Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5 and Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2015

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am grateful to the noble Lord. As he knows, I do favour that. I believe that the Liberals favour having a constitutional convention and the Labour Party favour having a constitutional convention. Perhaps if we called it something else—let us call it a constitutional convocation or a bright idea—perhaps then we could get a consensus. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord: these things need to be considered; they need to carry wholehearted agreement; and, of course, with each step along the road that is made without thinking of the long-term consequences, it becomes even more difficult to unravel and create a proper settlement. So I entirely agree. On that note of consensus, I hope I have persuaded the Minister to withdraw this ridiculous order.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, my noble friend will be astonished to hear that I agree with him on one of the main points that he has been making. However, it is about time that somebody from another part of the United Kingdom commented on my noble friend’s very proper regard for the consequences that he has identified for other parts. I am a fellow Celt, but I cannot pretend to be speaking on behalf of Scotland. He is of course correct that this is not something that can simply be left across the border. We would not be speaking about it in your Lordships’ House if it did not have wider implications.

I want to return—this is why I felt the need to speak—to the Constitution Committee’s report, particularly to the contribution of the chairman, my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton. The critical sentence in the report is the warning about this potentially piecemeal and incremental approach to changing the voting age. What the committee should have gone on to do—this is the missing sentence, if I may humbly submit this to members of the committee and its chairman—was say that the Government should have picked up my Private Member’s Bill, the Voting Age (Comprehensive Reduction) Bill of the previous Session, which received a Second Reading in your Lordships’ House with encouragement from Members on all sides.

I thought that the Minister very neatly put on one side the implications of this order for other parts of the UK, as I will come back to in a moment. Obviously, it is unacceptable in the UK that the critical foundation stone of our representative democracy—the franchise—should be quite different in different parts of our United Kingdom. If Scotland had decided to separate from the other nations of this country, this could have been a discrete issue for the Scottish Parliament, but it is not, they did not and therefore it is of relevance to us all. As my noble friend has indicated very effectively, there has already been a very practical demonstration of the maturity of young people in the Scottish referendum campaign. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Cormack is here because it was he who gave a practical example during the previous debate of the way in which his granddaughter took a very active and well informed part in the debates.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

I apologise for intervening—I missed the first part of this debate—but I must make it plain that, although I have the highest regard for my granddaughter’s intelligence, I do not believe in votes at 16, for all the reasons that my noble friend Lord Forsyth cogently made in one of the best speeches I have heard in this House for a very long time.

[Lord Tyler]

I also enjoy my noble friend’s speeches, whether or not I agree with them, because he takes us back to Wolf Hall and other Tudor examples of the behaviour of Governments. In this case, we can look at more recent history. It is not true, as was implied by the Constitution Committee and my noble friends, that this matter suddenly appeared on the political agenda; that is simply not true.

I shall take just one example. I am amazed that no one else in your Lordships’ House seems to have read the excellent Youth Select Committee report from last autumn, published soon after the example that we were given in Scotland, which was very properly given some extra credence by Mr Speaker in the other place. In that report, the very cogent argument for reducing the age of the franchise to 16 is set out in great detail, answering a lot of the points that have already been made in your Lordships’ House. Also, as my noble friend Lord Purvis said, at the end of their secondary school experience with citizenship, in the parental circumstances that they are likely still to be in, young people are much more engaged in the issues that affect them than they are when they go off to work or higher education at 17 or 18. That is why, interestingly, the turnout in Scotland was better among the 16 and 17 year-olds than it was among the 18 to 24 year-olds. Not only that, and I do not know whether everyone in your Lordships’ House will agree with this, but they also voted by a majority to remain in the United Kingdom, while middle-aged men—I emphasise “men”—voted by a majority to separate. It was young people who saw with maturity the advantages of remaining in the United Kingdom.

Scotland: Devolution

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, today I am celebrating: the concept of a federal approach to our previously grossly overcentralised system of government seems to have come of age. After a political lifetime promoting this concept, I am delighted that this f-word is no longer considered unutterable. Perhaps we should also allow two c-words to be used in polite political society: the Commonwealth of Australia has something to teach us, as does the Confederation of Canada. We are so insular in this country that we have failed to examine the good examples in other mature democracies, even when we Brits had a hand in devising their constitutions. I will make three broad points.

First, I hope and trust—and this has been evident from the contributions so far—that there is complete unanimity across the House and the three main parties that the delivery of the vow to the people of Scotland will not be delayed by any proper considerations of the implications for other parts of the United Kingdom. That is important for all sorts of reasons. Nothing could stoke up further resentment, increase disenchantment with our whole representative democracy and, indeed, play into the hands of separatists, more dangerously than delay and dithering over this.

Secondly, there is also a widespread recognition that there are consequences of greater devolution for the way in which we legislate and apportion tax responsibilities and expenditure here in Westminster and Whitehall. Thirdly, there must be recognition that the most oversimplified, knee-jerk, hasty reaction of calling for English votes for English laws is simply inadequate: EVEL is not enough. It is far from simple; decisions taken on English matters in the United Kingdom Parliament have financial implications for the whole union. It is hard enough to define what an English Bill is. As my noble friend Lord Thomas has already said, very often it is an English and Welsh Bill and falls outside that definition during its progress through both Houses.

Of course, the United Kingdom Parliament is not unicameral. There are two Houses and we here do not represent any one territory: we are United Kingdom Peers. Only an elected House—so far elusive—could resolve that anomaly. However, in the mean time, the McKay commission completely ignored our evidence on this point. What would this House do if its recommendations were accepted by the other House?

Although we must be conscious that obsessing about England per se does no service at all to the already increasing pressures for true subsidiarity and a bottom-up approach to devolution, we must recognise that within England there are pressures for devolution. Simply creating an English institution does not deal with the underlying problem of overcentralisation. People are already rightly asking, if Scotland and Wales, with five and three million people respectively, can take significant legislative and fiscal power, why not London or Yorkshire? Indeed, might it not again be time to ask the people of the north-east—or parts of it—whether they want the top-down, minimal devolution-lite they were offered in 2004, or whether they would prefer something serious, along the lines already experienced in Wales and which we hope will be increased there. In Cornwall, of course, there is substantial demand for an assembly to take on similar responsibilities.

Dealing with this demand for real legislative devolution—not just administrative decentralisation—is a construct that people in England already recognise, and we must require a bottom-up process, not a top-down imposition, as a vital first step in sorting out the English question. I say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that the Localism Act did not instil in the British people a recognition that we have adequate local accountability in England. It simply is not there. That is not enough. It was never thought to be enough.

Clearly this would leave much less for the Westminster Parliament to do. There would be far fewer English issues. There would be less for Whitehall to do, offering an opportunity for substantial bureaucratic slimming. However, I and my colleagues acknowledge that there would still be some distinctly English issues. For those, it may be that an English Grand Committee might be an appropriate mechanism—but that is a consequential change. That is not the initial change that is so critical. In setting that up, we would have to be clear what the options for such a committee would be.

First, it could be an impotent talking shop—there is plenty of precedent for this. If, as with the McKay proposals, the full House of Commons, the United Kingdom House of Commons, and your Lordships’ House were simply to overrule everything that was said in the English Grand Committee, how would that play with our fellow citizens? That would just make the problem worse, not better.

A second option would clearly be a full legislative decision-making parliamentary vehicle. If so, we must face up to the fact that there would be a need for an Executive to deliver those legislative decisions. Do we want an English Executive with an English First Minister? I do not think that the public are ready and willing to go in that direction.

Thirdly, the committee could have the power of veto to prevent MPs from Scotland or Wales, or wherever that legislation was likely not to have any effect, pushing it through at the risk of constant cost and tax implications exclusively for England—or England and Wales. That veto option seems the most likely to prevail. It underlines why so much legislative power needs to be transferred out of Westminster before it happens, because it is only half the answer—or no answer at all—to the English question.

We must also consider that each devolution settlement so far has built in a firm commitment to fair representation. That is why my right honourable friend David Laws, on behalf of our Party, has set out this essential element for a new parliamentary vehicle, if there is to be one, to be truly and fairly representative of English voices, in a submission to the Cabinet committee.

In his Guardian article on 2 October, David Laws set out an unanswerable case when he stated:

“Every time Westminster has devolved powers in the past—to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and even London—it has insisted that the devolved authority that wields those powers be put together on the basis of proportional representation … What was right for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London is also right for England”.

That approach was endorsed by the Economist on 21 September this year.

From these Benches, we will continue to argue that further devolution to Scotland must proceed immediately. We should go even further than the present Wales Bill does for Wales. We should introduce a devolution-enabling Bill to bring about transfers of more power from this Parliament to other institutions in England, and those institutions should be elected on the basis of fair representation. Residual English powers operated in Westminster by a Grand Committee should be similarly subject to fair proportionality so that English votes and English voices represent the will of English voters.

Next year, 2015, is the 800th anniversary—

[Noble Lords]

Order.

[Lord Tyler]

I am coming to a conclusion. Next year is the 800th anniversary of this Parliament, as set out in the Magna Carta. Barons led the route to greater democracy 800 years ago. I hope that Barons and Baronesses will make a very positive contribution to the next move forward on devolution.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Judd, because I agree so much with his peroration, and I shall come back to that point in a moment.

The committee report outlines, quite rightly, the very considerable constitutional implications of a yes vote. It certainly places in sharp focus the profound and shocking effect that it would have on both the continuation state of the UK and the successor state of Scotland. However, I am an optimist. As a fellow Celt, a Cornishman, I hope very much that our Scottish cousins will firmly vote no. I believe that we should plan for that every bit as much as we prepare for the stark reality of yes. A number of colleagues in all parts of the House have been referring to the possibility that we have to do something very serious indeed even if there is a no vote. What the noble Lord, Lord Judd, has just said echoes that.

We were given a lead earlier in this debate from the noble Lords, Lord Strathclyde and Lord Richard, to the effect that we should be looking very firmly at the implications for the whole of the United Kingdom. Indeed I am repeating a phrase that I think the noble Lord, Lord Lang, made in introducing his committee’s report.

Many of today’s contributions have understandably focused on the challenges for Scotland on 19 September. However, how does this Parliament, and the parties in it, deliver on the promise that a no vote will not mean that there will be no change?All the leaders say that they are committed to more devolution and that Scotland must be assured that it will happen. My noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness reiterated that promise at the start of today’s debate.

It is in that context that I am disappointed—though it is perfectly reasonable—that the committee did not look at the constitutional implications of a no vote. Perhaps it needs to return to that, even before 18 September. That is because, as devolution takes another step forward, after the referendum, both in Scotland and in Wales, we cannot forget that the largest part of the United Kingdom is England. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, in a debate on the gracious Speech said:

“We clearly recognise in Scotland and Wales the distance and resentment towards Westminster-dominated decisions. We need to recognise that the same instincts apply in Newcastle, Norwich, Cumberland and Cornwall”. —[Official Report, 11/6/14; col. 460.]

Colleagues on all sides of the House, on these Benches and throughout, have spoken in similar terms.

The Chancellor spoke about this only yesterday in Manchester. Naturally enough he expressed it in terms of giving an economic boost to the north of England, and he suggested doing so by getting the big northern cities to work together. In that speech, however, he acknowledged something vital, which is that real economic powerhouses must possess real political power too.

In that context we have to examine the whole issue of local democratic accountability. To take a rather more parochial example, yesterday the Government took a big step: finally devolving to Cornwall the right to allocate the latest tranche of EU structural funds, some £450 million, and that is where the power should be, rather than in those artificial regional development agencies that we all suffered from.

However, that should only be the start. More power should be devolved to a democratically accountable Cornish assembly, or whatever it may be in different parts of the country. That is subsidiarity. There were quotes from my erstwhile leader, Jo Grimond, about the concept of subsidiarity. I do not think that he invented the term, but the concept is quite clear: that decisions should be taken as close as practicably possible to those whom they affect. Colleagues from all parts of the country and all parts of the House have made a similar point. Different arrangements will suit different parts of England–we should be relaxed about that. Dr Andrew Blick, a highly respected academic in this field, has written an excellent pamphlet detailing how this model could work—a model of devolution on demand. This will be relevant whatever the outcome of the referendum of 18 September, to both Scotland and other parts of the United Kingdom. We must build on the new city deals so that the new powers, along the lines offered to Wales in 1998, can be available as of right to institutions which mean something to the people they affect. This concept of devolution on demand, which we Liberal Democrats have been advocating, is very well examined by Dr Blick’s paper. It would mean getting councils to come together to form the new institutions; and in return for working together they would be entitled to power, initially on the scale offered to Wales in 1998, and then on a greater scale, with more responsibility for finance eventually following thereafter.

As the Chancellor said yesterday, Wales has its own parliament and can pass its own laws but the economies of Manchester and Leeds are each bigger than that of Wales. So I conclude, as he does, that there is no reason why parts of England cannot take power on a similar scale to the Welsh Assembly if the will is here in this building to make that happen. There is no reason why Kent, Cornwall, Manchester or Leeds cannot take on responsibility and have proper accountable governance. They would be more strategic and powerful than local authorities but not as centralised and clumsy as control from Westminster.

I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said about an English parliament and I invite him to look at the effective debunking of that idea in Dr Blick’s pamphlet, which I quoted in Grand Committee last week. It would be incredibly unbalancing and centralising to invent an all-England parliament at this stage. Incidentally, if there were a yes vote in Scotland then an English parliament would be even more disruptive to the British constitution. That is because it would of course be representing 92% of the remaining United Kingdom, with Stormont and Cardiff Bay representing 3% and 5% respectively. That would surely be impossible to sustain for any period.

The second option, which is equally undesirable, is that of English votes for English laws. This has been examined and examined again but even the year-long work of the McKay commission raised more questions than it answered and, sadly, it ended up being rubbished on all sides.

Thirdly, the idea of some top-down imposition of regional government, as was attempted in the north-east of England, has also been dismissed and seen as irrelevant. Those artificial regions that were created for a different purpose just do not meet the needs and aspirations of people in England. I take as an example the northern end of the south-west region that is dear to my heart, which is nearer to Scotland than it is to Land’s End. The idea that that region has a natural unity is just not true.

The noble Lord, Lord Judd, emphasised just now—as the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord McFall, did previously—that 19 September is as much a constitutional opportunity or threat as 18 September. We have to grasp the fundamental asymmetrics of the demand for devolution in England—the fundamental messiness of England—and the essential asymmetrical reality of the United Kingdom, and then go with the grain. Once people have devolution they tend to like it and their neighbours will then demand it too. We can move toward a more devolved United Kingdom—the whole of the United Kingdom—without imposing artificial boundaries, in the way so eloquently described just now by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and without unbalancing the whole union by pitching England against the rest. The next Parliament must make that happen.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, as noble Lords will recall, Amendment 1 was moved by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on Report in this House and agreed to by a majority of 18 votes.

Amendment 1 would extend the scope of the register to those who lobby special advisers, in addition to those who lobby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Our colleagues in the other place recognised the objective of the amendment and, indeed, expressed some sympathy with the motives of those who had supported it. They concluded, however, that the case had not been made to extend the scope in this way at present, but recognised that discussions regarding the inclusion of those who communicate with special advisers will continue. They therefore proposed what I believe is a pragmatic and constructive response to the noble Lord’s amendment. The amendments in lieu proposed by the other place would introduce a power for the Minister to amend the definition of consultant lobbying provided for by Clause 2 to, subsequently, and if necessary, include communications with special advisers. Such a power would enable Ministers to extend the scope as suggested if and when they are persuaded in this Government or the next of the case for doing so.

As I have observed, the other place was not persuaded that the case for such an extension had yet been made. That is because it recognises that the register is intended to complement the existing government transparency regime. Both systems—transparency and the register—are intended to enhance the transparency of the key decision-makers, the Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, and those who communicate with them. The other place confirmed this view that the Government’s focus on key decision-makers is appropriate and proportionate. We accept that lobbyists make communications to government other than directly to Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. Ultimately, however, it is for Ministers and Permanent Secretaries to be responsible for the decisions taken within their departments.

While special advisers may provide advice, they are not decision-makers. It is Ministers, not special advisers, who are ultimately responsible for the actions of their departments; and it is Permanent Secretaries who are the officers accountable to Parliament for the performance of those departments. It is therefore only right that Ministers and Permanent Secretaries—not special advisers—are the main focus of the meeting reporting system, and the main focus of the register.

Special advisers are defined by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which includes the requirement that they are a person,

“appointed to assist a Minister of the Crown after being selected for the appointment by that Minister personally”.

That Act also provides for a statutory code for special advisers that makes clear that they may not,

“(a) authorise the expenditure of public funds; (b) exercise any power in relation to the management of any part of the civil service of the State; (c) otherwise exercise any”,

statutory or prerogative power.

As that code makes clear, the employment of special advisers adds a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers. They are an additional resource for the Minister, providing assistance from a standpoint that is more politically committed and politically aware than is available from the permanent Civil Service. The Government do not, therefore, intend that communications with them be captured by the meeting reporting system, nor by the register.

The other place recognised that the amendment proposed by this House would dissociate the register from its main objective, which is to complement the existing system by extending the transparency we apply to decision-makers to those who seek to influence them. They agreed by a substantial majority of 53 that Lords Amendment 1 be disagreed with, and replaced by the proposed Amendments 1A and 1B. In so doing, they have proposed a constructive compromise that would allow the scope of the register to be expanded to capture communications with special advisers, if the case is that it should do so.

The amendments in lieu should assuage the concerns of those who have asked that we do not eliminate the possibility of expanding the scope if justified in the future. I hope therefore that noble Lords will reconsider their position, and recognise that the amendments in lieu represent the most pragmatic and proportionate approach to this matter at present. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for his explanation of the position. I am delighted to see him back in his normal very active role on the Front Bench, and acknowledge immediately the efforts that he has made with my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness to find solutions to some of the problems with which we have all been grappling over what seems to be now many months, but certainly many weeks.

The government amendment in lieu precisely describes the situation we are now in. This House rightly insisted that better transparency arrangements should apply to meetings by lobbyists held with special advisers. Those arguments are well rehearsed, and I do not intend to repeat them. The amendment in lieu simply reflects the fact that there was no majority in the other place to reject out of hand the amendment we passed in your Lordships’ House. Liberal Democrat MPs would not vote to do that. Equally, the other part of the coalition has not yet been prepared to shine a light on spads’ activity at this stage. So Motion A accepts the principle that transparency for special advisers’ meetings is desirable, and there is clearly no practical problem in extending the transparency principle in this direction, or else it would have been spelt out in the amendments in lieu.

The Motion also accepts that the Commons does not desire this extension yet. It leaves the matter open until there is a government majority in the other place to switch on the provisions; I await that day with bated breath. It would obviously be helpful to hear from the opposition Front Bench whether the party opposite can commit categorically to switching on the transparency arrangements in the amendment, if and when Labour is in any way involved in the next Government.

However, the Liberal Democrat position is quite clear. We agree with the Prime Minister that,

“sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

We would introduce the pine scent of transparency to the work of spads right now; apparently, he does not want to do so quite yet. I shall support the amendment in lieu, and I thank my noble friends for working so hard behind the scenes to secure it.

--- Later in debate ---

This limited amendment makes it harder to abuse the electoral process, meeting the Government’s main objective, and makes it easier for campaigners to stay within the rules and to know that they are doing so. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I regret the position that we seem to have reached now on constituency limits. Your Lordships’ House may recall that I proposed a very simple amendment on this issue in Committee and on Report. I suggested then that only election materials directed at electors or households in particular constituencies, or telephone calls to electors in those constituencies, should count under the specific constituency limit. That was very simple.

The Government argued that that approach was too simple and excluded too much activity, particularly the potential for handing out leaflets in a town square. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has been diligent in attempting to deal with that problem, but I think that in the process we have been sent round in a circle. Sending information to a household is an easy test, because it is easy to know where a household is and therefore in which constituency its occupants are likely to vote. However, handing out information in a public place is different, as has been indicated, because people move around and could be from all sorts of different constituencies.

