Immigration Bill

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 5th March 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it is an indication of the discontent with Clause 11 that this is the second debate we have had on it. We had an interesting and lengthy debate on Clause 11 on Monday in relation to the principle of the Government’s proposals, and on our amendments and those of the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. Noble Lords may recall our strong opposition to the Government’s proposals to remove appeals in the way they are seeking to do. I will not repeat all the arguments that I made on Monday, other than where they are relevant to this amendment. However, for the convenience of the Committee, my comments are recorded at cols. 1178-81 of Monday’s Hansard.

Originally, Amendment 30, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was grouped with others on appeals, including a not dissimilar one from myself, Amendment 27, which in some ways is like a sunrise clause to review and improve the current position before any further moves are taken to change the system to administrative review, although we were more specific as regards using the expertise of the Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration. That is not particularly significant at this stage; both amendments were tabled in response to the existing problems in the system, whereby a very high proportion of the decisions appealed succeed, and an even higher proportion of those are down to casework errors. Therefore, I have no difficulty whatever in supporting the principle of this amendment, although I had hoped that the noble Baroness would support the principle of my amendment when I spoke to it on Monday evening. I recall that no noble Lords present commented on our amendments in that debate other than the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, perhaps because she has degrouped her amendment today as she wants a separate debate on it, even though the principle involved is very similar.

I repeat the broader point that we made on Monday and invite the noble Baroness to comment on our very real and genuine concerns about, not just the detail, but the principle of the Government’s proposals. We can all sign up to a process that gives timely, accurate decisions, and a swift process to address any errors. I do not think there is any dissent around those principles. However, if we take this clause in context, that is not what it does.

On Monday, we also moved a Motion that this clause does not stand part of the Bill. That device is often used to give your Lordships’ House the opportunity to have a broader debate around the principles of an issue. However, I also made it clear that removing the clause entirely would be our preference given the current position and the quality of decisions that are taken. Failing that, our Amendment 27 addressed exactly the same principle as that in the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, today. I also spoke to our Amendments 28 and 29 regarding an impact assessment and a review.

Our concerns about this clause and the proposal for administrative review go deep and are not confined to any individual group who would be affected—a lot of the debate on Monday evening centred on students—as this goes wider and would affect everybody who applies for review. The right to appeal is a fundamental principle of British law. As I say, we support a process that gives timely, accurate decisions, and a swift process to address any errors. We believe that such a decision should be challengeable and that recourse should be available.

However, as I explained on Monday and as other noble Lords have said today, the necessity for appeals is even more essential when we know how flawed the current system is. It is well documented that the department is already struggling to deliver a quality service and that there are huge casework backlogs, to which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred. I provided details of the backlog of shocking cases regarding the length of time for which people are waiting for decisions to be made. More important is the quality of decision-making. The figures reveal that 32% of deportation decisions, 49% of managed migration decisions relating to work and students and 49% of entry clearance applications were successfully appealed last year. Despite the fact, rather surprisingly, that there are no official data from the Government, a Home Office sampling exercise revealed that 60% of the volume of appeals allowed are due to caseworking errors. That means that almost 30% of all appeals—60% of the 49%—are allowed due to caseworking errors.

When so many decisions are found to be flawed, should we really be trying to remove the current routes for appeal and replace them with administrative reviews? I asked the Minister when the sampling exercise was undertaken and over what period of time. I know that he could not reply on Monday. If he is able to do so today or write to me, it would be helpful.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

I think that I did reply, if the noble Baroness looks at the Official Report. I said that it was between April and June 2013.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is really helpful and I apologise. I shall reread Hansard. I am sure that I did not doze off at that point.

As other noble Lords have said, we should focus on improving the efficiency of those initial decisions and making sure there is little need for appeals in the first place, because that is what will create confidence in the system, which itself will reduce the number of appeals. I am raising these points again now because it cannot be right that the Home Office’s response to its own inefficiency is simply to stop people challenging this inefficiency. I know the Minister pointed to an administrative review, but we have heard strong arguments today and previously that that is not the way forward. He said that the person reviewing the decision will not be the person who made the original decision but a cohort of immigration staff drawn from those who already make decisions. However, my understanding is that the Home Office already has a system whereby, in some cases, senior staff already review certain decisions. I cannot, therefore, see how an administrative review would be particularly significant if a number of decisions are currently overseen and reviewed by senior staff. Given the very high proportion of appeals allowed, which in most cases result from caseworking errors, it is clear that this problem with the quality of decision-making has to be addressed. Should that not be looked at by someone who is completely independent for there to be a real confidence in the system?

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of the Government’s reliance on judicial reviews as recourse. A number of noble Lords today and previously have raised concerns about the cost. Not only do judicial reviews cost more than appeals but costs can be sought from the other party, and damages may be claimed but the Government have to recognise—indeed, they do so in their assessments—that the number of judicial reviews is likely to increase. The noble and learned Lord will be aware of the comments by the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the Government’s proposals on judicial reviews do not take into account the committee’s comments and do not look at how,

“the Government’s other proposals to reform both legal aid and judicial review itself”,

impact on the ability to seek judicial review.

I can understand why the noble Baroness has brought forward her proposal but I do not really understand why it had to be a stand-alone debate, considering that we had a similar debate on Monday, when her points could have been made. I see that the noble and learned Lord agrees. However, there is a strong case to oppose this clause as a whole, and I see this amendment, which is similar in principle to our proposal on Monday, as a fallback position and not the solution. I also hope that the Minister will recognise that there are great concerns about the principle and implementation of the Government’s proposals, and will look at them again, given that there have now been two lengthy debates on this issue.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for tabling this amendment. She described it as being a self-standing amendment outwith Clause 11. However, it would delay the commencement of Clause 11 until such time as an instrument which provided for the conduct of administrative review had been approved by both Houses of Parliament. The proposed new clause also seeks to include within that instrument provision for procedures for administrative review to be agreed by independent persons, for oversight of those reviews by an independent person and for that independent person to report to Parliament. The proposed new clause also provides that Clause 11 should lapse after five years unless an order for it to continue in force is laid and not annulled by either House of Parliament.

The process governing administrative review will be set out in the Immigration Rules. There is no power in this Bill to make an order that will set out the administrative review procedure. Furthermore, as I have said, the administrative review procedure will be set out in the Immigration Rules prepared under the power in Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. The procedure under that Act provides that the Immigration Rules are laid before Parliament. Either House may seek a debate on those rules and pass a resolution disapproving of the changes proposed. Such a resolution would require the Secretary of State to lay further rules within 40 days. This procedure provides for parliamentary scrutiny of the process for administrative review, so there will be an opportunity for your Lordships’ House, if it so wishes, to scrutinise the process for administrative review, and indeed there will be an opportunity for Parliament to seek changes to that process. Therefore, I believe that it is unnecessary to seek an amendment to the Bill that provides for parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the rules governing the administrative review process. The process for scrutinising the Immigration Rules already provides for that.

However, I fully accept that there are concerns about the requirements relating to the administrative review process. Those concerns were expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, in our debates on Monday and are indicated by the new clause proposed by my noble friend and in the comments of a number of other of my noble friends. The safeguards sought are that the administrative review procedure should be agreed with an independent person, that there should be oversight of reviews by an independent person and that that independent person should report to Parliament.

It is our view that the administrative review procedure is best developed and finalised by those who will operate it. That does not mean that the process is being developed behind closed doors. As I think was acknowledged by my noble friend in moving her amendment, before Committee stage in the other place we published a statement of intent on administrative review setting out the details of the procedure, and it is that procedure which has come under scrutiny in this proposed new clause.

I can confirm that administrative reviews will be undertaken by Home Office staff who will be independent of the original decision-maker and entirely separate from the initial decision-maker’s line management chain. We intend to establish a separate administrative review function for in-country migration casework. This means that those undertaking the reviews will be separate from those taking the decisions under review. We expect some of our most experienced staff to be among those undertaking administrative reviews. That does not mean that the initial decision-making will be left to inexperienced staff. I agreed entirely with my noble friend Lord Avebury when he said that the important thing is to get these decisions right in the first place. I could not agree more. It is worth noting that only 10% of decisions taken in-country are refused and therefore only a proportionate number of experienced caseworkers will be redeployed to review work from initial decision-making.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, quite properly said that, of the cumulative figure of 60% from the sample, 30% of refusals are due to that kind of administrative error. However, it is also important to recognise that, in terms of the totality of decisions taken in this field, that amounts to something like only 3% of all decisions taken. Of course, that presumes that every decision on granting an application is correct—we tend not to have appeals against incorrect grantings—but that puts it into some kind of perspective. Although 30% is a high figure, I am not running away from the fact that 60% came as a surprise, and it is important that we bear down on and reduce that figure.

The point of arguing for an administrative review is that, as the noble Baroness pointed out from that sample, there have been caseworking errors. It is better that those on the receiving end of the errors are able to get them corrected more quickly and we are serious about meeting the 28-day target. Indeed, it would be far less costly to do so through an administrative review than through the whole panoply of an appeal.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

In the information that I have, a number of these decisions are reviewed later by a senior officer. If some of those are found to be incorrect, it would indicate that the review process is not as good as the Minister thinks. Does he know how many decisions ultimately appealed and won were reviewed by a senior officer as well as the initial decision-taker?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am afraid that I do not have a figure for that further subcategory. If it exists, I will make sure that I inform the noble Baroness and others who have taken part in this debate, and will put a copy in the Library. That certainly could help to inform the debate as I am sure this issue may well arise later in our deliberations. All staff undertaking administrative reviews will receive full training in all routes and categories before they commence their work as part of the review team. I believe that the statement of intent indicated that it is intended to have a separate dedicated team of reviewers in each specialist area. Regular reports on the performance of the administrative review process as a whole will be sent to senior management. We will establish feedback mechanisms to ensure that lessons learnt are fed back to case workers.

I think I indicated in our debate on Monday that, within a year of the administrative review process being established, the Home Secretary will ask the independent chief inspector to include a review of the administrative review process in his inspection plan. Again, it is important to remember that the procedure will be set out in rules that Parliament can scrutinise. As I have said, we have committed to an independent oversight by the chief inspector in the public statement of intent that I have just read out. He has the power to undertake an inspection off his own bat and may do so if there are concerns about the administrative review process. His reports are published and Parliament may hold the Government to account in respect of those reports by means of questions and debates. Having to meet these additional requirements may also, if we were to go down the road proposed by my noble friend Lady Hamwee, delay the commencement of Clause 11. She quite properly said that there might be certain attractions in having two systems running in parallel, although I suspect that that would be a bureaucratic nightmare and would not properly serve the interests of anyone, least of all the applicants.

The delay in commencement is undesirable because it would delay migrants who would benefit from these changes, which would provide faster and cheaper resolution of caseworking errors. This delay could arise because the Home Office needs to identify an independent person who could take on the role envisaged in this amendment. This would also add an administrative layer to the development and operation of the administrative review. It is envisaged that the chief inspector would take on this role, a point that I already have made. We intend to benefit appellants and those who will no longer have a right of appeal under Clause 11. My noble friend Lady Hamwee proposes that it should lapse in five years unless there is parliamentary approval for it to continue in force, which I feel would not be of benefit.

Clause 11 fundamentally reforms appeal rights. It is a reform that is needed to simplify an overcomplex framework and to provide a faster and cheaper remedy for caseworking errors. However, because this reform is fundamental, reversing the change after five years could cause even further upheaval. The changes made to the appeals process and the court system would need to be undone. That could come not only at cost but also at the expense of considerable uncertainty.

My noble friend Lady Hamwee also made reference to the administrative review system that is already operating overseas. Some 90% of these reviews have been completed within the target of 28 days for the quarter ending June 2013. The proposed process for in-country, which we are debating here, mirrors the approach taken overseas. My noble friend also made the point that we are asking people to reverse the decision of their work colleagues and, as she quite properly put it, to overturn the decision of the Secretary of State. She mentioned the figures, including that in entry clearance cases in 2012 for operating overseas the initial decision was overturned in 21% of cases. I sometimes think that in this area you are damned if you do and damned if you do not. The figure of 21% is a sizeable number, which suggests that those who are doing the review are not necessarily intimidated by having to overturn the Secretary of State’s decision. Equally, one might say that 21% is far too high and that the figure should be lower, in which case they may say that they were frightened. The point is that the system that has been operating overseas has had 90% of cases completed within the target of 28 days. It shows that those who are doing the reviews are not scared off or hesitant in overturning decisions when mistakes have been made.

I recognise that there are concerns and I suspect we will return to this and that amendments will be tabled on Report, which will offer us a chance to reflect further on the points that have been made both today and on Monday. However, I believe that what we are putting in place will bring considerable simplification and lead to quicker and cheaper decisions. Therefore, for the reasons I have given on some of the detail but also because of the delays that could take place, the fact that there will be an opportunity for noble Lords to scrutinise the rules that will be put in place and because the chief inspector will be able to conduct his own review, I invite my noble friend to withdraw her amendment.

[Baroness Hamwee]

My Lords, I suppose that if the chief inspector will have added to his workload checking to see if and how anyone is damned, one question he may be asking privately is what extra resources there will be for that. I take the point about the rules, which now have to be in the form of an order, being an opportunity for scrutiny. However, as we all know, one cannot amend an order. I also need to ask, although I do not expect my noble and learned friend—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

If I am wrong I will correct this, but my understanding is that if Parliament does not support the order when it is scrutinised, the Secretary of State is obliged to lay new rules within 40 days. It does not annul the rules but new rules have to be promoted within 40 days.

[Baroness Hamwee]

I am grateful for that. I do not think that it negates the question that I am about to ask, although my noble and learned friend may not be able to answer it at this point. It is about opportunities to feed into the draft rules before they come into final form. It is clear that there are a lot of points that could be constructive and helpful, which do not oppose the policy but come from the experience that so many people have of similar forms of process. What opportunity will there be to feed into the construction of the rules?

Also, how much detail will there be in the rules when they are proposed? The statement of intent, which to my mind raises some questions—I asked one or two of them—is probably more detailed than the rules. Anyway, as my noble and learned friend says, we may well return to this whole issue. Therefore, for today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, as I understand Clause 12, it is all about dealing with appeals and provides a power for the Secretary of State to certify that to require an appellant who is liable to deportation to leave the UK before their appeal is determined would not cause irreversible harm, in which case that person can appeal only from outside the UK. We do not oppose the clause as a whole but these amendments are very useful in trying to probe the intention and practicalities. I have a few questions for the Minister.

I read Hansard from the other place, where questions were raised by my colleague David Hanson. I do not really feel that all the answers given fully addressed the questions to my satisfaction. It would be useful if the noble Lord could help address those. My understanding is that when the Bill was first introduced into the Commons it referred only to foreign criminals, but was then later amended to include all those liable to deportation. Mark Harper, who was then but is no longer the Minister, explained that this included,

“individuals who were being deported from the UK on the ground that their presence would not be conducive to the public good”.—[Official Report, Commons, Immigration Bill Committee, 5/11/13; col. 205.]

That was not in the Bill originally: it was introduced at a later stage.

When the then Minister was pressed on this, he gave a couple of examples such as a gang member or a member of a serious organised crime syndicate. I would not expect the Minister here to give an exhaustive list, and I am not asking for one, but the clause gives considerable discretion to the Home Secretary, or any future Home Secretary, who can determine who is deported under that definition. I should just like to probe further to get more information from the Minister about how that would apply and who it would apply to, but also the grounds on which, and how, the Home Secretary would make that judgment.

That is a very important point; there is a lack of clarity as the Bill stands. At the time, the Minister said that the numbers would be very small, but if the Government bring forward a clause such as this, they must have a reason for doing so. I should expect them to have some idea of the kind of number—I would not for a moment expect an exact number—of cases they expect the provision to apply to. I would like to know the reasons why this was brought forward in the first place and why the change was made from criminals to those who would not be conducive to the public good.

Another issue that has been raised is about the family members of those who have not been convicted of a crime but who have been deported under the clause. The Minister in the Commons said that he would write on that issue. He may have written to colleagues in the other place, but I have not seen his response. On removals, I would like to know the position of family members. The point has already been made about children, but there will be other vulnerable family members. What will be the position of family members, including vulnerable ones? What information will they be given? What happens if the person has been deported and then returns to the UK when they win their appeal? Indeed, will they be allowed to return to the UK if they win their appeal, or will they have to make a separate visa application to return?

I find a fair bit of uncertainty in the clause, and we lack information as to exactly how it will work. I should be grateful for further clarification from the Minister.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I again thank my noble friend Lady Hamwee for moving her amendment and raising the issues which arise under Clause 12.

At present, all appeals where there is a human rights claim suspend deportation unless the claim can be certified as clearly unfounded. The powers introduced by Clause 12(3) mean that those facing deportation, including foreign criminals, may be deported, and their appeal heard while they are out of the country, if the Secretary of State certifies that that would not breach the UK’s obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights—a point well made by my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth. This is intended to build on the Crime and Courts Act 2013, where the Government made similar provisions for out-of-country appeals in national security deportations. The serious irreversible harm test is one used by the European Court of Human Rights when it decides whether an individual deportation must be suspended, and also in its rulings on what types of claim must be granted an in-country appeal. Amendment 31 would limit the scope of the power to those who are being deported who do not have a child in the United Kingdom, while Amendment 31A would remove the power entirely from what would become Section 94B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

I reassure the Committee that the clause will impact only on a very small cohort of cases—those whose actions and behaviour is non-conducive to the public good—and that in limiting the power to deportation cases, the Government are acting in a proportionate way, and not going as far as European Court of Human Rights cases allow. I assure the Committee that by framing the provision in this way, an arguable asylum claim would never qualify for certification under the power. The Secretary of State cannot use the new power where there is an arguable risk of a breach of Article 2 or Article 3 of the European convention.

Equally, the drafting of the Bill means that this power will not be available for those whom the Government are seeking administratively to remove for the purposes of immigration control—such as illegal entry or overstaying a visa, although ECHR case law would in fact have allowed such an approach.

A deliberate decision has been taken to make the power available only for a small cohort of cases where the individual’s actions—the action of the person for whom certification for deportation is relevant—the vast majority of whom will be convicted criminals. I will come on to the point raised by the noble Baroness about others. This applies if the individual’s actions mean that the Secretary of State considers that their presence in the United Kingdom is not conducive to the public good. Perhaps I may illustrate the size of the issue for the Committee. According to Ministry of Justice figures, in 2012-13 the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal received 1,800 appeals against deportation, which included a number of miscellaneous appeals. This change would have impacted on less than 2% of the appeals that the tribunal received that year.

The Government would not seek to remove family members of those whom we are seeking to deport if they have immigration status in the UK in their own right; for example, if they are an EEA national exercising treaty rights or individuals with indefinite leave to remain, or have valid leave as a student. Even in the rare cases where the Government seek to deport family members along with the principal, for example because their status in the UK is based solely on their relationship with the deportee, this clause does not allow the appeals of dependants to be certified: they will be suspensive. The power is also a permissive one in that the Secretary of State may certify appeals but is not required to. This will allow cases to be considered on their individual facts and ensure that the Government complies with their duty to consider the best interests of the child as a primary consideration in immigration decisions.

The noble Baroness asked what would happen if a person wins their appeal. If an individual wins an appeal from abroad, the UK Government will facilitate their re-entry into the United Kingdom.

In summary, the power will be used only where an individual’s own conduct, such as criminality, leads the Secretary of State to consider that their presence is not conducive to the public good. The clause is limited and tightly defined to ensure that only those who have caused or are trying to cause harm are deported from the country quickly.

[Lord Woolf (CB)]

Would the Minister be good enough to indicate what “facilitate” means? Does it mean that the Government are going to pay their costs of returning, as used to be the practice?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. Clearly, there will be an opportunity to challenge the decision to certify taken before the deportation took place. We do not believe that there would be a liability to pay compensation if an appeal were successful. I think that I have a fuller answer somewhere on that particular point; I know that I have read it. If I do not get it in my hand before I sit down, I will certainly write to the noble and learned Lord. And here it is. If an individual wins at appeal, they will be entitled to return to the United Kingdom and the United Kingdom Government may pay for their airfare, which will be considerably less than the cost of detaining them while waiting for their appeal. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his forbearance on that.

I was trying to get to the point at which the Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the original Bill being amended in the House of Commons. The provision as it originally stood stated “criminals”, but that was extended because the Government realised on reflection that this definition would leave out a cohort of harmful individuals who should not have a suspensive right of appeal. That could include individuals who are being deported from the United Kingdom on the grounds that their presence is not conducive to the public good, a broader judgment than automatic deportation on the grounds of a single offence. For example, they could be gang members where witness intimidation and a culture of silence means that there has not been a successful prosecution but there is compelling evidence about their conduct that can be used in an immigration decision. The Home Secretary would consider the intelligence against a person and on the basis of that intelligence deport him as his presence in the UK would not be conducive to the public good.

A case is certified for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission on the basis that it has been taken considering secret intelligence, so it does go wider. My right honourable friend Mark Harper gave examples in the other place of where there may be good information and intelligence but, for reasons possibly to do with witness intimidation, it has not been possible to bring a prosecution. Obviously, this can be tested in any appeal which takes place.

I turn to Amendment 31, which was moved by my noble friend. The amendment would mean that this group of cases, of people whose presence in the UK is deemed harmful, would be able to use a child—who may have been in the UK for only a matter of days or weeks, because there is no definition of what a qualifying child would be—to avoid certification of their appeal and their early departure from the UK. They would be able to use the presence of that child even if they were not in fact responsible for caring for the child—who might live somewhere else or with other family members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, this is one of three groups of amendments around Article 8 that we have tabled to Clause 14. I wish to make a couple of brief comments. I want to put on record, and make very clear, that we fully support Article 8. We understand that it is not an absolute right. It is a qualified right and those qualifications also have to be understood. Any interference with that right has to be within those qualifications. However, we share concerns about how Article 8, and those qualifications, have been interpreted in some cases involving foreign criminals convicted in the UK and then put up for deportation. There are problems with criminals who we cannot deport who have committed serious crimes, and where Article 8 has been considered to be used inappropriately, and where the question has to be asked whether the qualifications have been fully considered. The balance is one to be reached by the courts in individual cases, but we consider it right that Parliament should set out how qualified rights should be balanced in different areas.

There is wider concern about the Government’s failure to deport foreign criminals and the gap between the inflammatory rhetoric used on some occasions with regard to immigration issues and the reality of those issues. Since the Home Secretary took office, the number of foreign criminals being released into the community has gone up and the number of people removed from our country for breaking the rules has gone down by 13% in the past three years. I say to the Minister that it is important for the Government to get the basics right before looking at new areas—for example, ensuring that we have the right staff and the right number of staff in place to deal with these issues.

I listened very carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I was relieved when the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that he was slightly confused about a contradiction that appears to have arisen in this context. I am a non-lawyer and I was confused as well. I was relieved to hear that lawyers can also be confused about the Government’s intentions in this regard. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made a very powerful speech and I will be interested to hear the Minister’s comments on it.

I welcomed the comments of the then Minister, Mark Harper, to the JCHR about the Government’s responsibilities under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. There was absolute confirmation that the best interests of the child will be considered. However, other comments have been made that appear to qualify that. That would seem to undermine the concept that the best interests of the child will be considered. I do not mean to be facetious when I say that it sounds as if the best interests of some children will be considered. I do not understand the contradiction between what is in the Bill and the very welcome comments made by the former Minister that the Government will always consider the best interests of the child. How does that conflict, confirm, or work with what is in Clause 14? Confirmation from the noble and learned Lord that the best interests of the child will be considered would be very welcome.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for introducing this amendment, and thank those who have raised very important points in relation to children and the best interests of the child.

I crave the indulgence of your Lordships’ House to take a few moments, before I reflect on the specific amendments, to set out briefly what was in the Government’s mind in bringing forward this clause, and how we expect it to operate and what it is expected to achieve. I do so to set it in context for this and the next two groups of amendments.

Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights provides for the right to respect for private and family life. As the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, it is a qualified right. The individual’s right under Article 8(1) can be outweighed by measures necessary for and proportionate to the legitimate aims under Article 8(2), including protecting the public by deporting foreign criminals and safeguarding the United Kingdom’s economic well-being by controlling immigration.

There is a clear public interest in these aims. These are also matters of public policy which we believe is the responsibility of government to determine, subject to the views of Parliament. Clause 14 will make clear what Parliament thinks is in the public interest in terms of controlling immigration and protecting the public where Article 8 is engaged in an immigration case. It is for Parliament to decide what the public interest requires. It is then for the courts to have due regard to that when considering the proportionality of any interference in the exercise of an individual’s right under Article 8. We believe that is the right approach and that is reflected in how Clause 14 has been framed.

The Committee will recall our debates on the new Immigration Rules on family and private life which were implemented on 9 July 2012. The Immigration Rules, laid before Parliament by the Secretary of State under Section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, are a statement of the normal practice to be followed by the Secretary of State’s caseworkers in making immigration decisions under the statutory framework that Parliament has provided. It is in the interests of a clear, consistent and transparent immigration system in which applicants and the public can have confidence that these rules should enable the Secretary of State’s caseworkers to decide individual cases lawfully and in accordance with the Government’s immigration policy. The courts have agreed the importance of having such a set of rules —for example, in the decision of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House in the case of Huang.

The key test that both the Secretary of State and the courts apply in assessing the Article 8 compatibility of a decision is whether it is proportionate. However, in immigration decisions engaging Article 8, the courts, prior to the July 2012 rule changes, were unable to give proper weight to the Government’s and Parliament’s view of the public interest because the Immigration Rules did not adequately reflect Parliament’s view on how the balance should be struck between the individual right to respect for private and family life and the need for effective immigration control to protect the public and the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.

I shall provide a bit of history. When the Human Rights Act 1998 was commenced in 2000, the rules were amended to require all Home Office staff to carry out their duties in compliance with its provisions, but there was no substantive change to the family or private life part of the rules to reflect how individual rights and the public interest should be balanced. There was no attempt thereafter to align the rules with developments in case law, such as the decisions of the Judicial Committee of your Lordships’ House in the cases of EB (Kosovo) and Chikwamba. Instead, previous Secretaries of State asserted that if a court thought that the rules produced disproportionate results in a particular case, the court should itself decide the proportionate outcome on the facts before it. This approach meant that the courts could not give due weight to the Government’s and Parliament’s view of the public interest under Article 8, as the courts did not know what that view was. It also did not properly reflect the responsibility of the Government and Parliament for determining the public policy framework under which immigration decisions should be taken. Indeed, as I have already said, it left the courts to develop public policy themselves through case law on issues such as the appropriate level of maintenance for family migrants. We do not believe that that was conducive to clear, consistent and transparent decision-making by the Secretary of State’s caseworkers.

It was against that background that on 9 July 2012 the Government implemented major reforms of the Immigration Rules relating to private and family life. The new rules filled the public policy vacuum that had been inherited by setting out the position of the Government on proportionality under Article 8, in the light of existing case law and of evidence such as the report of the independent Migration Advisory Committee on the appropriate level of the minimum income threshold for sponsoring family migrants. The new rules were debated and approved by the House of Commons on 19 June 2012 and were debated by this House on 23 October 2012, following which the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, withdrew her Motion of Regret. The new rules set out how the balance should be struck in Article 8 cases between an individual’s rights and the public interest. They provide clear instructions for the Secretary of State’s caseworkers on the approach they must normally take, and they therefore provide the basis for a clear, consistent and transparent decision-making process. The new rules also form the basis for the assessment by the courts of the proportionality under Article 8 of immigration decisions. The Court of Appeal has endorsed the lawfulness of such an approach in the case of MF (Nigeria).

The courts have a clear and proper constitutional role in reviewing the proportionality of measures passed by Parliament and of the executive decisions made under them, and must ultimately decide on what is a proportionate interference under Article 8. I should stress that Clause 14 does not seek to change this proper judicial function. However, it is right that the Secretary of State should expect the courts to give proper weight to the view endorsed by Parliament on how, broadly, public policy considerations are to be weighed against individual family and private life rights when assessing Article 8 in any individual case. The courts themselves have underlined the importance of the view of Parliament on such matters and have confirmed that they will defer to that view where it is known.

However, some judges have since given only limited deference to the new rules, and say that they represent only a weak form of parliamentary scrutiny. The Upper Tribunal has said that,

“Whilst it is open to Parliament to change the law by primary legislation unless and until it does so these”—

previous—

“decisions are binding ... and will be followed”.

I hope that I will not embarrass the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, by quoting him. He said in the case of MS v the Home Secretary in the Extra Division of the Inner House last year:

“The rules are not a statute but merely a statement by the executive of how it intends to exercise powers conferred by statute. Consequently the application of the rules in individual cases is potentially subject to judicial review. Nevertheless, the new rules have been debated in Parliament, which confers a certain degree of democratic approval. Moreover, they are instructions put forward by the minister in a democratically elected government who is charged by statute with the administration of the immigration system. To that extent, too, the rules can be said to result from democratic processes. These are factors which must be given some weight when a court considers the application of the rules, although they cannot be conclusive because the rules do not have the force of statute”.

By bringing forward Clause 14 we seek to invite Parliament to give the status of statute to the rules, which are set out substantially in the same terms as the Immigration Rules that your Lordships’ House debated in October 2012.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett]

I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord but I thought I would do so now rather than wait until my response at the end of his remarks. I did address the argument concerning the seven-year period—that point had already been made. I asked specifically why, as the noble and learned Lord said, the case refers to children aged four when the period given is seven years. I gave a specific example of how I know personally that a child under seven can have very strong connections outside the family. The Minister has not addressed that point.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I think the noble Baroness alluded to when she moved the amendment, in the Public Bill Committee in the other place my honourable friend Mark Harper, who was then the Immigration Minister, indicated that the age of seven had previously been brought in as a concession —known as DP5/96, from which I assume that it was brought in in 1996—against deportation where children had accumulated seven years of continuous residence. It was withdrawn in December 2008 in favour of a case-by-case approach applying Article 8. However, as we made clear in the debate on the rules, that left it to the courts to develop the policy on what Article 8 required and it led to uncertainty and inconsistency. Therefore, the period of seven years had applied before.

I do not disagree that there may be cases that need to be looked at individually but the important point that we are seeking to make here is that it is for Parliament to indicate what it believes the age of a qualifying child should be. We are saying that in our judgment it should be seven, for the reasons I have articulated. I also indicated that ultimately it will be for the courts to determine the proportionality of a decision. However, passing this primary legislation will give a strong steer and an indication to the courts of what Parliament believes to be in the public interest. That is a judgment that the Government have made. I think I am right in saying that it was in the 2012 rules, which have been considered and which we now invite Parliament to endorse and to put into primary legislation.

The noble Baroness asked whether I could confirm that guidance will be published and how the Section 55 duty will apply in relation to cases considered. I confirm that it is our intention to publish guidance setting out how the best interests of the child will be considered. As I have already said, Section 55 requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the best interests of the child as a primary consideration, and the Bill does not change that.

I will write separately to the noble Baroness, placing a copy in the Library, in response to her query about the response to the asylum report and the consideration of children’s best interests. The Home Office response to the UNHCR report on asylum is still being considered.

Amendment 43 would replace “unduly harsh” with “disproportionate” when considering the effect on the partner or qualifying child of the deportation of a foreign criminal who has not been sentenced to imprisonment of four years or more. However, this would not reflect sufficiently clearly the weight that should be attached to the public interest in the deportation of such a foreign criminal. Nor would it achieve the aim of the legislation, which is to set out clearly how the Secretary of State and the courts should approach the proportionality test, taking account of the public interest as properly determined by government and Parliament.

We believe that the children’s best interests must be a primary consideration. We fully accept that and Clause 14 is carefully designed to reflect that. However, it is simply not the case that a child’s best interests will outweigh every other possible countervailing factor, including illegal immigration and serious criminality. Nor is it the case that the UK is obliged to allow all migrants who are parents to remain in the UK where this is in one child’s best interests, ignoring the interests of other members of the public, including children.

In cases that do not fall within the scope of Clause 14, consideration will still be given to the individual facts of the case having regard to Article 8 and Section 55. Clause 14 does not seek to cover every possible situation in which an Article 8 or Section 55 issue may arise. That would be too complex and unwieldy.

In EA (Nigeria) the court said that, in considering the best interests of a young child, the correct starting point is to assume that it is in the best interests of a child to live with and be brought up by his or her parents unless there are very good reasons why that is not the case. Therefore, where the child is being removed with their parents and as a family to that family’s country of origin, that is not a breach of Article 8 and we believe that it is consistent with the children duty in Section 55.

I hope that the House will agree that technical legal arguments about whether the best interests of a child is “a” or “the” primary consideration, or the order in which various factors must be considered, can be a distraction. The important point is that we comply with the obligation to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration. We believe Clause 14 is entirely consistent with that. The noble Baroness’s amendment has afforded me and other parts of the House the opportunity to make that very clear. However, we believe that the amendments would draw lines in the wrong place. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I hesitate to engage in this Celtic discussion. I am half Scottish, which might help, and I recently visited Patagonia. All the people in the Welsh community I met there also spoke English, curiously, otherwise we would not have been able to communicate with them.

The amendments highlight something on which I need clarification. This is not the normal legal language that we see in legislation; it seems to be more a statement of fact or opinion. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, made a powerful point when he said that financial independence was not related to language. I am curious about the evidence base for the statement in the Bill. To be better integrated into society is easier to understand, but is being less of a burden on the taxpayer automatically the case? On what evidence did the Government base that before bringing it forward?

The provisions are confusing because this is not the usual legislative language that we see in Bills such as this. Is there any concern that the courts will not understand how to interpret the decisions that they are making? I am curious about what guidance the Government will provide relating to this specific part of new Section 117B(2).

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, for this amendment and I thank my noble friend Lord Roberts for his spirited endorsement of it. I readily appreciate the concerns raised by the noble and learned Lord about the provision made by Clause 14 on the public interest in migrants being able to speak English and also in being largely independent. We believe that these are important elements of the provision made by Clause 14 as to the public interest in controlling immigration to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom under the qualified right to respect of private and family life under ECHR Article 8.

The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said she thought that the language was not normal for legislation—it might actually be simpler in parts than in some legislation we have grappled with. The reason for that is one that I articulated when I set the scene. With Clause 14, we have basically sought to put in statute the Immigration Rules, which were debated and have been in place since 2012. In some places, the language is not in the usual statutory form because it has been substantially carried through from the Immigration Rules. That also answers the question of whether the courts will have difficulty interpreting it because of that. I do not believe that they should, because they have been interpreting these rules since the middle of 2012. The point is that they will now have, if Parliament so decides, the full force of statute rather than simply being rules. That also answers the point raised by the noble and learned Lord as to whether we had considered Welsh and Gaelic prior to bringing this clause forward. The answer is no, we did not, as this was being lifted from rules that were already there, which stipulated English.

