Political Parties: Donation Rules

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd May 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

That was a slightly less consensual approach from my noble friend than that from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. If we did go down that road, I doubt whether any legislation would be retrospective. I suspect my noble friend would agree. It would be for the Electoral Commission in the first place to put proposals forward for such legislation.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests as a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. Does my noble friend the highly respected Minister agree that, unless we want political parties funded by taxpayers, there needs to be a sea change in the way that donors to all political parties are treated and respected? There should be no discrimination against them, and they should stop being vilified in the national press.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I agree. Political parties are an essential part of our democratic system. They give people choice at election time; they incubate and nurture the politicians who will run the country; and they provide a forum for political discussion and policy development. If they were not going to be funded by volunteers, they would be funded by the taxpayer, which would be a deeply unpopular suggestion. I applaud all those who, out of their post-tax income, subscribe to the political party that most accurately reflects their values. They should be applauded rather than denigrated. I am particularly grateful to my noble friend for the generosity that he has shown to my party.

Election Expenditure

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 13th February 2019 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

Yes. Before we had the Electoral Commission many of its responsibilities were discharged by the Home Office, which was, of course, run by political animals; namely, Ministers. It enhances confidence in the democratic process to have an independent commission, such as the Electoral Commission, in charge of the rules. We have no intention of departing from the principles which underpin the Electoral Commission. I think I am right in saying, as the Opposition spokesman at the time, that my party supported its establishment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

Despite my noble friend’s last answer, does he think that the Electoral Commission provides good value for money, with a budget of £17 million a year and 200 staff, which is more than most of the organisations it regulates?

[Lord Young of Cookham]

It is within my recollection that at the beginning of the coalition Government, when all public bodies were put under scrutiny, the Electoral Commission was asked to reduce its core expenditure by 30% in real terms—a very substantial target—so it had to make economies. I hope that, like all public bodies, it will seek efficiencies in every way possible. I note from its most recent annual report and accounts that it underspent by just over £1 million last year, and that money was returned to the taxpayer.

Economy: Personal Savings

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 12th July 2018 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

That this House takes note of the measures being taken to promote personal savings and the role they can play in building a stronger and fairer economy.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I offer heartfelt thanks to those noble Lords who have chosen to speak today. I know that personally I normally allocate the night before a speech to prepare or finalise my words—yes, these words have been prepared—and that many of your Lordships do likewise. Given the competing demands last night, I am very grateful to those in this Chamber who have decided to speak today. I am looking forward to hearing from all speakers but perhaps I may say how much I am looking forward to hearing, in particular, from my noble friend Lord Lilley and how pleased I am that he has chosen this debate for his maiden. We very much look forward to it.

I also preface my remarks by reminding your Lordships of my interests as listed in the register. I am on the advisory board of Metro Bank plc, and am the senior partner of Cavendish Corporate Finance, which advises companies in the financial services sector, including those in areas that I will cover today.

Despite our relatively small numbers this morning, I notice and welcome the enormous expertise of all the other speakers in this debate. In passing, I observe that this is the beauty of having in your Lordships’ House active working Peers of sufficient number to bring expertise to a debate like this, and it is why I am not convinced of the merits of too big a cull from our numbers of those with constructive knowledge.

Despite many predictions to the contrary, certainly given by some two years ago, much of the economy remains in good shape: GDP growth is up to 0.3% in May, from 0.2% in the previous quarter; ONS figures show exports at a record high of £620 billion in the year to May; tax receipts are up; and unemployment is down. However, as we consider these upward trends, we must of course consider something else—no, noble Lords will be pleased to hear that it is not the “B” word. We must consider the fundamentals that underpin this growth. How sound and sustainable are they?

There is a tendency to assume that all our prospects are determined by our legal and regulatory relationship with the European Union. Important though that is, we must not lose sight of matters that fall directly within our gift: technology, innovation, investment, research and so on. To add to that list, we are here to discuss savings, and specifically its role in making sure that our growth is sustainable and our productivity increasing. Governments tend to view savings with a degree of ambiguity: it is always tempting to encourage consumption now to boost tax revenues. One thing is certain about the UK, though: we never seem to save enough, regardless of where we are in the economic cycle of savings and tax revenues. However, the lack of savings harms our productivity by ultimately curtailing investment and innovation, and so it is neither trivial nor a quirk of the UK—it needs to be addressed.