In the amendment in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, we are faced with a further test: can it reasonably be inferred that the third party selected the relevant electors or households, or both, or otherwise distributed the material wholly or substantially to contact electors in the particular constituency or constituencies and not a wider section of the public? In other words, did the organisation, in doing what it was doing, mean to do it? That is quite a difficult question for anyone to answer, let alone the Electoral Commission. I am still not convinced by that and I am particularly not convinced about it in relation to election materials that are sent to households. It is perfectly clear that such materials would be constituency campaigning, and no extra test should need to be applied for such campaigning to count under a constituency limit. So this is a muddle.

The Bill as it stands says that,

“the effects of controlled expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if they have no significant effects in any other constituency or constituencies”.

I had hoped that the issue of so-called “significant effects” could be done away with—it is extremely difficult to adjudicate on that—but neither the amendment nor the Government’s position appears to do so. The amendment adds the additional test I referred to just now, and I certainly do not think that it helps in terms of clarity and transparency.

I want to put on record again my continuing concern that in raising the threshold for registration, which was welcome on a national basis, we have got ourselves into a further muddle on the application of constituency limits. This is a classic case of unintended consequences resulting from a late-stage concession.

Mr Andrew Lansley, the Leader of the Commons, put this very clearly in the other place just last week:

“Campaigners may now spend the entire constituency limit of £9,750 at any time during the regulated period, or just in the last few weeks before the election if they so wish. That makes it less restrictive and easier to comply with”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/14; col. 352.]

What he did not acknowledge is that campaigners who are spending entirely in just one or two English constituencies could still spend up to just below that limit—£9,749.99—in each of the two constituencies and not even register because the threshold is £20,000.

A trade union, a maverick millionaire with an anti-European bee in his bonnet or, even, another group wanting to influence the outcome in a marginal constituency could spend serious money without anybody knowing until it was too late. So much for transparency and accountability. Under the radar, such intervention could take place without either the amount spent or who paid for it being disclosed. That remains a mistake, an unfortunate loophole weakening these measures in the Bill.

At Third Reading, I set out a simple way in which to improve the position so that those campaigning in one or two constituencies would have to register at £5,000 or, if that was thought to be too low, at least at a lower figure than the £9,750 spending limit. That would have made for the continuum that I described in that debate, where registration occurs at point X and the limit on spending occurs at point Y. The Electoral Commission, on whose advice we have to rely in matters of this sort, specifically advised that X and Y should not be in the same place, and I very much regret that the Ministers in both Houses have not been able to address that point.

These issues can really now only be dealt with in guidance from the Electoral Commission, and I wish it luck with that. As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness said earlier, we look forward to some very substantial round-table discussions, and I hope I may be able to play a small part in them because I think this is an extremely important issue.

The introduction of a constituency limit on non-party expenditure is an extremely important principle, and really the most important measure in Part 2. I am sure Members of the other place, when they are faced with very considerable sums of money being invested in trying to unseat them, will agree with that. I welcome it for the fact that it is here in the Bill, even though I think there were two improvements that could still have been made to it. I believe those issues will now be central to the post-legislative review of the Bill after the 2015 election. I look forward to that review.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, this is a case of confusion worse confounded, so I am very much in sympathy with the points made by my noble friend Lord Tyler in that respect. I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness. He has been exemplary in the way that he has sought to respond and consult, but he has been in a bit of a straitjacket for two reasons.

First, as has been said so often during the course of this Bill, if ever a Bill needed pre-legislative scrutiny it was this one, but it did not get it. That decision was taken probably at a pay grade above that of my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, but it was a mistaken decision.

The other problem that we face, and here I make a plea to the Minister, is that we passed these amendments in this House last week and within 24 hours they were reversed in another place. That is no way to treat your Lordships’ House. There should have been wider consultation and discussion. Clearly, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness had fruitful, although not totally successful, discussions with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. For that we should all be grateful, because the noble and right reverend Lord did so much with his commission and in other ways to try to improve this Bill. However, those discussions, however well meant and however protracted, were not enough. There should have been a proper opportunity for real discussion before we had to face the answer from the other end of the corridor. This is no way to treat your Lordships’ House.

As far as this particular series of amendments is concerned, we now have to rely on those round-table discussions. I am glad that the Minister felt that that was a useful suggestion and am grateful to him for acting on it and discussing it with the Electoral Commission already. I hope that those discussions will take place and that they will take place soon, but that they will not be rushed, because this is an extremely complex and difficult situation.

I know very well why the Minister said what he said this afternoon, and I also understand the argument elegantly put by my noble friend Lord Tyler. This is complex. All of us who have stood for election to the other place, or indeed for election to local councils, know that the distribution of leaflets is an inexact science. When you are doing it outside a shopping centre or a railway station or other places where people congregate, you have no idea to whom you are giving the leaflets and which constituency they come from. You have a rough idea that most of them may come from your own constituency, but many of them will not.

Let us have these discussions. Let us hope that they are fruitful. Let us hope that they can build upon the imperfect base that this Bill provides for them. Therefore, let us move on this afternoon.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I was aware of the noble and learned Lord’s point, and I was going to come to it. I take that point—he said quite unequivocally that he did not expect campaigning groups to log all those small items—but the fact is that they are expected under the Bill to take staff costs into account. That is what the Bill states. If they are expected under the Bill to take staff costs into account, presumably they are expected in some way to provide a note of what those costs are. They have to go about that in one way or another, and that involves a lot of scrutinising of the cost of what they do and adding it up.

This is a bureaucratic nightmare. It is no accident that the Electoral Commission is reluctant to support the Bill on this particular issue. It is no wonder that political parties have resisted taking staff costs into their accounts for this very reason of complexity.

This amendment does not have any bearing on the situation about which some politicians have expressed concern, in which a third party may want to second staff to work for a party or a candidate. That is not a situation regulated by third-party rules. Such costs would either count towards a party’s spending limit or a candidate’s spending limit, depending on the timing and nature of the secondment. Ensuring appropriate enforcement, rather than changing the rules, is the appropriate response to such concerns.

This amendment does nothing to frustrate the Government’s purpose of trying to prevent big spenders from distorting elections through third-party campaigns, and it is one that matters very much to charities and campaigning groups, because of the regulatory burden. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, on this final group of Commons disagreements, I am much more at one with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and much more dispirited that the Government have not been able to move on this issue. Again, it does seem a relatively minor difference between what the noble and right reverend Lord has been suggesting and what my noble and learned friend has been saying about the way the Bill is intended to be explained and implemented by the Electoral Commission.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his assiduous commission originally suggested that no staff costs should be included in election expense returns submitted by non-party campaigners. I did not agree with that and I do not now, since some of those costs—for example, in relation to producing and distributing election material—are significant. I think we are all at one on that now, and they could be very significant in particular circumstances. Those costs are already regulated under the Labour Government’s Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, and rightly so. Non-party organisations have had to account for those in both the 2005 and the 2010 general elections.

Staff costs in relation to canvassing could also be very relevant to election outcomes in particular circumstances. Clearly paying people to canvass in a way that could promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate is significant. The amendment therefore seeks to exclude staffing costs from consideration only when it comes to organising press conferences and rallies and in relation to transport, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has said. I do not know if my noble and learned friend can give adequate reassurance now on those points. I heard what he said just now, but I hope he may be able to go into some greater detail about the guidance that will be given to campaigners. Perhaps he can say that despite what the Bill says, somehow the incidental costs of someone travelling to a rally or booking the room for a press conference will not be included. However, I do not see where the de minimis provision is in the Bill. How will the Electoral Commission guidance deal with this level of detailed accountancy and audit?

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

On that point, bearing in mind that if people are campaigning there must be an opposing view, what is to stop a fourth party in an election demanding of the campaigning group all the detail of its expenditure, if there is nothing in the legislation to prevent it? There is no de minimis, as the noble Lord rightly says. What is to stop the trouble-maker who is opposed to the third party campaigning from forcing that issue on to the third-party group? There is nothing in the legislation. Surely guidance cannot deal with that.

[Lord Tyler]

I understand the point that the noble Lord is making, and I think he shares my anxiety that, at this very late stage, there is not a clear indication of how that might happen. As he will know better than me having contested even more elections than I have, and with greater success of course—I had a few at council level that were more successful—in the heat of a campaign it is going to be very difficult for any organisation to adjudicate on these matters, be it the Electoral Commission or anyone else. I am afraid that this is a fact of life. It is one of the reasons that I referred to some problems that will undoubtedly occur at the latter stage of an election campaign. I am not sure whether the noble Lord was in his usual place then.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

9: Clause 28, page 16, line 38, leave out “0.05% of the total” to end of line 40 and insert “£5,000”

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, this amendment seeks simply to tidy up an anomaly created by the government amendments here and on Report. My noble and learned friend informed us on Report last week that the threshold for registration would be £20,000 in England, £10,000 in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or £9,750 if the spending was to take place in one constituency. In other words, the lowest of the spending limits in the Bill—the £9,750 constituency limit—is exactly equal to the threshold for registration if the activity is focused in that constituency.

The Government’s approach is the same as that I took in my initial amendments on thresholds in Committee. However, I was then persuaded by the Electoral Commission, with the very explicit advice that,

“this approach would cause significant workability problems, since in practice campaigners will either remain below the registration threshold or will be in breach of a spending limit”.

It went on:

“We therefore do not support this amendment”.

The very valid point it was making was that, if you need to have a point of registration, it must be lower than the spending limit with which the activity is concerned, so there are two quite separate processes. First, an organisation says, “I am spending X, so I need to register”. Then it goes on to say, “I have now spent Y, so I cannot spend any more”. The commission has said very clearly on a number of occasions that X and Y cannot be at the same level, but that is the effect of the present situation arising from the recent government amendments.

My amendment therefore sets X, which is the threshold for registration if you are spending in just one or two constituencies, at £5,000 and leaves Y—the Government’s proposed constituency limit—at £9,750. This provides the process of spending, registration, more spending, then reaching the limit—which is exactly what the Electoral Commission has indicated is desirable and essential. I therefore hope that the Minister will recognise that, even today, the Electoral Commission is saying that the Government’s amendments in this area are just not quite right. Importantly, they are defective.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

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

[Lord Tyler]

If I may return to Amendment 9, my noble and learned friend made the very fair comment that this is a judgment call. It is not just my judgment with which he has a problem; it is the judgment of the Electoral Commission. I shall read again what it said, as I do not think my noble and learned friend covered this point. It said previously that if a registration threshold is identical to a limit, there is a problem. It said that,

“this approach would cause significant workability problems, since in practice campaigners will either remain below the registration threshold or will be in breach of a spending limit. We therefore do not support this amendment”.

That is precisely where the Government’s amendments have left us.

As I also said, I am not wedded to the figure of £5,000. If it were necessary, we could go up to £8,000. The key point is that there must be a gap between the registration threshold and the limit. That is not my advice but the advice of the Electoral Commission. That is its judgment call. Therefore, I must invite my noble and learned friend to think carefully before this element of the Bill is considered by our colleagues in the other place tomorrow—as it will be, since there will be government amendments that they will be addressing—as to whether there is not some way that we can deal with this very serious problem. On the basis that I still regard this as an important judgment call—one on which I think my noble friends and I differ, the Electoral Commission being on my side—I am happy for the time being to withdraw this amendment.

Amendment 9 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

I suppose that the answer to that question, which is a perfectly reasonable one for the noble Lord, Lord Martin, to ask, is that some would perhaps be eligible but others would not. We know from what we have debated in this Bill that not every such body can become a registered charity; it depends on what the aims are. It is possible that some could, but certainly not all of them.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, in respect of the comments made a few moments ago by my noble friend Lord Cormack about the Electoral Commission, perhaps I should put on the record that I sit on an informal cross-party advisory group for the Electoral Commission. It is not a pecuniary interest, but it means that I take very seriously its advice.

As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, Amendment 11 builds on my own amendment on Report last week, and on Amendment 170A in Committee, and I welcome the fact that it is still here for our discussion. However, I believe that too much building has taken place, and I regret to say that I think that the lawyers have been too clever by half. The purpose of my amendment was to simplify drastically the operation of the constituency limit. I wanted to do away with any need for anyone to work out what did or did not have a significant effect on whom. That was the previous test, which I thought was extremely ineffective and very difficult for small organisations to address without great bureaucracy.

In my estimation, if election material that can reasonably be regarded as seeking to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate has been sent directly to an elector in a constituency, it should be counted under the relevant constituency limit. That seems to be a very simple test. Likewise, if unsolicited telephone calls are made to ascertain or influence voting intentions, it is easy to know where the people whom you are calling live and to allocate those costs to a constituency limit. The amendment on Report was about simplicity.

However, my noble and learned friend the Minister made a compelling point on Report last week. He said that materials could be distributed within a constituency other than by delivering them directly to electors’ homes—they could be handed out in town centres, for example. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has rightly tried to meet that point in proposed new sub-paragraph (1) of his amendment, but the complication of considering whether materials handed out in a town centre are trying to influence a constituency result has led him and his advisers to complicate the amendment with proposed new sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of the amended schedule. Therein lies a problem.

The cumulative effect is to ask those campaigners—many of them small operations, as we have been constantly reminded—to consider their spending against not one test, as I advocated last week, but three. First, there is my test, which I have already given: are the phone calls and election material directed at a particular elector or household? That is easy. Then we have in this amendment, secondly: does the material have a significant effect just in the constituency to which it was sent? Who can tell? When can they tell? Perhaps they can tell only after polling day. Therein lies another problem. Then there is the third qualification: can it reasonably be inferred that the third parties selected the electors in order to contact electors in that constituency,

“and not a wider section of the public”?

Who will adjudicate on that and when?

I do not know how one can be sure of either of the latter tests, either in terms of the Electoral Commission and its very proper responsibilities, to which my noble friend Lord Cormack has just referred, or of the organisations that have been in touch with us over the past few weeks. I can see that it may be necessary in relation to the narrow issue of handing out leaflets in a town centre. After all, leaflets handed out in the town square of my old North Cornwall constituency would almost certainly be directed at North Cornwall’s results and voters, but leaflets handed out in Trafalgar Square might not be directed only at voters in the City of London and Westminster.

That is a problem—one brought about by the Minister’s legitimate concern about the distribution of leaflets in a town square. If we had more time for drafting, I would be able to find some additional tests, but only for this additional activity of handing out leaflets rather than for all deliveries that could take place. It is a rather complicated point and I apologise for that to Members of your Lordships’ House—but it is an important one.

As the amendment is drafted, it means a loophole is created, permitting direct communication with voters outwith the constituency limit because it could somehow be deemed under sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of the amended schedule that the materials sent to them were not really supposed to influence the constituency result. I do not buy that, and at this stage it leaves a real lacuna. If you write to a voter in a constituency to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate, I am confident that you are trying to promote or procure their electoral success in that constituency. That is a simple rule, and one it would be simple for campaigners big and small to follow.

At every stage of the Bill, from Second Reading right through to Report last week, I have been concerned to simplify and clarify the requirements placed on campaigners, reflecting what they—the campaigners, who are charities and other organisations—have said consistently to me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues in both Houses, and no doubt to many other Members of your Lordships’ House. None the less, I regret the position we are now in since I have pursued this issue right from Committee.

I return to the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack: the Electoral Commission still says that it has concerns about the enforceability of a constituency limit. There needs to be a constituency limit. A revised amendment along these lines would make that more effective and much easier to enforce. Combined with the sensible changes to the constituency threshold that I outlined in the debate on the previous group of amendments, the whole regime would be much tighter and more workable, which is what the Bill sets out to achieve.

Following up on the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack, I promised to refer to the advice given to us by the Electoral Commission. At the end of its advice to us for today, referring to Amendment 11, it said:

“We think this amendment would reduce this problem, but in practice it will still often be difficult to obtain adequate evidence of a breach at a constituency level and deal with it before polling day”.

That is an extremely important point. To that end, I hope that my noble and learned friend the Minister will respond positively to this amendment, even if it means that some simplification must be achieved in the other place tomorrow.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The noble Lord knows that I value simplicity even more than he does. Would he not agree that it was right to try to respond to what the Minister said about the distribution of leaflets, and that if you were doing that, you had to try to define what was meant by focusing on a constituency or influencing the voting intentions of people in a constituency? Would he not also agree that, while there was, of course, a qualification at the end of the last advice from the Electoral Commission that there were probably difficulties remaining, the difficulties with this Bill are now far less than they were originally or even, perhaps, with his own amendment at an earlier stage?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, in response to that, I certainly agree that the Bill is greatly improved and I pay tribute to the noble and right reverend Lord for the amazing amount of work that he and other noble Lords have undertaken to achieve that purpose.

I regret very much the speed with which we have moved from Report to Third Reading and that we did not have a genuine opportunity—we only had a comparatively few hours yesterday—to look at this together. I regret even more that any amendments passed today, whether government amendments or others that are passed by your Lordships’ House, will be considered by the other place within 24 hours. The short period for discussion of any necessary improvements is very unfortunate. Had his amendment simply brought in the point raised by the Minister about leafleting, and therefore stuck rigidly to the simplicity of the first provision in his amendment, I would be much happier about it.

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in this debate because I am struck time and again in the exchanges in this House by the endless pursuit of perfection in an area where I do not think that perfection can be achieved. We have to accept that the best compromises that we can get are the best that we can do by this Bill at this late date. I know that it reflects the failure of pre-legislative scrutiny and I know that it reflects the lack of consultation, but given that we are where we are, I think that the recent amendments put forward—not least the ones by my noble friend and those by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth—further improve the Bill. We should be pleased with having produced that effect as the matter goes to the other place.

I completely accept what my noble friend has said that it is a great shame, given the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny, that the gap between the deliberations in this House and those that are starting in the other place tomorrow is, frankly, ludicrous. It does not enable the other place to take into account the very careful and deliberate thought that has been given in this House, not least by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and his very impressive commission, which most people here agree went into this Bill in great detail, produced some excellent amendments and really gave us the opportunity to say that the House of Lords has made a constitutional contribution of the kind for which it is distinguished in a large range of legislation.

I do not want to detain the House, but I share the view that there are certain limitations on the whole issue of dealing with leafleting and all the rest of it. I also recognise that what has come out of this is the best attempt we could make to simplify an extremely complex Bill and to keep as largely as we can the concept of constituency limits.

I have the greatest respect for outstanding intelligence, but I think that, in what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said in her defence of the position she would like to see, she went a bit far. I think that she should have been a bit more fair about the extraordinary efforts made by Ministers in this debate to try to meet some of the points that she so forcefully made about the need to protect the freedom of speech and expression of the non-party campaigning groups. She is quite right about that, but I think that she was less than generous in her failure to recognise the extent—by raising the threshold and other ways—to which Ministers have tried to meet some of the arguments that she and some of her colleagues have made.

Having said that, I hope that Ministers will be able to pay particular attention to elements of what has been said in this House and to draw the attention of the other place—which means that they will have to work very hard tonight, I appreciate—to the points that have been made here that have not altogether been carried out. Having said that, in a very constrained situation, I think that this House and the commission can legitimately say that they have made a very substantial contribution to making this complicated Bill as good as it could be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

I want very briefly to support the amendment but also to remind your Lordships’ House that the Joint Committee on Human Rights expressed concerns about the implications of the Bill for freedom of association and freedom of expression. I would be very grateful if the Minister, in responding, could assure your Lordships’ House that the effects of the Bill on freedom of expression and association will be part of this review, the importance of which was underlined when discussed in Committee—although I do not think that this particular point was raised.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I very much welcome the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment. I believe that it is preferable to a sunset clause because it will start the process of analysis of what is happening under the Bill before the general election happens, rather than having to wait till a later stage. I hope that it gets an equally warm welcome from my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has indicated, the Government brought forward at Report an amendment so that there will be a review. The Government are committed to appointing a person to undertake the review within 12 months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent. That came out of one of the meetings that we had with one of the campaign groups, which suggested that it might be useful to have someone in place during the election. We thought that that was a very sensible suggestion and one for which we have provided.

