Brexit: Preparations and Negotiations

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 23rd July 2018 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

Have a bit of humour. I am saying, a handful of rogue Labour votes, and some dubious—

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)]

It is very clear that those Lib Dem votes would not have made a difference. How many Labour Members voted with the Government?

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That is what I have just said. I called them rogue Labour votes. Clearly, the Minister did not help here. There was also some dubious government whipping—just in case noble Lords think anyone was left out.

And it is a White Paper unacceptable to the Opposition, being grounded on flawed facilitated customs arrangements, an absence of migration clarity, inadequate plans for services and a failure to guarantee the Good Friday agreement. Apart from that, it is pretty good.

Why is it so unacceptable? First, of course, it is based on a fallacy; secondly, it is devised to satisfy a divided Conservative Party rather than satisfy UK plc; and, thirdly, because some think that the talk of no deal will somehow bring everyone on board, yet pretending to threaten a no deal, which could cost households £1,000 and see an 8% drop in GDP—twice that in the north-east—is nonsensical if the Conservatives ever want to win an election again. Crashing the economy would never be forgiven, not just by workers and consumers but by business, the City and manufacturing, which have of course traditionally trusted the Tories to manage the economy in the national interest. Borrowing the words of a former Prime Minister from the party that took us into Europe and who herself wanted the single market, “No, no, no”—no deal is not an option, so we should stop being diverted by it.

For all the positives—and there are some, in the common rulebook, a role for the ECJ, which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, has just mentioned, and a catalogue of issues almost lifted from the reports of our EU committees—the White Paper is based on the fallacy that there are profitable and exciting markets across the globe, currently closed to us, which would magically open the moment we left the EU. The notion that we are leaving in favour of some wondrous US trade deal better than we have with our nearest 500-million strong market, as well as the 57 agreements that we have through the EU, just does not hold water. It is a fantasy that we 60 million can negotiate better than the EU’s half a billion.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Committee: 10th sitting (Hansard): House of Lords
Monday 26th March 2018 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will pick up what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. The criteria set out in this amendment—and in one tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, to which the noble Lord and I both put our names but which was not moved—reflect a set of principles for common UK frameworks agreed at a Joint Ministerial Committee on EU Negotiations last October. They are certainly a basis for moving forward and already have a buy-in from the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.

When creating United Kingdom frameworks, we do not want to find a situation where, when we come out of the European Union, there is something which impedes a Scottish beef producer freely selling their beef in Wales or a Welsh sheep producer selling lamb in Belfast. These benefits predate our entry into the European Common Market. It is also important to remind ourselves that the restrictions on the Scottish Parliament relate not only to reserved matters or EU law, but to what is in Schedule 4 to the Scotland Act. That specifically constrains the Scottish Parliament from doing anything which modifies Articles IV and VI of the Union with Scotland Act 1706 and the Union with England Act 1707. If one reads these two articles of the Acts of Union, drafted 280 years before the Cockfield report, one finds not a bad model, in the language of its time, for a customs union and a single market which have served us well over three centuries.

I also note that as well as the criteria that have been agreed, the Scottish Government themselves, in their legislative consent memorandum to the Scottish Parliament in September last year, said at paragraph 19:

“The Scottish Government has made clear, repeatedly, its willingness to negotiate UK frameworks in certain areas previously covered by EU law. This could be, for example, to support the functioning of UK markets, or to facilitate the management of common environmental resources”.


Therefore, I believe there is a basis for reaching agreements here, but it is important that these are not imposed.

In giving evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the other place last year, the Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr Mundell, stated at paragraph 21 of that committee’s first report of Session 2017-19:

“The Secretary of State for Scotland agreed that any common frameworks should be agreed with the devolved administrations, stating:


A UK framework is not a framework that the UK Government imposes; it is a framework that is agreed across the United Kingdom”.


It is important that we approach this issue with that in mind. That is why I think the amendment suggested and spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is helpful. Indeed, that Select Committee went on to recommend that:

“Any common framework must require the consent of the governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where relevant”.