What savings we do have are often locked up in unproductive assets such as property, stoking inflation and denying home ownership for too many. What can be done about it? In its most recent Financial Stability Report, the Bank of England states that household debt is now back below pre-financial crisis levels. If ever there is a time to pull hard on whatever policy levers we have, it is now. The economy is still growing and we need savings buffers to be replenished now.

Unsurprisingly, it is the least well off who have the least savings, forcing them to rely on high-cost credit. Clamping down on high-cost credit is not the answer. The reason why people use such services is not usually due to predatory lending, and is certainly not due to irresponsibility on the part of the borrower. It is simply not having savings to finance rainy-day activities such as trips to visit loved ones, white goods repairs or home improvement. The Building Societies Association is carrying out specific research into this. The biggest problem is affordability. The Government’s decision to take anyone earning up to £11,500 out of tax altogether has created more opportunities to save. We now need good policy to ensure that these opportunities are taken up. That is why we should commend the Help to Save scheme—a better targeted scheme than its namesake, Help to Buy. Help to Save allows anyone entitled to working tax credit or child tax credit to deposit up to £50 a month and receive up to £1,200 in tax-free bonuses. In addition, auto-enrolment has changed the nature of pension savings for good, with millions now contributing, giving them a real economic stake in our economy for the first time. Indeed, the proportion of eligible people contributing to workplace pension has risen from a low of 42% in 2013 to 81% today.

Accompanying these new schemes is an improvement in the financial advice available, through the new single financial guidance body, chaired by Hector Sants. Sound advice is a necessary condition of embedding a savings culture so that we can empower a new generation to take control of their finances responsibly. With savings policy and the vehicles available becoming more dynamic, the advice needs to reflect this. Bringing the work of the commendable Money Advice Service, the Pensions Advisory Service and the DWP Pension Wise guidance into one place is essential. As people move from ISAs to LISAs to pensions saving, giving them a single point of contact will enable them to make better decisions.

I also commend the ABI, which has produced a guide for the industry on working with and providing products to vulnerable customers. After all, the industry should not and does not have to wait for the regulator to develop an approach to dealing with customers who need additional help and advice. Having a vulnerability policy in place should be its first act of leadership on this issue.

Turning to regulation, it is first important to give credit where credit is due. The FCA is developing a highly progressive, market-leading approach to regulating new products and services. The “sandbox” is being imitated the world over as the best way to allow fintech firms to test out their products in a live firing exercise, so that they can understand how they will be treated when they scale up to the mass market. For savings and investment, this dynamic approach is creating new opportunities in AI, machine learning, fraud prevention and cybersecurity, and opportunities for the firms themselves through so-called regtech, which actually reduces compliance costs for regulated firms.

More prosaically, there are areas where the FCA needs to do better, especially in its over-zealous approach to consumer protection, which does long-term damage to both providers and savers. For example, the funding of FSCS is becoming hugely problematic for smaller firms. This is being driven by the lack of a long stop on claims, which means that pay-outs can still be demanded on advice that was provided in the 1980s. That does not seem right. It also means that the burden of covering this liability, of course, falls on those currently seeking advice, which seems unfair and makes the process more expensive for all those concerned.

Similarly, there remains too much legal ambiguity around the Financial Ombudsman Service, its judgments and the role of the FCA. Your Lordships will recall my comments in regard to the ombudsman during the Second Reading of the Enterprise Bill.

A good example of the issues with the ombudsman is the case of SIPPs, self-invested personal pensions. These are tax wrappers that enable investment into a range of HMRC-approved investments. The FCA has rightly acknowledged that SIPP operators are not responsible for the investment advice given to SIPP members—the former is responsible for the wrapper only—and yet this was overruled by the Financial Ombudsman Service, which is of course complete nonsense. The result is huge legal uncertainty for all SIPP providers and, more besides, continuing uncertainty as to the role of the ombudsman and its relationship with the FCA and the FSCS.

It might be a sensible starting point always to look at these issues from the perspective of the consumer—I understand that—but this should not include making judgments that are outside any current legal precedent. Ultimately, this will come back to the consumer, with less choice, more expensive advice and, yes, lower rates of savings and investments. I ask my noble friend the Minister to confirm to me—possibly later in writing—that it is still the Government’s policy to allow savers to invest in unregulated investments of their choice through a SIPP, which is a huge attraction to many who want to make their own investments and savings choice. If that is the case, what steps will Her Majesty’s Government take to ensure that SIPP providers will not be liable when, as is inevitable, some of these investments go wrong? I have seen huge uncertainty and I am very concerned about the SIPP market.

