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

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Both interventions raise the same point. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that I tried to explain how the £9,750 registration limit comes into play, but I also went on to indicate that the Electoral Commission, in its guidance, will make very clear the operation of the various registration thresholds, including this one with regard to the constituency limit, so campaigners should be in no doubt. In response to that and to my noble friend Lady Williams, I have a lot of sympathy with the point, but the figure of £5,000 is better than a percentage. I do not want to embark on the theology of the percentages because they run through the Bill, but the figure itself will appear in the guidance from the Electoral Commission.

One of the concerns about the administrative burden is that smaller organisations could be caught up. It may be that in one particular constituency there is one constituency issue with which a small campaigning group has become engaged. If we set the limit at £5,000, they may find suddenly that they have to put in place a bureaucracy and administration to deal with that. The higher limit of £9,750 would probably address such concerns, which is what we want to try to ensure. It is often so when you have an individual campaign in an individual constituency. I accept that there is no perfect answer to this. It was a judgment call as to whether we should keep the limit as low as £5,000 or, having listened to those who thought that was too low for individual constituency cases, whether it might be possible to raise the sum. For that reason and to strike that balance, we thought that £9,750 was an appropriate amount. Therefore, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. I give way to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for having misread the grouping of my amendment as scheduled. I will now make a brief comment. I understand that the Minister has referred to it already and to what my attitude is.

In our previous debate on Report on the costs to third parties of Welsh-language publications, which I thought to be excluded from the ceiling on third-party expenditure, I welcomed the helpful comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, which were in the same vein as those made in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble. The failure to be aware of how well used the Welsh language is in campaigning, in documents and in many other ways, has become obvious. It is very different from the time, long ago in the 1960s, when I was a young Transport Minister struggling with officialdom to meet the demand for Welsh forms and licences. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, the oversight goes back to the 2000 Act. If this short debate does nothing else, it will remind policymakers and draftsmen that the Welsh Language Act 1993 was passed and that there was a sea change in the use of the language.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, indicated that I went too far in seeking to extend the excluded costs beyond the payment to a translator. I understand that argument, but an organisation could publish a modest amount of literature in English and flood the electorate with Welsh material a hundredfold bigger. My main point remains that, on a narrow interpretation of Amendment 25, an organisation might be inhibited from actually producing Welsh material. In my view, you have to produce paper to be able to translate it, and I argued accordingly. I believe that the Minister was then taking a more restricted view. However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said that there was not much between us and that we should try to reach a consensus without creating loopholes whereby much more material was produced. I suggested that, in the short time available, the Government might seek the views of the Electoral Commission.

When I returned to west Wales late on Friday afternoon, I was encouraged to receive a telephone call from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, from Edinburgh, for which I thank him very much. That was indeed a long-distance negotiation. I kept the Welsh Language Commissioner in Cardiff informed. I understand that the Electoral Commission has been consulted following my suggestion and has agreed to the new form of words. The amendment has been drafted by parliamentary counsel, to whom I am grateful.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it may be helpful if I respond to the points made by the noble and learned Lord. I had already indicated that the Government are willing to accept Amendment 25. The noble and learned Lord, along with the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elystan-Morgan, raised this important issue on Report. It is the case that costs should not be limited to the fee of the translator but should include other costs that arise as a consequence of that translation. We believe that Amendment 25 achieves that aim. It certainly enjoys the full support of the Government. All costs incurred as a consequence of the translation of materials to or from Welsh will not count as controlled expenditure. For example, when a three-page leaflet in English is translated into Welsh and becomes a six-page document, the additional costs of printing and paper will not be counted as controlled expenditure.

