weeks. We are just about to start the control period for the election; that is part of the problem. The Act set down rules on the donations received and expenses incurred in election campaigns and required companies to obtain approval before making political donations. These provisions are useful and important. Political parties have to keep records of donations over £500, and donations over £7,500 have to be declared to the Electoral Commission, which publishes details every quarter of donations received by political parties. That information is published on its website and is accessible to all—so far, so good. Parties can only receive donations from permissible sources: individuals who are on the electoral register, UK-registered companies—I stress “registered” as that raises a number of questions of definition—trade unions, building societies and other bodies such as unincorporated associations and limited liability partnerships.

The Electoral Administration Act 2006 introduced further provisions on the disclosure of loans to political parties. Since these reforms, there have been continued public and media attacks on large donations and on trade union funding—to which I shall return—which have led to further reports. These include the 2004 review by the Electoral Commission, reports by Sir Hayden Phillips and the Constitutional Affairs Select Committee in 2006 and, most recently, in 2011, a report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which recommended, among other things, a £10,000 annual cap on donations, trade union members having to opt in to fees paid to political parties if donations are to be counted individually—I stress that was a proposal from the Committee on Standards in Public Life; it was not a partisan proposal by other political parties—and an increase in public funding.

The problem is in getting consensus among the political parties on this. We all have different interests and we all have different sources of donations. My party has proudly said on its website that when the Electoral Commission has published the number of donations to political parties, over the past three years we have received on several occasions more individual donations than the Labour Party. The problem is that we have not received half as many large corporate donations or donations from other collectivities known as trade unions, or indeed any other large donations—let alone those received by the Conservative Party. In that sense, it does us good as a democratic principle, but it does not provide us with the money we need to employ staff, work on our website and do all the other things that need to be done.

We had a further round of discussions in the light of the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life which the Deputy Prime Minister convened in 2012-13. Seven meetings were held and the Deputy Prime Minister made one thing clear in setting out the remit, which was that in the current circumstances of a squeeze on public spending, there was no possibility of increasing state funding for political parties. After those discussions, the group failed to agree, and it is quite clear that between now and the next election we are not going to make any progress. Over the past 25 years we have established a whole set of additional funding for political parties—Short money, Cranborne money and the like—which has been very useful and has helped us to carry out our parliamentary functions and to raise the quality of our political research. However, public support for the expansion of political public funding is clearly absent at the present moment. So those talks broke down and we are stuck. We need to fund political parties and we benefit enormously from not having to pay for radio and television advertising, but politics and political campaigning cost money.

The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, raised the question of the extent to which the harsh regulation that we all suffer, including under IPSA once you are elected, discourages political recruitment and political retention. I think that that is an enormous problem and we will all need to address it once the election is out of the way and we have seen many good MPs from all parties retire rather than continue. I think that the noble Lord and I would probably agree that some of the best of the new Conservative intake are retiring after one period in Parliament, regrettably, because they really do not want to put up with the situation in which they live. That is a loss to us all in terms of democratic politics as much as those retiring from other parties.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, for many of us, the world in its current form ends on 8 May 2015. If anyone here knows what the shape of the new Government will be, I would love them to tell me so that I can put down a large sum with the bookmakers and donate the winnings to my political party. I have no knowledge of that. What I am saying is that awkward people like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, should insist, as soon as they come back, that it is put back on the agenda because it is a very important question and we cannot get away from it. I therefore encourage him to continue to stir on all of this.

I am not entirely sure that I agree with the noble Lord that trade unions act as virtuous collectivities, which I think is what he was saying, with benign general secretaries representing the enlightened interests of their diverse memberships. That is not quite how I see all the general secretaries of trade unions, so there are some questions around that.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

Will the noble Lord accept that our contributions come from individual members paying in so many pence per week? The contributions come from individual trade union members paying the political levy.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will accept that. A proportion of the fees that individual members pay is deducted for a political fund which goes to one political party. How conscious or voluntary that is is, of course, part of the dispute.