However, two other dynamics are potentially more impactful than government policy and regulation, both of which can be a force for good for savings: technology and new attitudes to responsible investment. First, technology is creating new products that make saving easier and even—believe it or not—fun for savers. Products such as Moneybox allow people to round up everyday purchases into investment funds. You buy your cup of coffee, you pay through Moneybox and you have the opportunity to put your change straight into a savings product. Monzo allows a customer to ring-fence a current account in any way to create pots of savings for different purposes. This is a far cry from filling in forms, going to the post office and getting plain vanilla, low-interest savings accounts.

Technology also helps with tackling the financial inclusion challenge. In 2012, 2 million people took out some form of high-cost credit. If they had access to savings pools this might not be necessary. Research has shown that if households had just £1,000 in accessible savings their risk of debt would be reduced by 44%, which could prevent half a million families from falling into problem debt.

The desire to save is ubiquitous but higher barriers exist for the poorest. Tax-free incentives such as ISAs are aimed at those who can afford to save thousands of pounds a year, so new businesses looking to help the unbanked, such as Pockit, which Cavendish is helping, are to be welcomed. It has found that few high-incentive savings products currently exist for those who can afford to put away a few pounds every week or month.

I recognise that the Government are addressing this issue from different directions. Last night—before 7 o’clock—I went to a DCMS reception for the inclusive economy at No. 10 Downing Street, where I met Jerry During, a director of Money A+E, which has a government grant and is an award-winning social enterprise that provides money, advice and educational services to BAME, black, Asian and minority ethnic people, and seeks to reach out to other communities in London. As I mentioned earlier, the Help to Save scheme will begin to address this problem, but technology can help as well. Companies like Aire provide non-standard credit scoring tools that allow normally sub-prime or unbanked borrowers to access cheaper loans.

Secondly, responsible investment is becoming increasingly interesting to the next generation of savers. Some 77% of 22 to 29 year-olds in the private sector are now contributing to a workplace pension. As these pots are built up and technology allows better management and more transparency, where people’s money is invested is becoming more important. The United Nations sustainable development goals create opportunities for people to save more, but by investing in things that matter to them. Closer to home, in 2016 Swindon Council crowdfunded a green bond to allow local residents to invest in local solar energy projects, which is marvellous. Connecting local savers to investment opportunities that they themselves have a community stake in can be very powerful.

While saving rates are still low, there are reasons to be optimistic. Government policy is coming together through different departments with new technology and evolving social attitudes to create the best opportunity we will get to embed a savings culture in the UK. In doing so we will improve our productivity and, most importantly, reduce financial exclusion. That is why I am pleased to move a debate on this subject and I look forward very much to the contributions of noble Lords and of course to the response of my noble friend the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. One never knows quite what to expect in any debate, but I had not expected a debate on savings to include an extremely interesting lesson about eighth-century politics. I am extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Lilley for that and for his welcome remarks in his maiden speech. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, was typically gracious enough to compliment my noble friend Lady Altmann. We all benefit from my noble friend’s extremely detailed knowledge of the savings and pensions industries—I will always remember to differentiate between the two—but she does not have a monopoly of wisdom. The time that was kindly allotted to us enabled a number of very interesting arguments to be fully developed. It was a pleasure to hear those arguments taken forward and to have a short-lived break from Brexit, which I understand will change very shortly.

My noble friend the Minister was, as ever, most courteous in his response. There is a limit to what the Government can do in a low-rate environment, but one thing they can do is listen to good advice. For that, I am very grateful.

Motion agreed.

Immigration Statistics

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 12th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham]

I am sure that the noble Baroness is right. Speaking from memory, I think that tax revenue from the cohort that she mentioned exceeds the amount of benefits paid to those people. I do not have the exact statistics in front of me, but I am sure that one can make available the net contribution of migrants to this country to the labour market.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that reliance on the International Passenger Survey is totally inadequate? The chairman of the public administration committee said recently that the immigration figures are little better than a best guess, while the Royal Geographical Society has said that they are not fit for purpose. Asking less than 0.6% of people who arrive in this country about their intentions without any corroboration or follow-up is surely a wholly inadequate way to measure these statistics.