I have discussed with the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the merits and demerits of perhaps putting more in the Bill about what the review might or might not do, and we concluded that the minute we start adding things it begs the question as to what has been left out. There is no intention to limit the review, and I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. If people wish to make representations on that point in terms of the review, we would not anticipate anything stopping it—certainly there is nothing in the Bill that would stop it. I emphasise, however, that we believe that freedom of association and expression are vital. They are not impinged by the Bill; rather, what we have is transparency. We are not trying to stop people campaigning, but if they are campaigning in a way that seeks to influence an election it is not unreasonable that that should be transparent.

The next scheduled general election will be the opportunity on which the Bill will operate, and will provide a timely opportunity to review the effectiveness of those controls. On completion the person conducting the review must produce a written report which must be published and laid before Parliament by the Minister. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, tabled the amendment proposing that the report must be laid before Parliament within 18 months of the general election. It is right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider the outcomes of the review well before the following 2020 election. It is appropriate that the review is done to an established timetable, and the Government are therefore pleased to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I dip the tiniest of toes into the waters of this Bill, not as chair of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee but as somebody who knows a tiny bit about Henry VIII clauses, just to reassure noble Lords that this kind of power is well precedented and here it is very narrowly drawn. The House need not worry that the Government are in some way exceeding their powers or doing something they should not on this occasion. That is all I wish to say on this, but it has been very instructive to sit here and listen to the last few hours of debate on the Bill.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester said, with typical modesty, that she had only a tiny knowledge, but she has more knowledge than most of us present in the House put together on the subject of Henry VIII clauses. I entirely endorse what she said. In fact, I do not think this is a Henry VIII clause because of its very limited impact. I think it is more, in terms of longevity, like an Edward VI clause, as Henry VIII ruled for quite a long time whereas Edward VI ruled for a relatively short time. It is more likely that that is the more appropriate historical analogy. As my noble friend just said, the power is only about consequential provisions; it includes the affirmative procedure; it is effectively sun-setted, because it is limited to the general election; and it is well precedented.

My noble friend Lord Cormack said just now that these were his final words on the Bill. He presumably assumes that the other place tomorrow will accept all our amendments or produce amendments in lieu that are so acceptable all over your Lordships’ House that we do not return to the Bill again. Let me be as optimistic as he is, just for a minute, and assume that that is the case. I therefore want to place on record my gratitude and congratulations to noble friends all around the House who have done some hugely important work on what I think is now a much better Bill and a necessary Bill. I am not sure that everybody in the House agrees with that, but I certainly said at Second Reading that I thought it was necessary and it certainly has improved.

I really think that we owe a very considerable debt to the Wallace duet. Ministers in the other place should perhaps take lessons from the way in which they have responded to very important proposed improvements to this Bill, which leaves this place in a much better state than when it arrived and that is very much to their credit. I am grateful to them for the way in which they consulted many Members of your Lordships’ House.

I think the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, would agree that the engagement of a large number of other people outwith the Westminster bubble—outside Parliament—in this process was actually a plus for your Lordships’ House. We must recognise that they were stirred by concerns and anxieties that were very real. I wish it would happen on many other occasions with many other legislative proposals. We may need to build on that in future. Perhaps it may be that those organisations will take more notice in future of the way in which your Lordships’ House scrutinises legislation, and that must be to the good reputation of Parliament as a whole.

I am glad that I have had the opportunity to contribute at all stages of this Bill and I welcome the way it is now leaving this House. That is due not only to the assiduous way in which many Members of the House contributed to these debates but to the engagement of a large number of others outside the House. That is a good result.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we have some concerns about this power, but if we are given the reassurance that the Electoral Commission will be consulted and involved, that will reduce those concerns. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, has also added her imprimatur to that. I am sure that the Government will listen to the sage advice that they get from the Electoral Commission, should this be necessary.

I am much more optimistic than the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, so I think this will be our last outing on this Bill. I am sure that the good offices of the noble Lords opposite will be able to ensure that all is accepted down the other end tomorrow and they will not send it back as ping-pong. That is my assumption. Having already learnt, from the noble Lord, Lord Horam, on Report, the words “harrying” and being “harried”—referring to the noble and right reverend Lord—I am not sure what being “wallaced” is, but I think it must mean being heard with sympathetic ears. In this case, of course, it was four sympathetic ears and not just two.

We have complained about the timing of this and the shortage of time. Our complaints are of nothing compared to what it must mean to the Bill team. We are about to finish with this, but they are now going to have to scuttle down and do the whole thing again. Therefore, not only for their efforts but for the time constraints we put on them, we should give them a big thank you.

I thank my colleagues, some of whom are here. My noble and learned friend Lord Morris and my noble friends Lady Lister, Lady Pitkeathley and Lady Mallalieu are just some of those who have contributed. I also make a small thank you to a newish member of our own team, Byron Orme. This was the first Bill which he saw through this House so perhaps we can also thank everyone who, by their umpteen amendments, have helped him learn how to do that. He has been superb for us.

I thank the third sector, which I do not think went over the top. I saw an enormous amount of practicality—certainly when we from this side of the House said, “Look, that amendment just isn’t on”, they would say, “All right”, and come back with some different words, which showed practicality and an involvement in the political process at its best. I also put my thanks to them for the briefing which they gave to us all, whether we agreed with it or not.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I very much hope that the comments made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, will be taken seriously by my noble and learned friend, as I am sure they will be. However, I will direct some very brief comments to Amendment 34, which was moved with commendable brevity by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth.

We live in a very different age from people who were active in politics even 20 or 30 years ago. I do not know whether the mass membership political party is a thing of the past or not, but it is certainly not a thing of the present. We live in an age in which single-issue groups and associations predominate and have a collective membership far in excess of the Conservative Party, the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrat party put together. One can illustrate that with one statistic: the National Trust now has over 4 million paid-up members. In this new age, we have to be very conscious of the fact that we should pass no legislation in this House that in any way inhibits the expression of legitimate opinion. The Bill endangers that expression of legitimate opinion.

If ever there was a Bill that cried out for pre-legislative scrutiny, it is this one, but it has not had it. In saying that, I level no criticism at my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, who has been exemplary in the manner in which he personally has sought to meet and discuss with people who have legitimate concerns and interests. Therefore, I exonerate him from all blame, but I still say to him that this is a Bill that is far from perfect. It is a Bill that should never have been presented in this form to either House of Parliament.

Another thing that makes the present age different from very recent ones is the dynamics of the fixed-term Parliament. Until a future Parliament has the good sense to repeal that Act—which I hope will not be too long distant—the fact is that we know when the next election will be and the election after that and so on. So we have a year of purdah as far as interests groups, charities and others are concerned. The simple aim of Amendment 34 is to try to alleviate some of the problems that that creates.

I very much hope that when my noble friend responds to this brief debate—and I hope that it will be a brief debate because we have a long day before us and many important issues to discuss—he will acknowledge the powerful arguments put forward by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which are supported by many of us. If the Minister cannot give the assurances that we seek, I hope that he will at least give the assurance that he will reflect on this matter, have further discussions and come back at Third Reading, because we need to make this very, very imperfect—no, this very, very bad—Bill a little more palatable than it is currently.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I have two amendments in this group. In preparing my notes, I had intended to say precisely what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said just a few minutes ago. It is the responsibility of this House to try to make sure that anything that leaves us is as good as it can be and as perfect as we can achieve. Today, therefore, we are all together in seeking modest amendments in most cases, but important ones that make the Bill more workable, more acceptable and more democratic.

Before I come to the two specific amendments on which my name leads, I should very much like to support the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in his Amendment 34. It is important for the sake of civic society that we enable people to get fully involved in the dialogue with Parliament about the legislation that goes through the two Houses. I hope that, in one way or another, my noble friend will be able to make that absolutely clear. It must surely be right that, when legislation is going through both Houses of Parliament, our fellow citizens are in a position to campaign without let or hindrance to improve that legislation. I very much hope that we will have reassurance on that point.

Amendment 40, which stands in my name and in the names of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, is quite simply about bringing the concept of supporter up to date. I echo here a point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack a few minutes ago. When I was first involved in politics, those of us who wanted to engage in the political process, in the main, joined a political party. I did so as a student and I suspect that many others in your Lordships’ House did the same. Some then drifted off into other occupations. I stayed with politics, to my obvious detriment in terms of income compared with the lawyers in your Lordships’ House. From that period to now there have been dramatic changes in society. Many then did join parties; others might have joined campaigning groups. Some of those groups are still with us and still have a mass membership. In those days, it was very much the culture of the age, particularly among young people, but people today support campaigns à la carte. They do not get involved in just one campaign and stick with it to the exclusion of all others. They are involved for a time but their priorities change, just as in the consumer world people expect now to pick and choose. You go to one supermarket for one purpose and to another for another, to one airline for an outward flight and another to come home again. You do not necessarily feel that you have to join up to one hospital even—you choose. It is part of the culture of our age.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, first, I should like to say how good it is to see the other Lord Wallace—my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire—back in his place on the Front Bench having, I hope, had restorative attention.

In Committee, there was a long debate on this amendment, which has a simple purpose: to remove charities altogether from both the Bill and PPERA 2000. I am bound to say that in the intervening period there has been a great deal of discussion, meetings and lobbying. It is fair to say that the dear old charity sector —which must be one of the slowest of any sector in our society to get the hang of things, while being a most invaluable element in our society—is now showing its support, late in the day, for the proposal that charities are taken right out of the Bill. It is a pity that this movement did not show itself a good deal earlier.

I must also explain that in Committee there were three different supporting names on this amendment: my noble friends Lady Williams, Lord Tyler and Lord Greaves. They—how shall I put it?—stood back at this stage of the Bill to enable Peers from other parts of the House to put their names to an amendment which is felt strongly about. It is a great resource and support to have the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, and the noble Lords, Lord Best and Lord Low of Dalston, on the amendment. They are, respectively, an ex-Lord Chancellor, an ex-chief executive of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and an ex-chief executive of the Royal National Institute of the Blind.

We have put this amendment forward today and continue to feel really strongly about it because we are convinced that to draw charities into this net is counterproductive, legally illogical, because they are the subject of a completely separate and rigorous branch of law in a way that no other NGOs are, and wasteful of scarce and valuable volunteer time and philanthropic resources if we persist in so doing. I shall address only a few points. I am very mindful of the time and my colleagues will deal with different points relating to the amendment and its consequences.

The one word that keeps coming back to me in relation to all this is “practical”—or, in this case, “impractical”. It seems a thoroughly impractical proposal to lump charities in with NGOs, which can range right across the board from being relatively public-spirited—as, for example, most of the supporters of the Harris commission certainly are—to completely self-interested NGOs, some of them acting as fronts for commercial organisations and others with political aspirations. The one thing you know for certain and beyond peradventure about a charity is that it exists exclusively for the public benefit. Private benefit and charity are wholly incompatible dimensions.

This branch of our law is not some Johnny-come-lately or some rather weak branch of law, if I may put it that way; it is about as fiercely and strongly embedded in our culture as any aspect of law. What is more, the Charity Commission, which has been doing its job for more than 150 years, is a committed body with vast experience, though admittedly with inadequate resources, which is there to try to police this extraordinary sector. Extraordinary it is because it actually needs wonderfully little policing. The amount of fraud and—how shall I put it?—manipulation in the charity sector is a tribute to the best in British society and culture.

The duty on us as legislators, when touching on this sector in particular, is to act with extreme caution because one can so easily damage that which one hopes to assist. Above all, we need to avoid confusion in the legislation that we shower on the British public. There is one way of avoiding confusion in the issue of the regulation of NGOs: to avoid shackling charities of all organisations with duplicatory regulation and thus the responsibility for two sets of regulations and indeed regulators. Of all the groups in our society that surely do not need that, above all others by far are charities. Although of course the Bill is vital and it is good that amendments have been introduced—we thank the Government for being so receptive—it is important that we retain our civic vitality, which, let us be honest, is languishing somewhat. However, in the process, we must not damage that which we seek to uphold.

The confusion surrounding charities in relation to the Bill is quite extraordinary. I can illustrate that by referring the House to the letter written last night by the Charity Commission to a number of us now in the Chamber. It deals in particular with this amendment because the Charity Commission considers it of such importance. I confess that many of us have been trying for some considerable while to get the Charity Commission to come out of its shell and be clear about what it thinks of the arguments advanced on each side of this debate. At least now we have a letter, written by the public affairs manager of the Charity Commission at 6.30 pm last night. Pretty early this morning, as one might guess, I was on the telephone to seek clarification.

The letter has four paragraphs. Can one ask Peers to put up their hands if they have had this letter? It is probably unprecedented, but I have seen one, anyhow. I suspect that a minority of those here have seen this letter and that it will be helpful to quote from it. It is important given that the Charity Commission is the kingpin in this field. The first point that it makes in relation to this amendment is under the heading “Charity law and electoral law—the current situation”. It states:

“Charities must never support political parties or candidates for election”.

That is the basic premise. It continues:

“A charity can engage in campaigning to influence public policy but only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes. We recognise that there are some circumstances where a charity’s activities can adhere to charity law but may still require them to register with the Electoral Commission during an election period”.

I have to be honest. I was slightly crestfallen when I saw that because my proposition hitherto has been that charity law and election law in this bit of the landscape are so similar as to be no different from each other. I argued this with the senior member of the commission who is fielding calls in relation to this letter and after a while, she said, “Well, perhaps we did not put this as we intended”. It then became apparent that when the Charity Commission made this statement it was talking about the law as it stands now, not the law as it will be after the Bill is enacted.

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to my noble friend because I shared his confusion about that missive last night. I too quite separately raised a question with the same person at the Charity Commission and was sent back this very explicit statement:

“We are by no means suggesting that CC9 is not fit for purpose. Instead we believe that CC9 provides clear and concise guidance on what is and is not acceptable for charities when campaigning. This is an issue that we regulate firmly and take action where necessary”.

In other words, far from saying as seemed to be the first impression that I had from the previous letter that the Charity Commission was not up to this job, it thinks it is up to the job and does not think it is necessary to change the situation so that another commission is so actively involved, as the Bill would suggest.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

I am grateful for that. My noble friend is lucky in having had a letter. When I finished the conversation, the Charity Commission said to me that it would send a new communication forthwith to everybody who received the first one to make clear that this statement did not relate to the law as it will be after the passing of this Bill. That is just one small example of—

--- Later in debate ---

There are two further government amendments in this group, Amendments 63 and 64, which relate to Amendment 39. These are minor amendments, which make consequential amendments to the third-party reporting rules. I shall respond to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Tyler after he has spoken. In the mean time, I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

As my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace has said, I and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and my noble friend Lord Cormack have a subsidiary but quite important additional amendment, Amendment 39A. I am sure that all four of us welcome the recognition that my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace has given to the fact that the 2000 Act—this is not about this Bill; it is about the 2000 Act—has caused real problems for any organisations that were encouraged to work together in what were then called coalitions. Since then, the term “coalition” has gained a different connotation, so perhaps we should talk just about “working together”. The way in which this matter was handled in 2000 has caused real concerns. I know from reading Hansard that this confusion was caused at the last minute by a government amendment during the Committee stage of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill, as it then was, in this House.

It is curious that, over the years since 2000, very few of us seem to have heard of the problems that were caused by those provisions. Neither the Electoral Commission nor the Charity Commission ever came forward and said that these matters needed review and either repeal or revision. However, we now know, because a large number of organisations have been in touch with many Members of your Lordships’ House saying that this is a real practical problem—hence the Government’s amendment, which is excellent so far as it goes. However, as I shall seek to explain in a moment, there is one additional problem which I hope my noble and learned friend will be able to say he can look at again, since, as he just said, there will be some additional clarification at Third Reading.

As my noble and learned friend has said, the new provisions should be a major help to smaller players in those joint campaigns, ensuring that others can account for their spending, but the approach in Amendment 39 does not go quite far enough. The fundamental problem with the so-called coalition arrangements in the 2000 Act is as follows. If, let us say, Friends of Earth intends to spend £300,000 on a campaign about climate change and does so in coalition with, for example, Oxfam, which contributes £25,000, under PPERA both are deemed to have spent, or to plan to spend, £325,000. Clearly, that is absurd, because that would mean that Oxfam, which had contributed only £25,000 to that campaign, might well then be precluded from doing anything else on other issues, which it is clear was not intended by the 2000 Act and which, I hope, is not something that we would intend to do today.

To prevent people working together and therefore having to multiply the spending limits under the 2000 Act by a factor equal to the number of organisations involved seems to be most peculiar. Removing the rules altogether would create another new loophole. I keep saying to colleagues in the third sector, “We’ve got to be very careful that we don’t increase flexibility for what we think is a good cause only to create a loophole for much less meritorious campaigning activity”. However, what is unfair about the rules is not that some spending on common campaigns is counted together to prevent an overall breach of the limits but the fact that spending by one organisation on one campaign can then restrict the campaigning of another organisation on a totally different campaign. In my example, Oxfam would be deemed to have spent £325,000 not just for the purposes of that climate change campaign but for all purposes. It would then be very close to the limit, which would then mean that it would have to worry about whether any of its other spending on, let us say, development targets could,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a party or candidate.

If that organisation’s trustees believe that the future spending could be so regarded, they would be left with a very small amount of headroom in the national spending limit even though they had contributed a relatively small amount of money to the tune of £25,000. Therefore, £25,000 spent on climate change would mean very little room left for spending on other development targets. I am sure your Lordships will see that that would not be just and right and does not meet the objectives either of the existing law or of this Bill.

Our Amendment 39A would build on the progress made by the amendment moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace in setting out the principle that there should be an overall cap on spending by any one joint campaign or by any one individual organisation. However, new subsection (6B) proposed by my amendment states that,

“expenditure by a third party within the limits set out in Schedule 10 in pursuance of any matter unrelated to an arrangement and which could not reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve a purpose common to an arrangement”,

should not be so restricted by the coalition rules in PPERA 2000.

The amendment would provide for some affected organisations a silver lining in the passage of this Bill. In short, it would remove a very unjust element of the existing law which has caused quite unintended problems for many non-party campaigners. Their arrangements would be improved immeasurably. The amendment would also improve significantly what the Government have so far managed to come up with. I hope that my noble friends will recognise that the problems with the 2000 Act are considerable. This was one very specific problem that was caused to a large number of organisations. I hope therefore that before Third Reading, when, as my noble and learned friend has already indicated, there has to be some further clarification and therefore amendment of the set of amendments that he is putting before the House today, he could look also at this additional problem, which otherwise will go unresolved and continue to cause considerable difficulty for all sorts of organisations.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I, too, thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, for the government amendment, which is a positive response to the suggestion put forward in our commission’s report, as he acknowledged. I have added my name to the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. I shall not repeat the reasons that he has already put forward, but it is an important amendment for charities and campaigning groups generally because they do a huge amount of campaigning not just with one coalition but with a whole series of coalitions. For instance, aid agencies may be engaged in a coalition on overseas aid and, at the same time, be engaged in a coalition on climate change. That is the way in which they work.