There was a general consensus when we debated this in the past. Certainly the Government do not wish to see a situation in which a campaigner could increase their effective spending by clever use of materials in different languages. That is not a result that any of us wanted. We believe that Amendment 25 achieves the right balance between excluding costs in connection with translation without creating the loophole. I think that we have struck the right balance, but as the noble and learned Lord said, there will be a review after the 2015 election. If some practical difficulties arise in the course of it, that matter will almost certainly be discussed; it would be appropriate to discuss it in the context of that review. I hope that that gives the noble and learned Lord the necessary reassurance.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I am most grateful to the Minister for his help. I shall not press Amendment 26.

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

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I have indicated, we thought that the amendment that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has signed did not actually go further than we were going. I think there has been a proper debate on this. I do not want to mislead the House into thinking that we are willing to countenance in the Bill an opportunity to exploit it and to double up on the number of leaflets. I hear what the noble Lord says and, subject to what I have already said about not wanting to incur a loophole, I am prepared to consider whether the wording reflects what might be called a marginal cost of translation but not costs that might allow more leaflets to be published. The noble Lord is nodding his head; perhaps he agrees that that is not an unreasonable position.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, will agree that it is not entirely clear that these additional production costs were covered by his amendment either. Certainly, we did not think they were.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I thank the noble and learned Lord. It is obvious to me that, in accordance with the definition of “controlled expenditure”, production is specifically referred to. You cannot have anything to translate unless you have something produced: that means a piece of paper. I was certainly not encouraging a vast increase in the whole gamut of informational literature, but rather the specific translation and the costs incurred in preparing for the translation, particularly the paper. It may be that I was not ambitious enough. That is entirely my fault and that of those who were advising me—they were not ambitious enough in putting forward that the provision should include specifically the preparation of a document for the purpose of translating. That is all that I am asking.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think that there is really all that much between our position and what has been said both by the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I hope that we can look at it and get the right wording to capture the consensus among us without creating loopholes for having much more material produced. On that basis, I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not press his amendment and, all being well, we will get our amendment on to the Order Paper.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I am encouraged by that. I hope that, if I do not press my amendment, we will return to the matter at Third Reading after further consideration.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That is indeed what I had in mind. Time may be short, but I think that we can have some useful engagement on that.

Government Amendment 43 excludes the costs associated with providing protection of persons or property in relation to a public rally or event. While the Government believe that it is important that third parties who organise public rallies or events which seek to influence voting intentions incur controlled expenditure, it is only right that third parties do not incur controlled expenditure ensuring that such events are run safely.

Government Amendment 44 excludes expenses that are reasonably attributable to a person’s disability. This would mean that costs associated with, for example, providing materials in Braille, or ensuring that any person with a disability could attend a public event or meeting, would not count towards the third party’s controlled expenditure.

Government Amendment 42 provides that parades notified under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 are excluded from the provisions of PPERA. Your Lordships will recall that we had a debate in Committee on Northern Ireland. Although the particular issue of parades was not raised, we were aware that it was a concern that some people had expressed. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, led an important and helpful debate on Northern Ireland, and we seek to address it here.

Government Amendment 38 amends the defence, currently in the Bill, for a person or third party charged with an offence of incurring controlled expenditure in excess of the spending limit—that is, above the limit in a part of the UK or the constituency limit—to show that they complied with the relevant code of practice so that it covers both recognised and non-recognised third parties. The amendment is needed to reflect the changes to the reporting requirements in a later government amendment which provides for no spending return if the threshold is not reached. We have since identified a couple of points not properly dealt with in the amendment. The first is that the defence does not adequately cover the case where an offence might be committed by virtue of expenditure incurred on behalf of the third party. Secondly, the defence should also cover the offence in relation to targeted expenditure. We think that it is important in both these cases that those subject to regulation should have the benefit of the defence and we will therefore bring forward amendments at Third Reading to deal with these outstanding anomalies.

Government Amendment 41 clarifies the drafting on public rallies, so that it is “public rallies or events” to be inserted by Amendment 42. The reference to “public meetings” is removed, as it was unnecessary and potentially confusing because “other public events” includes public meetings.