[Lord Young of Cookham]

The IPS interviews 800,000 people per year, which is quite a broad base for a sample. When I asked the ONS about this, it confirmed that the IPS survey continues to be the best source of information to measure long-term international migration. However, as I said in response to my noble friend, it will strengthen that information by accessing data from other government sources which it could not access before. That will enhance the credibility of these figures, and the ONS plans to use the system I have just outlined by the end of 2019 with regular updates. As I have said, this will produce a richer set of statistics.

Party Funding Reform

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House and to our friends in Hansard for my voice. It is not at its best, having completed a half marathon for Water Aid just a short while ago. I should also make a declaration of interests, not all of which are in the register of interests because they are not required to be so, but I am a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party, and I have been a treasurer of the party for some 16 years. I am also chairman of the aforementioned Conservative Leaders Group. I hope to remain in the job and that it does not become redundant. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on securing the debate. Surprisingly, I agree with quite a lot of what he has said. Somewhat ironically, he and I both served on a committee to investigate aggressive fund-raising by charities. I hope that there is no need for a committee to look at aggressive fund-raising by political parties.

I start from the initial premise that parties ought to be self-sufficient and not reliant on state funding for their resources. I was lucky enough to be invited to the ACRE dinner this week at which the Edmund Burke award was presented to John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia. We were reminded that the source of political parties some 220 years ago, largely thanks to Edmund Burke, was created from a loose coalition of people who had roughly the same ideas. Since then the precise nature of a political party, its ownership, rules and structure, has changed and evolved over time, and unlike the emergence of limited companies or professional partnerships, they are complicated organisations which defy the normal textbook rules of ownership and governance.

While some countries have looked to the state to finance independent political parties, we in the UK have had a very proud history of ensuring that our political parties are just that: independent and not reliant on state financing. State funding, in my view, would be a dangerous road to take and could threaten the existence of political parties. It would be extremely unattractive and unacceptable to most people in the UK to see our political parties in any way dependent upon the state, which then might have influence, directly or indirectly, with direct or indirect threats, nudges, promises, hints—however subtly done—about the ongoing nature of that state funding.

We can be proud that in the UK we have a plethora of parties at the moment, all of which exist because people with passion and vision have helped to create them and have invested both their time and their personal financial resources to make them what they are. I accept that there is some sort of soft state funding in the form of Short money, and I note that the other place has voted for greater transparency in this source of funding. Perhaps we could see the same for Cranborne money, all of which is, of course, taxpayers’ cash. Disclosure and transparency is the key. The Conservative Party is unique in that every member of the Conservative Leaders Group—[Interruption]. I will carry on.

As I say, there is some soft state funding through the Short and Cranborne money, and there has been a move in the other place for greater transparency. I think that the Conservative Party is unique in that members of the Conservative Leaders Group who attend dinners with Prime Ministers all have those names disclosed on a quarterly basis. That is not a legal requirement, it was something that David Cameron proposed voluntarily and it continues to this day. Again, I believe that disclosure and transparency is the key against any undue influence.

In my opinion, party funding is not, in the nature of the world, big money. Big money does not go to the parties and is not needed by the parties. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will not agree, but the sums involved are small and they are decreasing. In the 2015 election, the total spending by all parties was £37.25 million as opposed to £31.5 million in 2010. All the candidates combined spent a further £11.7 million in 2015 in the short period as opposed to a much higher £14 million in the corresponding 2010 short period. Additionally, if one looks at the long period in 2015, the spend was £10.7 million as opposed to £11.2 million in 2010. Overall, the important numbers are as follows: £59.8 million was spent in the whole of the 2015 election as compared to £56.8 million in 2010. The whole of that increase is explained by the Labour Party’s spend in 2015 of £12 million, as opposed to £8 million in 2010, so congratulations must be extended to the new Labour Party treasurers on doing a great job, more on which anon.

Let us put these sums into context. To run your Lordships’ House alone costs some £100 million a year, just on day-to-day expenditure, excluding capital costs. Each and every year this House spends more on running costs than the whole amount spent in a general election in the UK by every political party combined, and that is only once every five years. Looking across the pond at the topical American elections, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, invited us to do, the figures are extraordinary and give us some perspective. As of last week, the disclosed figures are that the Democrat party had raised $1.3 billion and the Republicans some $800 million for the 2016 election alone. The predictions have been for a total spend in the US elections of some $5 billion, which is quite some distance from our £57 million.