As has been made clear, Amendments 34 and 35 propose allowing a migrant to rely on their ability to speak Welsh or Gaelic, instead of English, when applying for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom on Article 8 grounds. I want to make it very clear that I am not a Welsh or Gaelic speaker but that the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, was brought forward by an Administration in which I was the Deputy First Minister. I do not think anyone can challenge my support for the Gaelic language. As my noble friend Lord Roberts knows, I have a strong affinity with my Celtic colleagues in Wales and have had very many enjoyable Welsh evenings at our party conferences, when the songs have been well sung in Welsh and English.

We believe that a command of English is essential in helping migrants integrate into the life of the UK as a whole and in improving their employment prospects. That is the case even if a migrant is living in a Welsh-speaking or Gaelic-speaking community. Indeed, the possible consequence of the amendments is that if someone were able to meet a test in Welsh, for example, along with all the other tests, they could get entry into the United Kingdom. Having done that, they might choose to not go anywhere near a small village in Carmarthen or Carnarvon but instead go to Newcastle upon Tyne, despite not really having a word of English.

We do not doubt that Welsh and Gaelic speakers would contribute to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, but migrants to the UK should be able to speak English to a basic level when they apply to come or remain here. Speaking English is necessary to ensure that a migrant is able to integrate and play a full part in our society. The ability to speak English also reduces the burden on the taxpayer arising from the cost to public services of translating information or guidance into other languages. We do not believe that the inclusion of the Welsh and Gaelic languages in Clause 14 would support that objective. It would not reflect the public interest in reducing taxpayer burdens and promoting integration.

I also ask the House to consider some practical issues involved in making such provision. First, there is no infrastructure to support the testing of ability in these languages on a global basis, even I think in Patagonia —the noble Baroness may know whether we have a consulate there. Secondly, the demand is likely to be very low. There have been no requests for testing in Welsh or Gaelic as an alternative to English since the introduction in November 2010 of an English language requirement for spouses and partners applying to enter or remain in the UK. Thirdly, in view of the likely low demand, the setting up and maintenance of a secure and reliable global network of test providers would be unlikely to be commercially viable. If commercial providers were not willing to offer tests, it would fall to the Home Office to set up the required infrastructure in the United Kingdom and overseas. This would represent a significant and disproportionate cost to the taxpayer.

Amendment 36 seeks to amend the drafting of the integration aspect of the public interest in migrants being able to speak English. It clearly is in the public interest for a migrant seeking to enter or remain in the UK to be able to speak English. Parliament has already approved this for spouses and partners, for example as part of the family Immigration Rules. English language skills play an important part in a person’s successful integration into society and help migrants access employment opportunities and contribute to the wider society. However, although in some cases it may be true that migrants who can speak English are likely to be able to integrate, their ability to integrate does not rest solely on their ability to speak English. None the less, there can be no doubt that the ability to speak English will mean migrants are better able to integrate into British society. I therefore suggest that the intention here is better reflected in the current wording of Clause 14.

Amendment 37 seeks to remove the promotion of integration as a factor in the provision made by Clause 14 as to the public interest in migrants being financially independent in immigration cases which engage Article 8. Those who choose to establish their family life in the UK by sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and any dependent non-EEA national children to settle here should have the financial means to support themselves and their families for the long term without needing to rely on public funds. This safeguards the United Kingdom’s economic well-being by preventing burdens on the taxpayer. In addition, being financially independent also helps ensure that a migrant is able to integrate and play a full part in our society.

It is important, for example in facilitating community involvement, that migrants should be able to use local shops, local services and public transport in an ordinary, everyday way that is not inhibited by a lack of funds. The same applies to adult education resources, such as English language classes, for which a fee may be charged. This is consistent with available evidence on effective integration, which shows that the level of migrant household income is an important factor.

The OECD report, Settling In: OECD Indicators of Immigrant Integration 2012 has shown a clear connection between effective integration and the level of migrant household income. The report states that household income and wealth have been shown to be important for a broad range of socioeconomic outcomes, in areas as diverse as health, education and civic participation. The report also found that having insufficient income may hamper migrants’ ability to function as autonomous citizens, which may have consequences for social cohesion. The report underlines the importance of migrants having access to sufficient funds to enable them to participate in the life of their local community. Despite declaring that I support the promulgation of the Welsh and Gaelic languages, I think it would be inappropriate in this context, and in the light of these points I hope that the noble and learned Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Mackay of Drumadoon]

I am grateful to noble Lords who spoke in support of my amendment. I am also very grateful to the noble and learned Lord not only for his very detailed response to my submissions and remarks on the present amendment but for some of his earlier responses, which will be of great interest to a number of people. In these circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for moving the amendment, which has given us an opportunity to air a number of important points, and I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I do not intend to repeat what I said in my introductory remarks when we discussed the first group of amendments to Clause 14. However, in responding to noble Lords, I may have to repeat one or two of the points that I made.

I emphasise a point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. We have sought to put this into statute. The Government have come to Parliament to get Parliament to indicate clearly in primary legislation what it considers to be the matters in the public interest, given that Article 8 is not an absolute right under the European Convention of Human Rights but, rather, a qualified one. It is part of our debates that we should not only respond to invitations from the judiciary, but debate what that public interest should be. That is indeed what we are doing in debating these matters.

I turn first to Amendments 38, 38A, 38B, 39 and 39A. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, propose to remove the provision in Clause 14 that “little weight” in terms of the public interest should be given to family life with a partner, or to private life, which was formed when the person was in the UK unlawfully or to private life formed with precarious immigration status. The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, would remove the statement of weight attached to the public interest in circumstances where private or family life was established with unlawful status, or private life was established with precarious status. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised the issue of the wording of “little weight” and asked where that came from. The Human Rights Act requires courts to take into account Strasbourg judgments, but the requirement is not to follow them. However, the clause indicates that, in relation to precarious immigration status, we expect the court to follow the Strasbourg case law.

I digress for a moment, because the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, also said that precarious immigration status was not defined. As I understand it, Strasbourg case law makes it clear that it covers those temporarily in the country. It is a term that has to be interpreted by the courts, but that is the case whether or not the provision is in the Bill, as it is the correct legal test in determining what weight to give to Article 8 rights. “Precarious” is difficult to define in a Bill, as there are many different types of immigration status. If one takes the case, for example, of Rodrigues da Silva and Hoogkamer v the Netherlands, the European Court of Human Rights found:

“Another important consideration will also be whether family life was created at a time when the persons involved were aware that the immigration status of one of them was such that the persistence of that family life within the host State would from the outset be precarious. The Court has previously held that where this is the case it is likely only to be in the most exceptional circumstances that the removal of the non-national family member will constitute a violation of Article 8”.

It was to capture that jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, which the Government believe is a proper determination of such a situation, that that has been carried through into the provision in the Bill: that the courts, in taking into account Strasbourg judgments, would give little weight in those circumstances.

The clause reflects that those who enter the UK for a temporary purpose, such as work or study, can have no automatic expectation of being allowed to settle here. Any private life that they develop must be seen in the context of the expectation of their returning to their country of origin. Those who form private or family life while in the UK unlawfully can have even less expectation of being allowed to stay here.

It is important that the immigration system rewards those who obey the rules and provides a clear disincentive to those who do not. These provisions make clear what we believe to be the public interest in that respect. As I said, they reflect the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, which has consistently placed little weight on private or family life formed during a time when a person’s immigration status is precarious.

More generally, the Strasbourg court has made clear that the European Convention on Human Rights does not guarantee families a right to reside in a particular country and has consistently recognised that the Executive enjoy a significant margin of appreciation in determining how most appropriately to control immigration. Clause 14 is framed within the margin of appreciation afforded to states in this respect.

It is right that Parliament should make clear its view that little weight in terms of the public interest should be given to family life with a partner, or to private life which was formed when the person was in the UK unlawfully or to private life formed with precarious immigration status. We do not believe that that encroaches on the proper judicial function. It will remain a matter for the court to decide whether the weight to be accorded to the public interest as set out by Parliament in Clause 14 outweighs the individual’s right to respect for private and family life, and therefore whether the decision is proportionate in Article 8 terms.

The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred to the fact that my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach had signed the Section 19A certificate in regard to the European Convention on Human Rights and asked whether we believe that it is consistent with it. The answer is: yes, we do believe that it is consistent. I understand that that was not challenged by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I acknowledge that certain important points were raised, but I do not understand the Joint Committee on Human Rights to have challenged that.

In Amendments 41 and 44, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, propose to remove most of the provisions setting out specific public interest statements to which the courts would be required to have regard when assessing an Article 8 appeal against deportation from a foreign criminal. The public interest statements in question set out when, in the case of a foreign criminal sentenced to less than four years’ imprisonment, the public interest will be outweighed by an individual’s private life in the UK, or by their family life with a qualifying child, or by their family life with a qualifying partner. The public interest statements also reflect a higher threshold for those sentenced to imprisonment of four years or more, which we believe reflects the very strong public interest in deportation, given the seriousness of these types of crimes. Only where there are very compelling circumstances will the public interest be outweighed by Article 8 rights in such a case.

The effect of Amendments 41 and 44 would be to leave just two statements of what is in the public interest when assessing whether it is proportionate to deport a foreign criminal: first, that the deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest; and secondly, that the more serious the offence committed by a foreign criminal, the greater is the public interest in deportation of the criminal. Much of the detail in the clause appears in the Immigration Rules, which Parliament considered in 2012. The two statements that would be left if Amendments 41 and 44 found favour with the Committee would not alone achieve the overall aim of Clause 14, which is to ensure that Parliament’s view of the weight to be attached to the public interest in deportation is taken properly into account by the courts when considering cases engaging Article 8, thereby achieving greater fairness and consistency in appeal outcomes.

Of course, as was acknowledged by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, every appeal must be assessed on its individual facts and, where there is a right of appeal, the courts must ultimately decide what is proportionate in Article 8 terms. Clause 14 does not seek to change that proper judicial function; rather, the amendments would remove much of the framework which Clause 14 provides for weighing the public interest in the deportation of foreign criminals as part of that proportionality assessment.

We believe that the benefits of a framework set out by Parliament in primary legislation are clear. It is right that Parliament’s view of the public interest should be given proper weight in immigration and deportation decisions engaging Article 8. Such a framework will also bring greater efficiency, consistency, fairness and transparency of decision-making.

Parliament has not previously provided a full and clear statement in legislation on where the public interest lies in considering family and private life claims. As I said before, the 2007 Act requires the Secretary of State to make a deportation order against a foreign criminal sentenced to at least 12 months’ imprisonment, unless one of the several specified exceptions applies, including where deportation would breach the criminal’s human rights. Although an indication of the public interest, it is a limited view, and does not assist the courts in determining how to balance an individual’s right to family and private life against that public interest.

Inevitably, therefore, the courts have had to reach their own view on public policy imperatives. In other words, it has been left to the court in an individual case to determine how best to balance relevant factors, based on the decision-maker’s individual perception of public policy considerations. I am sure we all agree that it is right and proper for the Government to make decisions about public policy, subject to the views of Parliament, and ensure that the public interest is given proper weight.

The statements of public interest contained in Clause 14 reflect the basis of the new Immigration Rules which was approved in October 2013 by the Court of Appeal in MF (Nigeria), as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said. The court found that the new deportation rules provide a “complete code” for dealing with Article 8 claims and that where specific family and private life exceptions to deportation were not met,

“it is necessary to consider whether there are circumstances which are sufficiently compelling … to outweigh the public interest in deportation”.

The noble Lord asked why we were doing this, given the decision of the Court of Appeal in MF (Nigeria). Looking at the chronology, I suspect we would find that the Bill was introduced into the other place almost within days of that decision being handed down. I can assure the noble Lord that legislation is not produced within days and is some time in the gestation. We thought it important, given that the Upper Tribunal has said in the case of Izuazu—I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, would pronounce that name better—that:

“Whilst it is open to Parliament to change the law by primary legislation unless and until it does so these”,

previous,

“decisions are binding on the Upper Tribunal and will be followed by it”.

By putting statements into primary legislation, Parliament will have made clear its view on where the public interest lies and we expect the courts to have proper regard to that.

I also make the point in passing that the inner house of the Court of Session is on an appellate par with the Court of Appeal and that, as I cited earlier, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, observed on the case that I referred to that these rules did not have the force of statute. It is important to observe that in that case, the inner house’s extra division actually upheld the position of the Secretary of State for the Home Department, so it is not as if we were crying foul or anything like that. It is also the case that MF (Nigeria) concerns deportation cases whereas Clause 14 concerns public interest considerations more generally. It will also enable the court to consider the public interest in family cases and private life cases that do not necessarily involve foreign criminals.

Unlike the Immigration Rules, Clause 14 does not contain requirements to be met but factors to be considered, in the form of public interest statements, to which the courts will be required to have regard. This recognises that there must continue to be an assessment of the individual facts of each case and that the decision on proportionality under Article 8 continues to lie, ultimately, with the court. The statements, however, ensure that Parliament has decided what the public interest requires and not the courts. In formulating the public interest statement that a foreign criminal sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years must be deported unless there are very compelling circumstances, the Government took account of Parliament’s approach in approving the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. This Act amended the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 to reflect that a sentence of imprisonment for a term exceeding four years will never be rehabilitated or “spent”.

Parliament therefore appears, in recent legislation, to have endorsed the position that a term exceeding four years’ imprisonment represents a very serious level of offending indeed. The Government consider that a custodial sentence of at least four years is one which means that it will almost always be proportionate to outweigh any family or private life considerations and, as such, would require compelling circumstances to lead to an outcome other than deportation. This is the approach we adopted for deportation cases in the new Immigration Rules, using the term “exceptional circumstances”. We are trying to bring greater clarity to decision-making, not return to the difficulty which the courts have already experienced in assessing complicated individual circumstances against case law in the absence of a clear statement from Parliament of what the public interest requires. To remove the exceptions to deportation from Clause 14, as proposed, would be to remove Parliament’s clear statement of its view of the weight that should be attached to the public interest in deportation, thereby undermining the purpose of that provision.

Finally, I turn to Amendment 46, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, which is contingent on Amendments 41 and 44. This would delete the provision explaining how to interpret references to a person who has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of a certain length of time. As the House will appreciate, a definition of “a period of imprisonment” is required to ensure that there is no confusion in the application of Clause 14. Section 38 of the UK Borders Act 2007 sets out what constitutes,

“a period of imprisonment of at least 12 months”,

for the purposes of that Act. The interpretation for Clause 14 has been drawn from that and is necessary for the avoidance of doubt and to ensure consistency, both across primary legislation and in the application of the new provisions. In the light of these explanations I encourage the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I sought to try to explain that that expression of little weight was really a way of putting into statutory form what we believe is in fact the practice of courts in the cases which are here. I think it was in the case against the Netherlands; I do not know the first name involved but the other was Hoogkamer. I am sorry not to get that right. We were seeking to say that we endorse what the position of the European Court of Human Rights has been on that. Whereas under the Human Rights Act the court is asked to consider and have regard to the Strasbourg jurisprudence, what we are seeking in this is to say that we agree that the court should follow the Strasbourg jurisprudence. This has not suddenly been conjured up; it is based on what we believe the courts would do.

[Lord Pannick]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The difficulty with that is that the Strasbourg jurisprudence recognises that although of course little weight should be given to these factors in many cases, there will be other cases where considerable weight should be given to these factors in the individual circumstances. They may be unusual or rare cases but the Strasbourg court is not saying that it is a rule that in every case involving family or private life, little weight shall be given to these factors. The difficulty about Clause 14 is that it purports to suggest that little weight must always be given to these factors, whatever the circumstances of the case. It does not say “other than in exceptional circumstances” or “normally”; it says that little weight shall be given to these factors. If the Minister wishes to come back on Report with an amendment that recognises a degree of judicial discretion, I shall be delighted to welcome it but that is what Clause 14 says at the moment.

The difficulty that the Minister faces is that he must recognise that there will inevitably be cases where a tribunal or a court, looking up at the facts of the case, decides that greater weight should be given to these factors. If I understood him correctly, the Minister accepted that if the court or tribunal decides in applying Article 8 that more than little weight is required to be given to these factors, then Article 8 must prevail. So Clause 14 is simply illogical and self-contradictory. It does not even achieve what the Minister says it is designed to achieve.

In introducing this group of amendments, I said that the Joint Committee on Human Rights had been unable to identify any precedent for legislation telling the courts what weight to give to relevant factors. I do not think that the Minister or indeed the noble and learned, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, with their combined expertise and experience, have pointed to any precedent upon which Clause 14 should be based. I think that this is a constitutional novelty, and we will be creating a very unfortunate precedent by telling the courts what weight to give to relevant factors, when that must depend on all the circumstances of the case.

I am sure that we will be returning to this topic on Report. I ask the Minister to reflect on this matter and to see whether it is possible to meet the concern that has been expressed today, without doing any violence to the object of Clause 14, by putting in some wording that recognises in the Bill the retention of judicial discretion in this matter. For the moment, though, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Rosser]

Some very interesting points have been made in support of this amendment. We await with interest the Government’s response; namely, whether they think the issues mentioned in this amendment should be taken into account and, if not, why they are saying that they should not be or, alternatively, whether they will say that there is no need for this amendment because they would expect these matters to be taken into account anyway. We await with interest to hear the Government’s stance.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I appreciate the concerns raised by my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lord Teverson in bringing forward this amendment about the impact of the new family Immigration Rules and, in particular, about the impact of the minimum income threshold for sponsoring a non-EEA national partner and dependent children which was established by those rules. My noble friend Lady Hamwee indicated that we had discussed these matters, and I recognise that she chaired the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Migration’s inquiry into the issue, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and which reported in June last year.

I acknowledge the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. Of course we very much welcome those who have settled here and shown great enterprise. That applies to a considerable number of people. Their contribution is very welcome and not only enriches the community financially but enriches the diversity of different cultures and backgrounds in the community.

The new family rules implemented on 9 July 2012 seek to prevent burdens on the taxpayer and promote integration, in particular by introducing a minimum income threshold of £18,600 a year to be met by those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the United Kingdom, with higher amounts for sponsoring dependent children.

The level of the income threshold was set in the light of expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. The levels of income required are those at which a couple, once settled in the UK and taking into account any children, generally cannot access income-related benefits. The policy is also intended to ensure that family migrants are well enough supported to promote their integration into British society. The Government consider this to be a fair and appropriate basis for family migration that is right for migrants, local communities and our country as a whole.

A couple with an income equivalent to the national minimum wage can still access income-related benefits and tax credits. An income threshold set at that level would not be sufficient to prevent burdens on the taxpayer arising once the migrant partner had settled and could access welfare benefits. It would also not provide an adequate basis for supporting the integration of the migrant partner into British society.

Adjusting the income threshold to take account of a sponsor’s consumption of public services and the contribution they make to reducing pressure on those services, including by acting as a carer, would require a complex calculation and numerous assumptions. Such an approach would be more appropriate with an income threshold benchmarked to a sponsor’s net fiscal contribution which, based on the Migration Advisory Committee’s report, would be £25,700. This is based on mean household income and represents, in broad terms, the point at which a sponsor becomes a net fiscal contributor: someone who is paying into the public finances more than they are taking out.

We have built significant flexibility into the operation of the income threshold, allowing for different employment and non-employment income sources to be used, as well as significant cash savings. In recognition of their reduced earning capacity, an applicant whose sponsor has caring responsibilities and is in receipt of carer’s allowance is exempt from the income threshold. So, too, is an applicant whose sponsor is in receipt of a specified disability-related benefit. Instead, these applicants have to meet the previous requirement for adequate maintenance.

Employment overseas is no guarantee of finding work in the UK, and the previous and prospective earnings of the migrant partner are not taken into account in determining whether the threshold is met. If the migrant partner has a job offer in the UK which meets our labour market requirements for skilled workers, they can apply under tier 2 of the points-based system. The rules allow a British sponsor who has been working overseas and is returning to the UK with the applicant to work here to count their overseas earnings and a firm job offer in the UK. This means they can sponsor their family to come to the UK without being separated from them while they take up employment here. We also allow a migrant who is already in the UK and working here legally to count their earnings towards meeting the income threshold.

The minimum income threshold of £18,600 applies to those seeking to sponsor the settlement of a non-EEA national partner. It does not apply to those seeking to settle in the UK as the parent of a British citizen child or a child settled in the UK or as an adult dependent relative. Instead, these family members must show that they can meet the adequate maintenance requirement.

This amendment would apply to all applicants for leave to enter or remain, thereby imposing a stricter financial requirement than at present on other family members applying to settle in the UK. The amendment would undermine the maintenance requirements under the points-based system for students and skilled workers who are required to meet rules on maintenance that are relevant to their route. The amendment would also be contrary to the Clause 14 provision that it is in the public interest, and in particular in the interests of the UK’s economic well-being, that persons who seek to enter or remain in the UK are financially independent.

I know that my noble friend said that she did not expect any change tonight, given that there are certain legal cases; certainly, when I discussed this yesterday, the case was still in the Court of Appeal. I recognise what she says, but I hope that she realises that the effect of her amendment could, in some cases, disadvantage some people; there are particular provisions on carers to which I have referred. I hope that, in these circumstances, my noble friend will agree to withdraw her amendment.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Lexden]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 will be brought into effect.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, the Succession to the Crown Act will be commenced when each Commonwealth realm has taken all steps necessary to give the changes effect in its jurisdiction.

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

I thank my noble and learned friend, who is the master of the intricacies of this legislation. Can he reaffirm that it is absolutely essential that this modernising constitutional change is implemented—and implemented fully—in all 16 realms of which Her Majesty is head of state to ensure that the Crown descends in exactly the same way in all of them. Does my noble and learned friend have any reason to anticipate that any of the realms might ultimately default on their obligations under the Perth agreement?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is important that all 16 realms agree. Indeed, the intention is that when they all have put in place the necessary legislation there will be a simultaneous order to give effect in each of the realms. I make it clear that all realms that took the view that legislation is required have passed the requisite legislation, with the exception of Australia. As I informed your Lordships’ House at Third Reading, the Council of Australian Governments agreed that respective states would legislate first, requesting that the Commonwealth legislation be brought forward by the Canberra Government. To date, three states have enacted legislation; two have introduced legislation; and South Australia has yet to introduce legislation because it is in the middle of an election campaign.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, although the new succession arrangements are to be welcomed, does the Minister not believe that it is wholly inconsistent not to similarly reform all hereditary titles so they are gender equal?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this issue was raised during our debates. It was indicated that numerous issues would arise with regard to hereditary titles which did specifically arise with regard to the succession to the Crown—and indeed I think my noble friend Lord Lucas has a Private Member’s Bill which has had one day in Committee, where there was an opportunity to debate that issue.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)]

My Lords, with the birth of Prince George some of the urgency has gone out of the need to implement Section 1 of the Act. Does my noble and learned friend agree that it is still important, and indeed urgent, to bring Section 2 into force to start to implement the dismantling of the discrimination against Roman Catholics that has been embedded in our constitution and therefore in those of Her Majesty’s other realms for well over 300 years?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. He is right to say that the birth of Prince George has taken away the immediacy of that particular matter, but he is also right to point out that the Act also allows someone in the line of succession to become sovereign to marry a Roman Catholic. It also removes the requirement of the heirs of George II to seek Her Majesty’s approval before they can marry—it will now be confined to first six in line to the throne.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, it is for exactly those reasons that the Opposition very much welcomed the Bill. If I understand it, it is only Australia for which we now wait. We just hope that before the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge get to Australia, it may have done the necessary. Although their first born is a son, were they to have a brace that come further, the order of succession may still be important for those subsequent children. Can the noble and learned Lord perhaps use his good endeavours to see this speedily enacted?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is fair to say that all the state premiers in Australia have indicated their support for this measure, and that the Commonwealth Government of Australia stand ready to put in place the necessary legislation once each of the states has enacted its legislation.

[Lord Lang of Monkton (Con)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that this Bill, which was always a sensitive measure, becomes more sensitive with every day that passes without agreement? When the Bill passed through this House it was emphasised to us that the Bill was urgent and unamendable because all the other realms had agreed to all the principles underlying it—all the more reason, therefore, to urge my noble and learned friend to ensure that representations are made to ensure the speediest outcome in those realms that have not yet completed the process.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated, there is only one realm that has still to legislate. Some realms took the view that, under their own laws, legislation was not required. I have indicated the position in Australia and have no reason to believe that anything other than good endeavours are being used to get the necessary legislation in place.

Scotland: Independence Referendum

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, in sharing the view of the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, I can safely say that we have had an excellent debate here today, which has benefited from having extra time. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton for introducing the debate with a first-class speech which, given that the contributions of all the speakers have emphasised how wide-ranging the subject is and how there is so much to be said, not only captured the breadth of the arguments but did so with considerable focus as well. He set our debate off absolutely on the right tone by raising a number of important issues.

At the outset, too, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Goldie on her maiden speech. She and I were first elected together to the Scottish Parliament when it was established in 1999, along with other noble Lords who are in the Chamber such as the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and my noble friend Lord Steel. We did parry on occasions. I think that I appeared before her a number of times on the justice committee, where she established a reputation not just for competence—that would understate it—but for being a formidable parliamentarian. Indeed, when she announced that she was standing down from the leadership of the Scottish Conservative Party, one newspaper commentary that I have found said:

“A primary function of a party leader is to lead in the eyes of the voters who have not supported it. Annabel Goldie was good at that—open, inclusive, positive and giving as good as she got, the people understood her—trusted her”.

I think that is a very fair summation of the contribution she has made to Scottish political and civic life. I know that she continues to represent her constituents in the Scottish Parliament, but we all look forward to the contributions that she will make to our debates in this Chamber.

One of the features of this debate has been that Members who have taken part have come from right across the United Kingdom: from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England. I cannot answer every point that has been raised because there have been so many, but every speech made a valuable contribution to the debate.

I was having the same thought as my noble friend Lord Cormack, who said that he hopes this debate will be read in Scotland. I was thinking that so often in this debate we hear people say that we do not have enough facts. I think the Hansard of this debate will give a considerable number of facts and emphasise many areas. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, spoke about the complexities that are involved, and we heard important contributions from noble Lords who have considerable expertise in their own fields of medicine, research, sport, law and defence. Excellent contributions were made that set out some of the facts, consequences and complexity.

My noble friend Lord Caithness asked whether independence is for ever, and the noble Lord, Lord Maxton, answered that question. Yes, people can see from this debate that independence is for ever. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, there is no going back. It will be a decisive result, and if people vote yes for independence, that is that.

There is one very small matter. I am not saying it is a fact that will change the outcome of the referendum, but the information was passed to me, so I thought I should share it with your Lordships. My noble friend Lord Steel and the noble Baroness, Lady Liddell, referred to the First Minister’s visit to the Ryder Cup and the expenditure of £54,000. I have been informed that when he was First Minister the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, and one member of staff attended the Ryder Cup outside Dublin at the cost of £131.20. Scotland got better value from the noble Lord.

Features of the debate have been the sense of heritage and the sense of family. My noble friend Lord Forsyth gave us a very good perspective on heritage. He said we are one nation forged over the centuries. Other noble Lords who talked about history included my noble friend Lord Cavendish of Furness and the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, but noble Lords also talked about the idea of family and, sadly, noble Lords also talked in terms of a family that faces possible divorce, all the trauma that goes along with that and how we want to try to avoid it. That emphasised that the people who belong on this island not only have a shared heritage but have so much in terms of shared family. When my noble friend Lord Caithness was describing his bloodline, I thought that he was the absolute embodiment of Britishness, with all the various parts of the United Kingdom from which he can claim ancestry.

Another feature was the passion that the noble Lord, Lord Soley, mentioned. Noble Lords said how important it is to them that we remain part of a United Kingdom. Some 800,000 people born in Scotland now live in other parts of the United Kingdom and about 500,000 people born in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now live in Scotland. One speech mentioned the 30,000 people who travel in and out of Scotland each day to work. My noble friend Lord Moynihan talked about the Olympic family and how proud we all felt at the success of the British Olympic team in 2012. When he was speaking, I was reminded of the point made by my noble friend Lord Cavendish: when you split a £50 note, each part is not worth £25. Equally, one could say that if you had split the boat of Katherine Grainger and Anna Watkins, who won the double sculls, neither of them would have been in a gold-medal position. That emphasises how much we achieve when working together. We are truly greater than the sum of our parts.

I recognise that what we are debating today has implications for other parts of the United Kingdom and for our parliamentary arrangements. My noble friend Lord Trimble talked about its impact in Northern Ireland. I will perhaps say later that if you try to disintegrate public bodies and institutions that have been brought together and have evolved over a long period, it has costs, even for the part of the United Kingdom that would not have opted to lose Scotland. I also take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gordon, that whatever the outcome on 18 September, even if it is a no vote, there may well be relationships that have to be worked at to bring about some harmony again, so that we can continue to go forward as a truly United Kingdom.

However the legal position is that, without Scotland, the United Kingdom would continue, albeit, I fear, as has been said by a number of your Lordships—my noble friends Lord Lang, Lord MacGregor and Lord Lamont of Lerwick, and the noble Lord, Lord Parekh—as a diminished United Kingdom. It would be a United Kingdom from which we had lost something very valuable. We have had very clear legal opinion, referred to by my noble friend Lord Crickhowell, from Professors Crawford and Boyle, that England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be a continuing state. Internationally, the continuing United Kingdom would retain its membership of organisations and bilateral treaties. Domestically, each one of the United Kingdom’s public bodies and institutions would continue to function.

That cannot be said of an independent Scotland. An independent Scotland would be an entirely new state. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, said, it would be a separate state. I sometimes wonder why a party that wants independence objects to the idea that it might be a new state; I thought that was the whole point of what they were trying to do. Scotland’s future would be based on a series of protracted negotiations with different states and organisations, as well as other parts of the United Kingdom. Which currency would Scotland use? How would Scotland join the European Union, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr? Would it have to join the euro or Schengen? These are questions that the Scottish Government have singularly failed to answer. They would require detailed negotiations to pull out of a union of which Scotland has been an integral part for more than 300 years and to establish a new set of international relationships.

However, it is important to stress the positive. As the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, said, we have at the moment the best of both worlds. We have a system of devolution that delivers for Scotland. Where it makes sense, key decisions of state are reserved to the United Kingdom and its Parliament to take on behalf of all citizens across the United Kingdom. Equally important decisions are made by the Scottish Parliament in Scotland on issues including education, healthcare and policing. The noble Lords, Lord Robertson and Lord McConnell, and my noble friend Lord Purvis, have indicated that devolution is working. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Lang in his introductory speech, that somewhere we seem to have lost sight of the Scotland Act 2012. The point is that the position is not static. There is no such thing as the status quo because, in 2015, there will be taxation powers on landfill tax and land-based stamp duty; and in 2016 there will be an important development on the 10p rate of income tax. It is not standing still; since day one it has evolved and developed. That 2012 legislation substantially increases the Scottish Parliament’s power and was proceeded upon on the basis of evidence, consensus and consideration.

At the start of 2013, the United Kingdom Government said that we would set out the facts about Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom: its contributions and the benefits we receive as a result. We have done so. The Scotland analysis papers, details of which I circulated to noble Lords last week, have set out in great detail important issues such as currency, research, defence and, most recently, borders and citizenship. They make a positive case for Scotland being part of the United Kingdom. I do not believe that the Scottish Government have in any way challenged this analysis. Their White Paper last November was their opportunity to make their case. It is widely recognised that they distinctly failed to do so. None of the key issues such as currency, EU membership and, crucially, the terms of EU membership and economic stability, will go away—but none of them was adequately addressed. It was an exercise in assertion and wishful thinking. My noble friend Lord Lang said that it used its length to hide its emptiness. I noted that, in the passage he quoted, my noble friend Lord Steel talked about the principle of continuing efficiency. I have looked that up on Google, and cannot find that principle enunciated anywhere else. It is asserted, and we are all supposed to salute it.

These issues matter because they affect people’s everyday lives—jobs, mortgages and the cost of the food we buy in the supermarkets. This is not an esoteric constitutional debate. It is not a question of nationalist sentiment. It matters to people and their day-to-day lives.

I will pick up on some specific points made by noble Lords. A number of your Lordships made particular reference to the speech the Governor of the Bank of England made yesterday in Edinburgh. He highlighted the principal difficulties of entering a currency union: the loss of national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out another country. As the Chancellor has previously said, the current arrangement of a full, monetary, fiscal and political union brings economic benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. That is why we have seen the Chancellor, my right honourable friend the Chief Secretary, former Chancellors of the Exchequer, the shadow Chancellor and the First Minister of Wales—and in this debate the noble Lord, Lord Empey, from Northern Ireland and my noble friend Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, from Wales—say that in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed, and that in those circumstances the Scottish Government need a plan B.

Currency unions do not work without close political and fiscal integration; surely we have learnt that lesson from the euro if nothing else. Scottish independence would create the opposite. Indeed, the objective is to have disintegration. The Scottish Government maintain that they can run an economy differently and better, but that would lead to fuller divergence. To Nicola Sturgeon and others, who claim that,

“the pound is as much Scotland’s as it is the rest of the UK’s”,

let us be clear that a vote to leave the United Kingdom is a vote to leave its institutions, such as the Bank of England, and to leave the UK pound. That is part of the choice that people in Scotland are being asked to make on 18 September.

My noble friends Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Shipley also mentioned the debt issue. The Treasury has set out clearly that the continuing UK Government will in all circumstances honour the contractual terms of debt issued by the UK. We did so because we thought it was responsible to underpin the UK’s credibility with the international financial markets. As my noble friend Lord Shipley indicated, an independent Scotland would be likely to face higher debt interest payments than the rest of the UK, as the National Institute of Economic and Social Research has shown, and would have to rely on a narrower tax base to support its public services and ageing population.

A number of noble Lords who contributed to the debate talked about the European Union. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, described, from his vast experience, a potential scenario as to how we might get from A to B, which I will be interested to reread. It would not be appropriate to make any commitments or comments on it except that it takes a while to get one’s mind around the thought that my right honourable friend Mr David Cameron might represent Alex Salmond at the EU Council table. I would be interested to know what the First Minister of Scotland thinks about that. However, the point the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made was about the complexity of that situation and of the terms of membership. The noble Lord explained why the rebate could not just be split up and a bit allocated to Scotland. There is also the issue of Schengen and the currency. When the Scottish Government talk about the common travel areas as their preferred position on Schengen, that would clearly be a matter for negotiation. They also have to make up their mind. They cannot claim on the one hand that they want a radically different immigration policy from the rest of the United Kingdom, and on the other still maintain that they can have a common travel area. The two do not go hand in hand. They have to square with the Scottish people about which it will be.