I turn to the amendment moved by the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and a number of other amendments that have been spoken to in this group. Amendment 34 would amend Clause 26 so that any campaign which could reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success, involving legislation going through Parliament during the regulated period, would not count as controlled expenditure. I listened carefully to the speech made by my noble friend and agree with him that we should not pass legislation which inhibits expression of legitimate opinion.

To incur controlled expenditure and be included in the regulatory regime, it is important to remind ourselves that the third party must be carrying out activity which could reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or a group of candidates. We have heard concerns that campaigns against specific policies or pieces of legislation will be caught by the regulation. It might assist the House if I set out how, generally, this will not be the case and the circumstances in which it might be. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, asked whether we would meet the Electoral Commission. I can tell her that this issue has been raised with us. We have been in discussion with the Electoral Commission and I can confirm that it agrees with this interpretation.

If a campaign group wished to lobby parliamentarians over legislation going through the House, this would not be subject to regulation under Part 2. It is only where the expenditure by a campaign group can reasonably—that is, objectively—be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidates that such activity will be subject to regulation. For example, encouraging constituents not to vote for MPs in the general election if they had voted a certain way on the legislation before Parliament should and would be included as activity leading to controlled expenditure. If a group so closely aligns itself with a policy of a particular party that its campaigning on behalf of that policy can only reasonably be seen as encouraging support for that party, that would also count. That is campaign activity, and where it takes place the Government believe that spending on it should be transparent to the public.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, gave a good example when he talked about new towns. We believe that under his example, people will be able to support or oppose such a proposition freely. It would be caught only if they promoted electoral success, for example, by distributing leaflets reading, “Don’t vote for candidate X”—or X party—“at the next election”, because he or she had supported or opposed the new town. The amendment states,

“unless the expenditure relates to legislation before Parliament during the regulated period”.

If Parliament were to accept that definition, it would really open the door to any amount of expenditure. My noble friend Lord Horam suggested a limit of £300,000; in fact, it would not be controlled expenditure, it would be unlimited expenditure in the run-up to an election which could be directed against or for a particular party. Given that there are restrictions on what the political parties can spend during that period, it is not reasonable that there should be such a wide gap in the provisions that an unlimited amount of expenditure could be related to a particular campaign.

I reiterate that the general position is that if a campaign group wishes to lobby Parliament and parliamentarians over legislation, that is primarily directed at trying to change legislation and would not be subject to regulation under Part 2. As my noble friend Lord Horam said, we are seeking a balance, allowing proper room to campaign but not to swamp.

I also highlight that the Electoral Commission does not support this amendment. It states that such an exemption would allow unlimited spending on a potentially wide range of topics. It believes that it could produce significant and unintended gaps in the coverage of the rules. The issue of the year up to the campaign was raised generally in the debate. Of course, a later amendment will mean that this is actually only a seven-and-a-half-month period. Clearly, if, as a result of experience, people feel that the guidance has not been sufficiently helpful, as we have provided in later amendments, there will be a review post the 2015 election. The amendment as it stands opens up a considerable gap and would lead to an imbalance whereas, as my noble friend said, we should be seeking a balance.

On Amendment 40, my noble friend Lord Tyler seeks to amend Schedule 3 so that costs associated with sending materials to committed supporters who have been actively involved in the activity of the third party would be excluded from the calculation of costs for controlled expenditure. Costs of sending material to members or certain supporters are already excluded, as PPERA and the Bill make clear. The material or activity must be available or open to the “public”, which for these purposes would not include those members or supporters.

As the existing Electoral Commission guidance makes clear, the exact nature of a committed supporter will vary between organisations, but could include regular donors by direct debit, people with an annual subscription or people who are actively involved in the third party. The amendment goes much further than that. Amendment 40 defines those actively involved as those who have made a donation to the recognised third party, or those who have made a direct communication to the recognised third party in the past 12 months.