It is perfectly true to point out that the Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to,

“continue to seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform”,

but the key word in this sentence is “agreement” rather than “reform”. It is worth pointing out that on the same page of the manifesto is a pledge to,

“cut the cost of politics”,

which seems to rule out any state funding. We are therefore left looking only at existing donors to parties. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree that we need to do more to encourage individuals to be donors to political parties, and that people will be so encouraged only if they feel a sense of pride in their contribution to British public life through these donations. At the moment there is a very unhealthy and unsatisfactory tendency for people who choose to donate money to political parties to be castigated for so doing. Currently the press uses the adjective “party donor” as a pejorative term. In reality, of course, the reverse is true.

All of us who have had any involvement with campaigning on the ground, as I think nearly every Peer speaking will have done, come across those who give their time tirelessly to a political party. I disclose my interest in this as president of the Westminster North Conservative Association.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I must remind my noble friend that this is a time-limited debate. He is limited to eight minutes and he has now had eight minutes.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I apologise. There was a disruption in the middle of my speech.

I conclude by saying there is room for further progress on party funding reform, which will be to the benefit of all parties, to be achieved through agreement between them around a table—perhaps with the people here tonight—rather than elsewhere. But what is paramount is that we encourage citizens to step up to the plate and be proud of their role in helping UK political parties, of whatever colour, and that the Government take their part in achieving this ambition.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth has unravelled a puzzle. I, too, am disappointed by what has happened. I assumed that when the Conservative Party put in its manifesto the commitment to move from opt-out to opt-in, it thought it was the right thing to do. When it appeared in the Bill, I thought it was the right thing to do. I thought the party thought it was the right policy, and I think it was the right policy.

I have heard the word “compromise” used today. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, used it several times. I understand that we are at the end of the Session. I understand the need for compromise, concession and deals. But this is none of these things. This is the abandonment of a Conservative manifesto pledge, and we should say that. I notice that my honourable friend in the other place, Mr Nick Boles, turned what was a manifesto commitment into what he called a suggestion in the manifesto. It was not a suggestion; it was a promise. When we debated this last time, my noble friend the Minister said it was right for Governments to honour their commitments.

Of course I accept the decision of the other place. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has given his explanation of why this manifesto commitment was abandoned. I say only that junior Ministers in this Government, who are extremely able and good, often have a very hard task.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for long because we have discussed this at length. I think we have all reached agreement as to why, as my noble friend Lord Sherbourne said, we are going from opt-out to opt-in. We have been through some people’s perception that there has been legislation in the past that has affected political disclosure, if not donations, and have discussed PPERA. But we have now reached a point where we have something before us. This time, unlike on previous occasions, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on where we are.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for crystallising my mind: clearly I am not an influential Conservative Peer because my suggestions have not been adopted.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend is extremely influential. It was Mr Boles who did not think to include him.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I am grateful for that clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has explained how Ministers approach these problems. Sadly, again, I have never had the honour of being a Minister. That is most unlikely. I come from more of a business background and in business when one wants to get things done invariably there has to be an element of compromise. Like the rest of the House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on achieving a compromise. How and why it was achieved we will perhaps never know but it has been achieved. We will end up with an opt-in. It will take longer than other people thought appropriate but it will happen. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, of the publication of the opt-in levels achieved is excellent and to be welcomed. On all those grounds, I welcome these amendments.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I think we are in for a pretty bad couple of months, in which conspiracy theories will abound and suspicions of motives will arise in every possible circumstance as we approach an interesting referendum. I notice the good humour in the Chamber today. I think that if these amendments had not been tabled, there might be a very different atmosphere indeed. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said.

Democratic power has to be used with discretion and responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this, and I agree with aspects of what he said. I was worried about the way that the Bill, as originally drafted, was going to go. Whatever discussions there were in government and in another place when the amendments came forward and were considered, I hope that there was a bit of historical memory in them—I think that there was—because we have been here before.