The question of the disintegration of the United Kingdom came through in a number of speeches. We are talking about institutions and public bodies that have developed over many years—over generations—and which were not established for the purpose of being broken up. Therefore, when you start to try to unravel them, there are a lot of difficult problems. The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, mentioned the General Medical Council and all the issues that would flow from that. I think that many of the regulatory bodies in the health service have appeals that go to the Privy Council. The Scottish Government may say, “We can keep it”, but I am not sure that they have thought it through, as they sometimes dismiss the Privy Council as a body to which they would ever wish to appeal.

There are also the issues of the coming together of the higher education research councils and the integration of defence. As my noble friend Lord Selkirk of Douglas said, you cannot just pluck out assets and personnel from a highly integrated armed services.

The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, also underlined the importance of and some of the difficulties with the number of treaties and negotiations that would have to take place. It is worth reminding the House that, in the so-called velvet divorce between the Czech Republic and Slovakia, there were 31 overarching treaties and around 2,000 sub-agreements between the two countries. While it is referred to as the velvet divorce, many important issues were unresolved for a number of years. So there is a whole host of issues that would have to be dealt with.

There is the fact that our trade is so bound up together. Scotland’s manufacturing receives so much of its raw materials from England. In one of our Scottish analysis papers, we show the border effect. When you put up a barrier, albeit between countries that have a long history together and share a common language, there is a border effect, as was shown in the difference in trade between two provinces of Canada and between Canada and the United States. Public bodies such as the BBC, the DVLA, the National Lottery and the Heritage Lottery Fund have all been established on a UK basis. You only need to start thinking of some of the implications. We will publish the next Scottish analysis paper in the series in which we will look at some of those institutions. It is clear that unpicking them is very difficult indeed. To put it into some kind of context, every Administration that I can remember have had private and public grief about IT systems. If you think about having to create new IT systems across the board for so many things, it underlines the difficulties.

The noble Lord, Lord Nickson, expressed a concern that is part of the so-called border effect. You would have difficulties at the outset but, over time, there would be further divergence. That, too, would mean that we would lose much of the advantage that we have as part of the United Kingdom.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, talked of the importance of the legal system and the fact that, in civil matters, the House of Lords and now the Supreme Court has been the final appeal court. So many of these issues deal with commercial legal matters, in which it has been important to have consistency of interpretation north and south of the border. I remember—no doubt the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, will remember, too—that when there was a proposal to move from the House of Lords to the Supreme Court, when we were in coalition government together, we had to think about what should happen and whether Scotland should continue to seek to take civil cases to the Supreme Court. The representations we got from business were about the importance of having that Supreme Court to give consistency of interpretation across the United Kingdom. That was very important indeed.

The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, referred to the importance of the defence industry in Scotland. A number of those who have contributed have talked about the defence footprint in Scotland, and the number of armed and civilian personnel related to defence. When you look at how much is spent on defence, it is not that Scotland’s defence is a tenth of the total; the entire expenditure on defence in the United Kingdom goes to ensure the security of us all. You cannot start to disintegrate it—it matters to us all. That was particularly true of the case mentioned by my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones, about our security being underpinned by a strong network of international alliances and relationships and how much Scotland benefits from the millions of pounds of investment in the United Kingdom’s cybersecurity.

On the Armed Forces, a point made by my noble friend Lord Selkirk was that you cannot just tell people that they have to leave and give up their careers in the British Army to go and join the Scottish Army—or, for that matter, in the Royal Navy or the Royal Air Force. There are two sides to that. It has been very ill thought-out in terms of what the Scottish Government have proposed, but the positive side is that we do very well as a United Kingdom, with Scotland as part of it, by having our defence secured on that UK-wide basis.

Before moving on to further devolution, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy, mentioned contingency planning. He knows that the Government have consistently made the point that it would be wrong to start contingency planning ahead of any vote, for the very good reason that we are the Government of the whole United Kingdom. If Ministers within government start splitting up and arguing against each other, that is when you start to unpick the fabric of the United Kingdom.

The noble Lords, Lord Sutherland, Lord Lyell and Lord Kakkar, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cullen, also mentioned the importance of research. I do not need to elaborate on what they said about the value of having a United Kingdom in that regard.

Many of your Lordships talked about further devolution, further constitutional change and the opportunity for constitutional renewal. I will not list everyone who made that point but I think there was an emerging consensus that this is something we need to look at in the light of a no vote. One of the things that came through was that devolution does not stop at Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast; there is an important issue about it being taken down to local government as well. The First Minister of Wales raised with the Prime Minister the idea of a constitutional convention. The Prime Minister indicated that there would need to be an open, involved and comprehensive conversation about the kind of union we want to see, and that, 15 years after the process of devolution started, we should consider the best way to go about doing so. However, he went on to say that he believed a better time to do that would be once the referendum debate had come to a conclusion as we must first focus on the case of keeping Scotland in the union.

The noble Lord, Lord Parekh, made important points about trying not to be negative. I have tried to show that there is a positive side to arguments that might otherwise be seen as being negative. However, it is also important that those who are arguing for such a fundamental change to the status quo should face and answer some of the key issues that are put to them. I do not believe that is being negative.

We have a proud tradition. To pick up some of the points that have been made, we have walked in freedom under the law and have taken democratic government to many parts of the world. This country led the way in the abolition of slavery. We established a National Health Service and were leaders in public service broadcasting. We have achieved so many things together. I believe that that, together with economic integration, is a very positive argument to put forward.

My noble friend Lady Goldie said that she could be Scottish and she could be British and proud of both. We have heard contributions from noble Lords who are Welsh but feel very British too, from those who are Northern Irish English but feel very British too, and from people from other parts who feel that way too. The noble Baroness, Lady Quin, made an important point about people coming to the United Kingdom—not to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England but to the United Kingdom. It is important that we retain the integrity of the United Kingdom. It is not something to give up lightly. I hope that on 18 September, people in Scotland will vote to remain part of our United Kingdom. I believe that, far from being negative, a no vote is probably the most positive thing that can happen to the United Kingdom later this year.

Scotland: Independence

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 29th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Flight]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the event of the result of the Scottish referendum in 2014 being in favour of independence, whether they expect Members of Parliament from Scottish constituencies to be eligible to stand for election in the 2015 General Election; and, if so, what will happen on the date of Scottish independence in 2016.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, in the event that a majority of people in Scotland vote for independence in the referendum in September, Scotland would leave the United Kingdom and all its institutions, including the UK Parliament, after a process of negotiation. The timing for any changes would have to be settled in the event of a vote for independence.

[Lord Flight (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure we all hope and expect that the Scottish vote will be in favour of the union but, surely, all eventualities need to be catered for. If Scotland votes for independence, it would be inappropriate for there to be Scottish MPs at Westminster thereafter. What precisely are the arrangements before implementation of Scottish independence, should it be voted for, in 2016?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I indicated in my original Answer, there would be a process of negotiation. Obviously, laws passed by this Parliament set out the arrangements for elections and it would be a matter for Parliament to change the arrangements if it so wished. I take the first point of my noble friend’s Question. I think I say for colleagues on all sides of the House that, while we support the integrity of the United Kingdom, we should be making every effort to ensure that the eventuality of a yes vote in the independence referendum simply does not arise.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, one issue that those Members of Parliament might have to address in that eventuality would be the position in relation to the currency. Does the noble and learned Lord welcome the very thoughtful and balanced contribution to the debate on the currency in Scotland made today by the Governor of the Bank of England? Will he join me in urging others who head up our great national institutions, whether in Scotland or throughout the UK, to contribute in a similar fashion to ensure that the complexities of the decisions that are required afterwards are fully understood and that the people in Scotland have all the information they need to make the right decision?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has previously said, the current arrangements of a full monetary, fiscal and political union bring benefits to all parts of the United Kingdom. I certainly have noted that the Governor of the Bank of England today has highlighted the principal difficulties of entering into a currency union—losing national sovereignty, the practical risks of financial instability and having to provide fiscal support to bail out a foreign country. That is why we have consistently said that, in the event of independence, a currency union is highly unlikely to be agreed so the Scottish Government need a plan B. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that people who, from experience, have an important contribution to make should make it. Indeed, this month, Better Together has published a very good pamphlet which quotes many people showing how untenable the position of the Scottish Government is on the issue of the currency.

[Lord Stephen (LD)]

My Lords, is it not vital that we all spend the time between now and the referendum in September working together and positively campaigning in favour of Scotland staying part of Great Britain and part of the United Kingdom? Speculating on the constitutional detail of what will happen if there is a yes vote in the referendum does not necessarily help in that united campaign.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. It is vital that our focus is on ensuring that there is a substantial no vote in the referendum in September and that we set out the benefits. Ahead of the debate in your Lordships’ House tomorrow morning, I hope later this afternoon to send out to noble Lords the 20 positive reasons—there are many more—that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland set out earlier this month together with links to the 10 analysis papers published so far in Scotland, which make a very compelling case for the integrity of the United Kingdom and for Scotland remaining part of it.

[Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that even in the event of a no vote in Scotland, which I very much hope for, there are questions to be addressed about our variegated devolution settlements with parts of the United Kingdom? Does he not further agree that thought about that should take place now rather than in a rush after an unexpected and unhoped for yes vote?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Baroness makes an important point. There are important issues about our current constitutional arrangements in all parts of the United Kingdom. The Government have shown by our implementation of the Calman report proposals, through the Scotland Act 2012 and the way that we are taking forward the proposals of the Silk commission in relation to Wales that we are alert to these. But I am certain that a no vote in September will not bring an end to these discussions. All parties and even people without parties have an important contribution to make to those discussions.

[Lord McFall of Alcluith (Lab)]

My Lords, if there is a yes vote, it is important to remember that the rest of the United Kingdom will be diminished as a result; by one-fifth of our land mass, 5 million of our population and 10% of our GDP. The big picture is that both national and international issues are involved. Therefore, the voices of the Scottish diaspora need to be mobilised, and also the voices of the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish who value an entity that is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I could not agree more with the noble Lord. It is important that people not only from the diaspora but from other parts of the United Kingdom speak up and say how valued Scotland is as part of a family of nations, which is one of the great success stories of modern history. Scotland is obviously better within the United Kingdom, but the United Kingdom is also better with Scotland in it.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble and learned friend not agree that the answer of the Scottish Nationalists to my noble friend Lord Flight’s question is symptomatic of the fantasy politics that they are putting forward? When he asks what the position of Scottish MPs would be in the House of Commons if they were elected after a vote for independence, their official policy is that we should postpone the date of the general election until 2016.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I did in fact notice that. I am not quite sure what it says about democracy—that people should be denied the chance to elect new Members of Parliament. I also bear in mind that the date that they set for this referendum was after this Parliament had agreed to the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, which had already set the date for the next general election.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean (Lab)]

My Lords, would there even be a United Kingdom if the vote was a positive one? After all, Northern Ireland is not a kingdom and never has been, and Wales is a Principality. “United Kingdom” refers to the fact that there are the two kingdoms of England and of Scotland. Will we have to change the name of this country in such an eventuality?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. All I would say is that, having been part of a party which merged and spent a long time deciding its name, I do not want to start speculating about what might happen if we start breaking up.

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.

Lords Amendment 1: Clause 2, page 2, line 7, after “secretary” insert “or special adviser”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 1 and propose Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.
1A: Page 2, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) Regulations may amend subsection (3) so as to provide that communications made personally to a special adviser are within that subsection.”
1B: Page 2, line 30, at end insert—
““special adviser” means a person who serves the government in a position in the civil service of the State and whose appointment to that position meets the requirements applicable to that position set out in section 15(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 26A and 27A.

Lords Amendment 26: Clause 28, page 16, leave out lines 10 to 23 and insert—
“2A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule “third party constituency expenditure” means controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a third party in relation to—
(a) 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 or otherwise distributed within any particular constituency or constituencies), or
(b) unsolicited telephone calls falling within paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 8A, made to such electors or households which can reasonably be regarded as intended to ascertain or influence their voting intention,
where the effects are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency.
(2) Third party constituency expenditure—
(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or
(b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency,
as the case may be.
(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if—
(a) there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies, and
(b) it can 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.”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 26 for the following reason—
26A: Because a wider range of expenditure than it provides for should be included when attributing a third party’s expenditure to a particular constituency for the purposes of determining whether a limit on expenditure in that constituency has been exceeded.
Lords Amendment 27: Page 16, line 29, leave out “controlled” and insert “third party constituency”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
27A: The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 27 for the following reason—
Because the amendment is unnecessary in light of the provision made in paragraph 2A(4) of Schedule 10 to the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (as inserted by Clause 28(5)).

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, the other place has passed a Motion to disagree with Lords Amendments 26 and 27. As noble Lords well know by now, these amendments would narrow the range of activities that would count towards constituency limits. I do not propose to take up time once again by making the case for why constituency limits are needed, but perhaps I could express my gratitude at the outset to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth. We had a discussion about these amendments yesterday that I found very helpful both in respect of this Motion and the next one, which is on staffing costs. It was clear from our discussions that we have very much narrowed down the differences that there are between us, and I very much hope that we may be able to persuade the noble and right reverend Lord not to press his amendment in lieu.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said at Third Reading last week that,

“there should be real restraints in place to stop large sums of money distorting an election result at constituency level. There is therefore no disagreement about the purpose of this clause”.—[Official Report, 21/1/14; col. 587.]

That was very welcome and I turn now to Amendment 26B, tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in lieu of his Amendments 26 and 27. Perhaps I might observe that Amendment 27 was thought to have been a consequential amendment. I think that parliamentary counsel thought that it was unnecessary and might be confusing. Having discussed this with the noble and right reverend Lord, I know that he will no longer seek to insist on that amendment.

Debating Amendment 26B shows that there is little difference between us, or between the Bill as currently drafted and what the noble and right reverend Lord wishes to achieve. He is understandably concerned about the workability and enforceability of constituency limits, and that is what his new amendment now seeks to resolve. I believe that this amendment is also aimed at addressing the concerns of campaigners, who argue that they are for the most part organised on a national basis and that to split expenditure along constituency lines is not always straightforward. Those campaigners that are not arranged on a national basis but across a small area have similar concerns about appropriately allocating expenditure across a small number of constituencies. Very often in these debates, the example of the HS2 campaign has been cited.

Lords Amendments 26 and 27 were initially put forward last week with a view to making constituency limits more workable by narrowing the activities that they would apply to. The Government have listened to and recognise the concerns expressed but we believe that they are misplaced. While I am grateful for the efforts which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has gone to, he too now realises that those Amendments 26 and 27 were not addressing the issue at hand.

Amendment 26B seeks to make it clearer when expenditure should be attributed to a constituency. Most crucially, there is an omission from this amendment of something in the one which the House considered last week on Third Reading. His amendment now moves away from seeking to apply the constituency limit to just a narrowed range of activities. The House has already agreed that it is appropriate to make third parties account for their expenditure against an expanded range of activities. The House has also agreed that constituency limits are necessary. As I have raised before, narrowing the range of activities that would apply to the constituency limits in turn limits the very effectiveness of these constituency limits. The reason this Bill widens the range of activities that count towards controlled expenditure is to cover a potential gap in UK election rules. Therefore, the amendment in lieu in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, is very welcome in recognising that.

I do not agree, however, and I hope I can explain why. Some of the concerns, while I understand why they have been raised, are perhaps misplaced. I do not agree with the view that attributing expenditure to constituencies is as difficult as is sometimes being suggested, either for the commission to provide guidance on and enforce, or for campaigners to undertake. Of course there will inevitably be difficult cases, but that is always the case, and the Electoral Commission is there precisely to provide the guidance to campaigners that they may need.

I did take the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack last week, and passed on to the Electoral Commission his very constructive suggestion that there be a round-table discussion where a number of these issues could be addressed with regard to guidance in this area.

Amendment 26B has been drafted so as to require that the “significant effect” of expenditure is taken into account and not its geographical location. This is exactly what is already provided for in the Bill in Clause 28. What Amendment 26B further seeks, however, is to introduce a second test to determine whether expenditure is incurred in a constituency or not. This second test asks whether it can also “reasonably be inferred” that electors or households have been specifically targeted in a constituency.

I am not sure whether that was a throwback to the earlier amendment which talked about leaflets being specifically targeted in a constituency, but we believe that it is an unnecessary additional test. I fear that it would not add to any greater clarity.

The Bill's provision on constituency limits has, after all, been drafted in line with current PPERA rules and Electoral Commission guidance. Although bringing constituency limits is new, noble Lords will recognise that under PPERA expenditure must currently be attributed between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That is why there are separate spending limits for each part. Expenditure must be attributed between each part of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom on the basis of where its “significant effect” is felt. The Electoral Commission has clear guidance on how to allocate expenditure in this way and the same process will apply to constituency limits.

If a third party holds a rally in one constituency with a view to influencing the electoral success of a party or candidates in another constituency, that is where the “significant effect” is likely to be felt. The expenditure will be attributed to that constituency where the effect of that activity is intended and felt. That may be one or other or conceivably both of those constituencies.

The other point that has been raised is in terms of some of the difficulty of calculation. Where a significant effect is felt in several constituencies, the expenditure will be equally split between those constituencies—that is in the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment and is indeed already in the Bill. There is no requirement for a detailed calculation of the precise amount or proportion of expenditure in each constituency, as has sometimes been suggested.

Inevitably, there will be minor overlaps. Again, the Electoral Commission already has guidance to this effect. That guidance notes that where a third party’s spending in one part of the UK has a minor effect in another part, the spending should be allocated to the part of the UK the spending was aimed at.

I give an example from existing PPERA provisions that are reflected in the commission’s guidance. If there were a major issue in Wales and a third party advertised in a Welsh newspaper that is also distributed or spills over—a minor spillover—into part of, say, Shropshire, then the entire spending would be allocated to Wales because that is where the effect is intended. Of course, this exact same principle will apply to constituency limits. The areas are smaller, admittedly, but the principle is the same.

Third parties and the commission will be required to assess attribution of spending on a qualitative basis—as indeed they are required to do at present. I simply add that the constituency limits are also almost equal to the current £10,000 PPERA registration threshold for England. As the Electoral Commission already enforces this limit, I do not see that there is any merit in claims that the commission will have difficulty in enforcing £9,750. It is perhaps easier to identify £9,750 when it is spent in a single small area than £10,000 being spent across England.

The reason given why the Commons disagree with Amendment 26 is:

“Because a wider range of expenditure than it provides for should be included when attributing a third party’s expenditure to a particular constituency for the purposes of determining whether a limit on expenditure in that constituency has been exceeded”.

The amendment that we are debating today in the name of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, addresses the reasons that the Commons have given. What we are left with are concerns about significant effect, which, as I have indicated, is in the Bill already, and an equal measure among the constituencies in which there has been a significant effect, which is also in the Bill. I also indicated that the extra part that the noble and right reverend Lord has added does not actually add to the clarity. This is appropriately a matter for the Electoral Commission to give guidance on. I do not think that there is then a huge amount between us. On the basis of that explanation, I ask the noble and right reverend Lord not to move his Motion and I beg to move.

Motion B1

Moved by Lord Harries of Pentregarth

As an amendment to Motion B, leave out from “House” to end and insert “do not insist on its Amendments 26 and 27 but do propose Amendment 26B in lieu.”

26B: Page 16, leave out lines 10 to 23 and insert—

“2A (1) For the purposes of this Schedule, “third party constituency expenditure” means controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of a third party.

(2) Third party constituency expenditure—

(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or

(b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be.

(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if—

(a) there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies, and

(b) it can 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.”

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, this amendment on constituency limits is a significant revision of the amendment passed by your Lordships but rejected by the Commons. It leaves out the first part of our previous amendment in order to meet the reasons for disagreement as stated on the Marshalled List—the Government’s wish to include a “wider range of expenditure” than was previously suggested.

As the noble and learned Lord said in the House at Report stage, he thought that public meetings and events should be brought within its scope. In leaving out the first part of our previous amendment, we have accepted, for the purposes of the Bill where it now is, that this is what the Government wish to do, without necessarily being fully persuaded by their arguments. We have therefore concentrated entirely in this revised amendment on trying to achieve greater clarity about how controlled expenditure could be attributed to a particular constituency.

Sub-paragraph (2) of the amendment states:

“Third party constituency expenditure … shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or … shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be”.

I give as an example a campaign against a motorway extension that goes through three constituencies. On the basis of heading (a), the controlled expenditure would be split three ways in equal amounts. I give as another example a public meeting opposed to a new development. The development is taking place in a marginal constituency but the public meeting opposed to it is taking place just over the border in the next constituency. On the basis of heading (b), the controlled expenditure would be attributed to the marginal constituency because this is where the meeting was trying to influence voters. This amendment would in fact be a tightening up of the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out on Report, the Bill as it now stands would enable the kind of public meeting that I have indicated to take place without being caught by the Bill, although the noble and learned Lord has now faced that one and suggested that it might. However, we believe that this part of the amendment would help the Government in trying to stop abuse.

The third part of our amendment states that,

“the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if … there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies, and … it can 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”.

I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that if the House of Commons were able to accept this amendment, that sentence confining it simply to leaflets might need to be widened to other activities.

--- Later in debate ---

We need to agree this Motion and the following one on staff costs. If we agree them, we hope that the Government will not just take until tomorrow to tell us to think again. Finally, the Government’s rejection of this is not worthy of a Government who profess to believe in the big society.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. To those who mentioned that the House of Commons considered your Lordships’ amendments within 24 hours, I point out that it accepted 94 out of 97 amendments, which shows the considerable changes that this House made to the Bill. All bar three of the changes—or four, if you include the small technical one—were accepted by the other place.

My noble friend Lord Tyler spoke again on the constituency limit of £9,750. As I said last week—and I recognise his strength of feeling on this—a balance needed to be struck with attempts to remove some of the administrative burdens that the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talked about. That is why we decided to raise the limit to £9,750 for the period from dissolution to polling day. It was originally about £5,000. That was intended to help many groups.

I turn to the amendment spoken to by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. First, I generously acknowledge that his amendment seeks to address the reasons that the Commons gave for not agreeing to the amendment carried at Third Reading last week. That is very important, because it means that we are now looking at some of the detail. In moving the Motion that proposes the amendment, the noble and right reverend Lord talked about the importance of trying to get greater clarity. First, he focused on the fact that proposed new paragraph 2A(2) in his amendment says:

“Third party constituency expenditure—(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or (b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be.

The Bill, as brought to your Lordships’ House, says at new paragraph 2A(2) in Clause 28(5):

“Controlled expenditure whose effects are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency—(a) shall be attributed to those constituencies in equal proportions, or (b) shall be attributed solely to that constituency, as the case may be”.

With regard to (a) and (b), the words are exactly the same. They are already there in the Bill.

The noble and right reverend Lord then gave the good example of agriculture shows where leaflets of a generic nature on a particular campaigning issue are distributed. He said that that should not be attributed to a particular constituency just because the show field happened to be in that constituency, as the show brought in people from a wide area. I know exactly the kind of event that he is talking about and his example is a good one. I do not think that it is intended that that should be seen as a narrow constituency issue. He said that, to address that, Amendment 26B states:

“For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), the effects of third party constituency expenditure are wholly or substantially confined to any particular constituencies or constituency if—(a) there is no significant effect in any other constituency or constituencies”.

The Bill as brought to your Lordships’ House says:

“For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2)”—

the numbering is different—

“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”.

Again, the words are almost exactly the same. The only real difference between what the noble and right reverend Lord is proposing and what the Government already have in the Bill is in proposed new paragraph 2A(3)(b) in the amendment, which says that,

“it can reasonably be inferred that the third party selected the relevant electors or households”.

That might be relevant in terms of written material, but it is difficult to see its relevance in other things such as transport or media events—press conferences or rallies.

Therefore, the words are almost identical bar that one example and, like my noble friend Lord Tyler, I do not honestly believe that the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment provides added clarity. In fact, I think it is less clear with that additional paragraph. The Electoral Commission is the body charged with giving guidance and it will seek to give guidance, as it has already had to do, in terms of the national distribution of expenditure. The difference in the wording is very small, but I fear that what the noble and right reverend Lord has put forward does not add clarity—it makes it less clear—and the other parts of his amendment are already in the Bill. On that basis, I ask him not to insist on the amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his words and welcome the idea of a round-table conference where some of the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, can be addressed. There seems to be no substantial difference between us, except for the fact that it did not seem at all clear to charities and campaigning groups that what was involved in their campaigning at constituency level was already in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord suggested that a combination of what is already in the Bill and much more detailed and careful guidance from the Electoral Commission will meet the point. However, campaigning groups and the Electoral Commission would generally welcome something along the lines I have suggested being firmly in the Bill. This would make it absolutely clear what is allowable and what does or does not come within the scope of the Bill. I therefore feel I should test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 108 to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 108A.

Lords Amendment 108: Schedule 3, page 57, line 14, at end insert—
“Exclusions of background staff costs
1A Nothing in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 1 shall be taken as extending to any expenses incurred in respect of remuneration or allowances payable to any member of staff (whether permanent or otherwise) of the third party.”
COMMONS DISAGREEMENT AND REASON
The Commons disagree to Lords Amendment No 108 for the following reason—
108A: Because a third party’s expenditure on staff should not be excluded from the definition of “controlled expenditure” for the purposes of Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, third parties are by their very nature individuals or organisations who may undertake a main function, be it raising awareness of environmental issues, workers’ rights, animal rights or electoral reform, or who are set up for the purpose of campaigning in election. It is because third parties do not fight elections themselves, but seek to participate in them, often alongside another main function, that the regulatory regime for third parties relates to the activities they undertake. Where a third party’s activities,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate”,

this is regulated. The Electoral Commission guidance says that the full costs of any activity should be included, including expenditure on staff costs. This is to ensure that activities that seek to influence the votes of electors are transparent. This is a fundamental principle of our democracy.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, stated on Report:

“It is easy to assess the amount of money you are going to spend on hiring the hall for a public rally; you get an invoice for that. You do not get an invoice for a member of staff or the 10% of their time spent over four weeks doing that”.—[Official Report, 15/1/14; col. 279.]

That statement raises important issues which go to the heart of the Government's belief that as a matter of principle staff costs should be included within the calculation of controlled expenditure. However, we do agree with the noble and right reverend Lord that third parties should not have to account for every small or insignificant amount of staff time. The amendment that noble Lords passed on Report has as its heading, “Exclusions of background staff costs”. I understand and recognise that particular concern. Indeed, the conversation that I had with the noble and right reverend Lord made it very clear where his concerns were. There should not be an accounting for every small or insignificant amount of staff time.

Campaigners, as well as noble Lords in debates in this House, have raised concerns over how a third party would be able to calculate these costs. The Electoral Commission, in its guidance, outlines that third parties should provide an honest assessment. It is important to stress this because I think this is where some of the concern comes from. That does not mean that staff have to keep timesheets, for example, of five-minute breakdowns of how their time was spent, nor has the regime around staff costs operated on this basis for the past two general elections. Under PPERA, staff costs associated with election materials have had to be accounted for. Neither the legislation, nor the guidance from the Electoral Commission, has even suggested that that kind of detailed breakdown of how time is spent is required of third parties.

An honest assessment must be made and this should not be burdensome for third parties. I will use the example that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, used on Report. If a third party employee spends 10% of his or her time over a four-week period on election activity, and has an annual salary of £30,000, that is divided by the weeks in the year, which provides a figure of £577 a week. If we multiply that by four, we get a figure of £2,308, 10% of which is approximately £230.

There is nothing in PPERA, nor in this Bill, that suggests that every small or insignificant amount of staff time must be accounted for such as the few hours a member of staff otherwise not involved in the campaign spent proofreading a document, or directing attendees to an event. It must involve expenditure—whether because a person was employed for a specific task, or because the extent to which a person was diverted from their normal duties was sufficient to constitute some additional cost.

That leads me to my second point. The amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, appears to accept the principle of including staff costs; his amendment excludes the calculation of staff costs from certain activities—public rallies, organised media events and transport. However, third parties would still have to account for staff time where it formed part of the controlled expenditure for items such as election materials or canvassing.

I ask noble Lords to consider and reflect that if it is deemed reasonable and possible to calculate and include the cost of an in-house designer spending 10% of their time over a four-week period designing an election leaflet, why is it not reasonable and possible to calculate a communications officer spending 10% of their time over a four-week period organising press conferences or a public event? The answer is that it is not unreasonable, and it is not an overly burdensome requirement, to ask third parties to make such an honest assessment.

The final point I would like to highlight to noble Lords regards the statutory review period provided for by the Bill. The review will carry out a comprehensive assessment of the operation of the Bill as it operates during the 2015 general election. It will then make recommendations on how the regulatory regime for third parties may be improved. Surely we want the review to have available to it all the necessary information as to how the third party regulatory regime operates. While it is true to say that both the Electoral Commission and the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee in the House of Commons argue that staff costs should be excluded for the 2015 general election, they both support the principle of staff costs being included. In light of this, the Government would argue that we should include staff costs for all controlled expenditure activity and let the review look at the evidence of how this regime operates during the 2015 general election. We will then have the fullest evidence base on which we can make sensible judgments for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, this is about the exclusion of background staff costs from regulated expenditure. First, let me emphasise that campaigning groups fully support the idea of a wider range of activities being brought within the scope of regulation than were originally in PPERA. They fully support this in the interests of greater transparency. This range of activities is set out in proposed Schedule 8A of PPERA, which refers to material being made available to the public, such as leaflets, canvassing and market research, press conferences and media events, transport costs, rallies and public events. The amendment before us reads:

“Nothing in sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of paragraph 1 shall be taken as extending to any expenses incurred in respect of remuneration or allowances payable to any member of staff (whether permanent or otherwise) of the third party”.

The reference is only to sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) of the controlled activities referred to in Schedule 8A of PPERA—that is, to press conferences and media events, transport, rallies and public events. It would mean that background costs in relation to those events would not count as controlled expenditure. Let me stress that the cost of the events themselves would count—the cost of the hall, for example, or the cost of any canvassing, or the cost of transport or market research. What would not count would be the background costs, which are the occasional phone calls or e-mails in the course of a working day that might be connected with such events.

The Government gave no reason for their rejection of our original amendment, but just reiterated that all staff costs should be included. The amendment is not about the amount of money that could count towards controlled expenditure, it is about burdensome, unenforceable regulation. Indeed, the Electoral Commission has repeatedly emphasised that aspect and recommended that no staff costs should count towards controlled expenditure in 2015—after which, of course, the whole issue of controlled expenditure could be looked at again in the light of real experience rather than hypothetical threats.

The noble and learned Lord suggested that there had been no real problem in the previous two elections for campaigning groups or the Electoral Commission in trying to ascertain what those background staff costs were. I suggest that, in fact, people were not really aware of the regulations during the two previous elections; they have only just woken up to them. It is very dangerous to use the example of the two previous elections as a guide to what should happen at the next one.

The Government have indeed made some changes to the bad Bill that first came before this House, but these changes do not make the process of identifying and accounting for staff costs any easier. The Bill very significantly reduces total spending limits by 60% in England. Introducing a wide range of additional staff costs at the same time in effect makes the spending limits even tighter. That is not a problem for smaller charities or campaigning groups; they will not reach the registration threshold. We are grateful that the Government have raised the threshold so that they will not come into it.

However, in addition to those smaller groups there are the big groups, such as Hope not Hate, and coalitions of charities and campaigning groups, such as Stop Climate Chaos. They are very concerned about that aspect of the Bill. I remind the House that all that campaigning potentially comes within the scope of the Bill, even if it is not particularly directed towards any particular party or candidate, because of the subsections to Clause 26 which provide that you do not have to mention the name of the party and it does not have to be your first intention, but you can still be reasonably interpreted as being biased towards one party or another. Any campaigning by those big organisations becomes problematical under the Bill.

The Government recently announced proudly that they were doing away with about 800 regulations for small businesses, but here they are imposing a huge regulatory burden on campaigning groups, groups which are now so fundamental to the effective working of our democratic process. Do the Government seriously expect charities and other groups campaigning now to log every phone call and e-mail concerned with organising a particular public event separately from all other calls and e-mails and then try to calculate what they cost?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and right reverend Lord asks whether the Government mean for every phone call to be logged. When I was moving the Motion, I said that we do not expect a five-minute timesheet to be ticked off. That is not what is anticipated—nor, indeed, what has happened among the number of organisations which indeed registered in 2005 and 2010.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

What is the purpose of insisting on the inclusion of such costs? This is not about taking big money out of politics. It risks placing motivated, altruistic organisations in a position where they can either campaign freely for what they believe in, provided that they deal with all this red tape, or go quiet. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, may not like the word “gagging”, but if people choose not to criticise a policy because they are worried about the red tape, that sounds like a gag to me. I think this House would be well advised to send this amendment back down the corridor and say that it is unnecessary, unworkable and does nothing about transparency.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, once again, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to this debate, which has raised a number of important issues, some of which we have been over many times during our exchanges on this Bill.

I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for his amendment, which refers to “background staff costs”. If he had managed to find the elixir or the magic potion that defined background staff costs, he might well have found that we were much more amenable to accepting his amendment. Unfortunately, his amendment does not do what it says on the tin, because it would allow substantial staff costs to be excluded, not just background ones. For example, it could be that a campaigning organisation decides to employ someone for the regulated period to run rallies or press conferences. That would be their specific job, and if it fell within the definition of controlled expenditure under the amendment as it stands, it would not be caught. I do not think that is simply background staff costs.

There is not much difference between us. As we have indicated, we are not looking to have five-minute breakdowns of how time is spent. That is not what is intended. Let us go back to the origins of this. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said it is the issue that perhaps came up more than any other in all the discussions—possibly coalitions was a close second or perhaps just slightly ahead. From meetings which I attended with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who attended a lot more than I did, I am certainly aware that the issue of staff costs came up.

It is worth reminding ourselves that, when we were conducting these discussions, the difficulties that many of these organisations expressed were about the extension of staff costs into areas such as press, media and transport costs, given that the threshold originally proposed was £5,000 in England and £2,000 in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. There was genuine concern, not least among charities, that inadvertently some of the work they were doing could take them over the threshold. The Government recognised that. For those issues of canvassing and election material and so on, staff costs will now need to be accounted for, but that will be against a background of a £20,000 threshold in England and a £10,000 threshold in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Horam pertinently pointed out, we are also now looking at a regulated period of just over seven and a half months, rather than just under 12 months as was originally proposed in the Bill.