Consequently, an individual who writes to a campaign organisation with a general inquiry about their activities, or even one who lives next to an animal sanctuary who writes to them complaining about the noise, might possibly be regarded as being actively involved. I do not believe that that is my noble friend’s intention, but I fear that using that definition allows the provision to become ineffective, particularly in an age of instant electronic communication.

The Electoral Commission does not consider people to be committed supporters if they have simply signed up to social networking sites or tools, or appear on mailing lists that may have been compiled for general commercial, campaigning or other purposes. An exclusion of costs, based on direct communications with third parties—whatever the nature of that communication—creates a wide exemption.

I know that my noble friend has worked hard and has met officials to try to resolve this; I regret, however, that we fear the definition he has come up with is too wide. We believe that the better way is that the Government and the Electoral Commission believe that the Electoral Commission’s guidance is the proper place to outline who counts as a committed supporter. In its briefing the commission outlined that it does not support this amendment due to the fact that it is unclear what scale of campaigning would be exempted from the regime or how the test would apply in practice.

Finally, my noble friend referred to Amendment 45A to ensure that any changes to the range of activities outlined in new Schedule 8A would be made through an affirmative resolution procedure. That is already the case in the Bill as drafted. I draw noble Lords’ attention to Clause 26(12), which amends Section 156 of PPERA so that any order under new Schedule 8A, as inserted by Schedule 3 to the Bill, is by affirmative resolution. It does so by amending the existing section of PPERA, setting out what parliamentary procedure applies to orders and regulations. The Government agree that it is important that any changes to the list of activities that incur controlled expenditure should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.

I hope that that reassures my noble friend. In the light of the explanations given, I hope that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is prepared to withdraw his amendment.

Abortion

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 10th October 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I know of the long-standing interest that my noble friend has had in this issue, going back, as she indicated, to the passage of the initial legislation. Given the reporting, people might well think that this case was about medical practitioners offering abortion on the basis of the gender of the child. In those circumstances, it would seem incomprehensible that the full force of the criminal law was not being brought to bear on a practice which most of us would consider abhorrent. However, if one reads the full note provided by the Director of Public Prosecutions earlier this week, which I will make available in the Library, one will see that on the facts of the case it would not have been possible to prove that either doctor authorised an abortion on gender-specific grounds alone. It is a far more complex case than that. Indeed, the criteria used were those set out in Section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

My Lords, first, there have been differing reports as to whether there was a realistic prospect of prosecution, and I wonder whether the Minister could clarify that again. Secondly, on the public interest point, did the director consult the Attorney-General on this very issue, and what exactly were the public interest points against prosecution in the case which has been very much in the newspapers?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, with regard to the first point that the noble and learned Lord raises, the note that the Director of Public Prosecutions has set out indicates that the evidence was not strong and that the prospects of conviction would not have been high but that, on balance, there was just sufficient prosecution to provide a realistic prospect of a conviction. As the noble and learned Lord well knows, there is a second test—the public interest test. The view taken by the Crown Prosecution Service was that the jury would have had no independent yardstick of professional practice by which to assess the facts of the case—hence the need for the greater clarity which is now being sought. On the other question that he asked, the Director of Public Prosecutions did not consult the Attorney-General before the decision was made not to prosecute. My right honourable friend the Attorney-General has obviously had subsequent discussions with the Director of Public Prosecutions in the context of the review and, without in any way wishing to infringe on the independence of the prosecutor, he believes that the decision was taken in a proper and conscientious way.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 19th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I can assure the House that we are aware of the concerns expressed not just by Mr Tyrie but by a range of people during the consultation and subsequently. We have sought to wrestle with those concerns. I indicated that it is the age-old challenge between trying to balance the interests of security and liberty. I can assure the House that in presenting the Bill we have sought to wrestle with these issues and to come forward with a set of proposals that are sensible, proportionate and targeted at a genuine and serious problem.