I want to make a point that has not been made so far in any of these debates. It concerns the fundamental purpose of this part of the legislation and whether it will achieve what the Government hope. The purpose of the legislation at this point is to stop front organisations drawing on large sums of money to distort campaigning, but I suggest that the legislation as we have it now will not have that effect. Let us take a hypothetical example. Six very strong anti-Europeans have dinner together. They have access to large amounts of money from various sources. They go away to different parts of the country and they decide to start six different campaigning organisations under different names. But, in fact, everybody knows that their purpose is to get Britain out of Europe. Would they be caught by this legislation? No. I have read carefully the briefing note presented by the Electoral Commission, which says that you are not working together—that is, you are not engaged in co-ordinated campaigning—if you have informal discussions with other campaigners but do not discuss your plans with them in any detail—all this party will have done is have dinner together; if you speak at an event organised by another campaigner but do not participate in other ways—they could even speak at each other’s events; and if you do not consult other campaigners about what you should say in your campaign or how you should organise it. However, it goes on to say that you can sign a joint letter together. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will take seriously the fact that the legislation as it now stands will not have the desired effect of stopping big money coming in and using front organisations. We firmly support the intent but we do not think that the Bill will achieve it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I strongly support the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, on this amendment. Indeed, we had very co-operative discussions about how best to tackle this problem. I am grateful to him and, indeed, to others who effectively endorsed an amendment we tabled in Committee on this crucial issue.

Given that there was much quotation of the Electoral Commission’s advice earlier, it is important that it has very explicitly said that Amendment 45 offers some advantages over the current position in the Bill. With this amendment, at least, we have that endorsement.

As I said in Committee, the Electoral Commission actually thinks that counting staff costs for political parties’ election expenses would be an appropriate way to proceed. Of course, that is not in front of us today; it may be for another day and another Bill. For the purposes of this Bill, the NGOs have been dealing with a considerable problem: namely, that the Bill includes not only staff costs on direct campaigning but what are called “background costs”.

As my noble friend will no doubt point out, staff costs for non-parties are already regulated for the production and distribution of election material. Our amendment suggests that this should continue but that costs should also be accounted for if they are incurred in direct relation to canvassing voters. In that context it seems that it would not be very difficult to identify the particular costs; equally, however, we do not want to increase the difficulties that could be caused by burdensome regulation on background costs that are not in any way so easy to account for. For example, the costs in relation to organising meeting rooms, travelling to a venue or setting up a press conference might be a matter of a few minutes of somebody’s time—and therefore, for many small organisations, a considerable absurdity.

Bluntly, I do not think that anyone cares if a policy officer, whose job for the rest of the year is something completely different, spends a little time booking a room for an election rally, or incurs costs travelling to it. These matters cannot be said to be likely to greatly affect the outcome of an election in that particular area, or nationally. However, if the regulations go through without us thinking about the implications, they could unnecessarily tie up campaigners in accounting for their time—and, worse still, could deter some from campaigning at all.

As was said so forcibly earlier, there are many organisations in this country—and thank God for them—that rely entirely on time being given voluntarily to this sort of activity. Would it be necessary to try to cost that time, or would it be difficult, in any case, whether they were employed or volunteers? Many a charity and many a non-charity would find that totally inconsistent with the Government’s intention of avoiding unnecessary spending on unnecessary bureaucracy.

This amendment, along with some of the others, helps the Government to do what they say they want to do. I hope, therefore, that my noble and learned friend will be able to find some way of making a sensible compromise on the whole issue of staffing costs.

The Government have moved sensibly in so many ways to try to meet the concerns and anxieties about the so-called chilling effect that many of us have understood to be the case with organisations with which we are involved. Many noble Lords are active members of charities and non-charities that do such important work in civil society today. Surely, the last thing that we want to happen is for the time, energy, enterprise, inventive activity and, indeed, the cost of those organisations to be unnecessarily distorted by new bureaucracy of the sort that could occur. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will see that this is a sensible compromise on the whole issue of staffing costs.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, I have attended a number of meetings which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has convened and I, for one, am extremely grateful to him for the leadership that he has given and the amount of time he has devoted to the Bill over the past few months. Last week, following those meetings, I met with the chief executive officers of two important charities. I do not intend to name them because I did not say that I would, but when I asked them, “If we could get only one amendment through the House next week, where would your priority be?”, they said that it would be on staffing costs.

Any regulations imposed as a result of the Bill should be clear, simple and, above all, fair. The problem with this is that we would be faced with regulations that would be far from clear or simple, and which would most certainly not be fair. Because I do not want to take the time of the House when we have already had a clear and brief exposition from the noble and right reverend Lord, all I will say is: let us this evening make sure, as far as we can, that that clarity, simplicity and fairness is in the Bill.

I, too, am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and to the other Lord Wallace, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who we are all delighted to see back—but I urge them to go this one further step. They have done a great deal to try to make a bad Bill better; they can take another step this evening.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

I have a separate amendment in this group. We all welcome the way in which my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness have responded to the request for an increase in the registration thresholds. This was a key recommendation of the commission headed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and it certainly deserved to be listened to.

In this last-minute change to the Government’s position, however, there is one new outstanding problem. The interaction between the national thresholds for registration and the constituency limits in the Bill simply do not hold together. As we will discuss in the next group, I believe very strongly that the constituency limits are a very important part of this Bill. Indeed, I am sure Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House are aware that if we did send back to the other place a Bill that did not deal with this point, many people there would think that we were not doing our duty.

For the constituency limits to be effective, those who spend at a constituency level will surely need to make an expenses return about what they are spending. The rules in the 2000 Act and in the Bill rightly also ask where the money is coming from. There is, however, a problem. As the Bill will stand in the light of these new government amendments, someone could be spending £9,750 in a constituency, or indeed could spend £19,500 across two English constituencies, yet would not have to register. The registration limit is now raised to £20,000, and therefore that spending and its sources would be totally opaque. It would not be transparent even though £9,750 could have a significant impact on the constituency result.

In my own amendments on thresholds in Committee, I suggested that this problem could be dealt with by stipulating that the threshold should be at a particular level which would take that into account. The Government have chosen £20,000, and that is fine, except that all the spending could be concentrated in one target marginal constituency. A group could spend a significant sum—I am suggesting £5,000 in my amendment—all in one place. Surely in those circumstances it should have to register.

The Government’s answer has been that somebody who spends more than £9,750 in one constituency will be committing an offence under their proposals. If that someone does not have to register, because he is below the new registration threshold, how can anyone know that he is committing that offence? I cannot think—and I know a little bit about these things—of any other part of electoral law in which someone who is subject to a spending limit is yet not required to produce any paperwork on what he is spending. Introducing that concept now would make for a completely absurd anomaly.

[Lord Cormack]

Will the noble Lord not agree with me that there would be more logic in having a figure that was close to that which an individual candidate is entitled to spend? No individual candidate is entitled to spend as much as £20,000 in any constituency in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Tyler]

My noble friend is right. He and I have relatively recent experience of these things. The normal figure is around £12,000 during the election period. As I will come to in a moment, that could be swamped under these proposals, and therefore this is an absurd anomaly. I understand why the Government have arrived at their position. Their formula sounds simple, but it may be so simple as to be unequal to the task in hand. Equally, the move in Amendment 53 to do away with different limits for constituency spending seven months before an election, and constituency spending seven days before, seems to me to lose what is an important and not particularly complex distinction in the name of simplicity—and I am not sure the Government have got this right.

I ask the Minister to consider carefully the horror story that could emerge. Imagine: a campaigning group could come into a constituency and spend £19,999.99 in the last seven days of the campaign with the aim of affecting the outcome in that constituency, and it would not need to register. A second group, unrelated to the first, could, during those seven days, do the same. It would not register. A third group, unrelated to the other two—not a coalition, not working together— could do the same. In the last few days of a campaign in a marginal constituency, just under £60,000 could be spent, completely swamping the amount permitted for a candidate and a party, which is around £12,000, in one constituency. The candidates are, as I say, limited in those final four to six weeks.

Because this spending would not be registered, it might not be revealed until after polling day. Think of the mess that that would cause to our electoral law. Because such groups, though technically in breach of the law, would not need to register, no one would be any the wiser about what they had been up to. My noble and learned friend has said that he is looking at this section with a view to some clarification, and I think he will have to agree that there is a major loophole looming in front of us. I therefore request that he look carefully at Amendment 46ZA. He may find a better solution but a solution must be found, otherwise political parties and those who will be looking at this legislation when it goes back to the other place will not have seen this particular problem, because until now the registration threshold has not been so high. It is only under the present Government’s changes in this House that it has been raised to this height.

I hope that my noble and learned friend will be able to give some reassurance to those of us on all sides of the House who are concerned about such spending that the Government are not prepared to accept this loophole.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, Amendment 46A in my name concerns the spending cap for England. First I would like, on behalf of the commission, to warmly welcome the raising of the registration thresholds by the Government. I think that has done more than anything else to reassure the smaller charities; we give the Government a very warm thank you. We also warmly welcome the raising of the spending cap for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The spending cap for England, unlike that for Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, has been reduced by 60%. That reduction has taken place with an increase in the number of activities to be regulated and without taking inflation into account.

It is true that not many campaigning groups and very few, if any, charities would spend a high figure coming anywhere near that. The one I have checked that does spend quite a lot of money is Hope not Hate, which campaigns against racism all over the country. It is not a charity but a campaigning group. In 2010 it spent £319,231. That is very nearly the limit for England as we have it under the Bill, which is £319,800.

There was no evidence of abuse with the previous spending caps for England, and no rationale has been given for this reduction by 60%. Even if the Government are not willing to revert to the PPERA limits for England, I ask the Minister whether he sees any scope for some kind of compromise between the drastic reduction which has been brought about by the Bill and the spending limits there were for PPERA.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I express particular appreciation of the welcome that has been given to the very significant increase in the registration thresholds that the Government have brought forward and to the uplift in the spending limit in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. To follow on from my noble friend Lady Williams, it is certainly useful to remind ourselves, as she also did very eloquently in Committee, of the core purpose of the Bill, which is to ensure that our electoral and democratic system is not hijacked by people who can spend large amounts of money without proper accountability, and that there is proper transparency. It is important that we keep those important points in our minds when we consider the different measures.

Perhaps that is consistent with the point made by my noble friend Lord Tyler, which I addressed in my opening remarks, on not wanting a particular constituency to be overwhelmed. He proposed a threshold of £5,000 and said that he did not wish to find a situation where an organisation could come rattling into a constituency with one week to go, spend £19,999, get away with it and not be accountable for that. It is important that the Representation of the People Act might have a certain impact on that kind of expenditure, if it offended that Act; under the Bill that expenditure is increased from £500 to £700. I ask my noble friend to reflect on that, although I know that he does not overlook it as he knows full well about it.

But, more importantly, there is not that kind of loophole. My noble friend seems to have overlooked—and I did try to draw his attention to it in my opening remarks —that it will be an offence under the Bill to spend more that £9,750 in a constituency, even where the RPA does not apply. One of the consequences of a situation where we are amending another piece of legislation is that it is not always self-evident. Amendment 46 says:

“In subsection (3), for paragraph (a) (but not the “and” after it) substitute … (ii) any controlled expenditure is incurred in a particular parliamentary constituency by or on behalf of a third party in excess of the limit mentioned in subsection (5ZA)”.

I think that the purpose of that is in fact to make a registration requirement if the constituency limit of £9,750 is reached, or at least that is what I am reliably advised and I know that it is certainly the intent that there should be a registration of the maximum for each constituency to make more effective the criminal sanction that will follow if a party or third party spends in excess of £9,750. His example of spending £19,000 could not actually happen under the Bill, in line with the proposed amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

Whether it is £9,000 or £19,000, my general point is that I have been unable to find anything in electoral law where there is a spending limit but no paperwork for anybody to provide that shows that they are keeping within that spending limit. It seems to me that there is a potential anomaly. I am just asking my noble and learned friend to be absolutely certain before, as has been said, we send back to the other House a potential anomaly in these circumstances.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think that there is an anomaly. One of the reasons for putting in the registration requirement was to try to address the kind of anomaly that my noble friend mentions. We share the same objective and if he thinks that there is a loophole there then I will certainly make sure that we look at that, because these provisions have been worked up over recent days. I think that it is okay, but it is probably quite good counsel that we should check to make sure that that is in fact the case.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, made his case for having similar registration thresholds in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland as in England, and I can see some force in what he is saying. He says that he has not been able to divine why there has been a difference, which has been in place since the very outset. Since PPERA, a distinction has been made: it was £10,000 for England and £5,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I will not allow myself the cheap debating point that that was what the noble and learned Lord proposed in Committee, but I think that his purpose behind that was to make sure that the Government considered the threshold properly.

It is interesting too—I will finish this point and then let the noble and learned Lord come in—that what is actually proposed by the Government is also the architecture proposed by the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. The commission report proposes £20,000 for England and £10,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

52: Clause 28, page 16, line 22, leave out from “if” to end of line 23 and insert “the expenditure relates to—
(a) sending election material falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule 8A which is addressed to electors (whether addressed to them by name or intended for delivery to households within any particular area or areas);(b) unsolicited telephone calls falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 8A, made to such persons or households, which may reasonably be regarded as intended to ascertain or influence their voting intention.( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, “election material” is defined as in section 143A.”

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, this amendment, which I am moving on behalf of a number of noble Lords in different parts of the House, deals with some small changes to a previous amendment that we looked at in Committee on constituency limits, but they are changes that I know will be very welcome to a number of organisations which have been in touch with several Members of your Lordships’ House. It received considerable support across the Chamber in Committee and has two compelling advantages to recommend it.

First, it retains the Government’s intention to have a constituency limit. That is surely central to the Bill. As I have said consistently, I strongly support that and I know that a large number of other Members of your Lordships’ House also think it is important to retain that. However, even if we were to take it out, as some have suggested, I would certainly expect that Members of the other place would need no whipping at all to put it back in, for the reasons that were advanced so eloquently by my noble friend Lord Cormack a few minutes ago. Surely even Labour MPs would want it to be put back in.

The second advantage to the amendment is that it very closely and carefully defines what the constituency limits should apply to. As many charities and NGOs, big and small, have pointed out to me and to other Members of your Lordships’ House, they are not used to dealing with constituency boundaries; they have quite a different sort of geography from those of us who are involved in politics. Therefore, trying to assess the relative effect of, say, a rally in different constituencies would be quite problematic. It would be problematic for the political parties too, and for that reason we, as politicians, are not asked to account for it.

I shall give a practical example. I once chaired a rally for the five constituencies, as they then were, in Cornwall, and it took place in one particular constituency. It just so happened that we won all five seats but that did not have anything to do with my chairmanship at that rally. However, how would the costs of that rally be allocated to each constituency? You could allocate the costs to one constituency but what about the other four? That clearly is not what this Bill is all about. It really is not possible to measure the effect of a rally, or indeed a billboard or a press conference, on the result in an individual constituency.

I have one other example. I lost a lot of hair—or, rather, most of it went grey—in two elections arranging the national tour of the battle bus for the then joint leaders. Your Lordships may remember that at one stage we had two leaders in the alliance—the two Davids—although they did not always see eye to eye. That caused me a great deal of aggro. However, how I would ever have accounted for five minutes in this constituency, 10 minutes in that constituency and an hour in that constituency if I were running a campaign on behalf of a non-political organisation is quite beyond me.

Amendment 52, on which I am very grateful for the support of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, would limit the scope of the constituency regulations to just activities where people communicate with specific voters. The one advantage of this amendment is that it ties down very specifically the activities that target specific people at a specific address in a specific constituency—letters or leaflets sent or delivered to voters, or telephone calls directed specifically to them—and which try to influence or ascertain their voting intention. Other activity would still have to be accounted for but only on a national basis. Therefore, if it is the national tour of a battle bus, arranging rallies or whatever, that has to be accounted for nationally but under the more generous national limits.

What has been made clear to us by many organisations which think that they may be involved in the activities covered by the Bill is that, if they are asked to account only for those activities that specifically target specific individuals, that will make their lives a great deal easier. It will retain the central purpose of the Bill, which is to stop big-money campaigns dwarfing the limits that candidates have to adhere to—my noble friend was very eloquent on this point a few minutes ago, as was my noble friend Lady Williams—and it will mean that the additional costs of activity directed at specific candidates can be identified neatly, clearly and succinctly.

The Electoral Commission has very clearly endorsed this amendment and expressed clear support for it because it makes simpler the guidance that it will have to give and the subsequent monitoring that it will have to undertake. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I support the amendment for the reasons that the noble Lord has set out. Constituency limits have been of very great concern to charities and campaigning organisations. I am fully aware of the kind of concerns raised by the noble Baroness, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, indicated, this issue has also been a very great concern for the Electoral Commission because it does not see how it can regulate and enforce this area. The noble Lord’s amendment will make it far easier for charities to be regulated by the law and for the Electoral Commission to regulate it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we have just had a discussion on constituency limits, and it was also covered extensively in Committee. The House has agreed to a government amendment to remove the post-Dissolution limit to make the provision less complex, yet there remains some concern about it. From what was said in a previous debate, I think that my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Tyler believe that there should be some limit on constituency spending. My noble friend Lord Tyler argued for a lower limit but now wants lots of expenditure to be incurred without any limit at all. That is a concern that we have.

It is important to put this in context. Constituency spending limits do not replace the existing controls under the Representation of the People Act 1983. Those long-standing rules stipulate that third parties campaigning for or against a particular candidate may spend only up to £500 in doing so. Other than raising that amount to £700, and requiring records to be kept of such expenditure, this Bill does not affect those provisions.

In contrast to the RPA rules, Clause 28 introduces a new limit on how much a third party that is promoting the electoral success of parties, or candidates who support particular positions, can spend in individual constituencies. As has already been explained, the limit is £9,750. The reason for this amount—which might, on the surface, appear somewhat odd—is that it is equivalent to 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit applied to political parties. This limit will apply for the duration of the regulated period for a UK parliamentary election.

As has already been rehearsed, the need for constituency limits is profound. It is not right that candidates and parties should effectively be bowled out of the field purely because well funded campaigners are able to outspend them. Elections are the principal domain of political parties and candidates, and those who are not campaigning for their own electoral success should still be able to participate: that is the essence of our democracy. However, in these circumstances, we believe that the voices of such campaigners do not diminish the voices of the political parties and candidates and that constituency limits will ensure that.

The Bill makes clear that a third party’s expenditure would be wholly attributed to a constituency only if that expenditure had “no significant effect” in any other constituency. That means expenditure in a local area could, of course, be attributed to several constituencies if the effect was felt in them all. Expenditure with a wider regional, or even national, reach would be attributed proportionately to all the relevant constituencies.

My noble friend Lord Tyler has proposed an amendment to dampen the effect of these constituency limits. The amendment proposes that only certain costs —in other words, only expenditure related to certain activities—should count towards constituency limits. Specifically, the amendment says that only costs associated with election materials should be counted. That would mean the costs related to leaflets, mailshots and adverts, all of which must also have been either specifically addressed to or delivered to households in a constituency, and unsolicited telephone calls to such households.

I recognise the issue which my noble friend is trying to address, but I believe there are drawbacks. For instance, significant activities such as rallies and events would not be regulated at a constituency level if his amendment passed. I gave some of my colleagues an example of Scottish Liberal Democrat pre-election rallies in Edinburgh East. Anyone who knows Scotland will know that Liberal Democrats would not be spending money in that constituency; no doubt Edinburgh East Liberal Democrats will now write to me and say, “Do not let us down”. That was a national campaign, but an event in my own former constituency could not, by any stretch of the imagination, relate to any other—not even Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross.

In addition, material otherwise distributed or displayed would also not count towards the constituency limit. A third party could therefore freely distribute leaflets by hand in a town centre, or, indeed, in shopping areas in different parts of a constituency, in the knowledge that, because they are not being delivered to voters’ homes, the associated costs need not be accounted for in that constituency’s limit.