It is important to have a dispute resolution mechanism, as referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, because there is potential for some disagreement in setting up these frameworks—I hope not as much as is sometimes thought—for which a dispute resolution mechanism is required. One assumes that once these frameworks are established—that goes beyond the ambit of this Bill—they will not be static but will develop. It might be useful at some stage—not in this debate or in this Bill—to get an indication from the United Kingdom Government as to how they see these frameworks working after they have been established. Do they want to see common standards apply across the United Kingdom, but have diversity within that as to how they are implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, or in England through the United Kingdom Parliament? That too will require some form of dispute resolution mechanism. The Select Committee, to which I have referred, recommends that,

“the UK Government and the devolved administrations agree a mechanism by which disputes can be resolved in the event that common frameworks cannot be agreed”.

I think that that is a two-stage process. First, there is the establishment of the common frameworks, where the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, is very pertinent, and, as we move forward, there is the issue of how we look at the operation of the common frameworks, which I believe will also need some form of dispute resolution mechanism. However, it is important that we move forward with the common frameworks. The amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, certainly reflects agreements that have already been reached between the United Kingdom Government and the devolved Administrations.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I wish to add a couple of points. First, are discussions progressing on the possible inclusion in the Bill of a schedule detailing these areas of concern? Secondly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, said that a solution should be agreed, not imposed. We should heed those words. I again ask the Minister: as regards reaching agreement on these issues, to what extent does he have in mind involving the legislatures rather than just the devolved Governments?

The Minister has had notice of my next point. I would like to correct something that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said in the House last week. He said that there were,

“about 153 areas in which, upon our leaving the EU, competences will return and touch upon areas of devolved competence. These are areas that the devolved parliaments and assemblies previously had no engagement with because they lay in Brussels”.—[Official Report, 21/3/18; col. 334.]

I have since written to him because that it not completely the case. As it works, the memorandum of understanding provides that, in matters of devolved competence, the UK Government consult the devolved Administrations to agree a common UK position on matters before the Council of Ministers, and then defend that position in the Council. Indeed, as we just heard, occasionally devolved Ministers will do that and represent the UK. However, whether it is a UK Minister or a devolved Minister there, they speak in this case for an agreed UK position, not just a UK government position. It may therefore be helpful if the Minister confirms that understanding, which is undoubtedly how the devolved Governments see it. What has been said is right: the spirit to reach accord is there. However, perhaps for clarity, it would be good if that could be confirmed.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 3rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s new partial authorisation for insolvency practitioners would split the existing regulation of this quite tiny profession—some 1,350 who take appointments, according to the noble and learned Lord the Minister—into three. There would be company-only and individual-only insolvency practitioners, and some of course doing both. On the basis of no evidence, the Government have decided to dilute this very small but specialist profession. Amendment 6 would preclude the development of corporate-only licences.

The Government admitted to the insolvency practitioners’ professional body, R3, that Clause 17 was not being introduced to “fix a problem”. Indeed, the Government cited no evidence of undercapacity in the market, nor of complaints about the current system. Virtually all the insolvency practitioners consulted, and their major representatives, said that the proposal was a bad idea. The ICAEW’s consultation evidenced no support for the partial qualification. Indeed, the only body cited as being in support, the IPA, found that 61% of its respondents were against—they did not think that the proposals were a good idea.

According to the Government, it was only some of the IPA’s non-practitioner members who were in favour. More than that, having finally seen the IPA’s survey last week, I discovered that its questionnaire did not distinguish between individual insolvency-only licences, which we support, and corporate-only licences, about which we have grave reservations. So the IPA has no idea whether any of its respondents support the idea of practitioners undertaking corporate insolvencies without also being qualified in individual insolvency. Furthermore, despite finding that a majority of its respondents did not think it was a good idea, the IPA dismissed these views as being those only “of current licence holders”. Surely those are exactly the people who know what they are talking about.