I begin with the important matter of improved parliamentary and independent oversight of the security and intelligence agencies. The Intelligence and Security Committee does an excellent job of overseeing the administration, expenditure and policies of the agencies. I know that members of the committee are present here today and have put down their names to speak in the debate. However, the ISC operates within arrangements that were established by Parliament in 1994. In the past 18 years, and particularly since 9/11, the public profile and budgets of, and indeed operational demands on, the agencies have significantly increased, but there has been no change to the statutory arrangements in place for oversight.

Although in the past the ISC has overseen operational matters, it has done so relatively infrequently. The ISC has no explicit statutory locus to oversee such matters. Its statutory remit is also limited to oversight of the security and intelligence agencies, although it has long heard evidence from the wider intelligence community. The ISC currently reports only to the Prime Minister, who appoints its membership, and there are some limitations to the way it works. The heads of the security and intelligence agencies can, in certain circumstances, withhold information from it. The ISC is wrongly perceived by some to be a creature of the Executive, not least as it is funded and staffed by the Cabinet Office. We believe it is time to put the ISC on a much stronger footing and enhance its independence to strengthen the very valuable work it has done so far and give Parliament more effective oversight of the intelligence and security agencies.

Part 1 of the Bill extends the ISC’s statutory remit, clarifying that it will in future be able to oversee the agencies’ operations. It will also in future report to Parliament as well as to the Prime Minister. Its members will be appointed by Parliament, after nomination by the Prime Minister. In parallel, the Government intend to press ahead with the Green Paper proposals that the ISC is funded by Parliament, accommodated on the Parliamentary Estate and that its staff will have the status of parliamentary staff. Finally, the power to withhold information from the ISC moves to the Secretary of State responsible for that agency; in other words, to a democratically accountable representative. These may sound like technical changes but together they will help to ensure that we have effective, credible and genuinely independent oversight of the activities of the security and intelligence agencies, renewing public confidence that someone is watching the watchers on their behalf.

The provisions of the Bill that have to date probably prompted the most comment are in Part 2, including the use of closed material procedures. The Government are strongly committed to open and transparent justice. However, the courts have long accepted that sensitive intelligence material—for example, the names of security agents or information about techniques used by intelligence agencies—cannot be disclosed in open court. In the famous case in the last century of Scott v Scott, Viscount Haldane in the House of Lords acknowledged that exceptions to that principle of open and transparent justice,

“are themselves the outcome of a yet more fundamental principle that the chief object of courts of justice must be to secure that justice is done ... As the paramount object must always be to do justice, the general rule as to publicity, after all only the means to an end, must accordingly yield”.

Under current rules, the only available way of protecting sensitive intelligence material which would otherwise be disclosed, and which would damage the public interest if disclosed in open court, is to apply for public interest immunity. If such an application is successful, the result is the exclusion of that material from the court room. An example of the difficulties which may arise is where a case is so saturated in this type of sensitive material that the PII procedure removes the evidence that one side, either defendant or claimant, requires in order to make its case. The options, then, are not attractive. In judicial reviews, the Government may find themselves unable to defend an executive action taken to protect the public—for example, the exclusion from the United Kingdom of a suspected terrorist or gang lord—simply because they cannot explain their decision when defending it. Equally, claimants may find themselves unable to contest a decision taken against them. This is what Mr Justice Ouseley observed in the recent case of AHK and others where claimants were challenging decisions to refuse naturalisation. His Lordship noted that if the alternative to a CMP is,

“that the claimant is bound to lose, no matter how weak the grounds against him, there is obvious scope for unfairness towards the claimant”.