I have a great deal of personal sympathy for the argument made by several noble Lords in support of gift aid tax relief. That is absolutely part of the way forward and it is one of the issues that quite a few of us, in whatever position we find ourselves after the election, should put straight back on to the agenda. We can then argue about the cap to be set, but again we are facing the problem that so far, the evidence of the number of voters who are sufficiently committed to any political party to want to pay money to it has fallen and we therefore need to increase it yet again. Some of us, and I am one of them, do our best to narrow the gap by entering the EuroMillions lottery each week and promising that we will give a substantial part of our winnings to our political party. Unfortunately only the SNP has benefited from that so far, not the Liberal Democrats or any other party.

I had expected the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to ask me why the Government have not commenced the part of the last Act which deals with the tax status of donors. The answer I was ready to give to him, and which I cannot resist giving to him, is that the tax status of donors is actually not very easy to establish during a current tax year. For example, whether someone is domiciled in Britain or not is not entirely clear until after the end of the tax year. It is also a matter of confidentiality between the taxpayer and HMRC. If we are to have an information data gateway between HMRC and political parties that political parties can access, which might well be part of what we need to do, it will take us a year or two to establish—my notes say a minimum of two years. That, again, is an issue which we may wish to return to after the election. The question of whether or not a company is registered within Britain and carrying out serious activities in Britain is also a very difficult issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I will see what can be done in that respect and, if possible, I will write to the noble Lord.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I also mentioned the whole issue of freepost. I know he does not have figures here, but maybe we could look again at how much we spend on freepost in the UK, and use that money in a slightly different way.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Again, I will take that back and see whether we can write to the noble Lord.

Electoral Registration

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 26th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I place on record my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for securing this debate today in the Moses Room. I am pleased to be speaking in this debate, as I am always pleased to speak in any debate about how important it is for citizens to be registered to vote and participate in our democracy, no matter where they live.

I am the chair of the All-Party Group on Voter Registration, so it was good to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who is a very active member of our group. We have had some interesting discussions in recent meetings about what we need to do to increase the number of people on the register. I confess that I did not know that there was a group on overseas voters, and I have today asked the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, if I could be involved in any future work. I think the report by the cross-party group, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, is a very good one and provides a welcome opportunity to focus on this issue.

It is important for any democracy to have simple and easy processes in place to ensure that its citizens can register to vote and cast their vote at elections. The number of people presently registered to vote who live overseas is only a few thousand, and even in 2010—the year of the previous general election—the figure peaked at 32,739. Since the introduction of overseas voting, the all-time high was in 1991, when 34,454 people were registered to vote. We shall see whether that figure is bettered in the forthcoming general election. However, these are small numbers when you consider, as the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and the noble Viscount told us, that there are more than 5 million British citizens living abroad at present; of those, probably 3 million have lived in the UK in the past 15 years, so under the current system are eligible to vote.

British citizens living abroad have had the right to vote in UK parliamentary elections since 1985. The eligible period was initially five years, but that was extended to 20 years following the introduction of the 1989 Act, and subsequently it was brought back down to 15 years on the introduction of the 2000 Act. That was brought about by a huge amount of change in the political and electoral make-up of the UK. The process to register as an overseas elector is relatively straightforward, with probably the biggest barrier being that people do not realise that they have the right to vote, while getting another British citizen to attest to the application may be another one. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, made an important point about service men and women and their right to vote. I fully endorse all his remarks.

The introduction of individual electoral registration would remove the latter requirement for attestation. It will be interesting to see whether that was in reality a barrier if voter registration improves as a result of that one change. As I have said previously, I used to be a member of the Electoral Commission, which certainly took the issue very seriously. We sought to improve on the number of people living abroad who are registered to vote. I would also like to inform noble Lords that my own parents are both British citizens and citizens of the Irish Republic. They have been living in the Republic of Ireland since 2002, but they have never chosen to vote in a UK election because they participate in elections in the Irish Republic. They feel that that is right for them. However, they certainly have the right to vote here, although they will lose it in 2017. I might have one more go at trying to persuade them to register to vote so that they can cast their votes in the 2015 general election.