Without Amendment 6, Clause 17 would allow insolvency practitioners to undertake corporate bankruptcies, which almost always also affect the financial status of individuals, with no qualification as to the latter’s needs. Indeed, insolvency practitioners often do not know at the outset of a case, particularly with micro-businesses, whether they are dealing with a corporate or personal insolvency—or, indeed, with both, given the involvement of personal guarantees and the nature of creditors.

It is strange that this Deregulation Bill will create three types of licence—rather than the current one—with new exams, oversight and monitoring. The assertion has been made, but with no evidence, that it will attract new entrants; the assertion has been made by the Government that IP fees will be reduced, without any evidence; and the assertion has been made that training costs will be reduced. Again, no evidence was supplied. This whole shake-up is on the basis, by the Government’s own estimates, that there will be only about 100 partial licences.

Furthermore, it is likely to be the large insolvency firms that train corporate-only practitioners at the expense of smaller insolvency firms, of which two-thirds do both corporate and personal insolvencies. More than 80% of smaller firms do not believe that they would get much benefit from lower training costs. Indeed, 90% said that they would not train a partial licence holder. Smaller firms are least likely to specialise and are therefore least likely to benefit from the change. So there is no help to smaller firms—just when the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Bill is aimed at trying to help small firms.

Why have the Government dreamt up this clause? There is no evidence of a waiting group of would-be IPs dying to enter the market if only they could train simply in corporate insolvencies. Indeed, a number of firms have been reducing their workforce. The Insolvency Lawyers’ Association questioned the logistics of operating a two-tier mixed system, while R3 has serious concerns about the change. It considers that partial licences will have a negative impact on businesses and individuals seeking financial advice, and on the quality and competitiveness of the UK’s insolvency regime, which is currently rated one of the world’s best by the World Bank. Meanwhile the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, the largest authorised body regulating insolvency practitioners—regulating, I think, about half the profession—opposes this partial insolvency licence system. It set out its reasoning to the Government a year ago. The Government, however, ignored that, despite the reputation and expertise of the ICAEW. The institute sees no need for partial licensing; it is unaware of any demand for it; and it does not consider that regulatory costs would be lower.

The ICAEW is also concerned that an insolvency practitioner with partial authorisation would not acquire the broad range of knowledge and expertise necessary to provide appropriate advice in a corporate insolvency. We also fear that the proposal would lower standards, given that Jenny Willott MP, the Minister in the Commons, said that the partial licence would,

“reduce a little the high bar on entry to the profession”.

As the ICAEW retorted:

“Reducing the breadth of knowledge required of IPs could be regarded as a lowering of standards”.

We are talking about people’s futures: whether jobs are to be saved or a company liquidated; whether individuals will be made bankrupt; whether creditors will get their money back; whether a company will be sold to someone who can retain at least some of the business.

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales, which operates under a royal charter, works in the public interest. Given the potential impact on standards of practice that partial authorisation might have, it does not believe that the proposed reform would be beneficial to the public. The proposal to allow corporate bankruptcies to be handled by people who are unqualified in personal insolvency is misguided, unnecessary, criticised by the profession and other stakeholders and based on unsubstantiated claims. Apart from that, it seems a very good idea.

I urge the Government—even at this late stage—to think again, to listen to R3, the ICAEW and other specialists, and to accept Amendment 6. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling this amendment. We have debated this matter in Committee and I met her and representatives of R3 a few weeks ago to discuss it. The amendment seeks to limit partial authorisation to personal insolvency. This debate allows the Government to set out why we believe that allowing specialised authorisation for insolvency practitioners for both personal and corporate insolvency is the right thing to do.

I recognise that this is a matter of considerable interest to those in the insolvency profession. However, there is a wider impact. The purpose of generally requiring insolvency practitioners to have certain qualifications and experience is that they are given significant powers by statute and it is important that there is confidence that they will use such powers appropriately. It is not to protect insolvency practitioners as a profession as such. It is important, therefore, that the barriers this places on entry—there is quite properly a barrier because of the statutory responsibilities and powers—are no higher than needed for the purpose. I think this was the context in which my right honourable friend Jenny Willott was speaking. The noble Baroness has not provided any evidence whatever that having separate authorisations for personal and corporate insolvency would in any way lower the standards in each of these disciplines.