We are concerned that these are key gaps which would allow a third party to target an area by holding large partisan events, or flood an area by handing out election material in the street or in shopping precincts. Allowing only certain activities to count towards constituency limits would undermine the entire principle of constituency limits, on which my noble friend spoke so eloquently earlier. For that reason, I urge my noble friend to think again and to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am rather disappointed by that. Throughout today’s debate and, indeed, on previous occasions, many noble Lords—particularly my noble friends on the government Front Bench—have quoted the advice of the Electoral Commission. I apologise to the House for detaining it for a minute, but this is what the Electoral Commission says about this amendment:

“In principle, we support Amendment 52, tabled by Lord Tyler and others. It narrows the scope of the constituency limits so that they only cover spending in respect of election material sent to voters and households in a constituency, and unsolicited phone contact with such voters”.

Then, in heavy type, it continues:

“We see benefits in defining the scope of activity covered by the constituency controls more narrowly than in Part 2 of the Bill generally”.

The Electoral Commission feels there is a need to deal with this question and has identified it as one of the problems with campaigning organisations. Even if the amendment in our names does not meet the particular point and is not the right way to go about it, there is clearly a need to do something. Will the Minister undertake, in these last few days before Third Reading, to go back to the Electoral Commission and discuss this issue with it again? On that basis, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 52 withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments. I said at Second Reading that the Government and, indeed, the House, have a very difficult task in getting exactly the right balance between improving transparency and accountability on one hand and the inevitable potential for more bureaucracy. These amendments are a real improvement on where we were and I commend my noble and learned friend for them. The irony is, however, that we have the complexity of the number of amendments—I have not counted them—that have been necessary to remove complexity. It is a bit alarming, but I particularly welcome the amendment concerning the nil return, which is Amendment 98 if I have got it right.

It is particularly helpful because there really was rather an absurd situation when the organisations with which Members on all sides of your Lordships’ House have been in contact thought that they might be caught up in some elaborate new accountancy exercise when they did not anticipate that they would be engaged in the kind of activities that are caught by the Bill. This is a good balance and we are achieving the right threshold for transparency and accountability, but I just forewarn my noble and learned friend that it will take some time for the organisations that we have all been in contact with to understand the full significance of this battery of complex amendments.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of my noble friend Lord Tyler, particularly for Amendments 81 and 89, which concern nil returns. It was extraordinarily difficult to justify to people why nil returns should be made. I am also very grateful to my noble and learned friend on the Front Bench for his reassurance about the interaction with the coalition working returns that we discussed earlier.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

It is a great relief to be able to welcome an amendment without any qualification at all; but it might be worth reminding ourselves why a review is so essential. First, with the existing PPERA, most charities were not even aware that they were regulated; it is only recently that they have come up against it. Therefore, there are fundamental problems with PPERA that have only just been revealed, and probably we have not yet had proper time to put them right.

Secondly, we have had a very short time to think about and amend the Bill before us. As we know, there was no pre-legislative scrutiny and no six-month period for consultation—which we recommended. We have had only a very short five-week period. The commission that I chair has always made it clear that the recommendations we put forward were only for the 2015 election, because we could not see the answer to a number of issues. In particular, the issue of coalition working keeps coming up and we have not yet found a satisfactory answer to that. Therefore, it is extremely good that the review body is going to be set up and that it will be in time to watch what happens with the election. It is going to have to report within a year, which of course meets the concern raised earlier by the noble Baroness about a sunset clause. It will now have to report within a year.

I have only one question: why have the Government decided that the review should be done by one person, rather than by a committee of Parliament?

[Lord Tyler]

I very much welcome the initiative that my noble friends have taken on this. It is vastly preferable to a sunset clause, precisely because it will start at the right moment. The timing is going to be critical, as the noble and right reverend Lord and my noble and learned friend said, because it will see right through the process of the next election and beyond. For that reason it is preferable to a sunset clause.

I, too, wonder whether the precise definition of a “person” is appropriate to this, but we will have to judge it on its results. Because my noble and learned friend has put into his amendment that a copy of the report will be laid before Parliament, the process thereon is extremely interesting. If major changes are required in this legislation, we will need to know quite quickly in order that we do not run into another period of rapid digestion, as we have on the Bill.

I particularly want to underline the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, just now. We should have this review of the 2000 Act. I take some responsibility, because I sit on a little, totally informal cross-party advisory group for the Electoral Commission. We were never forewarned of all the problems with the 2000 Act that have now come to light—not least, the coalition issue to which the noble Lord has just referred. It has been 13 years; the Electoral Commission never forewarned us of the difficulties it was encountering in giving appropriate advice to organisations that wished to campaign in this field. The Minister has taken elaborate and proper precautions to make sure that the situation never arises again, and I congratulate the Government on that.

[Lord Cormack]

Briefly, I add my congratulations and thanks. Those who criticise—and I have been very critical of aspects of the Bill—should always praise when the right thing is done. I am exceptionally grateful to my noble friend and his ministerial colleagues for putting this amendment into the Bill. It is a very satisfactory outcome and I agree entirely with what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and my noble friend Lord Tyler said.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

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

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

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

[Lord Tyler]

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I feel deeply privileged to belong to such a broad church as is suggested by this amendment. I little thought that I would have the privilege of standing in the same rank as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, but I am utterly sincere in the support that I give to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. When he very respectably sought to accost me some days ago to support this matter, I had misconceived the situation. I thought he was seeking to place political parties on a charitable basis, which of course would have been utterly improper. The definition of charity, however impractical it may be in the modern period, is well laid down in the statute of Elizabeth I and in the authority of Re Pemsel, which I still remember from my student days.

That is not at all what the amendment is about. It is a question of what fuel there should be available in a democracy to any political movement. That fuel, I suggest, is the united will of millions of people, of government, opposition or a third force, or a fourth, for that matter. That fuel is the desire and hopes of millions of individual people, possibly for tens of thousands of different reasons, but it is the amalgam of that united force that gives politics significance.

If you interfere with that system from above by the injection of vast amounts of money, you corrupt that system. It was Oliver Goldsmith, in the 18th century, who had these words:

“Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,

Where wealth accumulates, and men decay”.

In this case, wealth will diminish completely the significance of democratic politics. Now, we will say, “That is highly idealistic and immensely impractical”. It may well be, but we are deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who is a brave, iconoclastic, reforming character and to whom the House owes a great debt.

In America, in the two elections that President Obama has won, it may very well be that there were tactical and highly materialistic reasons why he chose to rely on millions of people rather than on the support of a few wealthy, almighty subjects. Be that as it may, it gave those campaigns impetus and significance. That is exactly what this amendment proposes. It may very well be that the amounts that are mentioned could be debated high and low. That does not matter at all. The significance is that we wish to see politics as an amalgam of millions of people with desires supported, we hope, by the substantial subvention of most of those people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

Of course—I was going to say “my noble friend”, but he is my friend—the noble Lord may well be right. However, I remember the famous words of Jack Straw, when a lot of people in the other place voted for an all-elected second Chamber on the advice of the Labour leader of the campaign for an appointed second Chamber, although he then acknowledged that he had made a tactical mistake. Jack Straw kept saying, “A vote is a vote, and that’s all that counts”. That is what will be said tonight. The noble Lord should reflect very seriously on that.

We also have to consider whether the Bill is the right one in which to insert such an amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

I am very grateful to my noble friend and I know that he shares with me the same objectives. I think that he is advancing the old, old argument of unripe time, which we hear in this House so often. If you wait for the ripe time, it is usually when it has gone bad again, when it has gone beyond ripeness. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, by saying that the actual introduction would not take place until beyond the next general election, is simply insisting that we should put down a marker of the direction in which we wish to go. If we are not permitted to do that, what are we allowed to do in this House?

[Lord Cormack]

Of course we are permitted to do that, but at the same time it is not unreasonable to talk about the practicalities. The fact of the matter is that if we have a vote tonight, this amendment will be very heavily defeated. It will not advance the cause. Whereas if we do not have a vote tonight, the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, which I believe not to be hyperbole but to be accurate—that there are many, many members of your Lordships’ House who are sympathetic to this point of view—will stand on the record. What will stand on the record if we have a vote is that because of a very, very small number of people, for a variety of reasons—one of them being that this may not be the right vehicle for such an amendment—the figures will not be encouraging to our cause.

I end by pleading with noble colleagues in all parts of the House that we seek in our respective parties to begin a campaign to advance this and that we talk to our colleagues in the other place as well. That is crucially important, as they are the people who get elected. Tonight is not the moment to be heavily defeated when we know, and the noble Lord in particular knows, that there is such widespread sympathy for the principle that he has very reasonably advanced.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

I am glad to add my name to the amendment. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend Lord Horam had to say, but I see no harm in putting this provision into the Bill. I hope that when my noble and learned friend the Minister replies, it will not just be with honeyed words but with a promise of a taste of honey.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, this will be my shortest contribution through the whole length of this Bill, as I hope the night shift will appreciate. I want to make just one point: I am not sure whether the solution suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is right; I am absolutely convinced that there is a problem. I instance that by saying that, as somebody who has been involved in this area for years, I have never had advice or guidance on the problems that we have heard about so often in recent weeks from anybody in the Charity Commission. The first time that I ever heard from the Charity Commission was at 6.30 last night. There is a clear need for comprehensive, careful and co-ordinated advice from the two organisations. It has not been there in the past. They have not fulfilled their responsibilities to Parliament, to which they are responsible, over many years, and it is about time that they did. Throughout today’s discussion, it has been apparent that this lack of co-ordinated information from the two organisations has been one of the major problems that many organisations have had to face, as well as parliamentarians.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made that point about the Charity Commission, because no matter how good the commitment, we want to see this co-ordinated guidance. Having this requirement in the Bill would mean that it was not just a promise but an actuality.

In addition to making sure that it happens, the provision would be a signal to the charities, given that they will be caught by new restrictions under the Bill that they have not dealt with before, that the House has taken seriously the need for them to be absolutely clear and for there to be co-ordinated guidance on that. There is no downside to having it in the Bill, so I hope that the noble and learned Lord has one yes that he can pull out of his bag at this stage.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If the Scotch Whisky Association was lobbying itself, then the important thing is that if the Scotch Whisky Association is meeting a Minister or a Permanent Secretary, then that would be in the returns which the Minister or Permanent Secretary makes. That would make it very clear that it is the Scotch Whisky Association that the Minister has been meeting. That is what I think people wish to know. In a moment I will address my noble friend’s amendments to say some of the things which the Government intend to do to actually improve the openness to which we are already committed and delivering.

The position—as I understand it—which we have adopted or sought to adopt is the position in Australia. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire here—I just wish he was actually right here because he has a wealth of knowledge and experience on this Bill. He very helpfully reminded me that we have modelled these provisions on the position as it is in Australia, whereas Canada has what might be described as medium regulation, which requires some of the information on employees and in-house lobbyists to which the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord referred. That system costs £3 million a year and, as my noble friend says, there is actually so much detail that it almost ceases to be useful. There is almost a detail overload, whereas our system replicates the Australian model. We expect it to cost considerably less, at £200,000 a year, and we believe that that is a very good system where the consultant lobbyists are identified, their clients are identified and the Minister works hand in hand with the regular returns from Ministers and Permanent Secretaries as to whom they have met.

I was actually struggling to see how the problems raised by the noble Baroness would be addressed by just adding more names to a register of people who are employed, unless—as we have committed to and are doing—you also indicate who Ministers are actually meeting. It does not add anything else by having the name of the person who was the in-house lobbyist, for the sake of argument, at one of the utility companies when they met the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.

Until we see evidence of the case for introducing a register of all professional lobbyists, we remain reluctant to expand the scope of these proposals because we believe that what we have here is proportionate and problem-specific and will increase transparency without discouraging engagement by those who will be affected by policy and legislative decisions, such as businesses, charities, community groups and members of the public.

Amendment 11 would require consultant lobbying firms to disclose the names of all who undertake consultant lobbying activity on their behalf. The Government do not consider that such a requirement is either necessary or appropriate. The Bill requires the publication of the clients of consultant lobbyists, and the existing meeting publication scheme publishes both the persons Ministers and Permanent Secretaries meet as well as the body or firm that employs them. Transparency of who a consultant lobbyist is is therefore achieved on that information alone. To require the disclosure of the names of every private individual who is employed by a consultant lobbying firm would raise issues of proportionality and justification when the disclosure of such names provides no greater transparency, because we will know what the group, organisation or company is that meets the Minister or the Permanent Secretary. Therefore in return for listing a large number of names there seems to be no increase at all—not even a proportionate one—in the amount of the transparency than what is made available at the moment through the scheme of publication of persons whom Ministers and Permanent Secretaries meet.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

The Minister will recall that at every previous stage of the Bill I have pressed that the Government should recognise that the key issue is not who the lobbyist is but who he or she meets, for what purpose and when. I very much welcome what my noble and learned friend has just said about the quality of the record of meetings that this Government have introduced. Perhaps he can go just a step further. He will be aware, from the discussions that have taken place across the House—and there has been support for this at every stage—that the present records of meetings are very often way out of date and not very detailed, and there is a grave discrepancy between the records that come from some government departments and those that come from others. In addition, it is very difficult to access them in a normal way through the computer. I instanced that we tried to find 23 different websites that would give us that information. Is my noble and learned friend now saying that there will now be active involvement by the Government to make sure that the situation is improved right across government?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am very grateful to my noble friend and I recognise his long-standing interest in this, not just in terms of the Bill. I hope that I will directly address the points he has raised in responding to points made by my noble friend Lord Norton.

My noble friend’s amendment would revise the title of the Bill so that it referred to the registration of consultant lobbyists rather than the transparency of lobbying. His amendment appears intended to suggest that the provisions outlined in Part 1 of the Bill will not enhance the transparency of lobbying. He will not be surprised to learn that I respectfully disagree. This Government have done more than any before to enhance the transparency of government and decision-making, and these provisions will extend that transparency. We are the first Government to proactively and regularly publish details about Ministers’ and Permanent Secretaries’ meetings with external organisations, and we do so alongside a huge amount of open data regarding departmental spending and procurement. We are recognised as international leaders in open government and we continue to introduce initiatives to further extend transparency in government and the public sector.

We listened carefully to the concerns expressed during the Committee stage debate. In response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Tyler, I am pleased that I can today commit to noble Lords that we will make further improvements to the accessibility of government transparency information. We will ensure greater co-ordination of the publication of data sets so that all returns within a quarter can be found on one page. I hear the criticism that he makes, and we ought to get better at the speediness with which we make this information available, but we will improve the access to and presentation of those data, including by improving the consistency of presentation and titling. We will also ensure greater consistency in the content of departmental reporting, particularly on including the subject of meetings. Finally, we will ensure that the gov.uk transparency pages contain a link to the statutory register of lobbyists so that the data can be easily cross-referenced.

The practical implications of those improvements are that: rather than having to visit a number of different sites or pages, all information will be accessed via one easily located page of gov.uk; the consistency of those data will be improved so that the transparency reports can be more easily located via search functions; and the subject of the meetings will be set out more helpfully—for example, rather than describing them as “introductory” or “catch-up” meetings, the detail of the meeting discussion will be outlined. Therefore, if, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was meeting someone, the subject would include not just energy policy but things such as fracking.

I hope that these practical proposals to which the Government are committing themselves will improve the transparency of decision-making further than we have already achieved, and that the Part 1 provisions will complement and enhance them. I dare say that they will do more to improve transparency than just having a long list of employees of a consultant firm. Obviously, if an employee—the noble Baroness mentioned Bell Pottinger, so for the sake of consistency let us say that this was an employee of that firm—had a meeting, the record would list not just “Joe Bloggs” but “Joe Bloggs of Bell Pottinger” and the subject of the discussion. As a result of the Bill, the list of Bell Pottinger’s clients would also be made available. I therefore believe that what we propose today does far more to improve transparency than simply making available a list of employees, and it reflects suggestions made by a number of colleagues who have made representations.

Although this does not relate directly to the actual register or to the Government’s scheme, I can also indicate that in our response to debates in Committee and to concerns that have been raised by Members of your Lordships’ House—I do not believe that this has been raised on any of the amendments now before us—we are committing ourselves to subjecting the appointment of the registrar to the scrutiny of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place. By doing so, we are reiterating our commitment to the independence of the registrar.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, this amendment reflects a similar amendment to that which was debated in Committee, along with other amendments, including an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The Bill regulates lobbying activities only where the object of the lobbying is a Minister of the Crown, a Permanent Secretary, a Second Permanent Secretary or a person serving in the government offices listed in Part 3 of Schedule 1. Again, I do not intend to repeat what I said in Committee, but it is my respectful submission to your Lordships that the class is too restrictive, as was observed by many noble Lords both at Second Reading and in Committee. There seemed to be a general consensus across the Committee that the persons listed would not be the first port of call for lobbyists, who would probably concentrate on political advisers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and more junior civil servants before approaching Permanent Secretaries, Second Permanent Secretaries and Ministers. Indeed, in the very helpful contribution made by my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who is not in his place, it appears unlikely that Permanent Secretaries will be lobbied if the noble Lord’s own considerable experience is taken into account.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, confirmed my own experience that Parliamentary Private Secretaries have direct access to Ministers and are involved in some meetings determining departmental and government policy. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, observed in Committee:

“When this Bill was considered in the other place, the point was well made that it appears to have been written by people who do not understand lobbying”.—[Official Report, 5/11/13; col. 139.]

Lobbyists would focus on the channel for reaching the Minister and that channel would include a political adviser, a Parliamentary Private Secretary or civil servants below the level specified in the Bill. It is clear that the Bill will be of little effect if it confines communications to those currently specified in it and does not focus on those people more likely to be the object of lobbying activity. If lobbying is confined to the more effective targets and the Minister is not directly lobbied, there will be no requirement for registration, not even by the restrictive category of consultant lobbyist. Such a result is contrary to the stated desire and the desirable intention of transparency that underpins Part 1 of the Bill.

In his response in Committee the Minister—I am delighted to see him in his place after his illness—referred to the number of civil servants who would be affected if the scope of this provision were extended as proposed. As noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, observed in his intervention at col. 149, the number of such civil servants is irrelevant. What is at issue is the identification of the class of persons the lobbying of whom will require registration. That class has to be sufficiently wide to make lobbying transparent.

In view of the discussion in Committee, it is disappointing that the Government have not come forward with their own amendment to improve the Bill in this respect. The amendment in my name is an attempt to remedy that omission. Without this amendment, the Bill will fail in its objective of increasing the transparency of lobbying Government. It will further undermine public confidence in our political system because it will be seen as an example of Parliament either failing to understand the lobbying process or failing to take effective measures to address and identify a problem. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, Amendment 3, in my name and that of my noble friend, is grouped with the amendment just moved by the noble and learned Lord. As has already been made very clear this afternoon, the key issue is not the role, title or job description of the people who take part in the activity of lobbying but the activity itself. That is absolutely critical. I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Norton, who, in his usual way, has put his finger right on that point. That is why I thought that it was extremely important to have the statement from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness a few minutes ago about the nature, character, efficiency and accuracy of the register of meetings with those who are taking decisions, or making proposals to Parliament, on behalf of the Government.

I should say in parentheses, in welcoming back my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that way back at Second Reading, let alone in Committee, he expressed a lot of interest in the proposals that we were making from these Benches about improving the status of the record of meetings that was introduced for the first time—for which the Government should get credit—in the past few years. As I said in that earlier debate, I am not so worried about who the lobbyists are but am very worried that we know who they lobby, what they lobby about and when. The very full statement made by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness a few minutes ago goes a very long way to meeting that anxiety. We have made it clear at every stage of the Bill that, for us, that is the core issue. The proactive publication of data on ministerial meetings by the Government makes a potentially huge difference. That is what transparency should be all about.

We also believe it is important that that record should indicate when the meeting with in-house lobbyists takes place. Whether they are the managing director of a whisky firm, or a lowly employee of any other firm, it is the subject matter of the meeting, when it happened and with whom that is of considerable importance. I agree with my noble and learned friend and I am delighted that the House agreed too, a few minutes ago, that simply extending the register into a sort of enormous directory, like a telephone directory, with every lobbyist in the land, whether from a church, charity or voluntary organisation, would not really seem to be anything more than disguising the wood for the trees.