The problems in getting people to register to vote are well identified in the report. Perhaps the biggest barrier is actually being able to locate expatriate Britons because of the very poor communications that can exist when people are living abroad. As I say, I expect that many expatriate Britons have no idea that they have the right to vote in UK general elections, and that that right lasts for 15 years after leaving the country. The report also identifies that they have a problem with the many organisations that are involved. These include the Electoral Commission, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the local electoral registration office and others. It should also be noted as a matter of regret that in some local authorities, the whole electoral registration service can be seen as one that is not given quite the priority it deserves. That has an effect in getting citizens registered to vote, both those living in the UK and those living abroad. That needs to change.

I thought that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about our embassies and consulates around the world taking no real lead in marking UK elections as part of their work was a very good one. It is a big omission on the part of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. We are aware of how many embassies and high commissions in the UK mark elections in their respective countries with events, receptions and voting along with their own citizens who are living here. That is a very good thing.

The recommendations are all positive, but I would say that a lot more needs to be done in the UK to locate the 6 million people living here who are not on the register. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said, appointing a specific Minister to co-ordinate all government departments to radically increase the take-up of overseas voting seems a good idea. Perhaps we should broaden that requirement to making one Minister responsible for getting more people in general on to the electoral register, both those at home and abroad.

The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, will have heard me say many times before that if we end up with fewer people on the electoral register at the end of the IER process than we had at the start, that will be a matter of much regret. That the Electoral Commission is devoting more time and resources to these issues is a good thing, although I think that we should also look at other organisations and how can they help in registering people. Here in the UK, the Bite the Ballot campaign is able to get people on to the register for a few pence. If the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, was here, I am sure that he would be able to tell us the exact amount. However, it is literally a few pence. Only last week I made a point in Grand Committee about data sharing. Much more work needs to be done on this. Experian and similar organisations know where we all live and hold a great deal of data about us all. I am sure that they could help locate voters both here in the UK and abroad and get them on to the electoral register. I also very much like the idea of our embassies and consulates abroad taking a much more proactive interest in our elections here and working with the expatriate communities.

I am not so sure about the electronic voting recommendation because I want to know a bit more about it. I am worried about trying to run before we can actually walk. I note that the group did not address the issue of the 15-year limit on being able to vote. I am also aware of the case of Shindler v the United Kingdom in the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the limit was not a breach of Article 3 of Protocol 1. I think that the 15-year limit is about right and there is not going to be any change this side of the general election. After the election it is of course a matter for the Government of the day to keep under review and to propose changes to Parliament in due course.

I would like to raise one final matter that was also mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that he may want to get his cross-party group to look at the idea of having a Member or Members elected to represent UK voters living abroad. The French National Assembly has elected Members who represent the expatriate community across the whole world. It would be good to see how that is done, and how they have increased participation rates. The Member for Northern Europe actually lives in London. She used to work in the House of Commons until her election to the National Assembly in France a couple of years ago. I am sure that she will be delighted to come to the group and talk about what happened there. We could also get people from France to talk to us because they are one example of a near neighbour that has gone down this route.

In conclusion, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for allowing us to debate this topic. I am sure that we will return to it again and again.

Sri Lanka

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Monday 24th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the UK was a sponsor of the resolution of the UN Human Rights Council. We are actively concerned in this issue. We are not at all happy about the refusal of the Sri Lankan authorities to co-operate with the attempts to have an external inquiry, because of our concerns that the internal inquiry’s recommendations have not yet been implemented.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House what action the British Government will take to ensure that the Sri Lankan Government co-operate more fully with the UN report that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, just mentioned in his question?