We did listen to charities and other organisations. About the biggest thing we have done is to raise these thresholds. If you are spending £20,000 to campaign on an issue that falls within the definition of controlled expenditure, I honestly do not believe that it is something that you inadvertently slide into. It must require quite serious thought to do that. That is the reassurance I would give to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, who expressed the views of the charities.

We had a debate on charities, and I am not going to go over all that ground again, but I think it was clear from that debate that it is thought that on only a very narrow band of activity could charities be subject to both Electoral Commission regulation and Charity Commission regulation. Indeed, most charities would not want to take up a position. Historically, they have not taken on positions where they would have been seen to be partial to a particular party or candidate. It is important that we put that in context.

The other thing that I want to put in context is that, in fact, there is nothing in this Bill that relates specifically to staff costs. What we have done is to use the architecture of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, brought forward by the party opposite when it was in government, and that architecture applies to the additional range of activities. One cannot say that the whole idea of staff costs is new; it is not. When the party opposite was in government, it brought in a regime in which third parties had to account for their costs and expenditure, including staff costs in regard to election materials. The noble Baroness is shaking her head, but there is nothing more in terms of the definition of staff costs in this Bill than that. I accept that this extends to media events, press events, rallies and transport. However, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, the Electoral Commission would like to see all of these included for political parties.

It is a matter of judgment as to whether this should be done for the 2015 election. I argued earlier that, given there will be a review, it might be better to have a review based on some experience. However, the experience that we have had with the approach adopted by the Electoral Commission in two elections is that it appears not to have caused problems. It is the case that some 30 organisations were recognised third parties at the 2010 general election and those that incurred expenditure included their staff costs in their spending returns. We were not aware of any difficulties in calculating these costs. Hope not Hate, which was referred to in the debate, was one of these registered organisations. It is worth while to get some context: of these 30 organisations, only two were charities. As I have said already, we have also raised the threshold quite significantly.

My noble friend Lady Williams asked about volunteers. As I indicated, volunteers are excluded in the current legislation and I am advised that personal expenses are also. I hope that gives her reassurance.

We share a common objective in not wishing to have the additional burden of more administration, and we believe that the Electoral Commission has an important role there. It has done so until now, using the approach in its guidance of “an honest assessment”. While that is our common objective, I think that the difference between us is that the amendment which I, on behalf of the Commons, am seeking to reject is one that does not just deal with background staff but would drive a coach and horses through the whole idea of including staff costs. For example, in the case of a third party being able to employ someone to run a whole series of rallies over the regulatory period of seven and a half months, that would fall within the definition of controlled expenditure. That goes far further than what would simply be described as background staff costs.

I therefore urge the noble and right reverend Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble and learned Lord and the other speakers who have spoken in this short debate. I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, that he is more sympathetic to this amendment than he was to our previous one. I hold out hope that perhaps those who were convinced by the Government’s answer to the last amendment —that what we wanted was already in the Bill or could be dealt with by regulation—might be more sympathetic to what we are saying in this one, because this one matters very much to charities and campaigning groups.

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, pointed out that the Electoral Commission is very keen for the staff costs of political parties also to be taken into account. However, it is also true that it is very resistant to that because of this very issue of complexity. I am not aware that the Electoral Commission has rescinded its original advice, despite the shorter regulation period, that for the 2015 election staff costs for third-party campaigners should not be taken into account.

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

1: Clause 26, page 13, line 45, leave out from “that” to “on” in line 46 and insert “the offence would not have been committed”

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, the Government signalled during Report that they would bring forward a number of technical, clarificatory amendments for Third Reading. Amendments 1 and 17 are such technical drafting points. These amendments relate to Amendment 38 debated on Report, which adjusts the code of practice defence for third parties. As I indicated on Report, there were two points of detail we wished to put right. The defence should also apply to a situation where expenditure may have been incurred on behalf of the third party. It should also apply for a charge in relation to a targeted expenditure offence. These amendments do just that.

This group of amendments also includes amendments relating to the use of Welsh translation and the Welsh language. I am not sure whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, is present, but I will leave it to him and the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, to speak to those amendments. I should just put on record that we are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord and to the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elystan-Morgan, for their constructive engagement on this. I think that we have arrived at a satisfactory outcome. I beg to move.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I apologise that I arrived in the Chamber slightly late due to the crush of noble Lords seeking to leave it. I thank the Minister for the movement that he has made on the interpretation of the amendment that was put down by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. Clearly, the Minister’s intention—and our intention with our amendments put forward earlier—was to ensure that not only the literal translation costs but also the costs of implementing that translation were allowable; otherwise, it would not be meaningful. The Minister has now accepted that principle, for which we are very grateful. It will be welcome in Wales.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I should explain for the benefit of your Lordships’ House that it is the Government’s intention to accept Amendment 25 —when we come to it—in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, which meets the points that the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, was talking about.

Amendment 1 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

2: Clause 27, page 15, line 12, leave out “section 94A(5)” and insert “section ”
94B(3)

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

8: Clause 28, page 16, leave out lines 24 to 32 and insert—
““(a) either—(i) during a regulated period, any controlled expenditure is incurred in a part of the United Kingdom by or on behalf of a third party in excess of the limit for that part of the United Kingdom mentioned in subsection (5), or (ii) during a regulated period in relation to which any limit is imposed by paragraph 3, 9, 10 or 11 of Schedule 10 (periods involving parliamentary general elections), 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),”.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I recognise the strength of feeling with which my noble friend Lord Tyler moved his amendment; indeed, it is one to which he has spoken in the past, and one which he, I and—at some stage—my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire have discussed. We debated this issue last week when the Government tabled, and the House accepted, amendments which raised the third-party registration thresholds to £20,000 for England and £10,000 for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

An amendment providing for a new “third” registration threshold of £9,750 was also tabled and accepted. If that was not made clear, I apologise. The point has been picked up by the Electoral Commission. Perhaps I may give some clarity. This third threshold has been introduced to provide alignment with the constituency limits. It ensures that a third party, whether or not it is already registered with the Electoral Commission, will have committed an offence if it spends more than £9,750 in a constituency. In other words, if a third party is already registered, it will be subject to the constituency limit, exceeding which will be an offence. If it is not registered and exceeds the constituency registration threshold, it will also have committed an offence.

I hope noble Lords will recognise that this third registration threshold has not been introduced with the same purpose in mind as that which applies to the other registration thresholds. It has not been introduced to bring third parties into the regulatory regime. Instead, its principal purpose is to ensure that the offence of exceeding the constituency limit operates as intended. For this reason, the Government do not believe that there is a need for a registration threshold lower than the constituency limit.

I hear what my noble friend says about the need for clarity, and I hope that these words have brought greater clarity. I can also tell your Lordships that the Electoral Commission will make very clear in its guidance the operation of the various registration thresholds so that campaigners are left in no doubt about their responsibilities. I hope that the fears which my noble friend expressed on Report, that it would not be possible to keep account of what a third party was spending in a constituency, are resolved by this.

Moreover, the Government have spent a significant amount of time listening to the concerns of campaigners. Perhaps I should address my noble friend’s suggestion of a £5,000 limit. He said that £9,750 is a significant amount. We took seriously the representations made by campaigners, organisations, the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and other Members of your Lordships’ House. One of the largest criticisms the Bill received, which was made abundantly clear to us, related to the registration thresholds. They were originally set at £5,000 and £2,000 in the Bill but the Government tabled an amendment last week to raise these to £20,000 and £10,000. This major concession was made with the intention of reassuring campaigners that the Bill would not seek to promote the principle of transparency by imposing onerous and unnecessary burdens on third parties. It was a direct response to the debates in and outside this House and I thank again all those who contributed to them. The increased thresholds mean that small campaigners need not worry that they will be unduly burdened by the Bill’s reporting requirements. The thresholds have been set at a level such that those campaigners who spend only small amounts of money will effectively be excluded from the regime.

I totally accept that this is a judgment call. I hear what my noble friend says about spending up to £9,750 but I also think it was my noble friend himself who made the point in our first Committee sitting that greater transparency goes hand in hand with a greater administrative burden and regulation. We have sought to try to strike the right balance. With regard to constituency spending, we believed that the lower threshold of £5,000 could risk capturing exactly those small local campaigners who have been so clear regarding their concerns about the impact that the Bill would have on them. It was not our intention to do so, and we certainly do not want to unpick some of the important work—

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, made clear in his contribution that the Electoral Commission was concerned about the lack of clarity. The noble and learned Lord is not answering that point. Is the commission simply to be ignored?

[Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD)]

Perhaps I may add to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The amendment of my noble friend Lord Tyler very much simplifies the administration. It sets a clear limit—rather clearer than the percentages in the original Bill. Given that, given the real problem about bureaucracy and fights with transparency in the Bill, and given that all of us appreciate the major changes made already, would the Minister not consider the advantages of both clarity and transparency in accepting this amendment?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

The Minister reminded me of the review that will take place on the workings of the Act. If this consensus does not work—I hope that it will—it may be necessary to take a further look at the matter.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

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

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

10: Clause 29, page 17, line 36, leave out “that Schedule” and insert “Schedule 10”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for this amendment and for the opportunity to discuss these issues on constituency limits. It is an issue that has featured in discussions not only today but at previous stages of the Bill’s passage. It is appropriate that we give consideration to this, which members of the commission might see as the outstanding item still to be addressed. The amendments are very similar to those tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler on Report. My noble friend’s amendment, which we discussed last week, sought to narrow the range of activities which would be considered controlled expenditure for the purposes of constituency limits. Although I made no commitment on the part of the Government to returning to this at Third Reading, I indicated at the close of the debates on Report that we would ensure that officials raised these matters with the Electoral Commission.

I understand the point about simplicity. We have sought in many respects to reduce the administrative burden, but it was clear from the discussions that took place subsequently with the Electoral Commission that there was no technical fix. My noble friend Lord Tyler was almost asking me the same again at the end of his contribution to the debate on this amendment. There was not a technical fix but there might be a policy fix. It is a policy fix that is inherent in the amendment of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, which would remove some categories of expenditure from being counted towards the constituency limit. For reasons that I will explain, the Government are unable to accept that there should be that policy switch.

First, I acknowledge that, in moving the amendment, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, accepted the principle of constituency limits and sought to address one of the points of concern I had raised with regard to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tyler. He also sought to address the practical issues raised by the Electoral Commission. In the context of trying to relieve some of the administrative burden—going back to the earlier debate, just to remind your Lordships’ House—it is also important that the original proposals had a limit for the constituency spending and a smaller limit for the post-Dissolution period. There was a much smaller limit for campaigning activity that could be spent between the date of the Dissolution of Parliament and the election. We have taken away that interim threshold, again in an effort to help smaller organisations which may be campaigning in one constituency.

We believe that these amendments would require that any expenditure on election material addressed or delivered to households, and any unsolicited telephone calls made with a view to ascertaining households’ voting intentions, would be attributed to a particular constituency or constituencies for the purposes of the limits. The noble and right reverend Lord’s intention appears to be that only expenditure on such activities should count towards constituency limits. He goes further than my noble friend Lord Tyler did last week to suggest considering the costs associated with the distribution of materials otherwise in a constituency—which was the example I gave. I fully accept the example that I gave of activity in a shopping centre, which clearly would relate to the one activity.

I was somewhat bemused by the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, when she complained that there was a loophole. It appears to me that if you take away other activities which have to contribute towards controlled expenditure, the loophole gets bigger. She indicated that it could be a loophole to have a rally just over the constituency boundary. First, whether a rally against a hospital closure that promotes the electoral success of one particular candidate counts towards a constituency limit depends on whether it has a significant effect in that constituency. Albeit that it takes place over the boundary in a neighbouring constituency, it could still have a significant effect in the first constituency and would therefore come within it. Of course, the loophole that would be created by this amendment would be the rally in the constituency itself—over the boundary it would not count at all. I believe that is a criticism: there are activities that would not therefore come within the definition of “controlled expenditure”.

Constituency limits for third parties mean that they cannot outspend and overwhelm candidates and political parties, who after all are the main actors in an election. The noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, made an important point, reminding us that elections are about the names of candidates on the ballot paper. It is not right that a candidate or a party campaigning in a constituency could be targeted by a third party with greater means and a greater spending limit at its disposal.

Taking into account both the long and short campaigning period limits, the most a candidate at the last parliamentary general election could have spent was £55,000; that is for the entire period. I may have misunderstood what the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, but I thought she said at one point that parties could spend without limit. That is not the case. There is a limit on political parties. Indeed, in the course of the election period—the short campaign from the Dissolution of Parliament—it is roughly £12,000 to £13,000, depending on the number of electors, a figure that was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Cormack in one of our earlier debates.

However, a third party could choose to spend the entirety of its current spending limit in one small area, campaigning against that and other candidates or the parties they represent. That could be very substantial if one allows a range of activities not to be in any way brought into controlled expenditure. We have previously heard concerns that third parties, although an important part of the democratic process, can also be so closely aligned to a political party as to be effectively campaigning to promote that party. It is right that we take account of that. That is why the Bill introduces a number of provisions to give greater transparency to the activities and expenditure of third parties. The limits on constituency spending are a key element of the entire package in the Bill. The controlled expenditure incurred on the entire range of activities, not just those few proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, should be attributable to constituency limits.

Third parties are not merely in the business of distributing leaflets. They arrange and hold events, rallies and press conferences. They bus campaigners from area to area, delivering large groups of people to distribute those leaflets, or to take part in rallies or other events. Not to include these activities would mean that third parties could still continue to hold local media events on a weekly, or even daily, basis in the run-up to an election without any of that expenditure being brought within controlled limits. It would mean a third party could hold a rally on the eve of an election, secure in the knowledge that it need not account for the cost other than on a nationwide basis. It would mean that a third party could bus hundreds of campaigners into marginal constituencies and overwhelm the work of the candidates in that constituency.

These are all significant activities, and it is right that third parties should be required to account for them on a constituency basis. Narrowing the scope of constituency limits would address only half the problem. On that basis, recognising that in an election the actors are the candidates themselves, it was unfair, particularly in the period from the Dissolution of Parliament until the election, that they were limited to a relatively small sum of money—£12,000 or £13,000—while if you got two third-party groups in the same constituency, they could spend up to £19,750. We do not think that it is reasonable that a loophole should be created.

[Lord Cormack]

I would be most grateful if the Minister would reflect on one suggestion. I think that he would agree with me that Clause 29 is not the easiest of clauses to understand, particularly for those who are not familiar with legislative language. Would the Minister be prepared to have a conference with the Electoral Commission to try to draw up some mutually agreed guidelines to, and interpretation of, this new law? It is very important, and that would be extremely helpful—particularly bearing in mind that we have this ridiculous businesses of the Bill being in another place tomorrow. I cannot see the reason for that; maybe the Minister could comment on it.

[Lord Low of Dalston (CB)]

Before the Minister finishes his speech, may I, too, ask him a question, to which I would be grateful for a response? All the examples that he has cited seem to be hypothetical. What examples does he have of the kind of conduct that he is railing against actually taking place? Where is the mischief that he seeks to legislate against?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it was probably at one of the consultation meetings that my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire held when we were discussing these matters that we heard about one substantial organisation that spent a considerable amount of money at the last election—and, indeed, registered the fact that it had done so. It was made clear that one of its activities was to focus on individual constituencies. I do not criticise that organisation for doing that, but if people are going to do such things, there should be proper limits so that there is proper transparency.

With regard to the point made by my noble friend Lord Cormack, whether I speak personally or on behalf of Ministers and officials, I think that a conference with the Electoral Commission to ensure clarity of guidance on the constituency limits could be very worth while. I say “guidance” because interpretation is, ultimately, a matter for the courts, not the commission. I am not even sure—I am making this up as I go along—whether it should be restricted to Ministers, or whether it might also include the Opposition and other parties, and representatives of campaigning groups. Some sort of round table discussion might be very helpful before the final guidance is produced by the Electoral Commission. On the basis of what I have said, I again invite the noble and right reverend Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

Before I focus on what the Minister has said about the amendment, may I thank him, and the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, for responding on a whole range of issues to the concerns that have been expressed in this House? The Government really have moved a significant way; there is no doubt about that. But I think we are all aware that the Bill as it came to us in the first place was an appalling piece of legislation. A parliamentarian of very many years’ experience said to me that it was the worst piece of legislation that they had ever seen in a long parliamentary career. “Not quite”, I am hearing, so there must be some other cases as bad.

Again, the value of this House has been shown, as has the willingness of Ministers in this House to listen, so I genuinely thank them. I also thank noble Lords on all sides of the House who have supported some of the amendments tabled in my name and in the names of others. Not least, I thank members of the Electoral Commission, whose expertise I have had the privilege to share. The people there have worked extraordinarily hard. When I look at my e-mails in the morning I find that, night after night, they were sent off in the small hours of the morning; that gives you some indication of how hard they have worked.

Focusing on the amendment, I am disappointed that the Government have not been able to respond more positively. We made a genuine attempt to meet the point that they made about distributing leaflets, and the need to define very carefully what was or was not meant by a constituency in which there was an attempt to affect people’s voting intentions. Rallies have just been mentioned, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, said, if people want to get round restrictions on rallies they could easily do so by having a rally just outside a constituency where there is a narrow majority. There are all sorts of ways round, even as the Bill now stands.

My final point is about the Electoral Commission. I reiterate that it supported the amendment that has been moved today in my name and in the names of others. It said that there were still some difficulties with monitoring, but those would be nothing like the difficulties that it will have if the Bill goes through with the provisions on constituency limits unchanged. That will be extremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Electoral Commission. It is slightly surprising that the Government have not listened more carefully to what it has said. I think that the strength of feeling in the House on this issue is such that I ought to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

13: Clause 30, page 21, line 1, leave out from “parties)” to “(as” in line 2 and insert—
“(a) in subsection (6), after “the purposes of this section” insert “, sections 94D to 94H”;(b) in subsections (8) and (10), after “sections 94A and 94B””

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

18: Clause 34, page 33, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
““(1) Subsection (1A) applies where—
(a) during a regulated period, any controlled expenditure is incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and(b) the incurring of that expenditure would, if the third party had not been recognised, have been an offence under section 94(4) (whether because it was incurred in excess of a limit mentioned in section 94(5) or 94(5ZA)).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

19: Clause 35, page 33, line 25, at end insert—
“( ) In sections 90(3) and 94(8), (10) and (11), for “99” substitute “99A”.”

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting the amendment. I do not know whether he can give any kind of indication, or feels that he would like to at this stage, about the groups or constituencies of people who would be consulted as part of the review. Perhaps he is not yet in a position to do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not want to pre-empt the person who is appointed to undertake the review or in any way constrain what he or she will do. It might be an opportunity to reiterate something, not just in the context of the review, but on the point made in the previous debate by my noble friend Lord Cormack. I accepted the point that he made on the constituency issues: there might be merit in having groups—not just parties, but campaigning groups—involved in any guidance that emerges from the Electoral Commission. I readily expect that any review would involve submissions from the political parties that have been involved in the election, from charities, non-charitable campaigning groups, and people who have something relevant to contribute. As I said yesterday, we can always bet our lives that some issue will emerge that none of us has thought about, in spite of our very exhaustive discussions and debates. That is why it is important not to be prescriptive.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Government for their willingness to accept the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

23: Clause 46, page 52, leave out lines 24 to 31

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

24: After Clause 46, insert the following new Clause—
“Power to make consequential provision
(1) The Minister may by order made by statutory instrument make provision consequential on any provision of Part 2 or section .
(2) An order under this section—
(a) may include provision amending or modifying any provision of or made under PPERA 2000 (including any provision inserted by this Act),(b) may include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision, and(c) may make different provision for different purposes or cases or for different areas.(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section that amends or modifies any provision of PPERA 2000 may not be made unless a draft of the instrument containing it has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(4) Any other statutory instrument containing an order under this section is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(5) No order may be made under this section after the date of the poll for the first relevant parliamentary general election.
(6) In this section—
“the first relevant parliamentary general election” has the same meaning as in section ;
“the Minister” means the Secretary of State or the Lord President of the Council;
“PPERA 2000” means the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 24 introduces a power to make any provision consequential on Part 2 by order. At the outset, I wish to reassure noble Lords that the power is narrow in scope and will only allow the Government to make consequential amendments—it would not allow the Government to amend the fundamental principles and provisions included within Part 2. Any changes to the primary legislation would be subject to the affirmative resolution process.

The power is also time-limited, so that it could only be used until the date of the next general election. I emphasise that I hope this power will not be needed, but I consider it prudent to insert it into the Bill. Indeed, Amendment 7, which has already been agreed to by your Lordships today, was a starred amendment on the Marshalled List because it came up even since the Government tabled our amendments on Friday. We believe that we have introduced a number of amendments of significant benefit to campaigners and we would not wish to risk them becoming ineffective for any technical reason.

The Electoral Commission says it is important that Ministers should consult it, at least informally, before using the power. We agree that it is important to consult the Electoral Commission. I assure the House that we will consult it before making an order under this power, and the commission has agreed with that approach. Should the commission make a recommendation to use this power, we will consider it extremely carefully, but the circumstances in which we anticipate the need for this power would be to deal with any minor or technical drafting changes that are identified to ensure that the legislation is effective. They may be identified by the Electoral Commission or by officials or lawyers in government, and it would be counterproductive to suggest that only a commission recommendation could justify the use of this consequential provision. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is almost inevitable that concerns are expressed when an amendment of this nature comes forward. That is a quite proper function of the House, and the Government should be made to justify putting forward such an amendment.

First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, that the proposed clause has nothing whatever to do with the fact that there will be Commons consideration of Lords amendments tomorrow. The concern is that because the agreement on the provisions relating to coalitions came so late in the day, we want to be certain that we can deliver the policy which we reassured the campaign groups that we would deliver, and that if things emerge at a later stage, not necessarily in the next 24 hours, there will be an ability to do so. I am reassured by the comments of my noble friend Lady Thomas that, as clauses of this nature go, this one is limited and consequential. Indeed, it has a sunset clause and I also welcome the fact that this was noted by my noble friend Lord Tyler.

My noble friend Lord Horam raised the Electoral Commission’s remit, which is being amended by Clause 38. The Government believe it is appropriate to emphasise the importance of the commission’s regulatory role and to remove any potential understanding of its responsibilities. Clause 38 requires the commission to,

“take all reasonable steps to secure”,

campaigners’ compliance with campaigning rules. The Bill further provides for transparency of the commission’s work by introducing a new requirement for it to set out in its annual report what steps it has taken to secure compliance with the relevant provisions of PPERA. By requiring an account of its activities, the Government are seeking to make clear that the commission’s work is vital and that its regulatory approach is being empowered by the Bill.

The point was made by my noble friend Lord Horam, and I have heard it mooted in other quarters, too, that every small, malicious or vexatious complaint or query would have to be investigated. We do not agree, as the provision in Clause 38 imposing a duty on the Commission to investigate complaints does not mean that the commission would have to investigate complaints that it knows to be unfounded, malicious or vexatious. However, I believe that any change to the Electoral Commission’s remit could and should form part of the review of Part VI of PPERA, to which your Lordships have already agreed and which was the subject of further discussion earlier today.

In relation to the Electoral Commission, perhaps I might also reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, of what I said in moving this amendment. We agree that it is important to consult the Electoral Commission before any use of the powers in Amendment 24. I assure the House that that is indeed what we would do before making an order under this power. My noble friend Lord Horam suggested that the power in this amendment might be used with regard to any changes in the Electoral Commission’s remit. In disappointing him, perhaps I might reassure the rest of your Lordships that we think it unlikely that any changes to the commission’s remit could be considered as consequential provisions under this power, and therefore would not be within its scope. However, it would be appropriate if the review we discussed were to look at the remit of the Electoral Commission.

Finally, I take this opportunity on this last amendment to say thanks to many people but particularly to your Lordships’ House for the scrutiny which the Bill has had here. I can say without doubt that the Bill returns to the House of Commons much improved, and in doing so we have shown evidence of the value and merit of the revising role that this House undertakes, which it does with great seriousness.

I acknowledge with thanks the kind words that have been said about my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire and me. In turn, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, for their excellent work on the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. They have made a valuable contribution to the work that we have done in this House. Along with them and other members of the commission, I thank the many organisations which have engaged with us and them: third-parties and campaigning groups, charities and non-charities, all of which have made an important contribution. We have not necessarily always agreed, but they have contributed to making the Bill better.

I also thank those who have contributed in other ways through amendments and speeches: the noble and learned Lords, Lord Morris of Aberavon and Lord Hardie, my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lord Horam, Lord Tyler and Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who have at times contributed to our debates. Although there are many people in your Lordships’ House who have had experience as Members of Parliament, the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn, brought a welcome reminder in his contributions that these are practical provisions which affect people who actually fight elections.

I also thank my noble friends on the ministerial Bench, Lord Wallace, Lord Gardiner of Kimball and Lord Younger of Leckie. I also acknowledge the tribute paid by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, to the officials—some in the Box and some not. On their behalf—because, obviously, they cannot speak—I express appreciation of that and add mine. They have worked with considerable equanimity and good humour. At least one of them attended almost every meeting which we have had with groups and they have assisted my colleagues on the ministerial team greatly. I certainly very much value the work that they have done and the very long hours, including over Christmas and New Year—one sometimes noticed the times and dates when e-mails were sent. I express appreciation for that.

Having said that, I very much hope that your Lordships will agree to the amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I gave a range of thanks before and I shall not repeat them, but there is one group of people who have not been mentioned and thanked. For a person who is not a very experienced parliamentarian, such as me, those people been particularly helpful. They are the staff of the Public Bill Office. They have been very helpful in guiding me on what might be allowable and possible. I express my thanks on behalf of others to them.

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, first, I thank those who have contributed to this debate, in particular those who have welcomed the government amendments. We certainly sought to listen and take on board comments from a wide range of those engaged in campaigning. I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who met far more groups than I did. These meetings and deliberations, and indeed the contributions made in Committee in your Lordships’ House, have very much informed the proposals that we have come forward with today. Again, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, and the other members of the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement for their contribution to this debate.

The purpose of Schedule 3 is to extend the range of activities for which a third party incurs controlled expenditure. It takes forward a recommendation from the independent Electoral Commission to align the range of activities for which third parties incur controlled expenditure with that for political parties. The Electoral Commission has highlighted that there is no clear reason why controlled expenditure for third parties applies only to election material. This difference means that a potential gap arises in the rules governing elections in our country.

The Government and the Electoral Commission believe it is important that this potential gap in the regulatory regime is addressed. However, the Government also acknowledge some important issues that have been raised, not only by noble Lords but a number of campaigning groups. As such, we have tabled a number of amendments to Clause 26 and Schedule 3. I will take the opportunity to explain what they do.

Currently, the regime under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 outlines specific activities that do not incur controlled expenditure. These include volunteers, publications which are not advertisements in newspapers, broadcasts on certain channels such as the BBC or S4C, and certain reasonable personal expenses. Government Amendment 37 removes these exclusions from Section 87 of PPERA and Amendment 44 inserts them into new Schedule 8A and expands the types of expenses that are excluded from incurring controlled expenditure.

The full range of exclusions that the Government have brought forward includes amendments to expenses in respect of the translation of materials from English to Welsh or Welsh to English. I shall say something about the important points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, and the noble Lords, Lord Wigley and Lord Elystan-Morgan. At present, controlled expenditure is incurred on the production and publication of election materials, such as leaflets. The Bill retains this, but costs associated with translating these materials from English to Welsh or vice versa will be excluded. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, said he hoped that this was an oversight and that it was not there in the first place. If there was an oversight, and I think there probably was, it was probably also an oversight in the 2000 Act, because election materials are covered by the provisions in that Act. I hope, albeit belatedly, that there is considerable cross-party and non-party consensus that it is something we should be doing.

The Government believe that this highlights the importance of the Welsh Language Act 1993, which treats the Welsh and English languages as equal. It follows the practice of producing election material and ballot papers in Welsh. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for raising this issue in Committee. He asked about production costs. When we are giving something it is easy to say that it is not as much as you thought we were giving, but we believe that extending the exemption further than the cost of translation would go too far. It would allow campaigns to print different material for different addresses without being regulated. For example, if a campaigner prints 100 leaflets in English, he can then print 100 leaflets in Welsh for an entirely different purpose. Therefore, we thought it important that this amendment should relate to the cost of translation, rather than the production of material.

Indeed, that is what we thought was intended by the noble and learned Lord’s amendment, when it says that production,

“shall not include costs incurred by the translation of those materials from English into Welsh or from Welsh into English”.

Indeed, the Government’s amendment refers to,

“expenses incurred in respect of the translation of anything from English into Welsh or from Welsh into English”,

which may even go further—there may be expenses other than translation expenses. I want to make it clear that we think, having considered this, that to relate it to the publication costs—to the printing of the leaflets—goes further than is needed to address the important point about Welsh translation.

[Lord Wigley]

Surely the Minister accepts that if an organisation—say, the NSPCC—requires a leaflet to be put out in England and in Wales, in England it might be in other languages but it need be only in English to meet the law. In Wales, it would be in Welsh bilingually with English. Sometimes that can mean double the size of the leaflet. Sometimes it might be constrained to six instead of eight pages in the way that bilingualism can be laid out, but the cost of producing something in a bilingual format for the customers is significant because of the print and the paper, not just the time taken to translate a leaflet. That is relative peanuts in the operation. If the Minister is excluding the other parts, there is a very serious implication.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I have thought of a question while the Minister has been speaking, which is not in any way diversionary. It ties in with the comments made earlier about what would happen if, in this period of a year, a Government sought quite deliberately to save legislation. The Minister answered the point about legislation in Parliament, but there are highly controversial matters outside Parliament; people do newspaper adverts and all kinds of things. I have been thinking about this question, having gone through paperwork recently. When we get close to an election, the Cabinet Secretary and the head of the Civil Service will issue an edict around Government to Ministers and departments about what you can do and what you cannot do in that period. Is that going to change now that we have a fixed-term Parliament, with this window and this picture of a much larger window?

This is not purdah, but an extended period in which other people are constrained about what they can say and do. Will the advice that normally comes out close to an election from the Civil Service to Ministers actually change and take account of what is being done in this legislation?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I always know it to be dangerous when the noble Lord stands up and says he has been thinking about something—and so it was.

I took the fixed-term Parliament legislation through your Lordships’ House and I do not recall—nor, indeed, have I seen at the present time—anything that suggests there is going to be any change. Of course, that means that there still will be a period during which Governments are not allowed to do this; but I have not seen any proposal to reflect the fact that there is a fixed-term Parliament. When that period will arise will become more apparent, or more foreseeable. If I have got that wrong, although I do not think I have, I will inform the noble Lord.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank all noble Lords who spoke in favour of my amendments and the other amendments to which my name has been attached and I thank the Minister for his response.

The noble Lord, Lord Horam, drew attention to some of the unfortunate consequences, as he understands it, of this legislation at constituency level. However, what I had in mind was primarily what happens at the national level. He suggested that political parties would be limited in what they can campaign; but the Government, in pursuing their legislation, are not limited in the amount of money they can spend in order to get legislation through Parliament, and nor are the Opposition.

Suppose you have two third parties: one, the Countryside Alliance, which wants to campaign against a new town, and the other the National Housing Federation, which wants to campaign in favour of more housing. Why should they be inhibited by the Bill in a way that the political parties would not be inhibited? As the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, pointed out, we are not talking about the post-Dissolution period, so a lot of the ill effects that the noble Lord suggested might happen at constituency level would not be allowed by this amendment, because we are talking about only legislation going through Parliament and that ends when Parliament is prorogued. Therefore I believe that this is a crucial issue that goes to the heart of our democracy.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and right reverend Lord indicated, when referring to what my noble friend Lord Horam had said, that it had not been his intention to engage in constituency expenditure. Does he accept that if this is not controlled expenditure, it could lead to expenditure in a constituency up until the time when the Representation of the People Act kicks in?

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I accept that there are certainly implications for what might happen at local level. However, I ask the noble and learned Lord to continue to think about it because this issue goes to the very heart of the democratic process. I very much hope that, having talked to the Electoral Commission to see whether there might be a way forward, he might give the very clearest statement at Third Reading, which would then be translated into advice for the Electoral Commission. We need something here to safeguard the fundamental rights of campaigners to campaign during this period. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Phillips for raising the important issue of charities and seeking to exclude them from the regulatory regime governed by controlled expenditure for third parties. In Committee, we had a useful debate during which I indicated that some very important points had been made and undertook to give consideration to them. To those who ask the Government to take this issue away and to think about it, I say to your Lordships’ House that we have given this very serious thought. I probably spent more of my time on it than I had necessarily expected over Christmas and the new year in Orkney. I will not overegg it but I think my wife thought that it probably was more than was healthy.

With other Ministers, the Government have seriously thought about this matter and looked into it. Under present charity law, charities are organisations which must be established for charitable purposes only which are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political. Campaigning and political activity are legitimate and valuable activities for charities to undertake. However, this must be undertaken by a charity only in the context of supporting the delivery of its charitable purposes.

The Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission produce guidance for charities on campaigning and political activity. Both regulators acknowledge that there may be a narrow range of circumstances—noble Lords who took part in Committee will remember that the word given to me by officials was “sliver”, which I did not particularly like but was meant to show that it was a very narrow range of activities—in which charities may be compliant with charity law and also operate within the regulatory regime established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. I listened carefully to the speech of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. The Charity Commission guidance updated in January 2011 on charities, elections and referendum states:

“A charity may publish the views of candidates in local and national elections where these views relate to the charity’s purposes and publishing them will raise public interest and debate about the underlying issues. The charity must not encourage support for any particular parties or candidates”.

It goes on to say that “even if” a charity is,

“following the guidelines set out in this document and in Speaking Out: Guidance on campaigning and political activities by charities (CC9), if you use material that could be seen as indicating to the public that particular candidates or parties support or oppose your policies, it is possible that you may need to register as a third party with the Electoral Commission”.

Indeed, that has been the position following PPERA 2000. My understanding is that two charities registered in 2010 .

I admit that the circumstances may be very narrow but the important point to remember is that we are using an objective test. It is not a subjective intention of the charities: it is how a reasonable person might perceive what the charities have done. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, pointed out, Clause 26(4)(c) states that,

“a course of conduct may constitute the doing of one of those things even though it does not involve any express mention being made of the name of any party or candidate”.

Applying that consideration and the objective test is the considered view of the Electoral Commission and the Charities Commission that there could be circumstances in which PPERA should apply.