I was there in 1984, when it was proposed that we would do something about opting-in. I do not think that I am breaking a great confidence if I tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who was then the Chief Whip, had an interesting discussion with the Labour Chief Whip of that time, Michael Cox, who some may remember. They were arranging the business, as Chief Whips do, in those awful usual channels. There was agreement and compromise at that time in the Session. Then the issue came up about opting in—and the message was delivered quite simply and clearly: “If you do that, there will be war”. That was because it is an essential problem of political funding, with which all parties have problems, that the trade union contribution is massively important to the Labour Party. A sudden change in that would have significantly affected the balance and would have seemed, to many eyes, to have been a pretty unfair action and maybe an abuse of majority political power at that time.

It was against that background that such a proposal was put forward. When we considered it in the Bill that became the Trade Union Act 1984, Mr Len Murray came to see me for the trade unions and we discussed the issue. He had previously had discussions with my predecessor and noble friend Lord Tebbit, who one could not call a soft touch on these matters. But my noble friend made it clear that if the Trades Union Congress wished to put forward alternative proposals, he would be prepared to consider them. It fell to my lot to consider those proposals. We agreed that we would not proceed with the opting-in proposals, on the strict understanding that actions would be taken by the TUC and all affiliated unions at that time. That is why I agree very much with the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because we are where we are now. I support the actions in respect of new members coming in. That is an important step forward which did not exist before. We were not able to arrange it or go forward on it in my time; maybe we should have done.

I would like to read part of the statement that Len Murray—Lord Murray, as he was subsequently—gave when he came to see me and exchanged correspondence. He gave me a copy of the statement of guidance to the trade unions. It said:

“Following discussions between the TUC and the Secretary of State for Employment, the General Council have prepared the following Statement of Guidance on good trade union practice in respect of political fund arrangements and related matters for use by affiliated unions. Unions are asked to review their existing procedures as soon as possible to ensure that this guidance is acted upon”.

That guidance was satisfactory to me and to the Government because it made it clear that every affiliated union had given an undertaking that it would make sure that all its members were properly informed of what their rights were in these matters. The guidance ended with the statement:

“It is particularly important that unions’ procedures avoid the possibility of members being unaware of their rights in relation to the political fund or being unable to exercise them freely”.

On that understanding and on behalf of the Government, I agreed not to proceed with introducing changes to the situation on opting-out or opting-in.

The disappointment for me in the discussions on this Bill is to discover that only a very small number of the unions which were affiliated to the TUC ensured that the undertaking given to me on behalf of them all was actually carried out.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, although I welcome the Government’s movement on this, the original draft of the clause was, frankly, unworkable. This is definitely a step in the right direction, although my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, require answers to their questions.

Before the Minister replies, I will point out something which I have mentioned at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill. In the five years to 2015, £64 million was given by trade unions in political donations, but £80 million was given to various parties—predominantly the Conservative Party—by other organisations. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a parallel requirement for reporting for all the other organisations which make political donations?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I welcome Amendment 1. The Select Committee actually said there is a “lack of transparency” over how political funds are spent. Such transparency would assist union members in having an informed choice over whether to sign up to paying a political levy. The amount of money in political funds varies from £14.8 million in reserves for Unite to £8.2 million in UNISON and so on. While I welcome Amendment 1, which seeks to categorise payments, Amendment 2 would take away the whole point of the transparency that would allow union members to see how their money is spent when it is not being spent directly on political parties.

The move to transparency is taking place throughout all areas of our lives. In the Conservative Party manifesto—indeed, it is actually happening—the Government committed to disclose online any expenditure over £25,000. Given the amount of money the Government spend in a year, it does not seem unreasonable to look for similar transparency on union political spending.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, forgot to declare in his contribution that he was the treasurer of the Conservative Party. I support my noble friend Lord Collins’s amendment to the amendment. Of course we support transparency but Amendment 1 adds another section, which in our view is completely unnecessary.

Many years ago I chaired the general political fund committee of—I think it was NALGO then, before Unison came about—and the amount of information given was extremely elaborate. There was an annual report and a magazine. There was absolutely no doubt about where the expenditure went, and I have no doubt that that information is still communicated.

I just wonder why this “Lord Leigh clause”, as I think I am going to call it, is really necessary. It seems to me that it is the thin end of a wedge and could be utilised in future. Amendment 1 adds an unnecessary burden to the unions. Without proposed new subsection (2E), it would still provide all the information that the Select Committee asked for.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

12: Clause 11, page 7, line 32, leave out from “union” to “exceeds” in line 34 and insert “paid out of its political fund in any calendar year”

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment seeks to clarify the nature of the transparency sought within political funds. I believe that my amendment simply ensures the transparency that was intended but is not covered in the current wording of Clause 11. Noble Lords will recall that I asked the Minister to consider this matter during the debate on the Burns Select Committee report. I believe that the intention of Clause 11 is to ensure that expenditure from the political fund is fully disclosed so that members of the union who choose to opt in can see how their money is being spent.