Deregulation Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Thursday 20th November 2014 Grand Committee

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendments and I concur with the comments of my noble friends Lord Rooker, Lord Rosser and Lord Grantchester. I would like the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, when he responds, to clarify how the clause applies to the Legal Services Board, which came into force in 2009. Its overriding mandate is to ensure that regulation in the legal services sector is carried out in the public interest and that the interests of consumers are placed at the heart of the system. It oversees 10 separate bodies, the approved regulators which directly regulate practising lawyers.

The board oversees the organisation that handles consumer complaints about lawyers, the Office for Legal Complaints. It works to eight regulatory objectives, which are: protecting and promoting the public interest; supporting the constitutional principle of the rule of law; improving access to justice; protecting and promoting the interests of consumers; promoting competition in the provision of services in the legal sector; encouraging an independent, strong, diverse and effective legal profession; increasing public understanding of citizens’ legal rights and duties; and promoting and maintaining adherence to the professional principles of independence and integrity, proper standards of work, observing the best interests of the client, complying with the duty to the court and maintaining client confidentiality. Will the Minister confirm that, whatever comes out of this, the Government do not see that this new duty in any way overrides the regulatory objectives to which I referred, that nothing would change in that respect, and that all that it would do is re-emphasise competition in the provision of service in the legal sector?

We are talking about growth, but I hope that at the end of all this we are not just creating more work for lawyers. As other noble Lords have said, it is certainly confusing, and that cannot be the Government’s intention. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot accept my noble friend’s amendment, will respond very carefully to the points raised. These are serious matters, and it cannot be the Government’s intention to create more work for lawyers and more expense for business.

[Baroness Thornton (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment. My noble friend Lord Hunt cannot be with us this afternoon, so I shall expand on the issues around the CQC which he raised in Grand Committee last time. He asked for an explanation of why the CQC would not respond to a request that sought its views on this matter. We asked it for its views on the clause and were informed by the Department of Health that it had told that CQC that it was not appropriate for it to respond to our inquiry. Indeed, my noble friend forwarded to me a copy of the letter that he received from the department as a result of his exchange with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The letter says:

“CQC sought views from the Department of Health and Cabinet Office before responding to the request. The CQC is a non-departmental public body, and is part of the Government landscape”—

whatever that means. It goes on,

“As such, it was not considered appropriate for the organisation to give its views to the Opposition on a piece of legislation. This is in line with the civil service code. I understand that the CQC replied to confirm it would not be appropriate for them to comment and suggested that the Office of the Leader of the Opposition contact the Department directly should there be any further queries”.

So we might take that one up anyway.

This letter raises more questions and concerns than it answers. Given that today marks the publication of guidance for NHS organisations on the duty of candour and the fit and proper persons requirement, it seems rather ironic that a press release from the CQC says:

“One week to go before new NHS regulations to improve openness and transparency”.

Well, yes.

I shall ask the Minister for some further points of clarification in this context. If the CQC cannot answer the questions directly that we want to put, I would like to know what we should do. These are the questions that we think that it would be legitimate to ask. I quote from the CQC’s website on the principles of that body. It says:

“Throughout everything we do, we always … put people who use services at the heart of our work … have an open and accessible culture … are independent, rigorous, fair and consistent … work in partnership across the health and social care system … are committed to being a high-performing organisation … promote equality, diversity and human rights”.

As those of us who were involved in the legislation two or three years ago know, the CQC is accountable to the public, Parliament and the Secretary of State for Health for the regulation of most of England’s healthcare provision, including hospitals, both NHS and private, GPs, dentists, care homes and other institutions. It does a very important job. Surely we have to be confident of the CQC’s independence and that it will have only patients’ interests in mind in all the work that it does. How will this work alongside the duty to consider economic growth? I really do not expect to hear soothing sounds from the Minister about this because the House needs to know that this has been tested in some way and that questions have been asked and hypothetical cases have been put, such as a care home whose business interests are at risk because of the work of the CQC, with a loss of jobs, meaning that economic growth is therefore in jeopardy. Those are totally legitimate questions to put about the duty being imposed on the CQC. Those are the unintended consequences that my noble friend referred to in his opening remarks. We need to know whether the CQC would find itself in a policy clash situation. Does the Minister accept that any danger that the economic growth regulation might have a chilling effect is actually disastrous when talking about the country’s foremost health regulator? It is completely legitimate that the Committee should want to know the answers to these questions before the CQC is included in this legislation.