[Lord Low of Dalston]

I am sorry to intervene on the noble and learned Lord, but does he not agree that the test is only partly objective because the test is not what a reasonable person would make of what the charity has done but what a reasonable person would make of the charity’s intention?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I can do no better than remind your Lordships of Clause 26, which states that,

“the expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success at any relevant election for—”.

The point is that there is a distinction between an objective and a subjective test. It may be that if the charity was complying it was not intending, but if objectively it was thought to have done so it would fall into that narrow range of activity. The important point was made by the commission chaired by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries; namely, that it is the activity that is important rather than who is undertaking the activity.

I know that the House wants to move on, but the e-mail issued yesterday evening by Mr Rowley has been referred to by a number of noble Lords. He says:

“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. Indeed, during the last General Election a small number of charities did register with the Electoral Commission. Due to the increased awareness and scrutiny of this area we believe that this number may increase, regardless of the change in the scope of activities and limits that this Bill proposes”.

My noble friend Lord Phillips was suggesting that somehow or other the information on this coming from the Charities Commission was out of date. It is important to recall that it does set out the current position, but it is a situation in which PPERA is not changing with regard to the definition. It will not change as a result of this Bill, so the case remains that a narrow scope of activities could be covered. The Electoral Commission is clear that charities should not be exempt from the PPERA regime. It highlights that such an exemption would undermine the effectiveness of the PPERA regime and create incentives for campaigners to carry out as much campaigning activity as possible via charitable channels. Potentially that could have implications for the reputations of the charities.

I repeat what the commission said:

“It is the Commission’s view that it is right that charities are not excluded from within this legislation, and we believe the Government’s approach to distinguish by activity rather than by type of organisations is correct”.

The Government’s view, however, is that the nature of the PPERA test, to which I have referred, and the constraints of charity law will mean that the circumstances in which charities are brought within the scope of PPERA rules will be very rare. First, they must meet the PPERA test where their activities can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure the electoral success of a party or candidate. Secondly, if they meet this test they must incur controlled expenditure over the registration threshold. The amendments that we will debate later and that are being brought forward by the Government to raise the registration threshold in essence will ensure that smaller or even medium-size charities will not have to register with the Electoral Commission.

I heard comments in Committee and in the meetings that I have had about the importance of trying to keep the administrative burden to a minimum. I accept that there was force in the concerns expressed when I first became engaged in this Bill and attended meetings with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in which charities said that there was a possibility that they could do something that took them into PPERA-controlled expenditure, with the limit at £5,000—£2,500 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. That might happen, without their knowing that there could be a freeze on their activity. But limits of £20,000 for registration are now proposed; in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland it is £10,000.

If charities are undertaking that level of expenditure this is neither unreasonable nor the sort of thing that will get lost in the loose change. It is significant expenditure. Therefore many charities will be removed from any concern by the thresholds that we are setting. Those approaching that level of expenditure may wish to consider whether it is appropriate. In terms of the general core principles of accountability and transparency in the Bill, it is important that if a body is undertaking the kind of activity that falls within this scope it should be accountable and transparent. In some of my discussions with the chief executive of OSCR, the Scottish charities regulator, he said that he thought that the transparency argument was important: if two organisations were doing exactly the same thing that brought them within the scope of the Bill or PPERA, it was wrong that one should have to be accountable and transparent, and the other, because it was a registered charity, should not. In transparency and accountability terms, this departed from an objective of the Bill.

Charities have raised concerns as to what happens if a party or a candidate adopts one of their policies. The Electoral Commission guidance is clear on this point. If a party or a candidate adopts a charity’s policy this will not automatically result in the charity incurring controlled expenditure. A charity will incur controlled expenditure only if it subsequently highlights the fact that party A or candidate B supports its policy, or ramps up its campaign. As such, the Government are not persuaded that there is a compelling case to take such a significant step as to exempt charities from the regulatory regime. It is the activities of the third party and not the type of organisation that should be subject to regulation. I can assure my noble friend, who raised the matter, as did other contributors to the debate, that the regulatory regime on charities will be explored during the review of third-party campaigning that we have indicated, as laid out in later amendments, will take place after the 2015 election.

We have had a good debate. I am not sure that I can elaborate these points much further. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, very properly made the point that the shape of the Bill will not be determined by the Charity Commission or the Electoral Commission; it will be done by Parliament, by your Lordships’ House and the other place. But, in doing so, it is important that we have some regard to those who have dealt with these issues in elections past, and to the Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission, which agree that the amendment proposed by my noble friend would not be appropriate in these circumstances. I therefore invite my noble friend to withdraw it.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern]

Is my noble and learned friend saying, as a law officer of the Crown, that it is lawful for a charity in pursuance of its charitable purpose to do something that can,

“reasonably be regarded as intended to promote”,

the interests of a particular party or candidate?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that has been the legal position since 2000. It is very rare that it would happen but, conceivably, there is a very limited range of activities that could fall within that. It would not be the intention of the charity but it might be reasonably seen by others to be the intention of the charity. It is because of that very limited possibility that it is important to maintain the provision as it is rather than implement the exemption proposed by my noble friend.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble and learned friend the Minister for the way in which he summed up the debate. I am grateful to all those who have participated in discussing this important amendment. Given that Third Reading is on Tuesday, realistically there is not time to have the sorts of discussions that some noble Lords have looked for, particularly in terms of the speed at which the Charity Commission will move in relation to these sensitive matters. One has to look to the review of the workings of this legislation in the wake of the 2015 election. That will be vital. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

37: Clause 26, page 13, line 20, at end insert—
“( ) In section 87 of that Act (expenditure by third parties which is not controlled expenditure)—
(a) in subsection (1), omit paragraph (a) and the “or” at the end of it;(b) omit subsection (2).”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

39: After Clause 26, insert the following new Clause—
“Arrangements between third parties notified to the Electoral Commission
(1) Part 6 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (controls relating to third party national election campaigns) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 94 (limits on controlled expenditure by third parties)—
(a) after subsection (3) insert—“(3A) For provision requiring certain controlled expenditure to be disregarded in determining for the purposes of subsection (3)(a) whether a limit is exceeded, see section 94A(5) (arrangements between third parties notified to the Commission).”;
(b) in subsection (4), for “such a case” substitute “the case mentioned in subsection (3)”;(c) in subsection (5A)—(i) after “Subsections (3) to (5)” insert “and section 94A”;(ii) for “those subsections” substitute “those provisions”;(d) in subsections (8) and (10), after “the purposes of this section” insert “, section 94A”;(e) in subsection (11)(a), after “this section” insert “and section 94A”.(3) After section 94 insert—
“94A Arrangements between third parties notified to the Commission
(1) A recognised third party (“a lead campaigner”) may, at any time before the end of a regulated period, send a notice to the Commission—
(a) stating that the lead campaigner is party to an arrangement of the kind mentioned in section 94(6), and(b) identifying one or more third parties that—(i) are parties to the arrangement, and (ii) have agreed to be minor campaigners in relation to the arrangement.(2) A notice under subsection (1)—
(a) may not identify a third party as a minor campaigner if the third party is a lead campaigner in relation to the same arrangement, and(b) may not be sent by a recognised Gibraltar third party.(3) On receipt of a notice under subsection (1) by the Commission, a third party identified in the notice becomes “a minor campaigner” in relation to the arrangement in question.
(4) Controlled expenditure that is incurred during the regulated period in a part of the United Kingdom by or on behalf of a minor campaigner in pursuance of the arrangement is to be treated for the purposes of section 96 (returns as to controlled expenditure) as having also been incurred during the period and in the part of the United Kingdom concerned by or on behalf of the lead campaigner.
(5) In determining for the purposes of section 94(3)(a) whether a limit is exceeded by a third party in relation to a regulated period, controlled expenditure incurred in a part of the United Kingdom is to be disregarded if conditions A to C are met in relation to the expenditure.
(6) Condition A is that the expenditure—
(a) is incurred in pursuance of an arrangement that has been notified to the Commission under subsection (1), and(b) is, by virtue of section 94(6), treated for the purposes of section 94 and Schedule 10 as incurred by or on behalf of the third party.(7) Condition B is that the third party is, at the time the expenditure is incurred, a minor campaigner in relation to the arrangement.
(8) Condition C is that the total of the controlled expenditure incurred during the regulated period in the part of the United Kingdom by or on behalf of the third party (disregarding any expenditure in relation to which conditions A and B are met) does not exceed the limit for that part mentioned in section 94(5).
(9) Section 94(6) applies for the purposes of subsection (8).””

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 39 relates to arrangements between third parties notified to the Electoral Commission. In our earlier debates, this was referred to as the coalition issue—not be confused with the coalition—and in the meetings I attended with charities and campaign groups it was probably the issue that was raised more often than any other. My noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire agrees.

The Government received many representations to this effect and I would like to make it clear, as I have done on previous occasions, that this Bill does not amend the controls on third parties that each incur controlled expenditure as part of a coalition. In addition, only coalitions that incur expenditure that can, in the phrase we have been using,

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

of political parties or candidates are regulated and will continue to be regulated. Those rules are necessary and I will take a moment to clarify their operation.

Section 94(6) of PPERA requires that if two or more third parties work together to incur expenditure to a common plan or arrangement, the entirety of the expenditure they incur as part of that coalition must count against each third party’s individual spending limit. However, it is also important to be clear about what is not caught.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to support Amendment 39A and, in doing so, very much welcome Amendment 39 introduced by my noble and learned friend. In Committee, I drew on my personal experience of being involved in coalitions of charities both previously and currently. It is very important —Amendment 39A achieves this—that even small and medium-sized charities are not restricted to being involved in only one coalition. I end by giving the example of when I was chief executive of a charity in the field of family relationships. At any one time, with a very small amount of money, we would be involved in a campaign to do with children and young people, a campaign to do with domestic violence, and a campaign to do with older people and the role of grandparents. All of those were important activities. We could never have done that ourselves; we simply did not have the money. That is why Amendment 39 is so important.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I expressed appreciation for those who have welcomed Amendment 39, not least my noble friend Lady Tyler, because—I do not say this in any critical way—that is where we have managed to build on the amendment moved in Committee by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. It would allow smaller charities, without reaching the threshold limit, to engage in a number of different campaigns.

I respond to the example used by my noble friend, and to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, about the kind of campaigning that charities are doing. My noble friend talked about promoting grandparents’ rights, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has a passionate interest in rehabilitation issues. As he said, the Government have encouraged the work of coalitions. One has to remember that to be subject to controlled expenditure, a campaign must fall within the definition set out in Clause 26. I honestly do not believe, without a huge leap of imagination, that the valuable work done by coalitions to promote the rehabilitation of offenders or grandparents’ rights could be interpreted as seeking the election or promotion of a particular party. By no stretch of the imagination could a reasonable person think that that was intended to secure the promotion of a particular party or candidate in an election. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, raised similar concerns.

The overwhelming amount of campaigning by charities will not fall within the definition of controlled expenditure here. I hope that that gives some reassurance, because I recognise the sincerity with which these concerns are expressed. Work that is being done to promote rehabilitation in prisons cannot be seen in any way as falling within the ambit and scope of activity that would bring it within PPERA-regulated controlled expenditure.

My noble friend’s amendment is intended to allow third parties that set up a coalition to move away from the common plan rules by allowing that coalition to have both its own spending limit and separate, individual spending limits for the members of the coalition. The coalition will be able to spend up to the national limit, and its members will also be able to spend up to the national limit on activities not taken forward as part of the common plan.

My noble friend was right to point out that the issue we are grappling with here has been in place since 2000; I accept that the range of activities increases under the Bill, but the problem has been with us since the outset. I point out that under existing legislation, there is nothing to stop a coalition establishing itself as a distinct third party. This allows the organisations and their members also to campaign on separate issues individually, with a separate spending limit.

The Electoral Commission has been very clear on this point, both in its guidance and in its evidence to the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. That evidence gave the example of a lead campaigner which runs the coalition’s campaign and authorises its spending. Only the lead campaigner would be required to register with the Electoral Commission. Contributions to the coalition campaign from other third parties will be treated as donations or donations in kind to the campaign. In the words of the Electoral Commission,

“this means that the ... campaigners do not need to register themselves or report anything themselves to the Electoral Commission”.

Those campaigners would therefore be able to continue to campaign independently, too, to the maximum spending limit.

However, the Electoral Commission also made it clear in its Report stage briefing that it cannot support this particular provision. It noted that the amendment,

“would allow an individual or organisation to spend substantial amounts campaigning on an unlimited number of issues, as long as they are working together with someone else in each of those campaigns. For instance, someone could spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on each of a series of campaigns with others that attack different aspects of a political party’s manifesto in the run-up to an election”.

For example, it could be that you have an energy company that went into campaign with other energy companies, set up a coalition in favour of fracking and supported candidates who would support that. It could spend up to, say, £300,000 on that. Quite separately, under my noble friend’s amendment, it could be engaged in another campaign, with other participants, in which it tried to promote onshore wind power and could spend up to £300,000 on that. I am sure that that is not the intention of what my noble friend is proposing, but I fear that might well be the result his amendment would have.

I know that my noble friend has worked hard on this—as have many people—to try to find the right way to deal with this coalition issue. I do not believe that his amendment would have an effect that was helpful; and, as I indicated earlier, it is possible for a coalition to set itself up as a third party in itself. In these circumstances I invite my noble friend not to press his amendment, as it may have consequences that he does not intend. However, I hope we have indicated to the House, through the amendment that the Government have brought forward, that they have listened, have grappled with the issue and have built upon the amendment proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, in Committee.

Amendment 39 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

41: Schedule 3, page 57, line 9, leave out “other public meetings or events (other than” and insert “other public events, other than—
(a) ”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, the inclusion of staffing costs is hugely burdensome for large and small campaigning organisations. We have heard that tonight and we have all received e-mails and had discussions with campaigning organisations. Like the Electoral Commission, our preference would be for all staffing costs to be taken out for the 2015 election period. However, we recognise that this is an excellent compromise and I urge the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, to accept it. Later on this evening the noble and learned Lord will be putting a review into the Bill, which could be an opportunity to revisit these things, so I very much hope that he will accept the amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, for his amendment, because I, too, recognise that this issue has been regularly raised in many of the meetings that we have had—as did my noble friend Lord Cormack and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall. The noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment seeks to exclude those staff costs associated with staff directly employed by a third party from the calculation of controlled expenditure for transport, press conferences and organised media events, and for public rallies and public events.

The starting point is to recognise that the PPERA Act 2000 has always required third parties to account for staff costs. I acknowledge that the Bill extends the range of activities that may incur controlled expenditure; these are the activities that the noble and right reverend Lord seeks by his amendment to remove from staff costs. The Bill seeks to retain the need for staff costs to be included. As I said, I recognise that there has been concern, first, over the unfairness of third parties having to account for these costs when political parties do not. I think that my noble friend Lord Tyler mentioned that. Secondly, there has been concern about the difficulty for third parties in calculating the staff time attributable to activities giving rise to controlled expenditure.

On the issue of third parties having to account for these costs while political parties do not, your Lordships will be aware that when Parliament passed the 2000 Act it felt that it would be transparent and proportionate for a third party to account for staff time. This was on the basis that a third party undertakes campaigning activities other than simply political campaigning, and where a third party enters into political campaigning its spending for those purposes should be fully transparent. I am sure that that was the underlying thinking behind the 2000 Act. I would at least hope that someone who is employed by the Liberal Democrats during an election is actually working for the Liberal Democrats. Indeed, I am sure that the other parties would hope the same on behalf of their staff. It is as transparent as it possibly can be.

Regarding the concerns of third parties over the difficulties associated with calculating staff time, this is an existing element of the regulatory regimes. Its operation in the last two general elections, alongside Electoral Commission guidance on this, highlighted that such costs can be accounted for without becoming overly burdensome. The Electoral Commission takes a proportionate approach in current guidance to the calculation of controlled expenditure, including staff costs, by clearly stating that third parties should make an honest assessment of the costs that need to be reported.

I have shared with a number of the groups which have come to see me since Committee the fact that we did examine whether it would be possible to put in a de minimis exemption. Quite frankly, having seen what its terms would be, it would give rise to more concern about legal definitions than it merited, particularly if we had a de minimis exemption in statute. That would make it much more difficult for the Electoral Commission to take that proportionate approach to the calculation of controlled expenditure which it has done through its guidance.

It should also be noted that with the increases in the registration threshold the smaller organisations to which my noble friend referred, be they charities or campaigning organisations, will not be subject to regulation and the need to calculate staff costs. The best way of addressing the de minimis question is by what we have done in raising the threshold and taking so many of these organisations outwith the scope of controlled expenditure altogether.

My noble friend quite properly paid tribute to the work done by volunteers, not only for charities but for so many campaigning organisations. In many respects, they are the people who make the wheels of campaigning and democracy go round. However, volunteer costs will continue to be excluded from the calculation of controlled expenditure. In Amendment 44, which the House has just agreed, volunteer costs are excluded from the calculation of staff costs by virtue of paragraph 1A(1)(c) of new Schedule 8A. They were excluded under the existing regime, but it is important to emphasise that volunteer costs will also be excluded under what we are proposing. There is a world of difference between volunteer costs, which will be excluded, and the great advantage that there can be to candidates or political parties of third parties putting paid staff into campaigning activity in constituencies, or into running media events, press conferences or rallies.

The result of the amendment proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, would be to exempt that kind of expenditure associated with paid staff being moved in at the time of an election to facilitate the electoral advantage of a particular party or candidate. It is for that reason that the Government do not feel able to accept the noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment, and I invite him to withdraw it.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I am disappointed with the noble and learned Lord’s reply. This was a very simple step that the Government could have taken to ease the regulatory burden on charities and campaigning groups. It is disappointing. He stressed the fact that staff costs were already in PPERA. With due respect, that is no good reason for continuing them, if we have an opportunity to improve that Act and make it not just workable but one which eases the burden on charities and campaigning groups.

The Minister stressed that the Electoral Commission had found it possible to regulate this, but the fact is, as he knows, that charities and campaigning groups find this whole area very burdensome. I really do not see how the Electoral Commission can possibly police this area and work out what percentage of the time has been allotted, let us say, to the mounting of a public rally. What kind of receipts or statements is it going to get from the charity concerned? I am afraid that I find it very disappointing and I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

46: Clause 27, page 14, line 42, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) Section 94 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (limits on controlled expenditure by third parties) is amended in accordance with subsections (1A) to (1E).
“(1A) In subsection (3), for paragraph (a) (but not the “and” after it) substitute—
“(a) during a regulated period—(i) any controlled expenditure is incurred in a part of the United Kingdom by or on behalf of a third party in excess of the limit for that part of the United Kingdom mentioned in subsection (5), or(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),”.(1B) In subsection (5)—
(a) in the opening words, for “(3)” substitute “(3)(a)(i)”;(b) in paragraph (a), for “£10,000” substitute “£20,000”;(c) in paragraph (b), for “£5,000” substitute “£10,000.”(1C) After subsection (5) insert—
“(5ZA) The limit referred to in subsection (3)(a)(ii) is 0.05% of the total of the maximum campaign expenditure limits in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.”
(1D) In subsection (5A) for “(5)” substitute “(5ZA)”.
(1E) In subsection (10), omit the “and” at the end of paragraph (c) and after paragraph (d) insert—
“(e) the “maximum campaign expenditure limit” in a part of the United Kingdom is the limit imposed by paragraph 3 of Schedule 9 in relation to campaign expenditure incurred in the relevant period (within the meaning of that paragraph) by or on behalf of a registered party which contests all the constituencies in that part (and to which sub-paragraph (6) of that paragraph does not apply).””

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, one of the aspects of the Bill that has received considerable attention and debate during our discussions, not only in your Lordships’ House but with campaign groups, relates to the registration thresholds, spending limits and constituency limits.

On registration thresholds, the point has been made repeatedly that small campaigners who do not incur much expenditure would be brought into the regulatory regime. This would, it has been claimed, impose undue administrative burdens on organisations that are not equipped to handle those responsibilities.

Noble Lords will recall that the Government have been considering this issue for some time. Indeed, my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire gave a commitment on the first day in Committee that the thresholds would be revised. Extensive debate in Committee followed, at which representations were made to either revert to the existing PPERA thresholds, or to raise them further. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson and to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, for leading that highly useful debate.

The Government have considered this matter and the appropriate level for registration thresholds further. Amendment 46 proposes to raise the levels to £20,000 in England and £10,000 in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has tabled an amendment proposing those levels be set at £20,000 for each constituent part of our United Kingdom. I simply observe that the Government’s amendment represents not only a substantial increase from the levels currently in the Bill, but reflects the original structure where the amounts were higher in England than in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, no doubt due to the fact that there is a substantially greater number of constituencies and voters in England than in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Nevertheless, this is still a significant increase not only for England, but for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it doubles the current registration thresholds in PPERA.

These thresholds will effectively exclude from the controls those campaigners who incur only small amounts of money. They will be able to campaign as they currently do, secure in the knowledge that unless they spend a substantial amount of money on controlled expenditure, they will not be subject to any aspect of the regulatory regime.

Bearing in mind what not only noble Lords but people outside sometimes hear in general debates or see in e-mails, it is also important to point out that these are thresholds for registration. It has sometimes been represented that there are limits on what organisations can spend, but the thresholds for registration are consistent with our objective of promoting transparency and accountability. We are maintaining the constituency limit of £9,750 throughout the regulated period to prevent a third party focusing a significant amount of its spending power on a small part of the United Kingdom.

Amendment 46 also specifies that, where a third party spends £9,750 in a constituency, it must register with the Electoral Commission. This is to ensure that the offence of spending more than £9,750 in a constituency is fully effective. I know my noble friend Lord Tyler is particularly interested in that point. As constituency limits apply only in relation to regulated periods involving a parliamentary general election, so the constituency threshold will have effect only in relation to such periods. We recognise that the current draft does not accurately reflect this, and the Government will accordingly bring forward an amendment at Third Reading to correct that.

In contrast, my noble friend Lord Tyler has proposed that rather than require a constituency registration threshold of £9,750, the registration threshold should be only £5,000. Reintroducing a lower constituency threshold than £9,750, as proposed by my noble friend, would only reinsert an extra layer of bureaucracy and confusion, particularly as the Government have also tabled Amendment 53, which would remove a post-dissolution limit of £5,850. The government amendment means that campaigners may spend the entire £9,750 throughout the regulated period, or just in the last few weeks before the election. Having just one constituency limit will be a much more straightforward and easier regulation to follow.

Finally, on spending limits, campaigners and Members of your Lordships’ House have sought to retain third parties’ spending limits at either the existing PPERA amounts, or even beyond those. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, were clear on this point when we addressed this issue in Committee. The spending limits in the Bill for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have particularly concerned campaigners. It has been argued that third-party campaigning in any part of the UK generally has a fixed cost; leaflets, for example, cost the same whether printed in Wales or England, and billboards cost the same, whether they are placed in Scotland or Northern Ireland. As a result, the spending limits for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were felt to be disproportionately low. It is with that in mind that government Amendment 47 would uplift those limits by an extra £20,000 each. This would mean that there would be a spending limit of £55,400 in Scotland, £44,000 in Wales and £30,800 in Northern Ireland.

The Bill proposes spending limits for each of the parts of the UK which add up to £450,000. It is important to remind your Lordships that while these limits were initially to be over not quite a year—from the day after the European elections—if your Lordships approve our amendment which we will debate later, these will apply over the length of the reduced seven-and-a-half-month regulated period, which is also reflected in another government amendment. In fact, therefore, there is a larger amount in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over a shorter period. Indeed, the amount for England is over a shorter period.

I have previously sought to explain that considerable amounts of campaigning can still be undertaken for that amount. In Committee, I gave the example of £390,000 buying a campaigner 40 million leaflets, a dozen front-page adverts in a national newspaper or even 780,000 telephone calls from a professional phone bank. I hope that noble Lords will agree that these government amendments as a whole will lead to a substantial increase in the registration thresholds and a significant uplift to the limits in the Bill for campaigning by third parties in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

I note that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has further amendments on spending limits. I will respond to them when I wind up. I beg to move.

[Lord Hardie (CB)]

My Lords, before speaking to the amendment in my name, I thank the Government and the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for listening to the concerns from all sides of the House about the original proposal in the Bill to reduce the existing thresholds for registration as a recognised third party. The government amendment addresses these concerns and, rather than reducing the limits, they have accepted that the limits should be increased. It is appropriate that tribute is paid to the efforts made by the Government and the noble and learned Lord.

However, Amendment 46 does not address the anomaly that I mentioned in Committee, caused by having different registration thresholds for England and the rest of the United Kingdom. My amendment would remedy that by having the same registration thresholds throughout the United Kingdom. I noted that the Minister suggested that the distinction between England and the rest of the United Kingdom was the larger number of constituencies and voters. It is important to appreciate that there is a distinction that should be drawn between total expenditure by third parties in each constituent part of the United Kingdom, as against expenditure limits that determine whether the third party is required to register for recognition.

I accept that a distinction must be drawn between the various countries when one considers the total expenditure by a recognised third party in each country. That distinction reflects the number of parliamentary constituencies in each country and the greater number of voters in England than in any of the other three countries. That is the point that has been addressed since the 2000 Act, and is preserved in that Act, notwithstanding the amendments, in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 10.

However, the threshold for registration is different. There is no justification for distinguishing between the different countries in this respect. The distinction was introduced in the 2000 Act, which followed the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom, which was presented to Parliament in October 1998. I referred to this in Committee and will not repeat these references. However, in Committee I explained that that report and the Government’s response to it never suggested any distinction between the different countries. There was a reference in a footnote which suggested that the reduced figure of £10,000 across the United Kingdom might be more significant in the three countries other than England, but it did not go as far as suggesting that there should be a difference.

I have been unable to find any subsequent explanation for halving the limit of £10,000 allowed for England in the other countries of the United Kingdom. I do not understand the need for a distinction when it comes to the threshold for registration. It is illogical and risks inhibiting local people from engaging in effective political debate about issues that are of concern in their constituency at a crucial time in the electoral process, by imposing upon them what my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries of Pentregarth described at Second Reading as a,

“bureaucratic burden on small charities or campaigning groups, especially during the actual election period”.—[Official Report, 22/10/2013; col. 914.]

For example, suppose that a local hospital is threatened with closure and a group of individuals in the constituency wish to make this an issue at the general election but stop short of fielding their own candidate. If some candidates in that election support the retention of the hospital while others do not, the expenditure by the local group will be controlled expenditure. If this occurs in England, the pressure group can spend £20,000 before the need for registration and the administrative burden that entails, but if it occurs in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, it can spend only £10,000. The expenses of running such a campaign in Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish constituencies will be similar to those in many English constituencies. Do the Government seriously suggest that the cost of transport to meetings or venues of meetings in every English constituency is double that in any constituency elsewhere? In his reply, will the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General explain the justification for this distinction?

My final point is that my amendment is not academic. Apart from being fair to all people across the United Kingdom who wish to campaign in the course of a general election about a matter of local importance to them, there is also a question of perhaps greater significance: that the consequences of not registering but exceeding the registration threshold are a criminal offence under Section 94 of the 2000 Act. Why should electors face prosecution in Edinburgh, Cardiff or Belfast for spending £6,000 on a campaign without registering as recognised third parties but have immunity in Newcastle for identical activity?

--- Later in debate ---

I will conclude with a rather dramatic fact. In the United States a special element in the American tax system enables non-party, non-governmental organisations to contribute to electoral expenditure on the basis of being exactly what we have been talking about—non-party, non-governmental organisations. That has seen expenditure of that source rise from $10 million in 1988 to $470 million last year, and rising. It has become the most significant single source of expenditure in elections on candidates by non-partisan, non-governmental organisations. We should be warned.

[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.

[Lord Hardie]

I was going to say that I would not add such an adjective. The noble and learned Lord will remember that I tabled two amendments: the first was to preserve the status quo and the other was to seek an increase in the limits. As the noble and learned Lord has much more experience in political matters than I have, he will appreciate that it is useful to have a stop-gap in case the main objective is not achieved. In relation to the comment about the point made by my noble and right reverend friend Lord Harries, the noble and learned Lord might remember that, in Committee, when the noble and right reverend Lord was speaking, having heard my suggestion that there should be uniformity for registration levels, he indicated that he thought that there was some force in that and that it had not been a point considered by the commission.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I was going to say that I was aware that the noble and learned Lord had also tabled an amendment in that group to raise the threshold to provide an equalisation—at, I think, £25,000 if my information serves me correctly.

It is a fair question as to why there is such a difference. I think one of the reasons, which I gave at the outset, is that there is a difference in the number of voters and number of constituencies. It is also the case that spending of less than £20,000 could have a more significant impact in, say, Northern Ireland, which is a very compact area with a very focused media. Spending of less than £20,000 could have a much more significant impact there than in England, and I suspect that the different political and media circumstances was one of the considerations as to why the difference came about in the first place.

There are one or two points made by the noble and learned Lord that I could not quite follow. He said that if there was a hospital closure in a particular constituency, a pressure group could spend up to £20,000 in England but just under £10,000 in Scotland. Of course, following on from the debate that we have just had about constituency limits, they would be restricted to £9,750 in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland regarding the kind of example that he gave. He suggested—I apologise if I misheard him—that someone could be prosecuted for spending £6,000 in campaign expenditure in Edinburgh but not in, for example, Birmingham. I think that he will accept that, with a £10,000 threshold, that would not happen in either Birmingham or Edinburgh. I do not think that I misheard him, but sometimes people get that impression and suddenly there are concerns.

[Lord Hardie]

The noble and learned Lord is correct; it was a mistake on my part, I should have said £12,000. The point was that it is simply over the limit in Scotland but under the limit in England.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we recognised the core expenditure that was needed in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in order to mount campaigns and that has been reflected by—for the first time, actually—making a distinction and giving an uplift for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland over and above the percentages that have otherwise been applied.

The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, proposes reverting to the total national spending limit of £988,500. As I have explained, the Government have brought forward amendments to increase spending limits for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but, as I explained in Committee, only a few political parties at the last general election spent more than £390,000—the total now would be £450,000—on the full range of activities that we now wish to extend to third parties. Only the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrats and UKIP spent more than £390,000 and, I assume, more than £450,000.

As my noble friend Lady Williams said, there are risks associated with allowing third parties to incur vast amounts of spending. Given that third parties campaign for or against electoral success of political parties, it is a very reasonable assumption that a relationship can and does develop between some third parties and political parties. This opens up the potential for supporters of political parties to demonstrate their backing by diverting their funding to an aligned third party and away from the political parties themselves, which have their own limits. I do not think it is right that, where limits are imposed on political parties, they can be circumvented in this way.

Even the limits that we have allow very extensive campaigns to be mounted. I do not wish to indulge in too much repetition, but £390,000—and of course it has gone up by £60,000—is 40 million leaflets, a dozen front-page adverts in a national newspaper, or 780,000 telephone calls from a professional phone bank. These are not insignificant campaigning activities and I therefore believe that the judgment that we reached in coming to these figures is the right one.

I therefore urge the House to support the Government’s amendments with regard to thresholds and I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.

Amendments 46ZA and 46ZB (to Amendment 46) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

47: Clause 27, page 15, line 3, leave out from “substitute” to end of line 5 and insert “—
(a) in relation to England, 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit in England;(b) in relation to Scotland, £20,000 plus 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit in Scotland;(c) in relation to Wales, £20,000 plus 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit in Wales;(d) in relation to Northern Ireland, £20,000 plus 2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit in Northern Ireland.”;”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

49: Clause 28, page 15, line 29, leave out from “(10),” to “insert” in line 30 and insert “after paragraph (e) (as inserted by section 27)”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we also strongly support the amendment. It is not the provision’s intention that we have problems with but its workability. It will add an enormous bureaucratic burden. When people campaign against the proposed path of HS2, flight paths around Heathrow or fracking and so on, that is not divided up by constituency. It is strange that a Government who are cutting red tape elsewhere, and who on Monday said that they could not possibly ask special advisers to list their meetings with lobbyists, seem to want this for really small organisations. Amendment 52, which limits the requirement to telephone calls and literature aimed at households, is immensely sensible. I hope that the Government will do one of two things: either accept the amendment or put off their new rules until after the next election.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we have Amendment 62A in this group. In order that the notes in reply can be thrown away, I give notice that I will not speak to it. Essentially, the issues were covered in the earlier group. Nevertheless, we retain our concerns about constituency limits and would very much like to have voted on the previous amendment, but there we are. However, we support the other amendment.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has tabled an amendment which would raise the constituency limits from being the equivalent of 0.05% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit applied to political parties to 0.1013%. This would amount to almost £20,000—specifically, £19,753.50. As the noble Baroness indicated, we have already debated the issues on constituency limits. I have explained the necessity of constituency limits being in place. Without these limits in place, a third party could otherwise be able to focus the entirety of its spending power on a small part of the United Kingdom, outspending even candidates and parties in that location. That point was forcefully made by my noble friends Lord Cormack and Lord Tyler. It is important that those limits are set at an appropriate level and it is our view that the noble Lord’s amendment would not be appropriate.

I will not repeat the earlier points. We wish to promote accountability and transparency. Constituency limits relate to campaigning for or against a particular party and instances where a campaign is intended, or may reasonably be regarded as intended, to support groups of candidates who might hold particular views or support particular policies. Where such campaigning is subject to a national limit, it is also right that it is subject to a proposed constituency limit but we believe that that must be at a proportionate level. The comments we heard in earlier debates suggest that the limit we have set is too generous. Indeed, even my noble friend Lord Tyler might think it. However, we think that the limit we have set is proportionate, especially as we have removed the distinction between spending throughout the regulated period and spending during the period between the dissolution and election day. The limits are intended to remove undue influence, particularly by those campaigners who can afford to spend significant amounts of money. I do not believe that the noble and right reverend Lord’s proposal would be proportionate. It could allow substantial sums of money—sums, as we have heard, such as £12,000, which is the candidate’s limit. To have a third-party sum that is almost half as much again does not appear to be proportionate. I therefore urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I can well appreciate the noble and learned Lord’s answer to that. The issue that is continually raised by the commission I chair is the rationale for always linking third-party spending and regulation to political-party spending and regulation. That has never really been fully set out. I take the point that the noble and learned Lord has made but I hope that he will take on board the fact that there is continuing concern among charities and campaigning groups about constituency spending, and not just the spending but the regulation for campaigning in constituencies. As the noble and learned Lord knows, there is also great concern in the Electoral Commission. Even if he is not prepared to consider this amendment again, will he look seriously at Amendment 52 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler? That would help significantly. If he is not sympathetic to my amendment, I hope that he might be able to look again at Amendment 52 and bring something back in relation to it. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

53: Clause 28, page 16, leave out lines 34 to 45

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

63: Clause 29, page 20, line 13, leave out ““the purposes of this section”” and insert ““section 94A” (as inserted by section (Arrangements between third parties notified to Electoral Commission))”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

66: Clause 30, page 24, line 32, leave out “94B(4)” and insert “94(5ZA), 94B(4) or 96(2)(aa)”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

69: Clause 31, page 25, line 2, after “(ia)” insert “in the case of a body falling within any of paragraphs (b) and (d) to (h) of section 54(2),”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

74: Clause 32, page 25, line 34, leave out “Subject to section 95B,”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, these amendments address concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee and by campaigning groups in the discussions we have had with them. It is important to guard against the risk that significant donors might use third parties to aid political parties and evade the party spending controls. That is why at present third parties campaigning nationally during regulated elections are subject to rules on donations similar to those of political parties.