We heard from evidence given to the Select Committee on 4 February by Mr Iain McNicol, general secretary of the Labour Party, that less than 50% of the trade union political levy is actually sent to the Labour Party. I believe that is correct and supported by the facts. The amendment deals with the rest of the money in the political fund that is not spent on political parties.

Following encouragement from noble Lords opposite, I have examined the accounts of the political fund of two of the largest unions: UNISON and Unite. They are somewhat vague. UNISON notes that its membership’s contribution is some £6.6 million in the political fund in its most recent set of filed accounts, but does not really break down how this is spent. It lists as national expenditure—it just uses the words “national expenditure”, with no further detail—the sum of £2.9 million, and that is the largest single item. Quite intriguingly, it discloses at the end of the year that it holds on its balance sheets some £8.2 million of reserves within the political fund. Whether we do opt-in or opt-out, that £8.2 million still sits in the political funds to be allocated at the union’s discretion.

Unite has £7.7 million of income in its political fund and simply states that, of this, £1.17 million is classified as political fund expenditure. Again, there is no further clarification. Intriguingly, that union had £14.9 million of reserves on its balance sheet for the political fund exclusively.

Given the substantial sums involved it would seem only fair that those who choose to opt in, hereon in, have some idea how this is being spent. The problem is that Clause 11 restricts the disclosure requirements to expenditure falling within Section 72(1) of the 1992 Act. This section essentially focuses on money spent to or by a political party, and only to or by a political party. It does not cover any other payments by the political fund.

No one is suggesting that there should or would be any control or influence whatever over how the money is spent, but simply that there should be transparency over these payments for the members. Indeed, I am sure that there are many instances of payments from the political fund that would not be in any way controversial and would be welcomed by all of us in this House. For example, money spent on HOPE not hate, sponsored by the GMB and the National Union of Teachers, which seeks to campaign against the British National Party, could not be seen as controversial. However, other expenditure might be considered more controversial, such as support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Many people might be surprised to see that some unions support this, given the many manufacturing jobs that depend on the nuclear industry.

While we do not know the amounts, we know that there has in the past been specific funding for particular think tanks, and, controversially, campaigns to lobby local councils to divest their government pension schemes from companies linked with Israel. Unions that, for example, are affiliated to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign would have had to make a payment to achieve that affiliation. It seems only right that members should be aware of this and the amount. Some might wonder why their money is being used in this way. For completeness, I disclose that I am a supporter and member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, but this is a very small part of the issue.

In every area of our society, there is greater consumer choice and transparency in how other people’s money is spent. Amendment 16, which follows, discusses whether the sum of £2,000 is appropriate. I said in Committee and at Second Reading that I personally did not think that £2,000 was high enough. Leaving that aside, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, which does no more than achieve the greater transparency that we all believe is sought by the clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief in supporting my noble friend Lord Leigh. I wish to bring up one point. In the last debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reflected that the amounts we are talking about are trivial—less than 5p per member contributing to a pension fund a week. That is trivial, but the point is that the amount we are talking about is nearly £24 million a year, or nearly £125 million over the life of a Parliament. We should realise that these are not small amounts. They have an impact on the causes that my noble friend mentioned, and on donations to political parties or whatever. It is important that we bear in mind that this is a large amount of money and we should not dismiss it just because most people do not know that they are even paying into it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Government are committed to greater transparency for all contributing union members in the use of union political funds. Not only should members have a choice whether to contribute, but it is only fair and reasonable that union members know how their political funds are used. As my noble friend Lord Robathan said, this is important because the totals can be large. We want members to make informed decisions about whether they want to contribute to such a fund. Increased transparency will also increase debate within unions about what the political fund is used for.

My noble friend Lord Leigh raises an interesting point about the level of transparency provided for by Clause 11. In particular, I understand that his amendment seeks to ensure that all expenditure from the political fund is subject to enhanced reporting requirements. I accept the principle of the point that my noble friend makes and I am sympathetic to his proposal. Our intention is that members should understand how the political fund is spent. It is important because, as I have already said, members need to know this if they are to make informed decisions about whether to opt in or opt out.