I was not at all comforted by reading the draft guidance. Point 5 on page 7 says:

“The impact that regulators can have on sector-level economic growth will depend on the context and/or sector(s) within which they operate. In order to understand sector level impacts, where possible regulators should consider how their actions impact on indicators such as consumer confidence and fair competition”.

In the context of the health service, where competition is being put at the heart of service delivery by the Government, that seems to be an extremely important point and raises questions about the problems that the CQC might face. We know that the health service—which we face having to save yet again after the general election—is already a lawyers’ playground. How much more of a lawyer’s playground will it be if these issues are not resolved?

Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Grand Committee

I think that my noble friend will concede that the Government have been able to proceed with the accelerated process for the transition to IER because Parliament was reassured successively and continuously by Ministers that the process was being very carefully managed. It would be monitored and reported, and there would be a careful assessment of the appropriate decision-making process so that we could make the final vital decision as to whether IER was firmly in place on the basis of the best possible evidence. On that note, I support what my noble friend and the Government are doing, but with some reservations about the extraordinary importance of the timescale in this process.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I have no issues with the orders or regulations before us today. They are part of a series that have been coming to Grand Committee for consideration as we move towards individual electoral registration. I do, though, have concerns that I have raised many times before in Grand Committee regarding the speed at which we are moving—the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to this—and the risk of people dropping off the register. I do not believe that the Government have given sufficient weight to this as part of their preparation for the switchover. I have never understood what the rush was about on the part of the Government and why they would risk the system being brought into disrepute, all for the sake of a bit more time and planning. As the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said, this was originally an idea of the Labour Government. I am a big supporter of IER but the Government’s speedy approach to it worries me.

We have never had an over-registration problem in the UK; rather, we have an under-registration problem. Much academic research states that 6 million or up to 9 million people are not registered to vote. The Representation of the People (Scotland) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014 and the Representation of the People (England and Wales) (Amendment No. 2) Regulations 2014 are sensible moves enabling the declaration made by overseas Crown servants and British Council employees to be made online, along with a requirement that EROs must, where necessary, send a second reminder to people who are registered by virtue of a declaration when their declaration is about to expire. It is also sensible that Crown servants and British Council employees are able to use the online service in the same way as overseas electors and service voters.

I looked at the consultation list and would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, saying a bit more about it, particularly who the members of the Cabinet Office panel of experts in electoral administration are, how someone is appointed to this body, who chairs it, and what its remit is. I think that a wider policy community could be consulted on matters of electoral policy. I note that the Government consulted the Electoral Commission as part of bringing this order to your Lordships’ House, as required by Section 7 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I am talking generally rather than specifically about this order, but if the Government are not going to consult the political parties directly, I suggest it would be good practice for officials to ask the Electoral Commission whether this issue has been brought to the attention of the Parliamentary Parties Panel set up under the Act, which is formally required to be consulted. I was a member of that body for many years before I became an electoral commissioner and I do not believe for one minute that its full potential has ever been reached. The panel has election experts from all the parties who can give a very practical and down-to-earth view of what things are like on the ground. I think that is sometimes missing from our discussions here.

The Electoral Registration Pilot Scheme Order 2014 is a sensible move and I am happy to support it. However, will the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, tell the Grand Committee what work is going on to identify other departments and agencies that could be brought into scope to assist in getting eligible citizens on to the electoral register? As I said, at least 6 million people are not on it. The noble Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Tyler, referred to the fact that young males do not always go on the register. That is an important point, but the same could be said of people living in social housing and the private rented sector, and of ethnic minorities. Whole groups of people are not registered to vote. If we get to the point where fewer people are registered to vote when the measure comes fully into operation than was the case previously, that would be a terrible position to be in and a matter of much regret. It would be bad for democracy in this country and for our reputation both nationally and internationally, so we must avoid that.