However, recognised third parties need to report only donations related to controlled spending, and currently are required to do this only once at the end of every campaign, as part of a return to the Electoral Commission after the relevant election, rather than at the regular intervals required of the political parties. Therefore, Clause 32 introduces important measures to improve transparency by ensuring that people know the source of reportable donations received by third parties during the regulated period via quarterly and weekly donation reports.

I hope that noble Lords support the principle of providing information on reportable donations during the election campaign. However, the Government acknowledged in Committee that the right balance needed to be struck between increased transparency and the avoidance of overly burdensome reporting requirements. As set out in the Bill, only third parties that are required to register with the Electoral Commission are required to provide reports on the donations they receive. The amendments that this House agreed earlier today to increase the registration thresholds mean that only third parties which incur controlled expenditure of more than £20,000 in England or more than £10,000 in each of Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland will have to produce donation reports.

Furthermore, government Amendments 81 and 89 remove the need for recognised third parties to provide nil reports. Instead, a recognised third party will be required to provide a donations report to the Electoral Commission only when they receive a reportable donation. Only donations over £7,500 are reportable. If a third party does not receive a reportable large donation, they will not have to provide a report.

The Government have also brought forward amendments to take account of snap general elections. The Government accept that these provisions, while important in the regulated period for an election the date of which is known in advance, may cause problems if they were to be applied to an early parliamentary election. If a snap general election were to occur, third parties would have to provide weekly reports to the Electoral Commission only during the post-dissolution period, and then only if they receive a reportable donation. They would not have to prepare quarterly reports.

The Government believe that these amendments meet the concerns of charities, particularly in relation to the removal of nil reporting, which was a key area of concern for both the NCVO and the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement. They retain the vital transparency measures introduced by the Bill, but ensure that unnecessary burdens are not placed on campaigners.

I apologise to my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who asked me about nil returns in the debate we had on coalitions. I assure him that if a coalition spends less than the registration threshold, it will not have to produce a spending return. If a coalition does not receive a donation, it will not have to provide a nil return.

At present, recognised third parties have to provide details of their campaign income and expenditure to the Electoral Commission after a UK general parliamentary election and after the poll for certain other elections. Campaigners pointed out that many third parties register with the Electoral Commission with the intention of incurring controlled expenditure but at the end of the regulated period find that they have not spent above the registration threshold. While it is important to ensure transparency in spending any donations, we have listened carefully to the concerns of campaigners and, as I have said previously, we do not want to impose unnecessary administrative burdens, particularly on small campaigners.

To ensure that these provisions are proportionate, government Amendment 98 provides that a third party which registers with the Electoral Commission but does not incur controlled expenditure in excess of the required registration threshold does not have to submit a spending return or a statement of accounts. The intention is that a recognised third party should also have to prepare a report if its expenditure in a constituency, in the case of a regulated period involving a parliamentary election, exceeds the constituency threshold that will from now on apply to non-recognised third parties. We recognise that the amendment does not currently do that so we will bring forward a small amendment at Third Reading to put that right.

To improve transparency by providing a clearer understanding of the finance of those involved in elections and to align the reporting requirements of third parties more closely with those of political parties, the Bill provides that a statement of accounts should also be submitted to the Electoral Commission. To ensure that this additional obligation is proportionate, individuals would be excluded from this requirement. The Government believe that not to exclude individuals would result in an unwarranted intrusion into their personal financial matters. However, individuals who exceed the spending threshold would still be required to provide details of their campaign income and expenditure, as is currently the case.

Under the Bill as introduced, the Government also provided that those third parties, such as companies, charities and trade unions, which provide statements of accounts under another legislative framework that could be reviewed by the Commission would also be exempt from any requirement to provide a separate set of accounts.

Government Amendments 108 to 111 make minor amendments to improve the working of this arrangement. Government Amendment 112 provides that a statement of accounts can be sent to the Electoral Commission in a longer timeframe: within nine months of the end of the regulated period where they do not have to be audited, or 12 months where they do have to be audited.

Again, the Government believe that these amendments, alongside the existing provisions in the Bill, ensure that transparency is improved without overly burdensome requirements being placed on third parties. I therefore beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendments that have been put forward by the Government, as far as they go, but as the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, said, there is more work to be done and it would be excellent if the Government would commit to come back at Third Reading with further amendments. This might seem a bit curmudgeonly, because the Government have received plaudits throughout our debate this afternoon for having moved a long way and tabled many amendments. However, if it had not been for the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, his commission, which has also received praise this afternoon, and the excellent work that it has done, the Bill would still be the exceedingly bad Bill that it was when it arrived in our House, precisely because it was rushed, did not have proper pre-legislative scrutiny and a great deal of it was not necessary. So while I thank the Government for having listened—and they have moved—I place on record that none of that would have happened without the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and his fellow commissioners, who undertook the consultation that the Government themselves should have undertaken in the first place.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I acknowledge the welcome that has been expressed for these amendments, which lift a considerable administrative burden from campaigning organisations. I note what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, has said, echoed by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall.

I will look specifically at what the noble and right reverend Lord said, but I know that there were a number of other things that the Government looked at and decided they did not wish to accept—it is not as if they have come out of the blue. However, I will check that the suggestions that we looked at and decided not to go ahead with were those to which he referred; it is only fair that we do so. However, I do not want to do that with any raising of expectation, because, as I think the noble and right reverend Lord will realise, we have given considerable consideration to these points. I ask the House to accept the amendments.

Amendment 74 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

75: Clause 32, page 25, line 36, leave out “qualifying regulated” and insert “pre-dissolution”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

98: After Clause 32, insert the following new Clause—
“Returns as to controlled expenditure
(1) Section 96 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (returns as to controlled expenditure) is amended as follows.
(2) For subsection (1) substitute—
“(1) Subsection (1A) applies where, during a regulated period, any controlled expenditure is incurred by or on behalf of a recognised third party in a relevant part of the United Kingdom in excess of the limit for that part mentioned in section 94(5).
“(1A) The responsible person must prepare a return in respect of the controlled expenditure incurred by or on behalf of the third party during that period in each relevant part of the United Kingdom.”
(3) In subsection (7)—
(a) in the opening words, for “(1)(a)” substitute “(1A)”;(b) in paragraph (a), omit “falling within subsection (1)(a)”.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

99: Schedule 4, page 60, leave out lines 7 to 9

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

108: Clause 33, page 33, line 28, leave out from “must” to end of line 31 and insert “include—
(a) a statement of the income and expenditure of the third party for the regulated period, and(b) a statement of its assets and liabilities at the end of that period.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

117: After Clause 34, insert the following new Clause—
“Candidate’s personal expenses not to count for local election expenses limit in England and Wales
(1) In section 76(5) of the RPA 1983 (exclusion of personal expenses from limitation on election expenses), after “subsection (1A) above” insert “or a local government election in England or Wales”.
(2) Subsection (3) applies where, before the relevant date, an enactment—
(a) provides that section 76 of the RPA 1983 is to have effect in relation to an election of any description as it has effect in relation to a local government election in England or Wales, or(b) otherwise makes provision (however expressed) to the effect that that section applies to an election of any description as it applies to a local government election in England and Wales.(3) If the date of the poll at an election of that description is on or after the relevant date, section 76 of the RPA 1983 applies to the election as amended by subsection (1).
(4) In this section—
“the RPA 1983” means the Representation of the People Act 1983,
“the relevant date” means the date on which the amendment made by subsection (1) comes into force, and
“an enactment” means an Act of Parliament or any subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978).”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, government Amendment 117 would exclude personal expenses from being considered for the purposes of candidates’ expenses limits at local elections in England and Wales. I do not think that this issue has yet been referred to in any of our deliberations.

The Government have brought forward the amendment to bring greater consistency to the treatment of personal expenses across the different types of election. It will also ensure that the Access to Elected Office for Disabled People Fund can successfully continue operating following the expiry of existing secondary legislation.

The access to elected office fund was set up by the Government to award grants to disabled people who are, or go on to become, candidates at elections. The fund’s grants are intended to help candidates overcome barriers to elected office that might arise as a result of their disability. Currently, such awards from the fund would not count towards candidates’ spending limits at certain elections, as they would be considered personal expenses. Noble Lords will no doubt be aware that personal expenses are exempted from candidates’ limits at certain elections, such as UK general elections, police and crime commissioner elections and Greater London Authority elections, among others.

However, there is currently no such exemption at local government elections. Given the generally low expenses limits that apply at those elections, recipients of the fund are likely to find themselves in the unusual and punitive position of having their entire expenses limit taken up by fund awards. It is a distinct unfairness that disabled candidates should have to account for costs associated with their disability when campaigning in elections. The Government therefore brought forward secondary legislation last year so that fund awards would be excluded from candidates’ spending limits at all elections. That secondary legislation will cease to have effect in June this year. The Government therefore consider that the Bill presents a key opportunity to make such an exclusion permanent, while also rationalising the position of personal expenses across various elections.

Rather than merely exclude disability expenses financed by fund payments from candidates’ limits, as the order does, this amendment instead extends the personal expenses exemption to local elections, including parish and community council elections, in England and Wales. It will cover any disability-related expenses incurred by a candidate personally, regardless of whether they are financed by the fund. This is a sensible amendment. It seems unfair to require that disability costs should count towards candidates’ spending limits at local elections when they are already excluded from certain other elections.

Amendment 127 is a related amendment that will allow the new clause inserted by Amendment 117 to be commenced by order. I beg to move.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I simply give the amendment a warm welcome. We previously discussed this with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, probably in the Moses Room last year, but we had not seen this clever device to add the provision. We should congratulate the Government on finding a nice wheeze for this.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, that she is not the sole spectre at the feast. Indeed, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, indicated when he moved the amendment, he does not expect the Front Benches to fall into line with him. We had this debate four weeks ago. Admittedly, there are differences in this amendment—but, frankly, in the intervening four weeks the Government’s position has not changed.

That is not to say that raising these issues is not without merit. As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, it may serve to stir up the leaderships of all three parties. I endorse what was said by my noble friends Lord Tyler, Lord Cormack and Lord Hodgson, and by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, about politics being a noble calling. We in your Lordships’ House like to think that we make a contribution. We may disagree with each other—sometimes quite strongly—but we recognise, across the House, that we have good motives for coming into politics. Although we operate, vote and make speeches by different lights, we nevertheless have the common good of the nation at heart.

However, the proposal we are dealing with this evening is not necessarily the one and only way to restore the nobility of the political calling. The rules on party financing have been the cause of much discussion. The noble Baroness, Lady Corston, gave us a very good historic perspective when she mentioned the Houghton committee. This has gone on for some time. Most notably, this Government led talks on the subject between the three main political parties during 2012 and 2013. In 2010, each of the three parties had a manifesto commitment of one kind or another to some reform of party financing.

It is a complex issue. I noted the four points that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said had been given as excuses. I checked the speech I made in Committee, and we advanced none of the four then. In particular, I made it very clear that talks were no longer continuing, and I quoted from the Written Ministerial Statement issued by the Deputy Prime Minister on 4 July 2013 when he announced that the talks had not produced results—I think they met seven times—and that it was clear that the reforms would not now go forward in this Parliament.

The noble Lord’s point was that some people were arguing that talks were still going on. I did not seek to do that, but it is a legitimate expectation that all parties will seek to find a way forward on this complex issue in the next Parliament. I was not party to these talks but I am told that they were close. The Government want party funding reform but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, it should come as part of a package and by consensus. Some have asked for donations to be treated in the same way as charitable giving, and I can understand the relevance of that comparison from a tax point of view. However, I am not sure that the public necessarily see donations to charities—many of which we have been discussing in the course of our debates on the Bill—in the same light as giving support to political parties through the tax system.

I suspect that many noble Lords support state funding of political parties. As has already been mentioned, we have Short money, Cranborne money and the money that goes to the Royal Mail. However, this would be a significant step. Short funding is probably not mentioned on doorsteps. However, although I was probably still a student when it first came in, I remember that it was a major step which attracted quite a lot of discussion. It would be naive to think that a step as significant as the Exchequer funding political parties in this way through the tax system would not be devoid of any comment, which is why I think all parties have sought to go forward together by way of consensus.

As my noble friend Lord Cormack said, I do not believe that this is the appropriate Bill for dealing with this issue, but it is the Government’s hope that further discussions will take place in the next Parliament. My noble friend Lord Hamilton said that he wanted more done after the next election. I would echo that. Anyone from all party leaderships who reads our debates and follows this will realise that there is an appetite among Members of all parties that this matter should not be allowed just to gather dust in the next Parliament. But I do not believe that it is appropriate to act in the context of this Bill or at this time and without a bigger package that commands a consensus among all the parties. I therefore invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If he seeks to push it to a vote, as he has indicated, the Government will not support his amendment.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, I shall push my amendment to the vote. I thank all those who contributed in a most passionate way to the issues that we have raised in this debate. In the 1997 to 2001 Parliament, we were told that the matter would be resolved during the next Parliament and it was not. In that Parliament we were told that it would be dealt with in the next Parliament. Hayden Phillips came in the next Parliament and it was not resolved. We were told that it would be resolved in this Parliament. Again, there have been talks but it has not been resolved. We will go through Parliament after Parliament after Parliament ducking this issue. That is why it is important that we take a decision now. Some of us are becoming exasperated by the ducking and weaving.

For me, one of the great joys of coming to the House of Lords from the Commons is that I have always regarded ours as the House of free thinkers. In the Commons, you are held in a rigid, party, heavily whipped atmosphere where there is very little room for the kind of flexibility that we can exhibit as Members of this place. Because of the rigidity of debate in the other place, I believe that party reform ultimately will come through this House and not from the House of Commons. That is why tonight I am going to push my amendment to a vote. As I have said, I believe that this is the House which at the end of the day will make the reforms. I do not know, but it might well be that I will be defeated this evening—although I suspect some people will be surprised by the names of those who move into our Lobby.

As has been said, it is never the right Bill, the right time or the right moment to spend money, but this is the right time to take a decision. I should like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hodgson tabled a similar amendment in Committee and brings forward this amendment to require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for third parties and for that guidance to be co-ordinated with the Charity Commission, particularly to consider the impact of Part 2. As has been said, the issue was discussed at length in Committee, and it is clear to the Government that there is a lack of understanding among third parties and charities as to exactly what are their responsibilities under existing PPERA provisions—the point made by my noble friend Lord Tyler. That the Bill amends those provisions reinforces the need for clarity. The Government made clear in Committee that the issue of guidance and whether a duty should be imposed on the Electoral Commission would be revisited at Report.

Those are not just honeyed words, because since our debates in Committee, the Government have discussed with the Electoral Commission the importance of its producing clear guidance. It is essential that such guidance take into account the impact on charities in particular. Although charities do not campaign in support of political parties at elections and only two have ever registered as third parties to date, there is still an obvious need to ensure that they fully understand the workings of the new regime—that has been made very apparent during our many debates today—and whether they might be held to account by the new provisions as a result of their activities.

As the independent regulator, it is of course for the commission to provide this guidance, but the Government agree that the views of the charities regulator, the Charity Commission, must also be taken into account. Indeed, this involves not just the Charity Commission but its equivalent in Scotland, OSCR, and the Charity Commission for Northern Ireland. Suitable guidance, particularly aimed at charities, can come only if it is jointly produced.

I am pleased to note what the Electoral Commission stated in its briefing to Parliament. If your Lordships will allow me, I shall repeat the words already cited by my noble friend Lord Horam, because they are important. That is why this is substance, not just words. The commission’s precise words are:

“We are committed to working with the UK’s three charity regulators to ensure that charities have clear and reliable guidance about how to comply with the rules. The Electoral Commission and Charity Commission for England and Wales will produce a joint introductory guide for charities that need to understand if their activities are covered by non-party campaigning rules ... Our guidance will explain key areas of the rules such as deciding what counts as regulated spending, how to manage regulated spending, and how the rules cover co-ordinated campaigning in coalitions”.

The Government welcome that clear commitment. At the big risk of quoting again from the e-mail from the Charity Commission, sent at 18.08 yesterday evening, in that e-mail, under the heading, “Co-ordinated guidance for charities that need to understand if they are covered by the rules”, Mr Rowley states:

“The Charity Commission and the Electoral Commission have committed to producing co-ordinated guidance along with a joint introductory guide for charities ahead of the regulated period for the 2015 General Election should charities not be exempted. We are sensitive to the particular help that some charities may need to comply with both electoral and charity law. In the past we have worked closely with the Electoral Commission to ensure their advice for charities on complying with electoral law and our guidance on charities and political campaigning in an election period is aligned and have continued to work closely together throughout the passage of this Bill”.

The Government will continue in our discussions with the Electoral Commission. We will follow them up, and I am sure that our brief debate this evening will have further reinforced to the Electoral Commission the need for it to provide clarity to campaigners. It is the Government’s view that the Electoral Commission must produce guidance in consultation or co-ordination with the Charity Commission and the other charity regulators in the United Kingdom, particularly with regard to how charities might be required to comply with the regime.

I can see why noble Lords say that there is nothing to be lost by having the provision in the Bill, but when a clear and unequivocal commitment has been made by the Electoral Commission, and by the Charity Commission in the quote I have just read, as my noble friend Lord Horam said, it is unnecessary to put this in the Bill. In the light of these commitments, which I think go further than honeyed words, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, as it is 10.05 pm I shall be brief. I am very grateful to all those who have spoken in support of this amendment—the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, my noble friends Lord Cormack, Lord Horam and Lord Tyler, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter of Kentish Town.

I tabled the amendment with the Hippocratic oath in mind—first, do no harm. I could not see that this could do any harm. It could only do good, because it is either superfluous—in which case, it does not matter—or, if things started slipping, it could be brought into play. Therefore, I cannot say that I am pleased with the outcome. The “too difficult” tray, in which I always thought this would end up, probably has been pushed a bit further round the desk by the words that we managed to extricate from the two commissions. However, it is late. I hope that my noble and learned friend will continue to look at this.

Another amendment that I was keen on, which the Government have accepted—namely, the review—will be an issue for the reviewer to look at. I think that there will be issues, unless we really join this up tight; charities will find things complex and difficult. However, given that it is 10.05 pm, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

126: Clause 41, page 49, line 2, at end insert—
“( ) section 26(10) and (11) (definition of “election material”);”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, this is the final group of amendments. There has been much discussion about the regulated period for third parties and whether it is indeed of an appropriate length. Many have argued that 365 days is simply too long. The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, proposed in Committee that the regulated period should be shortened to six months. As noble Lords know, there are different regulated periods for different elections. For the general election it is 365 days. For elections to the devolved Administrations and the European Parliament it is four months.

What is the purpose of a regulated period? It is the time before an election within which financial limits on expenditure apply and campaigning rules must be adhered to. It is the time during which expenditure incurred for campaigning purposes must be reported. Noble Lords will know that the Bill already reduces the regulated period for the next general election in 2015, so that it will commence on 23 May 2014, which is the day after the European elections. The reason for this is that the original regulated period would have been a combined period for the 2014 European parliamentary election and the 2015 general election and would have started on 23 January 2014.

However, as the Bill makes changes that would have affected third party campaigning in European parliamentary elections, it would not have been sensible to have those changes take effect in the midst of the regulated period. The two regulated periods are therefore separated by the Bill, so its changes will take effect for the first time only for the 2015 general election.

The Government have now tabled Amendment 128, and Amendments 131 to 134, to shorten further the regulated period for third parties. These amendments will shorten the regulated period so that it commences on 19 September 2014. That is the day after the Scottish independence referendum. Although this Bill does not affect campaigners in the referendum—it is important that we make that clear—for the avoidance of any doubt and to ensure that there is no confusion, the day after the referendum has been chosen as an appropriate start date for the regulated period.

This step has been taken in response to calls from third party campaigners that they will need further time to fully understand the implications of the Bill and to ensure that they know how to comply with its provisions in the run-up to the 2015 UK parliamentary general election. I should stress that we are not reducing the spending limits to take account of the shorter regulated period. Campaigners will still be able to spend up to £319,800 in England, up to £55,400 in Scotland, up to £44,000 in Wales and up to £30,800 in Northern Ireland on promoting the electoral success of parties or candidates.

However—and this is crucial, not least as a follow-on to the previous amendment—delaying the start of the regulated period will give campaigners crucial time. The move has been supported by the Electoral Commission, to give it and the Charity Commission sufficient time to produce clear and easy to follow guidance. As has already been said, we believe that it is essential that campaigners have the clarity they have been asking for, and shortening the regulated period will allow the Electoral Commission enough time to test the appropriateness and clarity of its guidance with the campaigners themselves.

I should make clear here that only the regulated period for third parties is being amended. The regulated period for political parties will still begin on 23 May 2014, as under the existing transitional provision in Clause 42. It is also the case that for future general elections the period of one year will apply—although, given that there is to be a review, no doubt people will wish to raise this then. I just make it clear that the reduced period is for the 2015 general election.

The Government have also tabled Amendments 126, 129 and 130. These are minor and technical amendments to improve the drafting of Clauses 41 and 42. I beg to move.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I warmly welcome this shorter regulatory period for the 2015 election, for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord stated: it will enable the Electoral Commission to prepare the guidance to educate the people who will have to conform to it. However, I express the hope that in the review, the review body will look seriously at the recommendation of the commission which I chaired, that for third-party campaigners there should be a six-month period. This seven and a half-month period is absolutely right for this election but a six-month period should be reconsidered afterwards.

Perhaps I might end on one final point. We are all very much aware that this whole process has, towards the end, been extraordinarily compressed. Normally, the Government would listen first, bring forward amendments in Committee and then report those back on Report. We did not have any government amendments in Committee. The Government listened, and I am glad that they did, but this means that this Report stage has been a kind of compression of Committee and Report all in one. The implication of this is that I very much hope that the Minister will take seriously those amendments that we did not press to a vote, while hoping that he might come back at Third Reading having thought again. Because of this very compressed period, that would be a great help to the House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, following on immediately from what the noble and right reverend Lord was saying about this compressed period, I particularly hope that in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, said in withdrawing his Amendment 52 on constituency limits, the Government will bring that back at Third Reading. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, believes that the Government made a commitment to do so. That was the basis on which he withdrew his amendment. I do not wish to have a discussion this evening but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will look at it.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I did not actually respond to anything that my noble friend said, so there was no commitment. I said to officials immediately after that it would be appropriate if we went back and talked to the Electoral Commission, but that was without any commitment that we would bring an amendment back. We would take the points that were raised on my noble friend’s amendment to the Electoral Commission but, to make it clear, without a commitment on bringing it back. That is only fair because I did not actually make any commitment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

127: Clause 41, page 49, line 6, at end insert—
“section (Candidate’s personal expenses not to count for local election expenses limit in England and Wales) (candidate’s personal expenses not to count for local election expenses limit in England and Wales);”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

128: Clause 42, page 49, line 32, leave out “regulated periods beginning after that day” and insert—
“(a) regulated periods beginning after that day, or(b) (for the purposes of enactments having effect otherwise than in relation to regulated periods) expenditure incurred after that day.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

135: Clause 43, page 50, line 43, at end insert—
“( ) In Part 2 of this Act—
(a) section 32(12) to (15) extends to the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and(b) section (Post-election review) extends to the United Kingdom.”

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Monday 13th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I also support Amendments 1 and 11. I hope that I will not also have to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as we hope that we will have made the changes that will make supporting it unnecessary. Amendment 1 also stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Royall and myself. It is already clear that establishing a register only of consultant firms would add nothing to the existing voluntary register. It would omit hundreds of employers—the in-house, public bodies, charities and, perhaps most importantly, trade associations—as well as more than 1,000 individuals who work in this industry.

We have heard the Government boast about being part of the Open Government Partnership, and Ministers say that the public should be able to see who is lobbying Ministers. However, as we know, the Bill will not do that. It will only tell us the companies for which, for example, Bell Pottinger has had direct contact with a Minister over the past quarter. It will not name the individual lobbyists concerned, nor will it identify the company on whose behalf that meeting took place. So if a lobbying company met a Minister, for example, on behalf of a defence company, we still would not know that. In the hypothetical Bell Pottinger case, it has, according to Marketing Week, some 900 clients; so we would only know that Bell Pottinger was meeting somebody on behalf of one of those 900 clients but not which one it was. If the Minister, instead of meeting a consultant, met the actual defence company itself, or its trade association, that would not appear on the register at all, because the lobbyists would be direct employees.

This is very different from the United States where, we understand, Mr Cameron’s election guru, Jim Messina, has just taken up a job with the American Gaming Association, which is about to lobby on online gambling. That will all be declared, but in the UK, there will be no record of such lobbying by organisations such as the Association of British Bookmakers, despite the public interest in knowing who is lobbying the Government, in this case, on gambling.

According to today’s Daily Mail, the Chancellor took the boss of one of the world’s biggest makers of betting machines on his trip to Beijing. That is something that the company would not have to declare because it would be doing that lobbying direct. It is interesting that the Rank Organisation discloses far more than the Bill actually asks. It has decided to set out the spending that it makes in its government and regulatory affairs work—for example, £115,000 to Luther Pendragon, Ernst & Young and FTI and another £88,000 in membership fees to three trade organisations: the Bingo Association, National Casino, and the Remote Gambling Association. However, none of those would be required under the Bill. So, congratulations to Rank but not to the Government.

Similarly, we would know nothing about meetings between the big six energy companies and HMT or DECC officials because they use their direct staff for that. Or consider the anti-electronic-cigarette lobby, largely funded, I understand, by the pharmaceutical industry, which produces nicotine replacement therapy and ideally would like e-cigarettes off the market. Johnson & Johnson, GSK and Novartis have teams dedicated to that lobbying work, and none of that would be known under the current provisions.

I am afraid that the Bill is rather a damp squib and, unless we amend it, it will exclude virtually all business lobbying, whether done by the companies themselves or by their trade bodies. Worse, even where one of the big agencies such as Weber Shandwick or Bell Pottinger register, we will still not have a list of their staff so that if one of their lobbyists met a Minister, we would be no more the wiser about who that lobbyists’ clients actually were.

In the debate on Part 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not currently in her place, warned us of the danger to our democracy of American-style lobbyists, and indeed her autobiography, which I recommend, draws on her wide experience of that side of the Atlantic. She talks of the powers of lobbyists there and the extraordinary influence of organisations such as the American Association of Retired Persons, the National Rifle Association and the American Israel Political Action Committee. As she and your Lordships’ House must know, though, none of those or their UK equivalents would have to be registered under the Bill—nor the British Insurance Brokers’ Association; the Building Society Association; Philip Morris; FOREST; the nuclear industry; One Hub or None, which is in favour of Heathrow’s expansion; the CBI; the TUC; or the drinks industry, despite 130-odd meetings with civil servants to resist minimum unit pricing.

What is the point of the Bill, particularly this clause, if it does nothing to shed light on what goes on behind closed doors in Whitehall? For the sake of democracy and good governance, we need to see who is lobbying whom and about what. The register should cover the act of lobbying—the status, I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said—not the type of lobbyist, otherwise this is open to abuse. If an issue becomes very sensitive, you can simply have the lobbyists who have been working for an agency become directly in-house and put on the payroll of a particular company at that time, and then none of their activity will have to be registered. Or a small lobbyist could simply work part-time for 10 clients and be paid directly by them, and then we would know nothing about them.

A list of lobbying firms is not enough. That is not what was foreseen in the coalition agreement, it is not what the lobbyists themselves want and it is not what Unlock Democracy or Spinwatch want. The charities and trade unions have told us that they are very content for their public affairs professionals to be registered and to disclose their lobbying meetings. We strongly support Amendment 1 regarding the production of a proper, comprehensive and statutory register of all professions lobbying the Government. Democracy demands nothing less.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and supported by the opposition Front Bench would amend Clause 1 such that the register applied to professional, rather than consultant, lobbyists. The noble and learned Lord said that if the amendment was carried then it would need some consequential amendments. I respectfully suggest that it would need more than just consequential amendments because there is no definition of “professional lobbyists” in what he is offering to the House, of which I will say more in a moment.

From the discussions which I understand took place in Committee on this issue and on amendments previously tabled by the Opposition, it appears that they would capture—as the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made clear that they would wish them to—so-called in-house lobbyists in addition to consultants and, with Amendment 11, also employees. However, as I have said, there is no definition given of professional lobbying to accompany the amendment and its effect would therefore be that the provisions of this Part would be undermined such that a functioning register could not be established. I do not believe that that could simply be resolved by a number of consequential amendments.

We have discussed at length, in various debates on the Bill, the importance of clear definitions. Until now, the Opposition have struggled somewhat to define what they mean by “professional lobbying”, and now seem to have abandoned such a definition altogether. It is vital that we understand exactly who is intended to be captured by the amendments—whether this includes, for example, charities and all the paid employees of charities. Does it include church groups? Does it include the vicar who makes representations on behalf of his parishioners, because he is in paid employment? The noble Baroness shakes her head, but the problem is that without any definition we simply do not know who is intended to be covered by what she proposes.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

We have said throughout that the definition used by the professional organisations—which would absolutely answer every point, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord must have read—is one that we are very content with.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is fair enough to say that, but it is not what the House is being asked to vote on today. It is being asked to vote on something which is devoid of any definition.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If the professionals have designed a system which includes them, why can that not be in the consequential amendments? Why do the Government not come back at Third Reading to include those provisions?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Because, my Lords, there have as I understand it been many attempts made to pin down and define what is meant by “professional lobbyists”, none of which has met with approval or the kind of certainty we want in previous debates. Perhaps we can answer two of the points of the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness. Simply to introduce ambiguity to a prohibition provision that is accompanied by serious criminal sanctions is unacceptable. That lack of clarity leaves the amendment fatally flawed.

As the Government have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, our proposals for a register are designed to address the specific problem that we have identified. One of the things that gave rise to complaints in the media was that when consultant lobbyists were lobbying, people did not know who their clients were. That is the issue which the Bill addresses. It is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. The context is that this Government have for the first time made it clear to the public exactly who Ministers and Permanent Secretaries are meeting. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report on the Government’s initial proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists made clear that identifying the problem that the register is intended to address is critical if successful regulation is to be achieved.

While we acknowledge that there are those who consider the focus of the proposed register too narrow—I am aware that these criticisms have been made—we have yet to see a clear articulation of the problem that would be addressed by expanding the scope to all so-called professional lobbyists. The point has been made about in-house lobbyists. It is quite clear whose interests are represented by an in-house professional lobbyist: it is the person who employs him or her. If you are an in-house lobbyist for the Scotch Whisky Association—I am not sure if that association has in-house lobbyists, but let us assume that it does—it does not take a genius to work out that if you are lobbying a Minister or Permanent Secretary, those are the interests that you would be representing. If you are an in-house lobbyist for one of the utilities and you meet a Minister or Permanent Secretary, it does not take a huge leap of the imagination to guess that you are representing the interests of the organisation which employs you. I cannot honestly see what is added by creating a list of people and their employers. If I have missed the point, I am more than happy to have it explained.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

There are two issues. The first is that there are some enormously large employers and we do not know whether they are lobbying over a particular application for planning permission, for a new medicine or for something else. The second is that unless they meet a Minister or a Permanent Secretary under the silly bit of this Bill, we will know nothing; whether they meet senior civil servants, Bill teams or policymakers in the Civil Service, that will not be covered at all.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we shall come on to the second point made by the noble Baroness. I think it is the subject matter of the next group of amendments. We would not know any more just by listing the names of in-house employees who engaged in lobbying. You would still not know from doing that—and that is what this amendment seeks to do—whether that person was actually lobbying with regard to planning permission or not. That is why it is important that the parallel provisions which the Government are doing in quarterly returns as to which people Ministers and Permanent Secretaries are meeting is an important part of the whole picture. We shall deal in a moment with the points made by the noble Baroness because I think that she is missing out that crucial part.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

Just on the example the noble and learned Lord was giving of the Scotch Whisky Association, if it was to buy in a consultant lobbyist to advise it but did the lobbying itself, how would that be caught by the Bill?

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

If I put a scenario to the Minister, perhaps he will be able to give me the answer. If an in-house lobbyist from, let us say, IGas, the shale gas production company, were to meet a junior Minister or a civil servant in the department, by what means would a member of the public or a journalist know about that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, if a lobbyist meets a Minister or the Permanent Secretary, there will be a scheme of publication—as, indeed, we are committed to publish at the moment, and we do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who moved the amendment, will recognise the name if I mention Mr Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland. If I met Mr Clancy, at the moment I would register that, and put on my quarterly return that I had met Mr Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland. In the last term I think there was an issue relating to the banking reform Bill; I cannot remember if I actually met him or had correspondence with him about that—but this is what I would envisage would happen. There would be a reference to “Mr Michael Clancy, Law Society of Scotland: representations on the banking Bill”, or whatever its formal title was. That is how I would envisage the system working. The record would not simply say “catch-up meeting”—a term which has, perhaps, caused frustration to some in the past.