In claims for civil damages, typically against the Government, the defendant is either forced to seek to settle the case by paying out compensation, assuming the other side is willing to agree to settle, or it has to ask the court to strike out the case as untriable. The result is that these cases are not heard before a court at all. There is no independent judgment on very serious allegations about government actions. The recent settlement of the civil damages claims brought by the former Guantanamo Bay detainees underlines this point. The evidence on which the Government needed to rely in order to defend themselves was highly secret intelligence material, which could not be released in open court.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The use of public interest applications is familiar to many of us, even in quite ordinary run-of-the-mill cases brought before a recorder. What is the best estimate the noble and learned Lord can give of the volume of applications where something more is required such as the closed material procedures now proposed?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am cautious about hazarding the estimate that the noble and learned Lord asks of me. In the Green Paper, we indicated that the kind of cases that we were looking at were 27 current claims. The most recent figures that I have, as of yesterday, show that the numbers have fluctuated somewhat since October 2011 at the publication of the Green Paper. Currently, there are estimated to be 29 live cases, which were of the type cited in the Green Paper. To give an estimate of the number of cases where sensitive information was central to the case, based on current cases handled by the Treasury Solicitor, there are 29 live cases but they exclude a number of appeals against executive actions that are currently stayed. There are 15 civil damages claims; three asset-freeze judicial reviews; seven exclusion judicial reviews; four lead naturalisation judicial reviews; and around 60 further naturalisation judicial reviews stayed behind these cases. I hope that gives the noble and learned Lord and the House an idea of the kind of figures that we are dealing with where we believe that sensitive information is central to the case, based on the estimate of the Treasury Solicitor at this time.

The recent settlement of the civil damages claims brought by the Guantanamo Bay detainees underlines the point that I was making. The evidence which the Government needed to rely on in order to defend themselves was highly secret intelligence material, which could not be released in open court. One option open to the Government would have been to claim PII over that material. If the PII claim had been successful, the Government would have succeeded in excluding a very large quantity of material, but material that they would have wanted to rely on to defend their position. The only practical option was to settle the claims for significant sums without admitting liability.

Although the numbers of these cases are small, they often contain extremely significant allegations about the actions of the Government and the security and intelligence agencies. There is a real public interest in being able to get to the truth of such allegations. Indeed, I think it is arguable to say that the rule of law is supported by courts being able to reach determinations on such matters. Although such settlements are often made without any admission of liability being made, as we all know, mud sticks. Allegations have been made in public that have never been examined or rebutted, and many people choose to believe that they are true. The damage to the reputation of this country can be immense and those unrebutted allegations can be used by individuals seeking to garner support for terrorism in retaliation for perceived wrongdoing by this country.

This is the backdrop against which our plans to allow material to be heard in court via CMPs should be seen.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that Government will require a confidence vote of Members of the House of Commons. It is the House of Commons that will determine the matter. That is an important point. If you have a fixed term but there is a clear consensus for a dissolution, there is a provision to trigger that. But if the House of Commons wishes to place its confidence in a Government, that is a matter for the House of Commons.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords—

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton]

My Lords—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am trying to make some progress, because I have been speaking for a while. I am sure that we will have plenty of opportunity to come back to this.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

I am grateful to the Minister. This is an intrinsically important point. In all our experiences, a vote of confidence in the House of Commons is a rare event of crucial importance. We all know what it means: we are summoned back from the end of the earth to take part in it. As has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Richard, why should a Government, having lost a vote of confidence, have a second chance at all?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the House of Commons would determine this. As the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said, the Government might then be of a different composition, but they would come from those who have been elected to the House of Commons for a term of five years. If they cannot form a Government and no Government can command the consent to a majority in the House of Commons, there would be an election. If that could not be done within 14 years—I mean, within 14 days. [Laughter.] That is probably wishful thinking on some people’s part. If that could not be done within 14 days, there would be an election.

Clause 3 makes the key necessary changes to electoral law and the law concerning the meeting of Parliament in light of fixed days for elections. It provides that Parliament dissolves automatically 17 working days before the polling day, which has been fixed for the general election under the Bill. It means that Her Majesty the Queen will no longer be able to dissolve Parliament in exercise of the prerogative. This is a safeguard against a Prime Minister deciding that he wishes to ignore the requirements of the Bill and advising Her Majesty to exercise her power to dissolve Parliament.