Have the Government thought about speaking to large organisations such as Experian which hold vast quantities of data on everybody—Experian has more data than anyone else—and have the whole unedited electoral register, so they know where everyone is? I am sure that those organisations could very easily give every ERO in the country a list of everybody in an area who is not on the register. That would be a fantastic way to identify these people and get them on to the register. I think that it would be a very positive move. The data exist and these organisations could provide it. In addition to getting more people on to the register, which is good for democracy, some relevant people would dramatically improve their credit rating because that is affected by not being on the electoral register. Perhaps the Government could look at this issue. I would welcome the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, commenting on that point, perhaps not today but in the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

Before my noble friend leaves that point, is he saying that there was actually some legislative, statutory problem with the DVLA which did not apply to the DWP? If so, I totally understand the delay, but three years of delay because of some administrative, bureaucratic decision making within the Department for Transport is more depressing. I accept that good progress has been made and I hope my noble friend has not taken my contribution as being in any way negative about the overall process. However, this particular episode is not a very happy one since we were raising these issues more than three years ago.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, makes a very fair point. We are all looking back with care: we understand that we have to be right and proper, but it comes with a bit of a spring in your step at the same time. There is a question of care and there is also just not moving very quickly. I think we need to get on with it.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

We understand that but I stress that there are other major issues. I happen to have been involved in some of the discussions about changing the system of legal protection for government collection and sharing of data. Noble Lords may remember that there were discussions early in the coalition Government’s period of office about whether or not we could do without the census next time round because all the material collected in the census is actually collected by the Government in the process of normal procedures, year by year. Some of the data are collected by local authorities, such as those about children going to primary school, which is one of the best indicators of the changing social and ethnic basis of a local community. If we were able to put all the data together, much of what we get from the 10-yearly census would be provided. However, if we put all of that material together—including health records and NHS data—we would be in an area in which ordinary citizens and those concerned with data privacy begin to be extremely upset. This is part of the reason why the good progress we made with the DWP data gave us a feeling that we could move along in that way. We are now extending this by looking at the DVLA data. I am told that the pilot will start in December or early January and should be completed by 31 March. It will not be too late for late registration for some of these people. As I said in my opening speech, I stress that access to the DVLA database is not merely a matter of matching but also of discovering people who are entitled to be on the register but who are not registered. The unmarried young men category in particular, which we are all familiar with as a weak area, would enable us to make the electoral register more complete.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, that Experian has a symbiotic relationship with the electoral register because it uses it for a great many things. If you are not on the electoral register, you are often not on the Experian database. Another area we are concerned about is the overlap between public and private databases. When discussing the issue with various people who are concerned about it, I have explained that there is no clear boundary between some public and private databases. For example, when I renew my car tax online, the first thing the DVLA does is check the private insurance database to ensure that my car is insured. That is an example of the public going to the private and coming back. These are all part of what is changing as public and private databases become much easier. The Government—whichever Government they may be—hope that an enormous amount of time, effort and money will be saved by moving more and more of these kinds of data online.

The problem is that this has huge implications for individual privacy and we have to be concerned about it. When talking in Bradford nearly two years ago about why so many people are not on the register, I was told vigorously by local councillors and officials that those people do not want to be registered. They do not want the state to know who they are and where they are. That is part of the issue here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

The noble Lord is absolutely right on the point about the merging of public and private databases, and indeed it is the point I was trying to make. So much information about people is now being held by Experian and a host of other bodies that I cannot believe it is beyond the Government to talk to Experian and others, saying, “We are not looking for people’s medical records or driving licences. What we are after is the data matching that is taking place for you being provided to local authorities. They can then see that in a certain street there are three people who are not on the register but they do actually exist. We know that because we have their bank details and driving licence particulars and we know where they shop”. All we would ask for is that Experian should give the council the name and address; it is as simple as that. I get the privacy point, but my worry is that we will end up with fewer people on the register than we have ever had before, and that is a terrible place to be. I think that the Government should do everything possible to make sure that that does not happen.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I would mark that after the next election, we will have a major debate and a draft Bill on the question of data sharing. If we were to access the Google and Amazon databases, I am sure that that would go a good deal further to identifying those who are not on the register, but the Government do not have the legal right to do so, and again, it raises huge questions of privacy.