My Lords, these commitments show that the Government have listened—

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)]

Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend for further clarification about meetings. When I was in business I sometimes found that a note of a meeting was sent to the company before being made available under freedom of information or other provisions. The problem often was that the report of the meeting was not very accurate. Will there be any system of clearing or showing notes of the formal meetings that he has described to the people who were involved in them, simply for the sake of accuracy?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. I have not said that we will publish the minutes of meetings; the example I gave showed that we would record the detailed nature of what the meeting was about. I hesitate to use the word “subject matter”, because until now that term has also covered “catch-up meetings” and “introductory meetings”. It is not anticipated that we would publish minutes of such meetings. If a meeting had taken place on fracking, I do not think that any clarification would be needed between the Minister and the company as to whether the meeting was about fracking. It is not proposed that minutes would be made available, but there may be other ways—under, say, freedom of information provisions—in which other information might become available. None the less, what we are committing to today takes our commitment as a Government that much further. Ours has been a listening response, and I believe that it will do far more for transparency than—

[Lord Hardie]

Can the Minister help me in the following regard? He relies upon the fact that a system of recording meetings has been introduced. That is, of course, very welcome. He gave the example of a meeting with Mr Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland—and I am sure that he and his officials are very diligent in recording such meetings. However, what if we have a Minister or officials who are not as diligent and who perhaps record it as a meeting with Mr Michael Clancy full stop and do not explain who he is? Clearly, if Mr Michael Clancy is a lobbyist and my amendment is accepted, the cross-reference of the register will identify who he is and what his interests are.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I hear the point that the noble and learned Lord is making. As I think my noble friend indicated, if the register is anything like the Canadian register you may have difficulty finding out who it is. However, more importantly, the transparency part of it comes in because of what Ministers would be obliged to put in their scheme. There is an ethics and propriety department in the Cabinet Office. I assure the noble and learned Lord and your Lordships’ House that when we submit our returns that department can get back to us. If we just put “Mr Michael Clancy” and there is no indication of who he is, we will be pushed to elaborate on that.

The noble Baroness said that, if a defence contractor was involved, we would not necessarily know that. In fact, under the publication scheme, the company’s name would have to be given. If that company was a defence contractor and the meeting was about the provisions of the defence Bill that is before your Lordships’ House, such information would be far more relevant, transparent and informative for the public than just giving the name of an employee of that particular company. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether his amendment advances transparency at all, given what I have indicated that the Government are willing to do, and whether it would lead to considerable uncertainty. Indeed, if it took the matter as far as the Canadian experience, it could, through an overload of information, be even less effective in promoting the transparency that we both wish to see.

[Lord Hardie]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and to those who have spoken in support of the amendment. As regards the noble and learned Lord’s criticism that the amendment does not include a definition of professional lobbyists, I would say two things. First, is not that definition self-evident from the words “professional lobbyists”? Is it not a similar situation to that of a solicitor who is a lawyer performing legal services as either an employer—a principal—or as an employee? Equally, is not a professional lobbyist someone who lobbies as part of his profession as either a principal or as an employee? As regards the noble and learned Lord’s difficulties with the definition, what efforts have the Government made since the very full debate we had in Committee to try to come up with a definition? If that is a difficulty for the Government and this amendment is carried, perhaps they could put in a definition, although I do not think that is necessary.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble and learned Lord asks a fair question. The answer is that that is not the scheme that the Government have been following. We did not think that we needed to produce a definition of professional lobbyists. I ask him to reflect on the fact that if the managing director of a large drinks manufacturer were to meet the Secretary of State on a particular issue—for example, minimum unit pricing—I do not think that one would consider that person to be a lobbyist. Why should it matter that the name of a lower-ranking official in a company who lobbies on behalf of the company is in the public domain but not that of the managing director, when the information that the public want relates to the latter? I have said that we are willing to give that information, because a Minister would have to say that he had met the managing director of company X to discuss minimum unit pricing. Surely that is a much better route to transparency than putting the name of a much lower-ranking official than the managing director.

[Lord Hardie]

I take the noble and learned Lord’s point but it is not an alternative: it is not either disclosure by the Minister or registration. The transparency arises from the combination of the disclosure by the Minister and the registration, and the ability of the public to cross-reference the two to see precisely on whose behalf the lobbyist is speaking.

The noble and learned Lord also mentioned cost and referred to the Canadian system. He will be aware that the system has to be cost-neutral. The cost would be met by the various people who had to register. Of course, the larger number of entries in the register would—or should—offset the increased cost.

The professional body, the Public Relations Consultants Association, supports this amendment. Although it currently operates the voluntary register, it sees the benefit in having a statutory register provided that that register covers all in-house lobbyists as well. As I said earlier, some of the register already includes entries relating to in-house lobbyists. The noble and learned Lord also referred to charges, but there are already charges on the existing voluntary register. In all the circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

I rise to speak to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, my noble friend Lady Hayter and myself, which extends the parameters of who needs to be lobbied to prompt registration to include special advisers, civil servants and PPSs.

I, too, welcome the enhanced transparency in relation to reporting that was mentioned by the Minister in response to the earlier debate. However, I believe that will not be enough if the subjects who are principally lobbied are not asked to report. There has been progress, but it is simply not enough.

Both today and in Committee, a powerful and clear case has been made by former Ministers, former senior civil servants—which includes those in the Diplomatic Service, pursuant to the discussion we had in Committee—and former special advisers as to why the remit of the Bill must be extended if it is to have proper impact. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said in Committee, the target is normally the Minister and you therefore have to focus on the channels for reaching the Minister. The Permanent Secretary, as we have heard, is not a significant channel for this purpose. Indeed, the lobbying industry itself has said on numerous occasions that,

“we do not make personal representations to Ministers or Permanent Secretaries”.

So there we have it from the horse’s mouth. Yet the Government did not provide any convincing reason for why only meetings with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries should be subject to the provisions in Part 1. I hope that this short debate will persuade the Minister that there need to be some changes to this Bill in order to make it properly creditable.

Civil servants here and in Brussels should be included, not because there is any suggestion that they are conducting themselves in any inappropriate manner but to fulfil the purported aim of the Bill—that is, transparency. Last week it was revealed that there had been 130 meetings between representatives of the alcohol industry and the Government since 2010. The BMJ investigation showed that they had an extraordinary level of access to the Department of Health, which later decided to U-turn on the question of minimum unit pricing. It was a comment from the Minister for Public Health on the “Today” programme on Wednesday that caught my attention. Of those 130 meetings, she said, “But most of those were with officials”. Precisely. If the Bill is to increase transparency, the public should have access to this information.

I turn to special advisers. Naturally, I support Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Greaves. Special advisers should certainly be subject to the same level of transparency, given how closely they work with their Ministers and the influence that they can and do have on policy. The case has already been well made but I make no apology for returning to the News International lobbyist Fred Michel, whose case proves quite how large the loopholes in the Bill are. He was summoned to the Leveson trial after DCMS released 164 pages of e-mails between him and Adam Smith, the then Secretary of State’s special adviser. This came to light only in what I am sure everyone would agree were quite extreme circumstances. Again, if the Bill is to increase transparency, the public should be able to access these details.

Given the stance taken in Committee, I imagine that the Minister may well object by saying that the provisions in our amendment are disproportionate; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has just made that case. Of course that argument cannot apply to extending the Bill to cover special advisers—that should be a given now—but, if proportionality is the Minister’s only concern, I hope that he will commit to bringing an amendment back at Third Reading that at least includes special advisers, civil servants and Parliamentary Secretaries. There is time for the Government to work on an amendment that could ensure that these people are included in the least bureaucratic way.

The Minister may also point to the fact that the limits that the Government have put in the Bill mean that there is no obvious place to publish such information. In Committee I asked the Government to look at the least bureaucratic way of extending the scope of those lobbied, but they do not seem to have taken the opportunity to find a solution. We can provide the Minister with two solutions. No doubt the Minister will be aware that on the website data.gov.uk, the meetings between special advisers and newspapers editors, proprietors and executives are already published, so there is no convincing argument why that cannot be extended. The other solution may have been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and it is elegantly simple: the Minister, when publishing details of his own meetings, publishes information about the meetings of civil servants and special advisers in his department.

This House has explained—very graphically, in many ways—the problems relating to the Bill and its extent, but we have also pointed the Government towards solutions. I very much hope that they will accept these amendments. If not, I trust that they will go away and come back with an amendment at Third Reading that takes these crucial issues into account.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has moved an amendment that would extend the scope of the register to include meetings with Parliamentary Private Secretaries, civil servants and political advisers, while the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tyler would extend the scope to include meetings with special advisers.

At the outset, I want to pick up the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who asked whether there was a difference between “political adviser” and “special adviser”. My understanding is that the term “special adviser” is defined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, indicated that the term “political adviser” was really referring to special advisers. One is a term of art already recognised in statute, but for the purposes of this debate I think that everyone is talking about the same entity, if that is the right word.

The Government have previously outlined that the register is designed to complement the existing government transparency regime, to which I referred and on which I made announcements in the previous debate, whereby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries proactively publish details of their meetings with external organisations—I should add, for the avoidance of doubt, that these will be external organisations whether the Minister meets them in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Brussels, Washington or wherever. The register will address a specific and discrete problem within that context: that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Williams of Crosby]

On that point, I raise the question of whether the three most senior classes of the Civil Service are not in a much narrower area in terms of cost than the wider range of civil servants to which my noble and learned friend has been referring. They seem to be almost completely distinct in terms of the costs involved.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I accept that it would be more proportionate, but I really am not in a position to say. One of the problems is that some of the terms used, such as “director-general”, mean completely different things in different departments. That has been another issue. At a time when we should be streamlining public services, not imposing additional costly burdens upon them, I do not believe that the added burden of 5,000 extra diaries would be proportionate.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

I should like to raise two issues. First, nobody is suggesting that all meetings with all civil servants should be included—I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said—only meetings with lobbyists. Secondly, the Minister has not answered the point made earlier in Committee, I think, or the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that when publishing details of his or her own meetings, Ministers should also publish information about the meetings of civil servants and special advisers in his or her department. That seems a very unbureaucratic way of addressing the issue.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble Baroness says that they are not asking to include all civil servants’ meetings with everyone, but the amendment does say all civil servants, although I admit that she says that it would cover any lobbyist who met civil servants. As for Ministers’ reporting regime, we have said that Ministers will report the people with whom they have had meetings whether they are lobbyists or non-lobbyists. To further subdivide that would be a considerable burden on 450,000 civil servants. I do not believe that it would add to the transparency that we have tried to enhance and improve by what we have already done as a Government, some of which has been unprecedented. I think that the noble and learned Lord is seeking to intervene.

[Lord Hardie]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The point that I am seeking to make in this amendment is that one has to go back to the definition in Clause 2. In the terms of that definition, it is people who fall within the category of persons carrying on the business of consultant lobbying who have to register under Clause 1. Clause 2(1)(a) states that they are required to register if, in short,

“in the course of a business and in return for payment, the person makes communications within subsection (3)”.

It is the communications that we are addressing. Subsection (3) states that the communications are,

“oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary relating to”,

the various matters mentioned. I think that second Permanent Secretaries are on the list of people in the schedule.

The point of this amendment is to highlight that the narrow definition of people to whom communications are being made which require registration on the part of consultant lobbyists renders the whole concept of registration almost worthless because, as has been clear from the contributions across the House, these people are not just lobbying Ministers. To get round that, a lobbyist who lobbies a special adviser or a civil servant concerned with policy would not be required to register.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord is making about the requirement to register if you are making communications with these people. It may be that that would bring more names on to the register—I simply do not know—but to enhance transparency, the complement to such an extension would be the introduction of meeting reporting obligations on these public officials. Otherwise you have a list of names of consultant lobbyists and their clients but there is nothing there to which you can then relate them. It becomes fully meaningful only if you have that complementary extension of the scheme. On the amendment, I sought to make the point that that would be a huge burden and one that would not be consistent with efficiency in government; nor indeed would it be proportionate to improving transparency.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

The Minister has not responded to the very narrow point that was made by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. She asked a very simple question: why should a Minister, in his or her registration, not register the activity of that Minister’s individual political adviser? That political adviser is working on behalf of that Minister. No doubt the noble Lord, as a Minister, has political advisers of his own. In the event that they meet lobbyists from outside, they are meeting them on his behalf. Why should not he, in his registration, refer to those meetings?

[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.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

Can my noble and learned friend clarify what he has said? If a consultant lobbyist lobbies a Minister directly to achieve policy X, that consultant lobbyist must register. If that consultant lobbyist only lobbies the special adviser, who then advises the Minister, who decides to implement policy X, they do not have to register. The second point is on civil servants. Does he think that lobbyists will lobby any passing civil servant as opposed to those members of the senior Civil Service who have responsibility in particular areas, and are therefore a very narrow and usually clearly defined group?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

On the second point, I was responding to the amendment as it is tabled, which does not narrow it down at all to senior civil servants—it applies to all civil servants. I am sure that bodies make arrangements with junior officials as well as with members of the senior Civil Service. On the issue of special advisers, I cannot elaborate on what I have already said.

[Lord Hardie]

I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support for the amendment. I realise that the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Turnbull, suggest that the matter should be confined to special advisers. However, as I said in Committee, when I was in practice at the Scottish Bar I was standing junior counsel to the City of Edinburgh district council, and then, latterly, senior counsel—and it was clear from my experience there that it was not the senior director of administration or the director of planning who was the subject of contact by people seeking to influence policy. The contact was with the local authority officials—in this context, the civil servants—who were concerned with the formulation of policy. It strikes me that to exclude the very policymakers, whether civil servants or special advisers, makes nonsense of the registration process. I therefore beg to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

4: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “the Minister or permanent secretary” and insert “the person to whom the communication is made”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the amendments in this group are a number of technical amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It may assist the House if I briefly go through them and explain their purpose.

Amendments 4, 5 and 6 clarify, and provide greater consistency to, terminology used in relation to the recipients of the lobbying communications and the communications themselves. The minor amendment, Amendment 6, which clarifies the term “Minister of the Crown”, does not, in the context of the Bill, capture the corporate bodies of the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. As Clause 2 makes clear, the communications that the register is intended to capture are those that are,

“made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”.

The definition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 includes the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. Both these entities, however, are corporate bodies with which it is not possible to make personal communications. As such, these amendments remove those bodies from the definition and, in doing so, provide further clarity regarding the communications that fall within the scope of consultant lobbying.

Amendment 8 clarifies the position in relation to employees who make lobbying communications as a part of their employment. Specifically, the amendment provides that employees will not be considered as carrying on,

“the business of consultant lobbying”,

if they make lobbying communications as an employee in the course of a business carried on by their employer. The amendment therefore clarifies that in-house lobbyists are not captured by the Part 1 provisions, and that it is a consultant lobbying firm rather than its employees that are required to register in respect of any lobbying activity. As Ministers have made clear—indeed, as we have already debated—the register is designed to address the problem that it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists.

Amendment 9 provides, first, that where an individual makes a communication in the course of the business of another, then both the individual and that other business or person make that communication. As such, the amendment ensures that the client on whose behalf consultant lobbying communications are made is always declared on the register even if that communication is undertaken by a subcontractor that the consultant lobbying firm has engaged. The amendment also provides that if the individual happens to be an employee—as opposed to a contractor, for example—then the employee is not to be regarded as making the communication on behalf of their employer but, rather, only on behalf of their employer’s client, reflecting the fact that in-house lobbyists and employees of consultant lobbying firms are not required to register.

Amendment 10 is intended to remove any ambiguity as to the maximum period of a reappointment term of the registrar, which is three years. An individual may be reappointed twice, and the maximum period for each of those terms is three years.

Amendments 18, 20 and 21 ensure consistency in the language used in the provisions relating to the cancellation of an information notice or the variation or cancellation of a penalty notice. By ensuring consistency of terminology, these amendments will further clarify the detail of the provisions relating to the cancellation and/or variation of these notices and ensure consistency with approaches to such matters in other legislation.

Amendment 19 clarifies that any individual, not just employees, can commit the offence of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying while unregistered if they and/or their organisation are unregistered. The amendment will remove any ambiguity as to whether the provisions apply to individuals who undertake consultant lobbying in the course of a business but are not employees of that consultant lobbying business—for example, contractors. It will therefore ensure that the application of the provisions in this respect is absolutely clear.

Amendment 24 has been tabled to clarify that the charges associated with registration will be set to ensure that the sums received offset the total costs of the registrar’s activities. Treasury guidance requires that if a charging regime recoups costs other than those directly associated with the service provided—in this instance, the keeping of the register—then the position should be made explicitly clear to Parliament. This amendment reiterates that the charges provided for in Clause 22 will be set to recover the total cost of the registrar’s activities, including those that are not directly connected with the keeping of the register, such as enforcement activity.

Amendment 25 removes drafting in relation to the netting-off of monies from the Consolidated Fund for the funding of the registrar. Such funding will instead be arranged administratively between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.

Amendment 27 is tabled to fulfil the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Part 1. The Government, as ever, are grateful to the committee for its thoughtful consideration of the delegated powers in Part 1 and have accepted its recommendations in relation to this part in their entirety. The amendment alters the part to require that regulations under Clause 4(5) or Clause 5(4), the first regulations to be made under Clauses 11(3) and 17(3), and any regulation which amends or modifies the provisions of the part, must be made by the affirmative procedure. As a result, Parliament will be provided with the opportunity to undertake detailed scrutiny of any regulations made under the powers in these clauses. Again, I express thanks to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its detailed report on this part of the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment 4 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

5: Clause 2, page 2, line 19, leave out “the communication” and insert “it”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, in moving this amendment, I declare an interest. As I explained in Committee, I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan and have received hospitality from that Government in the form of social events. Several years ago, I visited Taiwan on two occasions as a guest: the first was as part of a judicial delegation from Scotland and the second was as a lecturer at an international conference. As I advised the registrar of interests last week, I have now been invited to speak at another conference next month, and my expenses will be paid by the Taiwanese Government. It is a legal conference.

Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 excludes from lobbying activities communications from an official or member of staff of a sovereign power. In Committee, I sought clarification on whether that included countries such as the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is not a member of the United Nations and with which we have no formal diplomatic relations, although we do have an office and a representative there and it has offices in this country. The Minister promised to write to me. I received a letter dated 7 January from the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General to the effect that communications from any foreign Government, irrespective of their country’s membership status with the United Nations or its diplomatic status with UK, would not meet the criteria for lobbying for profit in Clause 2.

In view of that response, it seemed that paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 was unnecessary, and I wrote accordingly to the noble and learned Lord. I received a reply dated 9 January, in which he confirmed that communications from foreign Governments,

“will not be captured by the definition of consultant lobbying outlined in clause 2”.

However, he added that paragraph 3 of Schedule 1,

“provides helpful clarity, especially to international colleagues, in relation to the application of the register and it is not our intention to remove it by amendment at Report stage”.

It seems to me that Clause 2 should be sufficient assurance to sovereign powers, and the addition of paragraph 3 may have the unintended consequence of causing concern for foreign states that are not sovereign powers. For that reason, the amendment seeks the removal of this paragraph.

In moving the amendment, I seek clarification from the noble and learned Lord as to what is meant by the term “sovereign power” in the Bill. Sovereignty would seem to me to include such issues as control over a geographical area whose citizens are governed by its rulers, whether they have been democratically elected or not. Taiwan is a democracy whose citizens enjoy universal suffrage from the age of 20. There are elections for the President and the legislature every four years. The President can hold office only for two successive terms. The Government pass legislation and govern their citizens, and Taiwan has diplomatic relations with a number of countries, including the United States of America. Does the noble and learned Lord accept that sovereignty does not depend upon membership of the United Nations or having diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom? In those circumstances, will he confirm that Taiwan would satisfy the test of sovereignty for the purpose of this provision? Even if Taiwan does satisfy that test, what about countries which do not? Which ones are they? Does the inclusion of sovereign states not cause concern for those countries which do not come within that category? I beg to move.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has moved an amendment which would delete paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 and, as such, remove the explicit exemption from the requirement to register for members of staff and officials of sovereign powers and international organisations.

As the noble and learned Lord very fairly explained in moving his amendment, we have been in correspondence over the past week on this matter. The Government believe that, by establishing a statutory register of consultant lobbyists, this part of the Bill aims to make clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. It is not our intention that the register should capture international or diplomatic communications by representatives of foreign Governments or authorities or of international organisations. Communications made by representatives of foreign Governments or authorities will not be captured by the definition of consultant lobbying, as the noble and learned Lord has said, as they will not meet the criteria outlined in Clause 2 and the associated schedule. Those include, among other things, that lobbying must be done,

“in the course of a business and in return for payment”,

and,

“on behalf of another person”.

However, out of an abundance of caution, the Bill also includes a specific exemption in paragraph 3 that explicitly excludes officials or members of staff of sovereign powers and international organisations from the requirement to register in respect of their communications to UK Ministers and Permanent Secretaries.

Noble Lords will recall that Schedule 1 provides a number of explicit exemptions that are designed to provide absolute clarity regarding the application of Part 1 provisions. Those exemptions include one specifically excluding parliamentarians from the scope of the register. Although the Government have been absolutely clear that communications made by parliamentarians to the Government will not be captured by the Clause 2 provision, I understand that, none the less, noble Lords and Members of the other place have been particularly grateful for the extra clarity and reiteration provided by paragraph 4. Paragraph 3 is intended to provide equivalent clarity to sovereign powers and international organisations and the Government are not persuaded that it should be removed.

The noble and learned Lord asked specific questions regarding Taiwan. I am sure that he and perhaps other Members of your Lordships’ House would agree that the Report stage of the transparency Bill is perhaps not the most appropriate forum in which to discuss matters of international diplomacy. Indeed, if the noble and learned Lord wishes to pursue the issue, he may wish to take it up with my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. In these circumstances, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hardie]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for putting those remarks on the record and, in the circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

8: Schedule 1, page 53, line 16, at end insert—
“3A An individual does not carry on the business of consultant lobbying by reason of making communications as an employee in the course of a business carried on by the individual’s employer.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

10: Schedule 2, page 55, line 1, leave out from “but” to end of line 2 and insert “the term for which a person is re-appointed must not be more than 3 years”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

12: Clause 4, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“(fa) a statement of— (i) whether there is in place an undertaking by the person to comply with a relevant code of conduct, and(ii) if so, where a copy of the code may be inspected;”

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, in moving the amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I will also speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 22. As the Government have made clear throughout the debates on this part of the Bill, the statutory register of consultant lobbyists is designed to address a specific problem—that it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists. Our objective is to ensure increased transparency without disrupting in any way the fluency of the dialogue between government decision-makers and those who will be affected by policy and legislative decisions.

It is not, nor has it been, the Government’s intention to attempt to regulate comprehensively all those who communicate with government, and the register will not, therefore, be associated with a statutory code of conduct. Instead, the Government are committed to ensuring that the statutory register complements the existing self-regulatory regime by which the industry promotes the ethical behaviour that is essential to the integrity and reputation of the lobbying industry.

We have been very grateful to those Members of your Lordships’ House for their thoughtful suggestions as to how this might best be achieved. After careful consideration of the debates both in this House and in the other place, and discussion with the industry and transparency groups, we have concluded that the most effective option is to provide for a statutory link between the statutory register and the industry-hosted voluntary codes of conduct. As such, Amendments 12, 15 and 16 will require consultant lobbyists to state in their register entries whether or not they subscribe to a publicly available code of conduct in relation to their lobbying activity and, if so, where a copy of the code can be accessed. Such a provision will enhance both the transparency and the scrutiny of registered lobbyists, and the Government hope that the measure will therefore be welcomed.

Additionally, the Government have tabled an amendment to clarify that the registrar can both revise and replace the guidance that he or she has published. I appreciate that this group also includes amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, and I will perhaps respond to these after she has moved them.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

What are the circumstances in which a lobbying firm would not wish to sign up to the code of conduct?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that this should be addressed to me as opposed to the lobbying firms, since it is sincerely hoped that they would sign up to a code of conduct. What we seek through these amendments is for them to indicate that they have signed up to a code of conduct and for there also to be a link as to where that code of conduct can be found.

Amendment 13 (to Amendment 12)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hardie]

Perhaps I can answer the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. In the debate about the first amendment today, I referred to how the PRCA requires people who sign up to the voluntary register to sign up to the code of conduct, which has strong enforcement of regulations or provisions. My point earlier was that if that disappears and there is to be a statutory register in place, it would be appropriate that we have something which is at least as good, not something that detracts from the current position.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I appreciate the welcome given to the government amendments by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and my noble friend Lord Tyler. As I indicated, we listened carefully to the debate in Committee. We have responded by tabling these amendments, which will require consultant lobbyists to state in their register entries whether they subscribe to a publicly available code of conduct in relation to their lobbying activity and, if so, where a copy of the code can be accessed.

The Opposition’s amendments, spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, would require that lobbyists declare on their register entry which publicly available code of conduct they subscribe to, implicitly requiring such a subscription in order to register. The Government are not persuaded that the amendment is appropriate. Moreover, there is no provision that would require compliance with such codes or provide for enforcement.

The objective of the Part 1 provisions is to enhance transparency and scrutiny. We are not seeking to regulate behaviour. The noble Baroness mentioned the exchanges she had in Committee with my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire about lobbyists who breach the Bribery Act. Of course, breaches of the Bribery Act are punishable by unlimited fines and up to 10 years’ imprisonment, or both. The Government do not consider it appropriate for a Bill to contain separate sanctions in addition to those already included in the Bribery Act, which are clearly very substantial indeed. It is quite proper that the Bribery Act includes serious and proportionate sanctions but it would not be appropriate for the transparency Bill to duplicate those sanctions. The Government considered the option of including a penalty whereby a person could be removed from the register but concluded that imposing a limitless prohibition on someone conducting their profession was too extreme a penalty.

Requiring lobbyists to declare whether they subscribe to a code will expose those who do not abide by the ethical principles that are so essential to the integrity of the industry. It is not the Government’s intention, however, to introduce a high-regulation regime whereby the registrar is responsible for monitoring and enforcing subscription to, and compliance with, codes of conduct. The Opposition also suggest that the registrar should be responsible for publishing a code of conduct. As my noble friend indicated, that is premature. The Government’s amendments are intended to complement the existing self-regulatory regime, not to replace or undermine it.

To pick up the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, we do not anticipate that lobbying associations such as the PRCA, CIPR and APPC will withdraw their codes. Indeed, the industry has welcomed the link between its codes and the proposed register, which it recognises will enhance the existing self-regulatory regime. That was the feedback we got during the consultation. I heard the noble Lord’s inquiry but I am not aware that any explanation or example was given of circumstances in which a firm would not register. Rather, the industry anticipates that it will continue with its codes and that the proposed register—and the government amendment—will enhance the existing self-regulatory regime.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

Would Ministers be happy to meet a lobbying company that did not subscribe to the ethical standards that have been set down, either by the association or any code that the Government might wish to introduce at some stage in the future? Indeed, are there circumstances in which Ministers would refuse to meet them?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord can reasonably expect a blanket application. There may be reasons—I do not know what they might be—that are not malign as to why a particular group has not signed up. We already know that a majority of lobbying firms sign up to and adhere to the respective codes of conduct, but we believe that making it a statutory requirement would lead to unnecessary pressure and that what we are proposing has struck the right balance.

I have a lot of sympathy for the point the noble Lord is making but it would not be appropriate to make a sweeping general obligation on all future Ministers when you cannot foresee particular circumstances that would occur at any time or place. I believe we have struck the right balance. I urge the House to support the Government’s amendments and I urge the noble Baroness not to press the amendment in her name.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for what I think is his support for the approach we are taking on this.

Of course, Amendment 23 would be only permissive. It does not require the registrar to publish a code of conduct; it simply permits the registrar, should at some time in the future he or she feel the need to, to be able to do so. I am slightly surprised that the Government cannot even allow a registrar at some time in the future to be able to publish a code of conduct. They seem to be turning their back on any interest in raising standards.

The Minister spoke about the Bribery Act. Of course, the issue is that nobody will be able to be removed from this register for any criminal offence. We could have people convicted all sorts of tax evasion—anything—still on the register. I and others think that this would be very misleading as it will appear that they are on a statutory register and therefore have some stamp of approval.

As to the question of who would not sign up to it, I am sure that your Lordships’ House is well aware that the Association of Professional Political Consultants is supporting our amendment. It very much feels that it will be only the bad boy who does not bother signing up and that this really undermines the code of conduct.

I am not going to test the opinion of the House on this amendment. But in withdrawing it, I will say two things. First, it was very sad to read in the paper yesterday that the UN special rapporteur called this Bill,

“a stain on British democracy”.

Secondly, my fear is that, as per the warning of the Prime Minister, the next scandal waiting to happen will be from a consultant lobbyist, it will be behaviour that would have been caught by this code and it will be this Government who said they did not want to make signing up to a code mandatory. With those words, I withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

15: Clause 4, page 3, line 29, at beginning insert “In this section—”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his amendment. It might be helpful if in response I indicate the Government’s thinking on sanctions and appeals. When considering the most appropriate sanctions in respect of non-compliance with the register, Ministers did consider the option of removing a person from the register, thereby prohibiting them or the company from continuing to operate as a lobbyist. We concluded, however, that such a sanction would represent a disproportionate penalty as it would essentially take away their livelihood. There are very few industries where, unless one is imprisoned, one is prevented from carrying out one’s professional activities if one has made errors in the course of doing so, and the Government are not persuaded that the lobbying industry should be singled out for such treatment. The sanctions regime that we have designed is therefore a proportionate one, designed to provide appropriate deterrent against, and punishment for, non-compliance with the provisions of the register.

Clause 6(6) does, however—as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out—provide the registrar with the ability to remove a person from the register. That provision is not drafted as a sanction, but rather as an administrative housekeeping measure to enable the registrar to maintain the accessibility and relevance of the register. The registrar may, for example, wish to remove individuals who have retired, passed away, chosen a change of career, or who work for a company that has been wound up. The noble and learned Lord’s amendment would enable a person to appeal against the registrar’s decision to remove them from the register, as under Clause 6(6).

We do not envisage that the registrar would remove any person from the register unless they were confident that the person no longer engaged, or no longer wished to engage in future, in consultant lobbying. I take the noble and learned Lord’s point that there are potential criminal sanctions attached to it. Obviously, as a former distinguished Lord Advocate, he will know that there is a discretion. Indeed, Clause 12(9) indicates that proceedings for an offence under this part in England and Wales may be instituted only by, or with the consent of, the Director of Public Prosecutions, and in Northern Ireland by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.

Therefore, if a person was to find that they had been wrongly removed, if they wished to object, they could immediately advise the registrar that they were still living, or that they had not given up consultant lobbying, and accordingly the registrar could reregister that person without the need for an appeal and without any difficulty. If they remained dissatisfied in spite of the fact that they could prove that they were still living and consulting, it would be possible to judicially review a decision, although that is very unlikely given the much simpler course of reregistering.

The important point is that this is not intended as a sanction or a penalty, but rather one of administration where the company or the individual is no longer believed to be performing the role of consultant lobbyist. Therefore in those circumstances, if a person becomes aware of that and wishes to challenge it, the best and most simple thing to do is to ask to be reregistered rather than to go to some expense in seeking an appeal to a tribunal.

I hope that the noble and learned Lord is reassured by that explanation. This provision is not intended as a sanction and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hardie]

I thank the noble and learned Lord for that explanation. I simply comment in passing that if it got the stage of having to have a judicial review, then that is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. But in all the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

18: Clause 9, page 5, line 24, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“( ) Where an information notice has been served on a person, the Registrar may cancel it by serving written notice to that effect on the person.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

19: Clause 12, page 6, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“( ) any individual who, not being entered in the register, engages in lobbying in the course of that business.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

20: Clause 16, page 8, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
“(7) Where a penalty notice has been served on a person, the Registrar may vary or cancel it by serving written notice to that effect on the person.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

21: Clause 20, page 9, line 41, leave out “of notices under section 16(7)” and insert “under section 16(7) of penalty notices”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

22: Clause 21, page 10, line 21, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
“( ) The Registrar may publish—
(a) revisions to any guidance published under this section;(b) replacement guidance.”

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

24: Clause 22, page 10, line 34, at end insert “(whether or not those costs are directly connected with the keeping of the register)”

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I have little to add. Like my noble friend, I deeply regret that this Bill was not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny. I still do not see the urgency for this Bill. It would have been better if pre-legislative scrutiny had been undertaken now and we could have adopted the Bill in the next Session. Notwithstanding that, I strongly support this amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, which, as he said, would enhance transparency. The Government have moved today in terms of improving the reporting in ministerial diaries of when lobbying takes place, but that is still a very narrow measure. This amendment is so clever but so simple in that all it does is develop existing procedures. It is not about a new bureaucratic mechanism; it is a very simple means of moving forward. I hope that, even at this late stage, the Minister will consider either adopting this amendment or coming back at Third Reading with the Government’s own. That would not only hold the Government in good stead but improve the governance of our parliamentary system and of government.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Norton for moving his new clause, which would require the Government to publish alongside any statement on a matter of policy, legislation or a contract or grant records of any oral or written communication directed to a Minister, the Minister’s Parliamentary Private Secretary or special adviser, and any departmental civil servants concerned with that matter. This is an issue in which my noble friend has long taken an interest. His amendment would also provide exemptions from the requirement to publish for commercial or security-sensitive material.

I do not think that this is a simple proposition, although I certainly think it is an intriguing one. However, at a time when we seek to ensure more efficient and effective government, one should pause to reflect that a statutory requirement that every oral or written communication received by every civil servant, special adviser, Parliamentary Private Secretary or Minister be recorded, collated and published in parallel with any relevant statement is not as easy and simple as was perhaps suggested.

Not only would the system impose a considerable bureaucratic burden on the public sector but one would wish to consider whether it would lead in turn to an information overload. Publishing information in relation to a very small public policy statement may well have some merit, but the volume of information that the Government would be likely to be required to publish in relation to, let us say, the Budget, the Autumn Statement or the Queen’s Speech could be so overwhelming that any transparency value would be undermined by the inaccessibility and quantity of the information.

The Government’s objective is to provide the public with valuable information which they can utilise to scrutinise our actions and hold us to account. The focus should be on the value of information and the insight it can provide, not on the volume. As I have already indicated, this Government have taken exceptional steps to publicise information about decision-making, and the register is intended to extend that transparency to those who seek to influence decision-makers. It is already standard practice that responses to government consultations are published in full or in summary, and if the public require further information about certain policies or decisions, then they have the right to request that information under the Freedom of Information Act.