Amendment 3 deals very specifically, and only, with the issue of special advisers. Many in your Lordships’ House have had enormous responsibility in the Civil Service. What is unusual about a special adviser is that he or she of course is not responsible to the head of the department: he or she is not a full-time employed member of the Civil Service, and their first loyalty and responsibility is to the political master for whom they work. The special adviser’s responsibility is to the Secretary of State, or other ministerial politician, and his or her relationship is with them. It is therefore our view that this is the one major exception that should be tackled, either in this Bill or in some other way, because these are special people—special advisers are, by definition, outwith the normal hierarchy of responsibility to the Permanent Secretary in the department.

The principle in the Bill is that if the consultant gains access to or influences a Minister on behalf of a client, the public should know who they and their clients are. However, anyone who has been in this building for any length of time or who has lobbied knows perfectly well that influencing a Minister does not necessarily mean seeing them yourself. There is sometimes an even better way: to meet the Minister’s special adviser. Spads have a rather unfair bad reputation in the press. Many will remember Clare Short’s description of them as living “in the dark”. I think that was about a particularly period in the previous Government, perhaps, and it may not be appropriate for all periods of recent history. That epithet then led to a thought-provoking analysis of the role of special advisers in a book of the same name by the respected academic Dr Andrew Blick. In my limited experience of being on the Government side of the House in the past three years and therefore having spads in my own party, it does not feel as though many now live in the dark. We see them all the time. They are helpful, they are influential; in many cases persuading a spad is the first step to persuading a Minister.

I know that this is also part of their job: to meet outside groups. It is very proper and very effective—a proper role that they should undertake. Perhaps it is a better one than a civil servant in the normal hierarchy. Ministers have only a certain amount of time and sometimes it is the right judgment to ask a senior adviser to see someone first, sound them out and explain the Government’s thinking—there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, these meetings with outside groups are important and details of them, like the ministerial meetings which were so fully referred to earlier, should be transparent.

The first step we could take today to make that point in this House is to say that in this Bill those consultants who lobby spads should have to register, just as if they were meeting Ministers. It would then follow, of course, that although this is outside the immediate scope of the Bill, for this to be meaningful spads would also need to publish all their meetings with all lobbyists, whether they be consultant lobbyists or in-house, just as Ministers do. I very much hope that when we look in detail at the record of meetings in future to see how these can be improved and made even more influential and transparent, my noble friends on the Front Bench will acknowledge that this would be an important step to take.

This is not in any way intended to malign spads or imply that anything they do is wrong. It is the opposite. It says that what they do is useful and, on many occasions, necessary, but keeping any aspect of it hidden feeds a largely unnecessary suspicion that they are up to no good. I referred at earlier stages of the Bill to the fact that two of the big lobbying scandals in this Parliament have involved close advisers to Ministers rather than Ministers themselves, and that resignations resulted.

For example, the Murdoch empire recognised these facts of life very early on. We should too. Both scandals would probably never have got to this stage had encounters between close ministerial advisers and outside groups been a matter of public record. It is therefore as much in the Government’s interests as in the public interest—surely the two should fit hand in glove anyway—for this information to be freely available. I quoted before and I shall quote again. The Prime Minister memorably said:

“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.

I agree.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, until I became Deputy Leader of your Lordships’ House I did not have a special adviser. I now have one but I am not sure that she has met anyone, although she has said that if she could get a diary secretary it might be a bonus. We take the view, as I indicated earlier, that it is the Ministers who are making the decisions. On that basis, we believe that it is communications with Ministers—and not just meetings, as the noble and learned Lord said—that are pertinent. We believe that these proposals are appropriate and proportionate. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord—

[Lord Tyler]

I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, who is very good to take points from us all. I sympathise with the point he makes about the scale of the increase in the number of people who would be involved if Amendment 2 was agreed, and the potential enormous cost as a result. However, that does not apply to Amendment 3, as has been made clear on all sides of the House. The very specific nature of the character, responsibility and role of special advisers—I think the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said that there are 98 of them—would not require a great increase in the amount of information to be given by government in terms of both the record of meetings and who, as regards lobbyists, meets them. Can he give an undertaking that between now and Third Reading he will look very hard—in sympathy with the views that have been expressed on all sides of the House—at the practicalities of including special advisers? In terms of both the meetings they have and the nature of the people who they meet, there is broad support right across the House for their being exceptional. They are indeed, as their title states, special. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend is prepared to look again at that issue.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I know that my noble friend knows me well enough and I hope that I have made enough appearances at this Dispatch Box for noble Lords to know that I would not wish to give the kind of undertaking that my noble friend seeks if it were to raise an expectation that I am not necessarily able to deliver on. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

3: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, after “secretary” insert “or special adviser”

[Lord Tyler]

I beg to move, and to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, in Committee I moved an amendment to deal with the linkage between the registration process and existing codes of conduct in the lobbying industry. I warmly welcome the movement that the Government have now undertaken. If I recall rightly, we were given encouraging noises on that particular point in Committee. Therefore I very much support Amendments 12, 15 and 16. I shall listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend has to say about the stiffening of that resolve—if I may put it like that—incorporated in Amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 23 is, almost by definition, premature. I want to see how this works. I do not want to put more responsibilities on the statutory register than it can easily undertake at the outset. The noble Baroness was quite right to talk about the future. In this particular case, we legislate for the future when it arrives, rather than put more responsibilities on the registrar at this stage. I will listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend has to say about Amendments 13 and 14, to see if there seems to be a practical way in which these could be incorporated and therefore give an even stronger statutory link between the register and the existing codes.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, as I understand the present arrangement—and I am only going by memory from what was said in Committee—the Public Relations Consultants Association already has a code of conduct. If it is correct that the professional organisations may over the longer term actually wind up—and in the period between Committee and Report we were led to believe that this is the case—then I presume that no code of conduct will necessarily apply. That is unless the Government introduce a model code on the basis that my noble friend on the Front Bench has just argued for. I asked the Minister in what circumstances an organisation that registered would not wish to introduce a code of conduct. I presume that during the consultation to which the Minister referred when he moved his amendment, they made clear what those circumstances would be. I wonder if we can be told what Ministers were told. There must be some explanation for why they resist. If there is an explanation—perhaps it is in the written brief or something—maybe we could see it prior to Third Reading. I simply cannot understand what they are objecting to, and we need to know during the course of the debate what it is.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

If one is to encourage democracy and keep that bureaucratic burden to an absolute minimum, as high a figure as possible should be set within the overall limits of total expenditure. That approach will also benefit the Electoral Commission by reducing the number of organisations that it requires to monitor; £25,000 is below the current total allowable expenditure for each country, although I appreciate that it will exceed the total expenditure proposed in the Bill for each of Wales and Northern Ireland. Obviously, if these new limits are approved for these countries, a different figure should be fixed for each, but this amendment proceeds on the basis of current figures. On any view, even if changes are proposed in the Bill, the figure of £25,000 would seem appropriate for England and Scotland, because that is below the proposed overall allowance for each of these countries. I beg to move.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, we have Amendment 166A in this group. Before I come to it, I have a great deal of sympathy for the approach of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, but with an important reservation. I noted with interest that he referred to the advice of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, but the committee gave much more detailed consideration to some of these issues in its later report of November 2011. That is the context in which we are having this discussion. Our amendment seeks to return to the existing, well known situation of the registration threshold, with one very important qualification, to which I will refer when I also speak to the amendments being proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and others.

Nursing my cold and cough yesterday evening, I carefully read the whole of our Hansard proceedings on Monday. If anybody has been having as much difficulty in sleeping as I have recently, I fully endorse that as a very good way of avoiding insomnia. I was struck that almost all the constructive amendments to make this part of the Bill more workable and effective came from the Cross Benches, and from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Benches. This clearly reflects the reality outside the Houses of Parliament. The organisations potentially affected by its provisions want to ensure that the Bill deals with the doubts and the defects in the existing law, the PPERA 2000, rather than simply maintain some of the unsatisfactory features of that status quo.

I have met representatives of literally dozens—scores, perhaps even hundreds—of organisations over recent weeks, some charities and some not, to discuss the perceived effects of the Bill. It is becoming increasingly clear that all serious organisations recognise that the loophole that could enable a single-issue-obsessed multimillionaire or campaign group to target huge sums of money into one or more marginal seats must be addressed. One of the problems with the other amendments in this group is that they do not restrict that targeting into a small number of seats. Our amendment does.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I am sorry to stop the noble Lord in full flow, but we have all had many conversations with charities over the past weeks and not one charity has mentioned that to me personally or to my noble friend. Can the noble Lord name the charity that has these grave fears?

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, they are innumerable: NCVO, Bond and a whole number of organisations have said to us that targeting into one constituency or a small number of constituencies is recognised as a possible problem. It is not something that they necessarily want to do but they recognise that there could be a threat.

As my noble friend Lady Williams pointed out so powerfully on Monday evening, this type of deliberate distortion of our electoral process is far advanced elsewhere, in the USA in particular, but is already on its way this side of the Atlantic as well. By definition, however, we need to ensure that the net is not of so fine a mesh that we create a totally inappropriate bureaucracy for much smaller, much more locally based groups. Here I think I share the objectives of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and others.

I referred on Monday to this essential balance between transparency and accountability on the one hand and excessive regulation on the other. The collective contention of very many organisations is that while the 2000 legislation was a concern and is defective, many of them simply did not have to worry in the past because their spending came beneath the existing thresholds.

In evidence to the Commons Select Committee, the chair of the Electoral Commission described the threshold as the measure that determined how far you go down in the pyramid of organisations engaged in campaigning. I think she described the situation very well. It is not a simple, two-dimensional triangle; it is a three-dimensional pyramid, so the further you go down in terms of the threshold, the more small organisations—huge numbers of organisations—potentially feel threatened and have to look to the way in which they are operating. At the top are a small number of large organisations that might seek deliberately and decisively,

“to promote or procure electoral success”,

of a party or candidate—the now accepted definition in the Bill—and at the bottom are a whole range of smaller bodies that are concerned that their activities might be perceived to be doing so.

We can continue to seek to reassure them as to whether they really would be caught by definition or we can provide explicit reassurance in the Bill by lifting the threshold to its existing level. I think we should do just that. Our amendment on this subject deals neatly with the conundrum that the Government have faced in so doing. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire said in his letter to colleagues on 5 December that in increasing the thresholds the Government would,

“need to take account of the consequences for the constituency limits set out in the legislation and the Government will reflect further on the detail of how to bring this about”.

This comes to the nub of the issue I referred to earlier. I hope that the amendment helps my noble friend.

The Minister was right, of course, that it would be plainly illogical to have a simple threshold of £10,000—or a much bigger one of £20,000 or £25,000—and then have a constituency spending limit during the post-dissolution period of £5,800. An organisation could be spending the whole limit of £5,800 and beyond without even being registered and therefore without declaring the expenditure. This would undermine the whole spirit of transparency and accountability that runs through the Bill. In the second part of our amendment, we stipulate that a higher threshold can apply unless all the spending is targeted in one constituency. I have heard the argument that this somehow adds complexity, but I do not accept that.

Of course, in a later group we will come to other detailed amendments, which clarify and make more workable the application of constituency limits. A whole section will do just that. I am sure that the Committee will recognise how crucial these are to the success of the Bill, and to its acceptance by MPs in the other place. After all, they themselves face very stringent expenditure limits at elections. When Amendment 166A in this group is taken in conjunction with our later Amendment 170A, which clarifies the scope of the constituency limit, it will be very clear when spending has occurred only in one constituency.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

We had a very thorough debate on this subject on Monday; I do not want to go over again everything that I said then, and rerun that debate. I will certainly reflect on what the noble Baroness has said; indeed, I spoke on Monday about some of the clarity sought. I think that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, was encouraging me to act, and said that a number of people wanted to put things in the Bill. He listed a number of things, and I said that there had to be a balance between what we put in a Bill and what we leave to guidance. That is a perfectly proper matter for us to reflect on, and we shall bear the noble Baroness’s comments in mind.

I was about to say that charities and other campaigners had expressed fears that because low-level campaigning and expenditure could be regulated as a result of the Bill, small organisations would face a disproportionate reporting and compliance burden. Those concerns have been reflected in most of the contributions this morning. My noble friend Lord Tyler talked on Monday about the balance between transparency and regulation. Almost inevitably, the more transparent we seek to make the arrangements, the greater will be the amount of regulation. That point was echoed this morning by my noble friend Lady Williams.

This is the balance that we are trying to get right. We believe that there should be greater clarity about who is campaigning for the electoral success of parties or candidates—but equally, we do not want small campaigners to be dissuaded from taking part in public debate by fear of having onerous burdens placed upon them. Therefore, in line with what my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire committed in the House on 5 November, as I have said, and, indeed, as I said when opening the first set of amendments on Monday, the Government will bring forward amendments on Report to increase the registration thresholds.

[Lord Tyler]

Will my noble and learned friend make one point absolutely clear to the Committee? If, as has been suggested this morning, the registration threshold was moved as high as £25,000, it would be perfectly possible for an organisation or individual to spend £24,999.99p in one constituency without being in any way accountable for how that money was spent and without having to be transparent about where the money came from, even though that sum would far exceed what we might expect to have as the limit on spending. It simply would not be known that that was happening because the registration threshold was so high; hence the significance of the measure that my noble friends and I have tabled.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend anticipates what I was about to say. However, he is right, subject to the caveat in the Representation of the People Act and its interplay with the restrictions on spending in individual constituencies, that sum would be almost twice what the candidate could spend. It seems a bit perverse that, if you have a campaign, you cannot answer for it if you are a candidate or party. However, we will come on to the constituency limits and the important interplay with the Representation of the People Act.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, referred to the figure of £25,000, which, as my noble friend says, would allow quite a lot to be done without the need for transparency. Nevertheless, the noble and learned Lord made an important point abut there being the same threshold in each of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. At a very early stage—I think before I had been given the “hospital pass” —I met a group of citizens in my former constituency as my successor thought that it would be a good idea for me to meet them. One of the points that they made was that, in reducing the thresholds from £10,000 and £5,000 to £5,000 and £2,000, there had been a bigger pro rata decrease for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I have certainly raised that issue. It is an important issue with regard to what the threshold is in the different parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly undertake that we will consider that point. I think it was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, specifically in relation to Northern Ireland.

I reiterate the point made by my noble friend Lord Tyler with regard to constituency limits, consistency and not subverting the constituency limit by having a threshold that is too high. I accept that some of those who argue for a higher level do not want a constituency limit at all, but we shall deal with that in greater detail later.

I repeat that our objective is to ensure transparency, but we need to strike a balance. We do not want to have a chilling effect, even if it is just a perception on the part of smaller organisations that they would exceed the threshold even if their activities were not necessarily ones that would require them to register. Therefore, I repeat that we believe a substantial increase from the level in the Bill would, indeed, be appropriate.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, possibly in a festive mood, tried to be seductive by suggesting that we accept his first amendment and restore the status quo. It is seductive but, at the risk of spoiling the Christmas spirit, I do not think that the legislative hokey-cokey of “in out, in out and shake it all about” is the best way to do this. The Government will bring forward an amendment on Report which, as I have indicated, will introduce a substantial increase from the level in the Bill. On that basis, I urge the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 169A. I would like to ask the Minister what the rationale was behind such a drastic reduction in the spending limits. For England it was a 60% reduction; for the other nations it was 70%. This is a vast reduction, for which no reason was given. The commission which I have the privilege of chairing simply wishes to revert to the original PPERA figures plus inflation. Those are written in the amendment, and would mean £1,125,000 for the year for England; the comparable figures for Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales would be £155,000, £86,000 and £40,000. We are simply recommending the original PPERA figures plus inflation.

I will give one example of a big spending campaign which is concerned about the cap. In the 2010 general election, Hope not Hate registered £319,231 of spending in England with the Electoral Commission. It is a national grass-roots organisation that seeks to challenge and expose openly racist political parties, candidates and policies. It works on the assumption that there is a risk that far-right racist policies might be campaigned on vigorously at election time, and it wishes to oppose that with racially tolerant policies. For example, in an area like Barking and Dagenham in 2010 where it mobilised people, its spending included printing of leaflets and Hope not Hate newspapers, staff time to write campaign literature, media coverage costs, communicating the campaign to supporters, and its battle bus bill. Of course, an organisation such as this, quite properly, needs to register and needs to be totally transparent in what it does, but the spending limits proposed in the Bill would severely reduce what that organisation would be able to do. It spent in 2010 £319,231, which is above the limit in the Bill. There is clearly a strong case for reverting not only to PPERA but to PPERA plus inflation on the cap.

[Lord Tyler]

I wonder if I may ask the noble and right reverend Lord a question. He and his commission have justifiably encouraged us to see the package—how different elements of the Bill stick together. I draw his attention to the fact that his amendment, combined with other amendments to remove all constituency limits that he and his colleagues have proposed, would, if they were to be implemented, mean that the sum of £1.25 million could be spent in a small number of target marginal constituencies. That is a huge sum of money. When we come to the other sections that deal with constituency limits, will he think about the implications of the interaction between those two propositions from his commission?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

The commission is keen to emphasise that every aspect of the Bill is integrated with every other. Clearly, constituency limits have to be taken into account very seriously when we are thinking about raising either the threshold or the cap.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

170A: Clause 28, page 16, line 22, leave out from “if” to end of line 23 and insert “the expenditure relates to—
(a) sending election material falling within paragraph 1 of Schedule 8A which is—(i) addressed to, or(ii) by virtue of delivery instructions directed to,any person registered, or entitled to be registered, in the register of parliamentary electors for any particular constituency, or to households within a particular constituency;(b) unsolicited telephone calls falling within paragraph 2 of Schedule 8A, made to such persons or households.( ) For the purposes of this paragraph, “election material” is defined as in section 143A.”

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I should apologise to Members who were anticipating that by now we might be moving on to the QSD. It is certainly not at my insistence that this group of amendments should be taken at 1.41 pm. However, as we have been gathering from all sides of the Committee during discussions this morning, the constituency limits, which are the subject of Clause 28 and therefore of this group, are very important and of central significance to the Bill.

We have heard that the Government did not bring this legislation forward to affect charity campaigning or to stop NGOs having their say about policy issues. The purpose of the Bill is to stop big money flooding into constituencies in the year before an election in an attempt to, in one direction, augment or to subvert candidates’ own spending limits. As I have already had occasion to say to the Committee, even if we in this House did not think that was important, there will be Members at the other end of the building who would think that it was extremely important—not least, perhaps, those pro-Europe Conservative MPs and candidates who might well be targeted by substantial sums of money, let alone others who may be in a similar position and a target for single-issue campaigning by individuals, multimillionaires or organisations.

Clause 28 is very important but it is by no means perfect, as has already been made apparent by many noble Lords this morning. The Bill talks about activity that has “significant effects” in a particular constituency or group of constituencies. The difficulty is that some of the groups that we have all met might, for example, hold a rally in one constituency which would have an effect on a great many others. I recall chairing just such a constituency rally, but if it had that significance for neighbouring constituencies in Cornwall, it would be very difficult to allocate the actual expenditure in any particular way. It would be very difficult to see what relative effect this was going to have in different adjoining constituencies. Frankly, as a former candidate, I rarely worried about somebody holding a meeting in the neighbouring constituency—or, for that matter, even in my own constituency—in terms of that affecting the outcome of the election. What affects elections most strongly is direct communication with electors and, as has already been mentioned this morning, the means of doing that have become more effective and cheaper in recent years. That is what can really sway a constituency result one way or another.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

Should I interpret the noble Baroness’s remarks that she is supporting the very carefully targeted Amendment 170A that I moved? That would deal with all the uncertainty to which she understandably refers.