I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who raised the question of an additional door-to-door canvass in the spring of 2015. When I visited the ERO for Wandsworth a couple of years ago—I should mention that the Wandsworth ERO is a member of the Government’s consultative panel—he told me that given the mix of sheltered social housing and new apartment blocks at the top end of the market, the borough of Wandsworth now has some 25,000 homes that are behind locked doors. The problem of gated accommodation, which all of us who deliver leaflets are painfully aware of, is making it more and more difficult to conduct the door-to-door canvass that we used to think was such an important part of the exercise. That is why we have to do all these supplementary things as far as we can. We intend to complete a door-to-door canvass as far as possible, but that is becoming much more difficult as we go on.

I will have to write to the noble Lord about precisely who was on the advisory panel of EROs. I have met a number of EROs during the last three years of the process, and have much enjoyed talking to them about the particular issues with which they are concerned. I will happily write on that.

There were a number of other questions. Why has it taken us so long to get round to data matching? I have explained that DWP records actually took us a very long way, and we are now seeing what we can do to gain further completeness. I was asked whether it was a cross-section of 24 areas—incidentally, it is 24 areas but 21 electoral registration officers, because in Scotland the electoral registration system covers several local authority areas. The areas range from Harrow, Southwark and Trafford to the City of Edinburgh, Bournemouth, Coventry and Newport—a fairly good mixture. I have marked one or two areas which have a high concentration of students and several inner-city areas. It includes the City of Edinburgh, for example, as well as Stratford-on-Avon. It is a pretty good cross-section of the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, rightly keeps pressing us—as I hope he will continue to—on how confident we are that we will come out with a higher rate of registration than before. I can say only that we are continuing to work towards that objective. We have made some extra funds available to local authorities for this and we are now considering whether further additional funds would be helpful. From what has happened in the last two or three elections, we all know that late registration produces a great boon. We will not know how successful we have been probably until the middle of April 2015, because a lot of the target groups will not have got round to filling in their online forms until the campaign is upon them.

The Government will continue to stress the importance of registering and of people being involved. We are working with a number of non-governmental organisations. I spoke at a Bite the Ballot conference a couple of months ago. Bite the Ballot is working very hard, as are a number of other organisations, with particular vulnerable groups—in its case, young people. However, it is a matter for all of us, in all political parties and beyond, to keep up the momentum as we approach the election of saying that it is very important that you register to vote and that you do vote. That is the final dimension of trying to capture the maximum number of people.

I have two other things to add about the overseas dimension.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will not have to organise the next election. Many of us fear that it will be very disorganised in this respect and that the competition among four or five parties nationally, which will quite often be a competition between different pairs of parties in different constituencies, may make for an extremely confusing election campaign. I spoke at an annual general meeting in Yorkshire and said that I thought we were going to have what would feel much more like a series of by-elections across the entire country. It will be very different constituency by constituency when it comes to it, but let us hope that it does raise the interest.

On the question of overseas voters—

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again. I know one or two local authorities. One of them is Manchester, where there has been a catastrophic drop-off in some areas in terms of registration, and that needs addressing. I also know of a local chief executive who was embarrassed to tell us that he sent letters out saying, “You haven’t been matched”, only to get one himself. He lives in the borough that he is the ERO for, and he himself had not been matched. He is not someone who has moved around very often; he has lived in the borough for many years and I assume that he has a bank account and stuff, but he did not match at all. There are one or two places where there has been a catastrophic drop-off. That is really bad. Perhaps the Minister could get his officials to talk to some of these local authorities. In certain pockets there are problems bubbling away.