I recognise that my noble friend is urging the Government to extend or improve their information publication regime, and I know that this view is shared. However, I hope that the commitments to the improvement of transparency that I made on behalf of the Government during the debate on the first group of amendments will show that not only have we already taken unprecedented steps, but we are furthering them. I recognise and acknowledge that they fall short of what my noble friend is seeking, but I hope he will reflect that to publish the volume which he is suggesting—particularly in circumstances such as the Budget—might not enhance transparency, but could lead to an overload that might not assist those he seeks to help with his amendment. I hope that it will be acknowledged that the Government have already taken steps and are committed to more steps; and that what we are doing will increase the level of transparency more than any previous Administration have done. In these circumstances, I urge my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hardie]

My Lords, I seek a point of clarification. In light of the decision of the House to accept the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, on special advisers, will the Minister tell the House whether it is the Government’s position that, notwithstanding that decision, the Government have no intention of adding information relative to special advisers’ meetings with lobbyists when the Minister makes his or her return?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I stand by what I said when I replied to the question asked by my noble friend Lord Tyler in the first group of amendments. Obviously, the Government have not had an opportunity to discuss the matter, as I have been here since my noble friend’s amendment was passed. I have had no opportunity to discuss with ministerial colleagues and others how we will respond.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, I agree with my noble and learned friend in that I certainly welcome what he announced earlier about the Government moving towards greater provision of information. However, I disagree with him on all the other points. I am inclined to ask, “What price transparency?”. I am not persuaded by the argument that, “Oh dear, this is all too much trouble”. The body of policymakers is a relatively small number of people who would actually be affected. The Minister seems to envisage some great body of civil servants that would be brought within this provision—they would not. It is doable and it is a fundamental point of principle. We have to go down that route. Either we are going to have transparency or we are not really going to do very much at all as far as this Bill is concerned. This is absolutely fundamental to Part 1 and this is the last chance we have to get it in order. Given the support that has been expressed for the amendment, I would like to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

27: Clause 24, page 11, line 27, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
“( ) A statutory instrument containing any of the following regulations may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament—
(a) regulations under section 4(5)(a) or 5(4);(b) the first regulations to be made under each of sections 11(3) and 17(3);(c) regulations under this Part which amend or modify the provisions of this Part.”

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2014 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 and 2, Schedule 1, Clause 3, Schedule 2, Clauses 4 to 25, Clauses 36 to 39, Clause 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 27 to 32, Schedule 4, Clauses 33 to 35, Clauses 40 to 44.

Motion agreed.

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

Lord Wallace of Tankerness Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD)]

My Lords, I hear the message. The current provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 do not prevent political parties benefiting from expenditure by third parties in a way that would enable the political parties to avoid party spending limits. Although measures exist to regulate political party spending, third-party spending and the notional campaign expenditure of political parties—that is, spending by third parties for or on behalf of a political party—those measures are not necessarily effective in ensuring that all spending for the benefit of a political party is properly captured. Our concern, which influences or informs this clause, is that that risks undermining trust in the controls on party spending.

Clause 29 therefore introduces a new measure that requires third parties that spend significant sums in a way that can reasonably be regarded as supporting a particular political party or its candidates to be specifically authorised by the relevant political party to campaign in that manner. I heard and will certainly reflect on what the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, of Pentregarth, said—that this might somehow be something that innocent people or groups can stumble into, but I rather think that the political reality on the ground is that if a particular group is, to all intents and purposes, supporting the Liberal Democrats—I am being neutral about this—it will not do so innocently or without any notion that that is what it is doing.

Under proposed new Section 94B(3), authorisation would be required only in instances where the third party wishes to incur expenditure that exceeds 10% of its spending limit for a part of the UK. This would be treated as “targeted controlled expenditure”, and the Bill defines it as more than 0.2% of the maximum campaign expenditure limit for political parties in that part of the United Kingdom. That limit would be £31,980 in England, £3,540 in Scotland, £2,400 in Wales and £1,080 in Northern Ireland. If a political party does not want the third party to spend more than 10% of its spending limit in support of it, or for that expenditure to count towards its limit, it can simply withhold authorisation. A third party will commit an offence if it either exceeds the targeted expenditure limit without authorisation or exceeds an authorised cap set by a political party. In other words, if such a group comes to the Liberal Democrats, in the highly unlikely event that the Liberal Democrat treasurer says, “Sorry, we are not going to accept your offer of going beyond the 10% limit and we are not giving you authorisation”, it would be an offence if the group then spent money in obvious support of the Liberal Democrats beyond the 10%.

The intention of this clause is to bring a greater degree of transparency where third parties campaign to support a particular political party or its candidates. Requiring expenditure incurred as part of that campaigning to count towards the spending limits of both the third party and the political party, and for this information then to be disclosed to the public, will prevent political parties evading their spending limits by relying on co-ordinated support from campaigning groups. Clause 29 will not prevent third parties campaigning up to a significant limit without needing any kind of authorisation from a political party. Nor will it curtail third-party expenditure that cannot reasonably be regarded as intended to benefit a particular party—for example, because that expenditure supports multiple parties or candidates who support the third party’s aims.

This is an important provision to try to prevent the spending limits on political parties being circumscribed or undermined by third parties campaigning on their behalf. It does so by requiring authorisation at 10% of the third party’s spending limit. I take the point that what I believe is a relatively simple and important principle or objective may not have been expressed in the most felicitous terms. I would normally share my noble friend Lord Cormack’s desire to see legislation in much plainer English. I confess that having negotiated a coalition agreement with the Labour Party in the Scottish Parliament in 2003, including a commitment to making progress towards drafting legislation in plain English, I fear that we failed to honour that commitment. That suggests that it is easier said than done. Some challenges are bigger than others.

I do not know whether delivering the objective can be done in much simpler language. In the previous clause, much of the apparent complexities related to an interrelationship between different relevant periods because of different elections. However, judging by the mood of the House, we at least ought to look at this clause to see if something can be done in that regard. However, the underlying objective, to stop the subversion of the limits on party political funding, is a proper objective.

Clause 29 agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, the last example given by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, is a really powerful one and it adds to the criticisms, which I endorse, of the catch-all provisions that have been added to the existing rules, which worked in the past but have become unworkable because of the increased range of activities, the addition of staff, travel and other costs, the reduction of thresholds, and the cut in the spending cap. This is what makes what was a quite innocuous concept now very difficult.

We endorse the criticisms but go further and suggest in Amendment 182A, which is in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Royall, that the combined effect of all of that is so serious and could so jeopardise joint working that it is time to review whether such an anti-avoidance dollop of restrictions, red tape and responsibility for another organisation’s spending is actually worth the candle.

Of course, had we had pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill and known about this in advance, we might have ironed it out before, but we did not, so we are left with a situation in which restrictions on coalition spending—or, at least, subjecting it to joint limits and reporting—seem aimed at anti-avoidance only in the belief that 10 groups will get together and campaign and they will all spend £100 less than the limit. Again, we have had no evidence of this. It seems to be a solution in search of a problem.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which supports our amendment, has pointed to the increased significance of the rules because they will now apply to such a wide range of activities, and with new constituency limits. It thinks that this will threaten legitimate coalition campaigning, especially locally. For example, the RSPB works locally with other groups on infrastructure projects that affect the natural environment, such as an M4 relief road, when public reports or press events may be used. This may well be caught because one party may be in favour of a road and another party against it. Even if that is not the purpose of its work, the RSPB risks being caught if its particular objective chimes with—or is at variance with—one party, even though the RSPB’s objectives are based on the interests of birds rather than politics. It is particularly worried about how its spending would count against every member of the coalition’s spend and each member’s £9,750 limit would in a sense be double- or treble-counted if each group had to declare it as if it was its own. As the RSPB says, the combined effect of all the different rules is likely to limit what it can do.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews, also looking at the confusion surrounding coalition spending, was worried that simply having its logo on something, with therefore a bit of cost involved, would mean that that would have to be apportioned to a coalition, which could present problems and reduce its ability to support a campaign. The Libel Reform Campaign, which is made up of Sense About Science, English PEN and the Index on Censorship, believes that if it was pooling all those expenditures over a year, all those three organisations would hit their limit even if the combined limit was still below what is permissible.

NAVCA highlights that £5,000 is a lot of money for one small charity alone to spend. However, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley said, working in partnership can be much more effective for charities and what they want to achieve for the groups they support. Yet because all the funding is put together, the thresholds create a burden. This could discourage small charities from working in partnership to gain a voice, because they would fear everything that went with that.

It has been mentioned that the Electoral Commission itself, which traditionally saw the old coalition rules as a good anti-avoidance tool, now acknowledges that there are strong concerns about the impact, particularly on small local campaigns. If a local campaigner which is spending only a few pounds enters into a coalition with another which is spending more than the registration threshold, it may then be required to register. One campaigning group would have to take the other party’s spend as part of its own, and then comply with all the rules.

Of course, the amendment proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, might appear attractive. It allows a bigger organisation to take responsibility for some of the spending of a smaller organisation. The problem is that a smaller organisation may have decided to spend only £1,000 on something over a year, but then something happens—it gets another member of staff, or the car breaks down and it has to hire a bus—and its expenditure suddenly goes up over that year. It will be the bigger organisation, the responsible body, which will suddenly have to answer for a new range of expenditure that has not been agreed in advance. I am afraid that for small voluntary organisations that is often how spending takes place. They do not spend with a budget in advance, as the Government do. Spending is often as and when.

Problems remain, despite the attempts to answer this. As has been said, the Electoral Commission itself has failed to come up with a response, only promising us its ideas by Report. This highlights the fact that not only was this not subject to pre-legislative scrutiny but the Government did not even consult the Electoral Commission before they brought in the Bill. It is a little worrying that neither the Government nor the Electoral Commission have found a way to answer these very serious questions. For that reason, we suggest removing the old requirements on all participants to be responsible for the actions of the other. We ask the Government to find a better way of tackling any attempts by various bodies to circumvent the very proper objectives of PPERA.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, from almost every meeting I took part in with charities or representatives of NGOs, I was certainly aware that the issue of what we described as coalition or co-ordinated planning was of considerable importance to them. That said, it is worth reflecting that the Bill does not actually make any changes, apart from the technical changes to take into account the other activities. The basic architecture on expenditure by organisations going towards a coalition plan was set down in the 2000 Act. I am not quite sure whether there was pre-legislative scrutiny before that particular architecture fell into place. However, it is not the case that the law was put forward in Part 2, as was said by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. That law is already there in PPERA.

What has happened has perhaps been fortuitous. The Bill has brought activity and greater focus, which have targeted minds on what is actually there. I accept that there is more activity now, as I am sure would be said by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter. Yet in fact, as the law stands at the moment, if 10 groups each contribute £1,000 to the activities or to the election materials covered under the present Act, they would each be required to register. This is therefore an important issue. The noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, made this point about the concern of smaller organisations in a number of his contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, that we should remember to put this in the context of what the controlled expenditure is. If we are talking about the valuable and important work that is done in our prisons in terms of rehabilitation, it does not readily strike me how that would be the kind of expenditure envisaged, albeit that the groups concerned might be engaged with other bodies which fall within the ambit of the Bill and of what would lead to controlled expenditure. However, it is important that we recognise that this issue has now been identified, and I think that we all agree that we should seek to address it.

The rules on coalitions are necessary. In its evidence to the Commission on Civil Society, the Electoral Commission said:

“In our view, rules that limit what different campaigners can spend on co-ordinated campaigning are a vital element of the controls on election spending. Without them, individuals or organisations seeking to spend more than the limits on campaigning at elections could do so by setting up multiple organisations working together, with each organisation able to spend the full amount”.

As I have said, the existing provisions have been in place for both the 2005 and 2010 general elections. They seemed to work well and they remain unchanged by the Bill.

There has been some confusion about the operation of the rules, so perhaps I should take this opportunity to clarify them. Section 94(6) of PPERA stipulates that where two or more third parties work together as a group or coalition in pursuance of a common plan, the whole of the expenditure they incur as part of that coalition must count against each third party’s individual spending limit. As my noble friend Lady Tyler pointed out, that is a key anti-avoidance provision. If total spending by a group of third parties acting as part of a common plan was not counted in full against each individual third party’s limits, it would allow third parties to form many coalitions on single issues in order to evade their spending limits.

However, the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Tyler perhaps does not have the effect that, I am sure from what he said in moving it, he intended, because it would appear simply to reinforce what is already provided for in PPERA. I am sure that my noble friend seeks a different outcome, which is perhaps the cessation of third parties accounting for aggregated coalition expenditure. Nevertheless, his amendment has raised an issue which I see as current and, as will be clear when I come to respond to the specific amendment proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, the Government want to look carefully at what more can be done to deal with these concerns. My noble friend mentioned a round-table conference—when we broke for lunch, I think that dates and times were being arranged for that.

The amendment proposed by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, would create a category of what he described as “minor” third parties which are exempted from having to account for any coalition expenditure provided their individual contribution is below the registration threshold. The third party must not have incurred expenditure in any other circumstances, and a “nominated” third party must be willing to absorb the “minor” third party’s spend and report it as its own to the Electoral Commission.

I accept that that is a constructive approach to addressing the problem that has been identified. Already, if a coalition campaign is organised by a lead third-party organisation which alone incurs, or decides when to authorise, regulated spending for the campaign, only the lead organisation is required to register with the Electoral Commission. The lead campaigner may receive contributions or donations from other organisations towards the campaign. These will be considered as donations. Where other organisations provide services or materials to the lead campaigner, these will be regarded as both in-kind donations and “notional” spending on behalf of the lead organisation. I reiterate: it is only where there is no lead organisation, and several third parties co-ordinate their campaigning while making their own decisions on when to incur regulated expenditure, that they will be covered by the rules on coalition campaigning.

I hope that in indicating what the present position is on when donations are made I have gone some way to reassuring the noble and right reverend Lord, but we recognise the concerns of small organisations which may wish to join a larger coalition to campaign on an issue. We will continue to look carefully at what more can be done. I hope that, when we meet, the benefit of a break might have enabled us to find a way to address an issue which, as I said at the outset, already exists even under the law as it stands.

In the same vein, the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, specifically asked what the position would be with regard to charities. If charities were exempted, they would not incur the controlled expenditure so it would not be counted towards spending on a common plan. As I indicated in my response to the amendment moved on Monday by my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury, though, while there is certainly an issue there to be addressed and we want to consider it, the Government’s position has not been to exempt charities. If we were to go down that path, the kind of issue that she has raised is one of those that would have to be considered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, for his amendments and I welcome the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who just pointed out the ghastly complexity and challenges that will be faced by charities as a result of the Bill. It is eminently sensible to have an integrated set of guidance, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept this amendment so that it will be clear that this House and the Government want there to be a requirement for an integrated set of guidance.

On Monday the Government made a great deal of how the guidance that would be issued after the Bill becomes law would clear up many of the apparent difficulties contained within it. The Minister—I do not know if it was the noble and learned Lord—said:

“The Government believe that it is essential that campaigners have clarity on how they are to comply with the third-party regulatory regime. The Electoral Commission has a power to produce guidance for third parties campaigning in elections, and indeed has exercised that power in previous elections”.—[Official Report, 16/12/13; col. 1040.]

Indeed, the Minister placed such a heavy emphasis on the guidance that would be given that the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, was moved to say while speaking to his amendments:

“However, perhaps I may anticipate, rather too boldly, the response that the Government are likely to make: that these kinds of issues can be dealt with in guidance”.—[Official Report, 16/12/13; col. 1057.]

Charities and NGOs need to understand how the Bill will affect them as the Bill passes through the House. To place the amount of weight that the Government place on guidance is effectively another way of avoiding proper consultation.

The first amendment from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would ensure that the Electoral Commission is able to give charities and NGOs guidance in good time before they are subject to the regulated period, and would reduce the spending limits in line with the reduced regulated period that would result. The second would ensure that the Electoral Commission is resourced to apply these changes. As the Electoral Commission has said itself,

“The current PPERA rules on non-party campaigning are relatively narrow in scope … and the definition of what is covered is relatively clear, so we are able to produce guidance that builds on the legislation”.

However, it goes on to say with regards to the Bill before us:

“This will be particularly challenging for campaigners because of the need to apply the definition of ‘election purposes’, which is new and untested in the context of non-party campaigning. In the limited time available we will aim to produce guidance to assist with this, and will offer advice on particular queries where possible, but our experience strongly suggests that it will not be straightforward to apply the new rules to many specific types of activities”.

I know that the Electoral Commission will do all in its power to produce the guidance, but it will need time because of the complexities.

I say to the Minister that of course the best way of ensuring that the Electoral Commission is able to issue clear guidance in time is to draft clear law—to draft a very clear Bill. These sensible amendments would therefore assist in that. However, notwithstanding the desired clarity, this is a complex Bill, and time will be needed to ensure the best possible guidance so that the voluntary and charitable sectors understand their new obligations and do not unintentionally fall foul of the law. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, I think that small charities and voluntary organisations that do not employ lawyers as a matter of course could well find themselves unintentionally in breach of the law. As in so many things we do in this House, the lawyers will gain the most, and we cannot allow that to happen. I therefore very much hope that the Minister will signal that the Government will accept these or similar amendments in due course.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 170J, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, would require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance for third parties, so that they are clear what actions they must take to comply with the provisions of the Bill. The Bill, should it have received Royal Assent by the time that guidance is produced, would not be permitted to take effect for a further three months. The noble and learned Lord further proposes that the Electoral Commission be given the extra resources it might need to produce this guidance and to comply with its other obligations under this Bill.

My noble friend Lord Hodgson has tabled Amendment 175, which, similarly, would require the Electoral Commission to produce guidance, but jointly with the Charity Commission. This would be designed to address specifically the impact upon charities.

The debate surrounding this Bill has made clear just what a lack of awareness there was, not only among third parties but among the public at large, of the existing provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000—PPERA. I have certainly heard from more than one of the organisations that I have spoken to that they had not been aware that they might just have been edging towards a registration threshold back in 2010. They had not appreciated that fact. This lack of awareness has highlighted the crucial importance of comprehensive and clear guidance for all third parties, not just charities, so that they understand whether they could be affected by the provisions of this Bill as it amends PPERA.

As I said in at least one of the debates on Monday, when the original Committee on Standards in Public Life was considering the architecture and proposing the idea of an Electoral Commission it accepted that in some ways we could never achieve an absolute definition, and that, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, predicted, some cases may have to go to the courts. However, much of that uncertainty could be avoided through guidance. That was one of the functions and roles that the Committee on Standards in Public Life saw for the Electoral Commission that it proposed should be set up.

The Electoral Commission already has the power, under PPERA, to produce guidance for third parties. As I said on Monday,

“The Electoral Commission has a power to produce guidance for third parties campaigning in elections, and indeed has exercised that power in previous elections. Campaigners require clear guidance to support them and help them understand the revised regime, and I am reassured that the commission recognises this too”.—[Official Report, 16/12/13; col. 1040.]

I think that I went on to say that the sooner the guidance can be produced in draft, the better.

Although there is existing guidance on third parties and the PPERA rules, noble Lords will be aware that the commission has already indicated that it will indeed produce fresh and enhanced guidance in time for the 2015 UK general election. It did so in its briefing to members in the other place, as recently as 29 August. Both the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission will be aware of the demand from campaigners for clear and detailed guidance of this sort. I have no doubt that today’s debate, and the amendments tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and by my noble friend will have reinforced that message.

As in previous elections, the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission will work closely together to develop guidance that will assist campaigners and charities to have a clear understanding of how the provisions in Part 2 relate to them. Again, the Electoral Commission made this clear in its briefing of 4 November. The Government stand ready to support this work.

I hope that the fact that the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission have indicated an awareness of the need for clear and comprehensive guidance is of some reassurance to the Committee. However, the Government are also keen to reassure campaigners and charities that the provisions of the Bill and the PPERA rules will, and should, be clearly communicated to them. It is our view that the Electoral Commission should produce guidance in consultation with the Charity Commission, and provide specific consideration of charities. I am not sure whether a particular statutory provision is needed, but the benefit of that is very evident.

The other point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, in his amendment, which was also spoken to and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, was about the funding of the Electoral Commission. It is important to be aware—

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

Before my noble and learned friend moves on, may I ask him a question? When he was speaking so encouragingly about the joint guidance, I was not quite clear whether, in his mind’s eye—I know that he will not wish to commit himself yet—this will be one document produced by the two commissions? I ask this because once the two bodies are able to produce two documents they will do just that and leave the charities to connect them. They should be doing the connecting. They are the regulators, and they really need to do that. Is that how my noble and learned friend sees it?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am not sure that that is entirely how I see it; my point was that whatever is produced should be produced in collaboration. I certainly am wary of saying anything that might be seen as a direction to two independent bodies, which must act independently of Government. That is why I hesitate, as I am sure my noble friend will understand. Ministerial colleagues have had meetings with the Electoral Commission—I have not done so personally—and, I think I am right in saying, with the Charity Commission, and I am sure that the message conveyed by noble Lords here will also be conveyed by Ministers.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord says, he cannot give directions. However, if the measure were included in the Bill, both the Electoral Commission and the Charity Commission would be obliged to produce joint guidance.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Obviously, if Parliament wishes that to be the case and the measure is included in the Bill, we would have a different proposition, and we would want to reflect whether that was one which the Government would wish to support. Notwithstanding whether or not the measure is in the Bill, the respective commissions will no doubt hear the concerns that have been expressed and the legitimate expectation as regards their response in respect of these matters.

As I said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to resources. It is important to recognise the position of the Electoral Commission. It is an independent body established by Parliament and is overseen by the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, which oversees the Electoral Commission’s annual estimates. I checked during the debate and I am not aware of it having asked for more resources in respect of this legislation. However, if the commission requires extra resources to perform this or any other duties, including producing this guidance, it would be for the Speaker’s Committee to come to a view on the resourcing of the Electoral Commission in the light of its roles and responsibilities. I think that there is agreement across the Chamber on the importance of proper guidance and clarity. I hope that this debate has been helpful in communicating that message to those who have responsibility for that. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Hardie]

I have certainly found the debate helpful. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall of Blaisdon, for their contributions. I should say to the noble Baroness that, as a lawyer who has benefited in the past from gaps in legislation, it may seem a bit churlish of me to deprive the modern generation of that. However, I agree with her that we in this House should do what we can to avoid gaps arising of which people can take advantage because of the uncertainty that causes for others. I thank the Minister for his response. I note that the Electoral Commission will produce guidance. I had not appreciated the niceties about funding, but I am grateful to him for those comments. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has proposed an amendment that would reduce the length of the regulated period for third parties from 365 days to six months. The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, has tabled a similar amendment, reducing the regulated period to four months under the banner of “keep it simple”, although as my noble friend Lord Tyler has illustrated, it is perhaps not quite as simple as it might appear on the surface.

I am aware from the engagement in meetings that this is an issue that has come up on a number of occasions and not least because, for the first time, some bodies that might have been getting pretty close to being regulated in 2010 but did not realise it have now realised that there is something that they will have to address. I will explain by way of background the different regulated periods that operate for different elections. The regulated period for UK general elections is 365 days and for devolved Administration elections and European parliamentary elections it is four months. The reason why we have put these in is that we believe that it is not unreasonable that third parties and political parties should adhere to the same regulated period for an election. This is because the campaigns relate to the same election. I am sure, if one thinks about it for a moment, that it would be somewhat unusual and unfair if third parties were allowed to incur unlimited amounts of expenditure campaigning for or against a party or candidates in a period when the political parties themselves would be faced with a limit on their spending. That is the principle that underlies why we wish to keep the periods in tandem.

As we have discussed earlier, particularly on whether the clause would stand part—when we talked about expenditure by a third party, which is ostensibly and is indeed intended to support a registered political party—there could be a scenario where a short third-party regulated period really detracted from the rules on the political parties, as political parties could use these third parties as expenditure vehicles for a considerable period of either six months or eight months. I do not believe that this is the sort of situation that we want to end up with. That said, believing that it would be possible to have the relevant guidance in time before the regulated period starts for the 2015 election, I recognise that there are issues; my noble friend Lord Deben highlighted some of them that relate to the first election under this. Of course there will be a review, which we will come on to but the Government have already indicated that there will be a review post-2015. I hear the points made that there are still concerns with regard to the immediate prospect facing a number of organisations. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made reference to that too.

I can say this in a spirit of consideration but not promise, because the principle involved here is to keep the times so that they march together. Not doing so could undermine an important aspect of the restriction on expenditure by political parties. That is why it is important that we do not disregard that principle and I invite the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to withdraw his amendment.

[The Earl of Sandwich]

My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain why he always goes back to parity with political parties? We are not talking about political parties; we are very different in kind.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am happy to explain that. The very nature of the expenditure that will fall to be covered by Part 2 will be expenditure that is very much geared towards an election, the same election in which the political parties will be fighting. It would seem rather odd if the political parties themselves are restricted in what they can spend over a period of one year. If, for example, we were to accept the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, for eight months of that year other third-party bodies, some of whom would be endorsing quite unashamedly the policies and perhaps the candidates of one of the political parties, would be able to spend freely without any restriction at all while the political parties themselves are campaigning with restrictions. That is why I make the comparison because it would create a sense of unfairness and imbalance if those who are actually fighting an election, those whose heads are on the block on polling day, as it were, were under restrictions but third parties did not have any such restrictions for a substantial part of that time.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Deben, for his support in principle for reducing the regulation period. Perhaps I may remind the Minister that the Electoral Commission, at least for the 2015 election, is supportive of a six-month period. It will be reviewed after 2015, but there is a great deal to be said, at least for the 2015 election, in support of testing the six-month period. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

On this side we very much support getting rid of red tape for small organisations. I think that it is tomorrow that the Joint Committee on the Government’s draft Deregulation Bill will produce its report, so it will be slightly ironic if there is that on the one hand and, on the other, we are regulating these small groups. I look forward to what may be the time when the Minister gives us a “yes” today.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, Amendment 170N would insert a new clause that would remove the requirement for recognised third parties to provide a spending return after the election if they had not incurred controlled expenditure above the registration threshold. Instead, a recognised third party would be required to submit a declaration that they had not spent in excess of the registration threshold.

Amendment 173, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, would amend Clause 32 so that a recognised third party would not have to submit a nil report where it had not received a reportable or substantial donation. Amendment 174 would amend Clause 32 so that a recognised third party would be able to appoint a responsible person who had been a responsible person for another recognised third party.

I will give some background before addressing specific amendments. To improve transparency and to ensure that people can see who is funding a third party before the poll takes place, third parties will be required to report any large donations in advance of the poll. This will align the reporting requirements of third parties more closely with those of political parties, and will take two forms.

First, recognised third parties will be required to provide quarterly reports of donations for each reporting period that falls within the regulated period for a UK parliamentary general election. Secondly, between the dissolution of Parliament and polling day, recognised third parties will be required to provide weekly reports of any large donations.

I am not sure if I heard correctly whether the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, suggested that the quarterly and weekly reports also applied to spending. To clarify, the quarterly and weekly reports prior to the election apply only to donations—of more than £7,500—and the spending return will continue to be a requirement after the election.

Both the quarterly and weekly donation reports would be submitted to the Electoral Commission, which would publish the information. The quarterly reports must be accompanied by a signed declaration from the responsible person of the recognised third party, stating that all reportable donations accepted were from permissible donors. The Bill introduces measures that are necessary to achieve this increased transparency. The Bill proposes that third parties provide information about large donations in advance of the election, in quarterly and weekly donation reports.

At present, recognised third parties have to provide details of their campaign income and expenditure to the Electoral Commission after a UK parliamentary general election, and after the poll for certain other elections. To improve transparency by providing a clearer understanding of the finance of those involved in elections and to align the reporting requirements of third parties more closely with those of political parties, a statement of accounts would form part of the return third parties already provide to the Electoral Commission.

To ensure that this additional obligation is proportionate, individuals are excluded from this requirement. The Government believe that not to exclude individuals would result in an unwarranted intrusion into their personal financial matters, although they will still be required to provide details of their campaign income and expenditure, as is currently the case. Third parties, such as companies, charities and trade unions, which are required to prepare a statement of accounts under another legislative framework would be able to submit these accounts as part of their return to the Electoral Commission. I hope that this is an example of proportionality.

Turning to the amendments, I hope that noble Lords support the principle of providing information on reportable donations during the election period. However, the Government acknowledge that the correct balance has to be struck between increased transparency and overly burdensome requirements. With this in mind, the suggestions of the Electoral Commission in relation to nil reporting have provided a very useful starting point. The Government want to consider these matters very carefully and to revisit them on Report, to ensure that adequate and proportionate reporting requirements are included in the Bill.

Amendment 174, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Hodgson, concerns the role of the responsible person. When a recognised third party seeks registration with the Electoral Commission, they must nominate a responsible person who ensures compliance with the provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

It is for the recognised third party or coalition to nominate a responsible person who they feel is best placed to ensure compliance with legislation. That could be a person who is already a responsible person for another third party. There are therefore no restrictions placed on who the recognised third party can nominate as a responsible person, except where an individual registers as a third party, where they will automatically become the responsible person.

In relation to Amendment 170N, the Electoral Commission made a similar suggestion in its June 2013 regulatory review. The Government see merit in the suggestion, which underpins our aim that smaller bodies should not be subject to overly burdensome reporting requirements. As a result, the Government will want to consider this issue carefully and revisit it on Report.

We have heard the—understandable—strictures from my noble friend Lord Deben. In that spirit, I ask the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Harries of Pentregarth]

I thank the Minister for his response. It is probably the most positive response we have had this afternoon—it must have been the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Deben, which tipped the balance. He has been useful on one or two things on that side in recent years.

I accept the Minister’s assurance that the Government will do all they can to reduce the regulatory burden on both donations and expenditure. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, that is an interesting idea in an interesting debate. I certainly do not defend the present system. I agree with all of the noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours, that funding causes a disconnect with the people of our country, and that we have got to do something about it. We have to lance the boil, or whatever metaphor one wants to use. People have made various suggestions, including about the cap and about other things such as those that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, talked about. It is absolutely clear that we have to find a solution. I am sure that all of us who are engaged in politics, and all of us who are here would agree, that politics is a “noble activity”, as the noble Lord said. It is a fundamental part of our democracy, and we are here to protect our democracy and to be vibrant activists.

However, it is my party’s strong view that whilst this is an interesting idea, it should not be looked at in isolation, and that what we have to do is to knock each other’s heads together, and find a solution in the round. My party—our party—wants to resume the all-party talks. It can be done; we have got to find a way through. It is not that I am being complacent. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Marland is getting frustrated by what I am saying, but I can assure him that I spend a huge amount of my time raising funds for my party. I know how difficult it is, and I know all the problems with the media and everything else. We have to find a solution. It may well be that this is part of the solution, but it cannot be dealt with in isolation. But I am very grateful to my noble friend for raising this very interesting issue.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I, too, would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for raising this. Having spent much of the earlier part of the Committee discussing non-party organisations and the limits on party expenditure, I think that it is interesting that we now move on to party revenue and how it is raised. Indeed, there is much in this debate in which I find myself in considerable sympathy, as there is a disconnect and there is a problem.

As my noble friends Lord Deben and Lord Marland and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, reminded us, politics is a noble calling. It is not always seen like that, and we understand sometimes why it is not seen like that. But much of the work that is done in this House and in the other place, and in the various devolved Administrations and council chambers up and down the land, requires people to make a commitment and very often a sacrifice in order to make the system work. It does not work perfectly, we know that, and it will not always produce the policies that people like, but nevertheless, without the people prepared to do that work, the system would completely break down and democracy would be seriously imperilled. Democracy does not come cheap, and if people are going to have proper choices at election times it is important that funding and resources are there for particular programmes to be put before voters, who should have an opportunity to respond.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To illustrate the point, I was making a distinction between a monthly contribution and an annual contribution.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining that.

It will not come as any surprise that the Government do not feel able to support the amendment. There have been discussions among the three main parties, which have been guided by the principle of consensus. There has been not total consensus but substantial consensus in your Lordships’ House this evening—a consensus that was not found in the discussions that have taken place. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said that there had been seven such discussions. In a Written Ministerial Statement on 4 July, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the talks had not produced results and that it was,

“clear that reforms cannot go forward in this Parliament”.—[Official Report, Commons; 4/7/13; col. 62WS.]

From what has been said, it has been a source of considerable disappointment that agreement could not be reached. I do not necessarily think that the Bill is the best place in which to start to do these things without that wider consensus as to what other things might be needed. However, it is important that we have had this debate, which has shown that there can be consensus across the parties.

I therefore say to my noble friend Lord Cormack that, while I am sympathetic, I regret that I cannot be encouraging. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Cormack]

The fact is that post-legislative scrutiny—which I am a great advocate of—is no substitute for a sunset clause, which brings the Bill to a proper stop. We do not have the power to do that.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will very briefly say that of course we need to be aware of the effects of any legislation and that often these effects do not become clear until after the legislation is in force. As far as Part 2 is concerned, the Electoral Commission already has, under PPERA, the statutory function of reporting on the conduct of elections. That report will include how third-party campaigning is carried out.

I reassure your Lordships that we agree that the impact of the provisions of Part 6 of PPERA, which would include, if it passes, the measures in Part 2 of this Bill, should be subject to a review after the 2015 UK parliamentary general election. The passage of the Bill has shown that the provisions of PPERA are not necessarily as widely known as they ought to be, and even less well understood. The 2015 election will provide an opportunity to review the effectiveness of the provisions of Part 6 of PPERA as enhanced by Part 2 of this Bill.

The Government are still considering the precise details of the review but we commit to laying the review before Parliament, and a government amendment to that effect will be tabled on Report. Such a review was recommended by the Commission on Civil Society and Democratic Engagement, led by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and we are grateful to him for that recommendation. When the review is carried out, it is only right that Parliament should have the opportunity to consider how to respond to its findings.

The reason I hesitate in agreeing to the sunset clause is that Amendment 181C calls for the report to be debated “before 31 May 2016”, whereas Amendment 181A would have the effect that Part 2 would expire “on 31 May 2016”. It is important that, if we have a review, it is a proper one. If there are things that need to be done, there should be an ample opportunity for Parliament to take steps and consider any amendments that are required. That would not necessarily give a proper opportunity for a full review and for Parliament to take any necessary legislative steps. The spirit is that there should be a review. It should be brought to Parliament. It is clear to all parties, regardless of who is in government after 2015, that the will to have a review and learn the lessons that any review might teach us is there. In these circumstances I hope that my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who set the ball rolling in this, will be prepared to withdraw his amendment.

I hope this will be the last time that I will be on my feet in this Committee stage. I thank noble Lords in all parts of the Chamber for their contributions. It is important that we have had them. I also thank noble Lords for the good nature in which, debating pretty complex matters, our deliberations have proceeded. The Government have been listening and will reflect over the Recess on the matters that have been raised in your Lordships’ House.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts]

My Lords, for the second or maybe the third time this afternoon I can say how grateful I am to my noble and learned friend for his very positive response. It has been a long afternoon and I take this opportunity to thank him for the courteous way in which he has dealt with the extensive probing to which he has been subjected. In withdrawing my amendment I hope that it is not out of order if I wish him and all members of the Committee a very happy Christmas.