[Baroness Mallalieu]

That would certainly be a much better step than what is included at present. I would say that it is absolutely unnecessary. If it is right that the spending limits are to be reduced, does that not provide one safeguard? I return to my old friend, the Representation of the People Act 1983, which in any event provides the safeguard that people are concerned does not exist now. For all those reasons, Clause 28 needs to be scrapped.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Horam]

I understand what the noble and right reverend Lord is saying and I accept that. None the less, I want him to understand that, in running a proper democracy, at a constituency level this is a very important issue.

[Lord Tyler]

I know that the noble Lord speaks in a personal capacity but he has also the very important, practical experience of being a member of the Electoral Commission. For the avoidance of doubt, I will read again the specific recommendation of the Electoral Commission on my Amendment 170A, which deals with this very important practical point of being able to tie down where precisely a campaign is aiming its efforts. The commission says:

“In principle we see potential benefits in defining the scope of activity covered by the constituency controls more specifically than in Part 2 of the Bill generally. For example, costs relating to material sent to specific addresses can be identified and evidenced with some confidence”,

which will deal with precisely the circumstances to which the noble Lord is referring. I hope, therefore, that there may be support from the Government for what I think is a very practical approach to this otherwise quite tricky problem.

[Lord Horam]

I hear what my noble friend says and I think he will also recognise that the Electoral Commission made the point of practicality—whether this really is a practical way forward. Whether it is workable in practice has to be the test.

As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, knows, I have supported quite a few of the recommendations of his commission, which was a very thoughtful and helpful exercise. But on this point, I am very certain that the Government must hold their ground for the sake of democracy in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it was clear from many of our previous debates that the issue of constituency limits had attracted considerable discussion, not to say controversy. The fundamental point here, which was very well made by my noble friends Lord Tyler and Lord Horam, is that it would be wrong if a third party could choose to direct its entire national spending limit at only one small part of the UK, thereby focusing the full force of the considerable spending available to it on that very small part. It would be disproportionate if that was one constituency. That point was articulated. It would be a travesty of the democratic process if so much was focused on one constituency.

To prevent such occurrences, the Bill introduces what I admit is a new provision whereby third parties will be permitted to spend only a certain proportion of their controlled expenditure in individual constituencies. Clause 28(6) limits per constituency spending to 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limits applied to political parties. This amounts to £9,750. The limit applies for the duration of the regulated period for a UK parliamentary general election.

It is proposed that a third party’s expenditure would be wholly attributed to a constituency provided that the expenditure had “no significant effect” in any other constituency. It is of course possible that expenditure in a local area may be attributed to a number of constituencies—for example, in Lewisham, where I think that it would be relatively straightforward to see three constituencies.

I accept that if someone was handing out leaflets in Princes Street in Edinburgh, it would be very difficult to say that that was focused on a constituency—which I think used to be Edinburgh Central, but these boundary changes happen so often—and was not having an effect elsewhere. If anyone was handing out leaflets in the constituency which I formerly had the privilege of representing, in Kirkwall or in Lerwick, it would be almost impossible to suggest that it was intended to have an effect on any other constituency, as it would be focused in the one place. The concerns that have been expressed about how you identify boundaries will often be easier to determine with regard to specific case examples.

In response to a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, raised on a number of occasions, I should stress that the limits on constituency spending do not remove or replace the important existing controls of the Representation of the People Act 1983. These rules are long-standing and stipulate that third parties campaigning for a candidate or candidates in a particular constituency—which includes negative campaigning against others—may spend only up to £500. Clause 34 would raise this amount to £700. While introducing a limited requirement to keep a record of such expenditure, the Bill does not otherwise affect the provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Third parties campaigning in local campaigns would be well advised to heed the strictures of the Act. First and foremost, if a particular organisation or group intends to go into a single constituency to promote a particular candidate, or to attack a particular candidate, it would be well advised to have regard to the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

[Lord Tyler]

Will my noble friend confirm that that applies to the post-dissolution period in a constituency and not to the 12 months leading up to a poll?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My noble friend is absolutely right, but it is important that we do not lose sight of that provision.

There are other types of campaigning that are already regulated under PPERA and that we consider should be subject to the national third-party controlled expenditure campaigning limits and the constituency limits which this clause introduces: first, campaigning for or against a particular party; and, secondly, when a campaign is intended, or may reasonably be regarded as being intended, to support groups of candidates because they are of a particular type or because they support particular policies or hold particular views. For instance, if a third party campaigns with the message “vote for those candidates who support green taxes”, this would be spending regulated under PPERA and subject to the national third-party controlled expenditure campaigning limits and the proposed constituency limits. For both types of campaigning, a third party could choose to direct this entire national spending limit at only a small number of constituencies. That is why we consider this clause to be necessary.

A number of amendments have been proposed. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has proposed Amendment 170, which would remove constituency limits altogether. I accept his point that this would be for the 2015 election, and that we must look at it in that context, but I think that there is concern that a huge loophole could be created.

Some have said that there was no evidence of a problem in 2010—or, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, that there has been no example of a constituency being completely swayed or influenced by third party expenditure. But how many times do Ministers receive strictures because they did not anticipate a problem? If this were not in place, what would happen after the 2015 election if the kind of event to which the noble Lord refers had taken place in a constituency and there was felt to be a considerable travesty? I rather imagine that some would say, “Ministers knew they had a Bill going through Parliament. Why did they not do something about it at the time?”. Is it the case that we always have to wait for a problem or travesty to arise before we take action?

The constituency limits will be enforced by the Electoral Commission. I have heard the concerns that have been expressed about that. The Government have been in many discussions with the regulator on this issue, and we believe that the commission can regulate spending in constituencies in the same manner as it regulates national spending. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, asked whether an Electoral Commission enforcement officer would be needed in each constituency. That is certainly not what is anticipated.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what the noble Baroness says, but if we are dealing with a situation where an organisation is trying to intervene in a constituency for the purpose of promoting the electoral advantage of one particular party, one particular candidate or a series of candidates in an area, then it is not unreasonable that there might be some responsibilities that go with that, particularly with the kind of substantial volume of money that we are talking about being spent in one or a number of focused geographical areas. No one is asking them to account for the work that they are doing in trying to tackle mental health issues or alcohol problem issues—that does not arise. They are caught by this only if the amount that they are spending in one particular constituency or group of constituencies is caught by these provisions, in which case there might just be a responsibility that goes with that. The point that I am making is that there is nothing new about that in terms of its enforceability. It is something that people, not least the Electoral Commission, have been grappling with for some time.

My noble friend Lord Tyler tabled a series of amendments that he hoped would add clarity to the provision. The word “clarity” is something that the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, would certainly echo. My noble friend quoted the Electoral Commission with regard to his Amendment 170A, which would mean that election materials—leaflets, mailshots, adverts and so on that were specifically addressed to or delivered to households in a constituency, and unsolicited telephone calls to households—counted towards constituency limits. The main issue that I have with this amendment is that there could be key activities, such as rallies or events that were deliberately focused on an area, which would not be regulated, and it would not restrict material from otherwise being distributed or displayed. As I said, leaflets being handed out in the middle of George Square in Glasgow are different from leaflets being handed out in the marketplace of Thurso, for example, in the Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross constituency, which could not be said to be influencing any other constituency. However, I hear what numerous contributors have said in this debate about simplification, and there is an obligation on us to look at the provisions, without giving any commitment, to see if there is the possibility of looking generally at the question of simplification.

My noble friend also tabled Amendments 170B and 170D, altering constituency limits so that the figure was £10,000 for the whole of the regulated period and £5,000 for the post-Dissolution period. He has already pointed out that RPA kicks in for the post-Dissolution period. As for the proposal that there should be an opportunity for the Secretary of State to amend the constituency limits by order, there is already provision in Clause 30 for the Secretary State to amend constituency limits by order on the recommendation of the Electoral Commission. I hope that that covers his concerns, but no doubt if he thinks that they do not meet what he was proposing, he will indicate that to me.

His final amendment was one that I thought had much to commend it in terms of, as he said, trying to encourage political engagement. Amendment 170G would allow the constituency limit to be exceeded to a maximum of £15,000, or £10,000 in the post-Dissolution period, if a third party’s controlled expenditure was being funded by donations of less than £250 from donors within a parliamentary constituency. It would also allow a third party to spend up to 50% more than the national limit that would otherwise apply.

Because amounts below £500 are not currently considered to be donations under PPERA, the amendment would require a third party to carry out permissibility checks and record all donations, however small. This would be a fundamental change to the PPERA donation rules and would be likely to involve unmanageable compliance. Given the concerns that have been expressed about compliance and regulatory burdens, that factor would have to be borne in mind. It would increase the burden and would also risk having the opposite effect to what was intended. A large third party organisation with members and donors across the country may be able to identify sufficient donors in each constituency to give itself a disproportionate advantage, whereas a small organisation funded by very small donations would not be able to benefit in the same way.

I referred earlier to the Representation of the People Act. We are also concerned that linking expenditure to local donations in constituencies in this way could quite easily risk confusion with and undermine RPA rules or third party candidate campaigns, and I know that my noble friend would not wish to have such confusion between the two regimes. I hope that noble Lords agree that there is a need for constituency limits and that these can be properly enforced. I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I will respond very briefly to the debate. I think my noble friend the Minister will accept that there is real concern about making sure that we have—if we are going to have—applicable, effective and manageable constituency limits. Therefore, I am sure that we will return to this on Report. If we do not and were to remove the whole of Clause 28, I am sure that it would be put back, in one form or another, by our colleagues in the other place, who have a considerable interest in the extent to which their constituencies are subjected to considerable investment—

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, perhaps I may point out that it has already been through the other place and it was not thus amended.

[Lord Tyler]

The very fact that it has come to us is making the point for me. I think that the other place would consider it essential to retain some constituency limits. However, I accept that there are concerns about workability. I hope my amendments will improve the extent to which they will be manageable and enforceable, but in the mean time I am happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 170A withdrawn.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Tyler]

170H: After Clause 29, insert the following new Clause—
“Third parties acting in concert
(1) Section 94 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (limits of controlled expenditure by non-recognised third parties) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (6)(b) after “arrangement” insert (“the plan”).
(3) In subsection (6), at end insert “in pursuance of the plan”.”

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I have tabled this proposed new clause with my colleagues, my noble friends Lady Williams of Crosby and Lady Tyler of Enfield and, in a private capacity, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. We have given it the heading:

“Third parties acting in concert”.

We think that that is a better definition of the problem that has been brought to our attention on many occasions than using the word “coalition”, which might have other overtones.

Among all the groups that we have met, the present PPERA 2000 rules on this type of working between different organisations have emerged as a major area of concern. Indeed, they have caused great confusion and, more than anything else, given rise to the alleged chilling effect among smaller organisations. I checked with the Electoral Commission earlier this week about what exactly is meant by the present rules. Suppose organisation A contributes £15,000 to a combined operation, which acts in concert in some form of policy coalition. Then organisation B contributes £375,000 to that same campaign. Therefore, under the present rules, A and B have to record £390,000 as having been spent. However, vitally, organisation A, which has spent only £15,000, is recorded as having spent right up to the total of £390,000. That creates an extremely difficult situation for small organisations. Just by being caught up by some joint operation, they get clobbered because they might very well want to take on some different campaign activity that is nothing to do with that original campaign, and then find that they have already exceeded the limit. That is the nature of the present law, and that is the nature of the present problem that so many organisations have drawn to our attention.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his colleagues have a good amendment that would deal with this for small organisations making a contribution below the registration threshold and, of course, that is welcome. Our amendment goes further: it embodies the principle that any one group or any one campaign should be capped at the level of the national or constituency limit. We do this by engaging in the amendment with the phrase,

“common plan or other arrangement”,

which is already referred to in the 2000 Act. We are effectively saying that the money spent on that plan should be capped—it should not then be carried forward for any other campaign of a different nature—or that that money spent by a different organisation should be capped. If, in my example, organisation A was spending only £15,000, that would be the limit of the restraint on it because it clearly would not be contributing a huge sum. Just because organisation B has spent a considerable sum in pursuance of the common plan, it should not be effectively restricted by what has happened with one of their allies.

There is a way around these rules at present, which is to set up an umbrella organisation to accept donations from all the different organisations involved, but if they simply campaign together then they will be caught by the present rules. There is a defect in the 2000 PPERA rules and the Bill is our opportunity to deal with it, remove that uncertainty and assist a number of organisations that feel that this is a real constraint on what they are permitted to do. I should say briefly that, on these Benches, we strongly refute the case for Amendment 182A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, which would seek to take away all the coalition rules. It would mean no constraint whatever on organisations, allowing them simply and artificially to multiply and then provide multiple spending limits. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, is not here to explain exactly the rationale for those original 2000 PPERA rules, which were thought at the time to be both necessary and desirable. Unfortunately, they have proved to be, to a large extent, not very effective and, in some respects, a discouragement to small organisations being involved in perfectly proper campaigning operations.

The amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, goes a long way to dealing with the problem, but we think that our approach goes a little further and we hope that the Government will accept the direction in which it is going. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 170M. First of all, the charities and campaigning groups have indicated very strongly that what the present Bill puts forward on coalition working is totally unacceptable. All charities are encouraged by the Charity Commission and by their own trustees to work together in coalitions. We have seen many very successful examples of coalition working, but under the law as it is put forward in Part 2 of the Bill, the total amount of money spent by the coalition is attributed to each single member of the coalition. This must be, by any standard, totally unfair. We have racked our brains for the past six weeks and do not feel that we have come up with any solution to the fundamental problem. Therefore, in the first week after we come back, we will be calling a round table conference to which the Minister has agreed to come and various other people will be invited, to see whether, together, we can crack this fundamental problem of coalition working and how it can be fairly regulated. I am sure that the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, to which I put my name in a private capacity, will be very much on the table to be considered at that point.

However, as he mentioned, our Amendment 170M will go some way towards solving the problem for smaller groups. In that amendment, we mark the difference between a minor third party and a nominated third party. A minor third party is one that has not yet reached the registration threshold. If it is working in coalition with other parties, on the basis of my amendment it will be able to nominate another party, called the nominated third party. With the agreement of both the third party and the nominated third party, the money that the minor third party spends on that campaign will be attributed to the nominated third party as part of its overall expenditure and the minor third party will simply be able to indicate to the Electoral Commission that it is below the threshold and has, as it were, contributed this amount of money towards the nominated third party, which is very likely to be regulated. We believe that this is quite a neat way of ensuring that smaller parties—those which do not hit the registration threshold and certainly are very anxious to work in coalition —will not be brought within the scope of regulated expenditure. The Electoral Commission, in examining this amendment, remarked that it is “attractive in principle”, but wants to think about it further to see whether there are any unintended consequences.

The issue of coalition working is one of the key areas about which charities and campaigning groups are concerned. I will not go through any of the examples set out at the end of our report, but I would draw the attention of noble Lords to the Human Rights Consortium in Northern Ireland, which has been referred to at least once in this debate already, where something like 180 NGOs work together on a crucial issue. That gives some indication of why getting coalition working right is absolutely fundamental to the charity sector and, indeed, to the workings of our democracy.

--- Later in debate ---

I hope that, with some explanation of the current position and with the guidance that smaller organisations contributing to a larger campaign run by a larger body would not draw them into controlled expenditure, I have offered some reassurance, but I do so against the background that we are willing to engage on this issue. As I have indicated, this is a problem that exists even under the law as it presently is. On that basis, I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Tyler]

I am very grateful to the Minister but also to others who contributed because, if we have done nothing else in recent minutes, we have demonstrated that there is a basic misunderstanding of the current law. It is therefore not surprising that many organisations outwith Parliament, large and small, have been confused by this issue. We should be absolutely clear, and my noble and learned friend’s latter remarks underline this, that if we are not very careful, if it were removed completely from the current 2000 Act by this Bill, this could result in those who have a direct interest in avoidance using this as a cunning plan to get around the constraints of the current law. I have read the Hansard from the time and this was anticipated as a potentially dangerous loophole in the debates in 2000 that led to the PPERA Act, and it would be totally wrong to just tear it up and throw it out.

Incidentally, in that connection, there have been comments about the role of the Electoral Commission. As I have frequently reminded your Lordships, I have a role as a member of the cross-party informal advisory group to the commission. I think that the commission should be taken to task for not identifying that this was a problem over 13 years of experience. It is unfortunate that in that respect it did not recommend to the previous Government and to Parliament that this needed to be looked at, whatever future legislation was going to try and tackle it.

It is clear from the contributions right around the House that many here who have contact with small organisations and charities know that in the past there has been a chilling effect, to use that expression, on those who wish to work in a collaborative way, which, for the reasons that have been explained so well by my noble friend Lady Tyler, needs careful attention. We need to try to avoid the existing distortions that have been identified as having been there for some time, although obviously are now more pressing, given the other changes in the Bill.

Obviously I, too, hope that between now and Report the promised discussions will result in a fairer, more rational approach for those who wish to campaign in an election together. I therefore hope that in the next two or three weeks we will see a practical solution. A number of ideas have been put forward to the Minister and I have every confidence, given what he has just said, that the Government will look at them very carefully. In the mean time—

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

Can I just clarify the noble Lord’s comments about the Electoral Commission, as I did not fully understand them. The criticism of the commission for not identifying this problem—was it that it ought to have identified it before the 2000 Act or between the Act and now? It was set up, as I understand it, by the 2000 Act so it could not have done it in anticipation of that.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I am so sorry if I did not make that clear. Since the 2000 Act it has become increasingly evident that this was having an effect and discouraging a number of organisations from working together. This has come to a head now but the principle was explicit in PPERA in 2000 and it is unfortunate that the commission allowed some discussion to continue at a low level but was never in a position to nor felt able to recommend to government and to Parliament that this matter needed close attention.

Amendment 170H withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment and also added Amendment 170P in the spirit of what the Army refers to as KISS: “keep it simple, stupid”. That is because there is already an allowance that the Bill reduces the period to four months before European elections and elections to the devolved Administrations. I know that a number of organisations would be very happy if the period were four months rather than six months, because it would mean that there was one period for all elections. That is why I have tabled my amendment. But the great thing is to have the period reduced.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, the argument does appear to be very simple. I wish it was so. I will illustrate the complexity that could be caused by one or other of these amendments. Amendment 170L would create a fourth regulatory period in electoral law; there are already three. One would be of 12 months for both non-party and national political party expenditure. One would be of four months for candidates’ long campaign, introduced for the 2010 election by the PPE Act 2009. There would then be the traditional four to six-month period post-Dissolution of the so-called “short campaign”, which was imposed by the Representation of the People Act 1983 but which originated from the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act 1883. So there is a little more complexity than both of the noble Lords who have already spoken suggested.

As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, indicated, there are of course implications for a number of other parts of the Bill. If either of these amendments were to be passed, they would have an impact on spending caps. It would surely be very odd if his commission’s recommendations for the higher spending limits—that is, £1.25 million in England—applied over half the regulated period. This would make the proposed new limit equivalent to £2.5 million if it had been over 12 months. There could then be an argument for no constituency limits. This could mean an unlimited sum being spent in constituencies up to four or six months before an election. I do not accept the argument that nobody is interested in what is spent in the longer period leading up to an election. It can be very influential, as those of us who have fought elections know. After that period, a further £1.125 million could be spent in one constituency—a target constituency, a marginal seat or a small number of constituencies—which would vastly outspend the candidates themselves. The argument is very seductive. The two noble Lords who have spoken are regularly seductive in this House and speak with the tongues of angels, but I have to say that this particular case is not as simple as they suggest.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I am hoping to be seduced. There is a kernel to this that is more important than the detailed argument we have just heard. The kernel is that it might be more sensible to have a shorter period in which this whole thing operates. If I may say so to my noble friend, it is not a sensible argument to say, “It’s awfully inconvenient to do this because all sorts of other things might have to be reorganised”. I hope that the Minister will take seriously the following argument. We now have a system whereby we know when the next election and the election after that will be. If you think about it in those terms, you realise that no one is going to get anything much under way at this point just before Christmas. The real period will in any case be that from 1 January onwards. That is what is going to happen.