Deregulation Bill

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 18th November 2014 Grand Committee

Debate on whether Clause 72 should stand part of the Bill.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I will be brief in my remarks. I make it clear at the start that I am not in opposition to the clause. I am using this debate as a device to raise a couple of issues and I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me and discuss them outside the Room. I am sure that he will not be able to answer these things today but I wanted to raise these issues.

First, I have considerable respect for the Electoral Commission and its staff, who do some excellent work. I had dealings with them as a senior official of the Labour Party. I was for many years the director of finance and served on the political parties panel, and then I kind of jumped ship and became a commissioner. I served on the Electoral Commission for four years, so I have experience on both sides on the fence. However, the time is rapidly approaching when we need to review the governance arrangements of the Electoral Commission. I accept entirely that it will not happen this side of the general election, but whatever party or parties are in power post the general election next year, we will need to look at the governance arrangements.

I am sure that noble Lords will know that the commission was set up after the 1997 general election. There was an inquiry by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, undertaken by that body at the request of the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair. That then led to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which set up the commission. I have always been of the opinion that the Electoral Commission should be a regulator in equal measure of both parties and the electoral registration service carried out by local authorities in England and Wales and by the electoral management boards in Scotland. That is not the case at the moment, as it is skewed much more towards parties, but registration is so important that we need to balance that out a bit.

The commission itself reports to a body known as the Speaker’s Committee, which is made up of senior parliamentarians in the other place. I am not of the opinion that that body necessarily gives the correct level of challenge to the commission all the time. I also know that the Constitutional Affairs Committee has some role in working with it. However, the time has come to discuss that and look at it carefully, and perhaps to give it to a particular Select Committee in the House of Commons to look at it. That may be the Constitutional Affairs Committee or the Public Accounts Committee.

When I came on to the commission I served as one of the first political commissioners. I was on the commission with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, Sir George Reid, who was the second Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament and really should be a Member of your Lordships’ House, and David Howarth, who was the Lib Dem MP for Cambridge.

I think that we all served very honourably and David still serves on the commission. We brought a lot of common sense to the discussion, but I sometimes felt that there was a bit of “them and us” in the commission. We were the political people and they could be a bit biased—could we really be trusted? We actually worked very honourably and well together. I think that we won people over in the end. We proved that it was rubbish, but it was an issue. Having people on the commission who are politicians or have a political understanding is important. We can bring a lot of common sense. I wanted to be involved and for that to be developed and increased. We will need a review to do that.

I will leave it there. I wanted to raise those issues and I hope that the noble Lord will agree to speak to me before Report. I entirely accept that we are doing this Bill here but I wanted to raise those issues because next year, whichever party is in power, there are things that we need to look at.

Elections: Weekend Voting

Lord Kennedy of Southwark Excerpts

Tuesday 1st July 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, elections cause a certain amount of disruption on whatever day of the week one holds them. That is unavoidable. The question of where the disruption falls depends on what day is chosen. On the question of the role of churches, I am reminded of the occasion when I took a young Liberal called Elizabeth Barker, now the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, whose father had been the Minister at Saltaire Methodist church, to Saltaire Methodist church one day when I was about to stand as parliamentary candidate in Shipley, and the sermon was wonderful. It did not quite go so far as to say that people should vote for the candidate who was there but it got very close. I would like to hope that the church will do things like that in the future.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab)]

My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has a point. Does the noble Lord agree that it is time for a root-and-branch review of polling day and that using schools should be a last resort for the community? We should look at other options and dismiss them from the whole process of voting.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, it is only six years since the previous Government looked at this. I am not aware of any strong pressure for change and there are disadvantages with all other days of the week. If we were to move to weekend voting there would be a strong argument for having two-day voting and that would be a much more complicated exercise in other ways.