We will reflect and come back on that point of principle at Third Reading, giving careful consideration to how we deliver our transparency reforms in the most proportionate way. In the mean time, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to review and to come back at Third Reading and, accordingly, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Charities: Government Grants

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I slightly dispute the second point. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that DCLG has used this clause in 56 contracts since February 2015. For example, the Church Urban Fund, which the noble and right reverend Lord will know, the LGA, Mencap and the Royal College of General Practitioners have all received grants under the new clause. Shelter, likewise, has received a grant, and is currently running its Power to Renters campaign. A number of noble Lords will no doubt have received communications from it as regards the housing Bill.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as having served on the Etherington review of fundraising by charities. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that, given that individual donors in this country give some £8 billion a year to charities, they should be encouraged to give greater transparency and accountability for the funds that they use for lobbying rather than for good purposes?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I entirely agree with that. I pay tribute to the excellent work that charities do up and down the breadth of this country and to the considerable contribution that many millions of people make in time, energy and commitment. I point out to your Lordships that, obviously, this clause is aimed at the £130 billion paid out in grants annually. While we may be talking here about charities, we should not forget the £74 billion of grant funding that goes to local government, the £24 billion to ALBs and public corporations, the £8 billion to international recipients and the £4 billion to the private sector.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I should admit that I spent the weekend in Yorkshire, where, to my surprise, my neighbours do not hate people outside Yorkshire and nor do they in fact hate each other. We had a very pleasant weekend. I should also admit that, some months ago, I enjoyed watching the filming of that part of “An Inspector Calls” in our very beautiful village.

We are concerned here with the future of charities. I have found it very constructive to be involved in the thorough Committee and Report stages that we have had on this important Bill. I think we all recognise that as government spending shrinks in the next three or four years, charities will have to play a more important part in looking after a range of good causes and disadvantaged people across our country. That means that the importance we attach to the regulation of charities—the subject of this amendment—is something that requires continuing attention. It also requires active support for philanthropy, and I trust that the Government will pay active attention to encouraging visible philanthropy. I was glad to see the Financial Times highlighting this last week.

Having been involved in the committee to which the noble Baroness referred, which will present its report to the Government shortly, I am slightly more sceptical about standards across the whole universe of charities than I was before. Clearly, there is need for tighter and more visible regulation. A number of charitable trustees have not understood how active and responsible their role should be, and these matters need to be addressed.

There is a continuing role for this House in providing oversight to the charitable sector. Perhaps we should consider, in future years, whether a sessional committee of this House might look at some aspects of the charitable sector. As we saw in Committee and on Report, there is some very valuable expertise in this House.

I think that all of us here accept that charities are not comparable to commercial enterprises, as I and others have heard it suggested on one or two occasions. Charities have a privileged status both in legal and taxation terms. The standards of behaviour that we rightly expect of them reflect that privileged status. These high standards should apply to the whole diverse field of charities: to the development charities, as well as to private schools; to libertarian think tanks, as well as to medical charities. We are entitled to expect that their trustees enforce that.

As a backstop, we need to consider what level of regulation is enforced and implemented and how that regulation is organised. We will indeed be reporting on that. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness when she says that the role of the Charity Commission also needs to be re-examined as a backstop to whatever formal regulation the sector itself provides.

Having said that, I trust that when our report is presented there will be an opportunity to debate it, and certainly, when the Bill comes back from the Commons, there will be another opportunity to make sure that we have moved matters forward. I merely emphasise again that the charity sector is extremely important to our society and to aspects of our economy. It deserves, therefore, to be fully regulated and as transparent as possible.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in charities as listed in the register of interests. I was going to declare my interest in the fundraising regulation review panel, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for doing it for me.

As she says, we are not yet in a position to present our report. On 10 July, Minister Rob Wilson rang me to ask us to start this report. That was an interesting call because, on 9 July, the Prime Minister had thanked me for accepting. But it shows that it is being taken seriously at a very high level. We will have an appropriate moment to thank Sir Stuart Etherington and Elizabeth Chamberlain of NCVO and Susann Hering from the Cabinet Office for the report, which we hope will be published extremely soon. If it is to be published at the Conservative Party conference—I do not think that is the plan—I will personally welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and invite her to sit with me and listen to every word. I hope there will be opportunity for further debate in this House when amendments come back here.