Clause 4 deals with certain supplementary and consequential matters. It preserves the Queen’s power to prorogue Parliament. Subsection (2) preserves the traditional way in which the sealing of a proclamation summoning a new Parliament under the great seal of the realm is authorised, which is by Order in Council rather than by warrant under the royal sign manual.

Clause 5 sets out the short title of the Bill and the schedule contains consequential amendments to a number of Acts of Parliament. I do not intend to go through them all, but included among them is the Septennial Act 1715, which, after amendment by the Parliament Act 1911, set the current five-year term for Parliament.

The Fixed-term Parliaments Bill will be seen as a stabilising measure. It will reduce opportunities for partisan game playing. In a situation where we are so often told that the Executive are trying to gather power to themselves, under the Bill they will give power to Parliament, and it is right that they do so. I look forward to the debates that we will have in your Lordships' House. The points raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, will undoubtedly be ones to which we can return in Committee. I look forward in the course of this debate to hearing a maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Cormack, with whom I was privileged to serve for many years in the other place.

It was quite obvious from reading the record that the Bill was the subject of some lively debates in the other place, where—I should put on record—extra time was provided for consideration in Committee.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have had many debates on the size of the other place, and I think that we voted on it yesterday evening. Certainly, there have been many counterproposals to 600, but 600 is the number in the Bill. We have passed that point in our deliberations. It is what the other place agreed to, and it has not been defeated or changed by any debates or votes in your Lordships' House. With 600, I have not yet heard the argument why Wales should be treated preferably to other parts of the United Kingdom. It cannot be related to devolution because, if we did that, we would have to calibrate different parts of the United Kingdom depending on the different powers that respective Parliaments had.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

Will the Minister put on one side this dogmatic reliance upon simple arithmetic? Why, over decades, have our predecessors agreed that the magic figure of representation to meet the needs of Wales was 35? Is it not a recognition of the need of a small nation to have a voice? If a small nation is incorporated into a larger nation in a union, is there not a case for the voice of the smaller nation to be adequately represented, hence our predecessors’ magic figure of 35?

National Assembly for Wales: Referendum

Debate between Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Wallace of Tankerness

Thursday 17th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I know from the time that my noble friend and I spent together in the other place that he is a very determined and doughty campaigner both in establishing the National Assembly for Wales and, since then, in enhancing its powers. I make it clear that I am well aware of the importance that the Secretary of State for Wales attaches to this referendum taking place, implementing the coalition agreement. In her letter to the First Minister, she indicated that the date that the First Minister had indicated before the general election should not be considered until after the general election. That has meant that the consultation work on the question has only now begun and that there will be a further reference to the Electoral Commission for it to research and approve the question. Orders will have to be debated and approved in the Welsh National Assembly and both Houses of Parliament and submitted for approval by Her Majesty in Council. Thereafter, the Electoral Commission has indicated that the statutory period of 10 weeks is the minimum that it believes necessary to allow for all the processes required leading up to polling day. With the best will in the world, it was not possible to do that by October, but we have made the commitment that we wish that to happen by the end of the first quarter of next year.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

My Lords, the Conservative Party in Wales has a long record of opposing any Welsh constitutional advance, whether it be the setting up of the Welsh Office or a devolved Assembly. Has it now abandoned this posture and will it now campaign wholeheartedly for more powers for the Welsh Assembly? If it has not, how do the coalition Government reconcile that stance with the Answer in the other place by the Minister for constitutional reform, Mr Clegg,

“Yes, the Government do support a yes vote”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/6/10; col. 41.]

in the referendum?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister subsequently made it clear to the House of Commons that that was not the position. The Government will not have a particular view on the outcome of the referendum. Our coalition commitment is to ensure that the referendum takes place. The referendum is not the plaything of any one political party. It is for the people of Wales to decide and we will respect their decision.