Given that there is so much unhappiness about this bit of the Bill and that so many people are concerned—I have checked my Twitter feed and seen how many people remain unconvinced by what the Government and the Minister are saying—it might be sensible to think about making a clear change, and saying to people, “Look, we have listened and we can see that there is still a concern about the weight upon organisations, and therefore we will at least think about the possibility of integrating into the Bill a shorter period”. That would of course mean that my noble friend’s concerns would have to be looked at. After all, this is the Committee stage. One of the things that you do in Committee is raise matters that do not actually fit at the time but might lead one to wonder whether there might be a little bit of a shift.

I was hoping perhaps not to be seduced but, in a gerundive sense, to be put in a state to be seduced. In other words, it would be helpful for the Minister to say that he will look at this and see if there is a possibility of giving confidence to people that their fears would be at least more limited.

The only other thing that I will say is that I am concerned about the immediate effect, because all the arguments about referenda and other things fitting at the same time create a very complex web. That is the second reason why I have difficulty with the views of my noble friend Lord Tyler, with whom I often agree—even though I am not supposed to. There is this difficult web in any case, and therefore it is not unreasonable to take apart the pieces and knit them together in a different manner.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, I was delighted to be able to put my name to this amendment, which indeed has cross-party support. It would be fair to say that the four Members of your Lordships’ House who have put their names to the amendment have all had extensive experience, long commitment and real concern about the maintenance of our parliamentary democracy and its health. My noble friend Lord Marland has also had considerable responsibilities in this field, and I hope that he will be able to address your Lordships’ House in a minute because he will have a particular dimension to add.

I do not think that any of the four of us are dangerous radicals, exactly, but we have all of us given a great deal of thought to this issue and have a common concern. I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long recognised that a broad range of small donations is preferable to a small number of large donations; that is where we come from. Tax relief along the lines of gift aid would be a good way to embody this principle in regulations about donations. As your Lordships’ House is aware, we believe that those regulations should also include a comprehensive donation cap on individual and corporate donations; that is not for this evening’s debate but I very much hope it will come in due course. With colleagues in the other place, I launched a cross-party draft Bill earlier this year, which would have made specific provision both for tax relief and for a cap.

The amendment before us has the potential to move the debate forward. After so much self-interest has thwarted progress so far, I welcome a further attempt to put momentum behind this change. The amount of money that this would cost is clearly limited in the noble Lord’s amendment, which makes clear that the maximum tax relief for the first two years of operation would be only £16 per taxpayer, and in later years a figure of £96 or another figure set by the Secretary of State. We do not have figures before us for the total cost of such a measure, but we do know that there are ways to find this money without increasing the overall cost to the taxpayer of political parties. I think that it would be the common experience of Members of your Lordships’ House that this is not exactly the best time to be persuading our fellow citizens to spend more on political parties, or even the political process.

However, I have advocated before that the freepost election addresses from which candidates at UK and European parliamentary elections can send at the cost of the Treasury—of the taxpayer—should be converted into booklets of the kind used in the London mayoral elections. It is a staggering fact that a saving of something in the region of £50 million per Parliament could be secured by doing this, and could be put into a tax relief measure of the kind being suggested. Therefore there would be no necessary net increase in taxpayer subsidy to the political parties or the political process. Now that Royal Mail is privatised, it may be increasingly attractive to taxpayers to divert some money away from their coffers and profitability into this very simple way of improving how our political system is funded.

There is no reason for anyone in this House to fear this simple change. It seems that it would apply only to small donations and would roughly affect and benefit the parties equally. Given the desire for consensus in this area, that ought to be enough to recommend it to us. It is a very good measure which has my strong support and I hope it will make some progress.

Since I am an optimist, I hope I will not have to speak again in Committee. I am sure other members of the Committee will be glad to hear that. I therefore take this opportunity of hoping that colleagues on all sides of your Lordships’ House have a very collaborative, transparent, enjoyable campaign of partying during the Christmas recess.

[Lord Marland (Con)]

My Lords, I also support the amendment. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for tabling it and for being associated with the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, who does so much thinking on this subject it is a joy to behold.

I speak with some experience as a former treasurer of the Conservative Party for three and a half years. I may not be entirely supported by the Government on this amendment but most politicians I know think that money grows on trees when it comes to fundraising for a political party and have no concept of how incredibly difficult this is whatever time of the electoral cycle you are in. Working with former Prime Minister Blair, I was one of the instigators of the Phillips report. I participated keenly in that and was disappointed when it came to naught, largely over the issue of trade union donations.

I approach the amendment by asking myself three questions. The first question is: why do people join and participate in political parties? The simple reason is that they have a keen interest in politics and democracy. However, in my experience it is also—as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said—fostering a hobby in the same way as you might join a museum society or any other club or society. It is therefore quite reasonable that a donation to a political party should be treated on the same basis. It also allows people to foster political debate. We are the home of democracy and, as the Prime Minister’s trade envoy, I have been proud to be able to use this as a message throughout the world. Democracy is created by political parties; political parties are created by the individuals who work for them and fund them. Democracy is therefore dependent on giving. New political parties like UKIP, for example, would not have been able to start had a large number of people not donated to it. That, in turn, fosters democracy.

We must also recognise that, as I said earlier, fundraising is incredibly difficult. Very few people like doing it, are good at it or like to be asked. Because funding is so important to our political parties, it is also incumbent upon those of us who are involved in politics to stop the continual denigration of people and institutions for giving money to them. In my experience of three and a half years as a treasurer there were very, very few people who wanted something in return for giving money and most of them were not treated with any respect. There are, of course, situations where people want to persuade a Minister or shadow Minister of the benefits of their ideas, but they will probably not take a blind bit of notice unless the idea has reasonable resonance with their political approach. It is incumbent on us to resist the temptation to criticise people who give political donations or to show them up in a bad light for doing so. It is they who allow us to promote democracy.

The next question I ask myself is: do we want to continue a mix of public and private funding of political parties? Let us not kid ourselves: political parties are funded by public money. There is something called Short money which is £6.5 million a year given to all the opposition parties. There is also the Cranborne money, which is given to opposition parties to support their shadow Ministers in action, which is public money, and a considerable amount. The future of political-party funding should be that blend of public and private support. Of course, the problem with Short money is that it goes only to opposition parties, and believe you me, there are times when parties in government suffer from a complete dearth of funding and therefore require financial support, which at the moment they do not get. Therefore the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is worthy of support.

The final question I ask myself is: do we want to encourage parties to focus on increasing their membership and their small donations? Of course, there is overwhelming support for that. We have to rebuild our donor base of small donors and our membership, just to excite people into the task of politics and support for politicians, which has, sadly, been under attack and under threat. Every argument leads to a mixture of public and private funding. This is a very good start on the road to trying to find the best route to doing it, and so I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.

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

Lord Tyler Excerpts

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, made the point that we are trying to make certain that the normal activities of non-party charities and NGOs are not prevented and must continue. I also want to thank and congratulate my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth on this excellent commission report. The five weeks we have had, which have not been nearly long enough, have resulted in a considerable amount of work and consultation. At the same time, I am disappointed that there is not a list of government amendments, arising out of that consultation, for us to look at as well. I hope that those will come.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, mentioned the package. During the rest of this Committee stage, I shall be referring to this package of recommendations made in the report. However, I believe that the package goes wider than that. I think there are three parts to what we are trying to do in this House. The first is what I mentioned when asking for the pause, saying that the request was not a wrecking but a saving motion. It was saving the Government from themselves and from wrecking the voluntary sector. That is hugely important. We must make absolutely certain that the voluntary sector can continue—that is, the non-party bit—and it must be maintained. Secondly, there is the package of recommendations which I hope will be accepted. We are looking no further than the 2015 election, because the third and key part of this package would seem to be the post-election review, based on what has been learned. Bearing in mind that everyone is keen that the process should be transparent, I think that what eventually comes out should be based on careful examination of what happens during a natural event, rather than the presumption that this or that might happen, when we know that many of the measures in the Bill have nothing to do with the day-to-day activities of non-party organisations.

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for providing the time and, acknowledging that it is too short, I hope that during the remainder of this Committee stage we can be constructive and make certain that these normal activities are allowed to continue.

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, I am glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, because I very much agree with the last points that he has been making. I think there is wide agreement in this House that we have to do our job to make that process to which he has referred a reality. I am grateful, too, to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and to all his colleagues. It was a formidable task that they took on; they did not stop at the first hurdle but kept going and have produced some extremely helpful and notable recommendations.

As is recorded in the register, I am a patron of many charities and I am sure that other noble Lords are too, but I have also had experience in the past as a full-time employee of Shelter, which is exactly the sort of charity and non-party organisation that we think is so important to civil life in our country. I am extremely proud of the work that such organisations have done and are doing, and I continue to support them. So I hope that your Lordships will understand that I come to these issues with very much the same background, interests and enthusiasm as members of the noble and right reverend Lord’s commission. I recognise that the work they have done is an extremely valuable contribution to the discussion of these issues.

Before I come to Amendments 160B and 160C, in the name of myself, my noble friends and others, I wish briefly to address the stand part debate which is also in this group. At Second Reading, I said:

“You could plot on a graph transparency on the one hand and bureaucracy on the other in very many areas of life. If transparency is low, the regulatory burden tends to be low, too. If accountability is strong, it is likely that the regulatory burden will be significant. The threshold is a question of where we plot this legislation on that graph. … It will be our responsibility in your Lordships’ House to get the balance right when we come to Committee”.—[Official Report, 22/10/13; cols. 902-3.]

That, surely, is our principal occupation today—to get that balance right, which is a crucial role that we have to undertake between now and Report in January.

After meeting a very large number of charities, community groups, third-party campaigning organisations and their representatives, it is clear to me that the amendment which I and my colleagues have put forward would go some way to meet that objective. However, I am the first to admit that I am no great expert when it comes to getting the amendment absolutely right. Many others in the House are greater experts in that regard. However, I endorse the concerns expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, that we must be careful about the unintended consequences that could arise if the Bill were implemented in its present form. That is why the amendments that I have tabled have had broad support from third-party organisations, which accept that there is a problem in ensuring transparency in relation to those who are campaigning.

The Bill refers to expenditure that,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success”,

in respect of a party or candidate. There is wide acceptance that there should be greater transparency in relation to organisations that are determined to undertake that role. Indeed, everyone to whom I have spoken is absolutely clear that an extremely important part of the role and responsibilities of your Lordships’ House is to try to avoid confusion and to deal with a lack of clarity and the excessive constraints of the 2000 Act. Indeed, that sentiment was shared by the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and he has endorsed Amendments 160B and 160C.

Amendments 160B and 160C deal with two discrete issues that have come up time and again in my discussions with a large number of organisations, and have been a feature of our debate this afternoon. They do not attempt to rewrite the basic definition, which the Electoral Commission has advised is not susceptible to constructive alteration. The benefit of that definition, as it stands, is that it has 13 years of practical experience attached to it and it is an objective test—namely, “What would a reasonable person think someone is doing?”, not “What did that person think they were doing when they did it?”. The latter would be much more subjective. We can never be sure of someone’s intentions but we can come to some conclusions about what a reasonable person would think those intentions were. The amendments seek to make these things clearer still.

Amendment 160B sets out the principle that the endorsement of a campaign by a candidate does not imply that the campaign concerned necessarily supports the candidate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, referred to a similar situation. This is a very worrying misconception about the Bill and is much featured in the case studies reported to us: that is, the notion that the endorsement of a campaign by a candidate can be construed as that candidate receiving support from that campaign. The more one thinks about that, the more illogical it is, but it is clearly a perception and, as is so often the case, a perception can be even more influential than reality.

I recall regularly speaking of the good work done by community groups in my former constituency. If, by so doing, I could have won the implied support of those groups, it would have been wonderful. If everything that I supported had automatically reciprocated that support, I would have got an even bigger majority than I did, but, of course, that was simply not the case. The policy objectives of non-party organisations will often receive flattering praise from a candidate, but the feeling may not be mutual. That is precisely the grey area that the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, referred to just now. It is not absolutely clear in the Bill that it is not reciprocal. We deserve to try to make sure for everybody’s benefit that the Bill is so improved that we know precisely where we are. That needs clarity. I hope that Members of your Lordships’ House will accept that our amendment is intended to do precisely that—to clarify the situation.

Amendment 160C gives an opportunity for the Minister to address some other matters that are ambiguous under the PPERA 2000 definition of non-party campaigning; that is, the extent to which the remotest praise for a candidate by a campaign can be said to be “promoting or procuring” his or her electoral success, or that of their party. In particular, we have all seen in the past—indeed, I think I prepared them when I was not a Member of either House—the score-cards of different parties’ positioning on different policies. These assess the policies of various parties against the policies of that particular organisation. Again, it may seem to us within the political system that it is perfectly logical that it does not automatically mean that you are seeking to procure or promote the election of a candidate, but we need clarity for everyone outside that that is the case. People are not normally involved in the political process. It is not absolutely clear at present whether this activity would or would not be regarded as promoting or procuring the electoral success of the party or candidate that comes out best in that score-card assessment. Again, a little more clarity would be extremely helpful. Even if we were forced back on to the 2000 Act, rather than producing this new Bill, we would be wanting to deal with that particular problem as a matter of urgency.

A remote suggestion that a candidate has done something right by, say, an organisation congratulating that candidate at a press conference for adopting a particular policy, is a grey area in precisely the terms that have already been referred to in this afternoon’s debate. It is important that we should make sure as soon as possible that this amendment could provide an opportunity to clarify the situation once and for all. The Electoral Commission advice is that a non-party organisation could not be accused retrospectively of “promoting or procuring the electoral success” of a candidate or party, just because that party or candidate had adopted some of the positions of the organisation. The House, however, is entitled to ask the Minister this afternoon to give that position his very clear attention so that we can be sure that we are clarifying the law as it stands and as it would seem to be intended in the Bill.

Can he also shed some light on the position after a candidate or party announces its support for a policy which is supported by a non-party organisation? My understanding is that, providing there is not a massive increase in the scale of the organisation’s campaigning clearly as a result of promoting the candidate who is supporting its view, then it would not reasonably be regarded as campaigning for that candidate simply by virtue of doing what it had been doing all along. Again, however, it is a grey area. I would welcome some greater clarity.

Some clarity on these issues is just what a lot of campaigners—be they charities or not—are asking us to undertake this afternoon. That is our principal task in your Lordships’ House. We generally do it very well. I hope that we are going to do it again today. These amendments are vital tests to see whether this Bill can be made both clearer and more workable than the present law. I hope, therefore, that they will be given the very active consideration of the Minister as well as other Members of the House.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I, too, should declare my interests as listed in the register; in particular the fact that I am a trustee of the Woolf Institute. I would like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for working so assiduously, conscientiously and sincerely to try to move this terrible Bill on from where it started off in order to achieve something that might be workable.

I should like briefly to comment on the attempt by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, to achieve a better definition of “controlled expenditure”. The commission thought very hard about that definition but, in the end, we felt that in the time available we could not come up with anything better than what we have at the moment. We reckoned that the political reality was that we had to work with what we have under the heading, “Meaning of ‘controlled expenditure’”. However, our strong recommendation is that this is one of the areas that is to be considered by the review, which the Minister has assured us will take place after the 2015 election. Certainly if the definition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, were to be accepted, it would immediately exempt all charities from the Bill because, of course, their primary purpose cannot be to promote or procure the election of a particular party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We have a clause stand part debate and the point is to argue that this increase in scope does not belong in the Bill. That is the purpose of this, and the clause stand part debate is in our name. It is absolutely because we do not accept the enormous expansion that this clause brings in. We had expected, at this stage, because of the pause, that the Government would give an indication, even if not through amendments, of their response to the dissatisfaction at Second Reading. Our surprise is that we meet today, five weeks later, and there is not a single indication that the worries raised either by the two reports from the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, or at Second Reading, find themselves in any way reflected, given that no government amendments have been tabled for today.

[Lord Tyler]

Is the noble Baroness’s position that she wishes to leave PPERA 2000 just as it is, unamended? That is not the position of the commission of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, or indeed of any of the organisations that I have met. It therefore seems extraordinary that she is prepared to leave that status quo in place.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I do not think that any one clause quite does that, but it is interesting if that is the noble Lord’s interpretation. Assuming that we take the Government’s intention as genuine—we can perhaps agree that this should just be about transparency—our view is that the extension of the scope has the unintended consequence of extending it from purely publications to an enormous range of other activities and things such as staff costs, transport and hire of halls. That fundamentally alters the position, which is what we are questioning. Is the effect of the Bill the same as the intent—transparency—or is the effect the chilling one that every charity and community group is telling us about? It feels like watching the Army march, with one young soldier out of line and his mother saying, “My son is marching properly but everyone else is out of step”. It seems that everyone who is commenting on the Bill has worries about the effect—except, of course, the Minister.

It was interesting and very noticeable that Lib Dem Members stood up when I used the words Sheffield Hallam. Can the Minister confirm my interpretation—it would also be interesting to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler—on whether, had the Bill been an Act in 2010, so looking backwards rather than forwards, the NUS-Lib Dem antics over tuition fees would have been permissible? My reading is that they would not have been, that the NUS would have been caught had it spent too much. I have the feeling—and the NUS shares the figures on this—that, including events, press campaign tools, photographs, travel and related staff costs, the photos of those various Lib Dem candidates pledging not to increase tuition fees would have been caught by these rules, therefore requiring the NUS to register and account for all its costs. The interesting question is whether that would be the case.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Tyler (LD)]

My Lords, it must be apparent to the Committee already that a number of amendments in this group have similar objectives. I am very sympathetic to those which have already been mentioned, but I want to concentrate, before my voice gives out, on Amendments 160J, 165A and 165D. These all result directly from discussions I have had with a wide range of organisations.

The group deals with Schedule 3 and how particular activities might be excluded from the list of those which come under controlled expenditure. There is a principle in current electoral law that communication with one’s own members is not “election material”, and therefore it is excluded from the sort of controls and transparency that is being looked at here. However, membership is becoming—sadly, many of us feel—an almost outmoded concept. Organisations do not need members in order to have clear, regular supporters. Many prefer to seek funding through periodic contributions rather than through the straitjacket of an annual membership subscription. The concept may well have been more appropriate, more formidable and more general at the time of the 2000 Act, but it is surely disappearing rather quickly now. It is in that context that I believe there should be some degree of flexibility in relation to Schedule 3.

It is particularly in the nature of a non-party campaign that you can be on board on one issue, but not on another. You simply lend your support as you see fit from time to time, but you are still a committed supporter of that organisation or campaign. This idea of a committed supporter is one which the Electoral Commission itself has recognised, so it seems sensible that the Bill should pick that up and define it more clearly. Our Amendment 160J does just that. It defines a committed supporter as someone who has made a donation, or who in the past 12 months has either communicated directly with the organisation or expressly consented to receive the organisation’s communications.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his colleagues, have tried to deal with that problem in their Amendment 165B—so we are on the same track. My difficulty with their amendment is that it sets a very low bar for becoming a committed supporter. Anyone who uses e-mail knows how much correspondence we all get from people to whom we have given permission under the Data Protection Act for contact to be made. It is very easy—too easy—to give that consent. So I am afraid that the Data Protection Act is, in this context, insubstantial and insufficient. Our amendment sets the bar a little higher, so that a supporter is not just the passive recipient over decades of many quickly deleted e-mails, as might be the case with that so-called protection.