Most insolvency practitioners are already qualified, usually as accountants, sometimes as lawyers. What we are discussing is what specific training and qualifications they need in order to act as insolvency practitioners. The amendment would allow specialised authorisation in personal insolvency but not corporate, so I will focus on why we believe that it would be helpful to allow specialised authorisation for corporate insolvency.

Opponents have said—as the noble Baroness herself did in moving her amendment—that there is no evidence of the need for change. However, there have been reports on the insolvency profession that have raised concerns about the level of competition in this profession. Two independent reports have noted failings in the current regime that result in fees being higher than they should be. We believe that partial authorisation will increase competition and place downward pressure on fees, which in turn could benefit creditors in the form of higher dividends.

Deregulation Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Tuesday 28th October 2014 Grand Committee

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I move Amendment 12 but also give notice that I will oppose the Question that Clause 18 stand part of the Bill. I hope that the Government will accept, as a minimum, Amendment 12, even if they cannot accept the bigger—and in my view better—alternative, which is to drop the clause altogether.

The Government have come up with the rather strange idea of partial authorisation for insolvency practitioners. This would split in two the regulation of what is quite a tiny profession—fewer than 2,000 people. You would then have a profession for company insolvencies and a different one for individual insolvencies. On the basis of no evidence whatever, the Government have decided, in effect, to dumb down the specialist profession of insolvency practitioners. By doing so, they risk helping the larger insolvency firms at the expense of smaller companies, over 80% of which do not believe that they would get much benefit from lower training costs. Indeed, 90% said that they would not train a partial licence holder. The Government admitted to R3, which is the professional organisation involved, that the clause was not being introduced to fix a problem and they have cited no evidence of any undercapacity in the market or any evidence of complaints about the current system. The Joint Committee on the draft Bill, which was ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was worried about the lack of stakeholder consultation on the issue. Subsequent discussions with the industry have not alleviated any of its concerns.

Clause 18 would allow insolvency practitioners to undertake corporate bankruptcies, which will almost always affect the financial status of individuals involved, with absolutely no training or qualifications relevant to the needs of such individuals when they also face insolvency. Indeed, insolvency practitioners very often do not know at the outset of a case, particularly with micro-businesses, whether they are dealing with a corporate bankruptcy or with a personal insolvency, given the involvement of personal guarantees and the nature of the creditors. The clause would harm small firms, two-thirds of which do both corporate and personal insolvency, just when the Government’s small business strategy is meant to be helping small firms. They do not like this one. Furthermore, it would add enormous expense to the profession, as it would require the development, the delivery and the oversight of new and additional systems of exam qualification. This would be on the basis of the Government’s own estimate that there will be about only 100 such partial licences.

It is hard to imagine how the Government dreamt up this clause. There is no significant demand—we could not find any—for any change. The only suggestion ever to have been around has been for a personal insolvency-only regime, but never for a corporate-only insolvency regime. There is no evidence of there being a group of people who would just love to be IPs and who are dying to enter the market. Indeed, a number of firms are reducing their workforce and there is no evidence for the argument that we need more.

The Insolvency Lawyers’ Association has questioned the logic of operating this proposed two-tier, mixed system. Indeed, in a way, it would be a three-tier system because some insolvency practitioners would be licensed to do individual insolvency only, some would opt to do corporate insolvency only and some would qualify to do both. R3, the professional body, which knows rather a lot about insolvency, has serious concerns about this change. It considers that partial licences would have a negative impact on business and individuals seeking financial advice, as well as on the quality and competitiveness of the UK’s insolvency regime, which, as I am sure the Minister knows, is assessed by the World Bank as being one of the world’s best.

If we look across all the professions, be they doctors, lawyers or accountants, we see that they always start by getting their initial qualification through a broad training that crosses the whole area of their discipline and they then go on to specialise. The Government seem to want to carve insolvency practitioners out of this, making them jump directly to a specialism. Even worse, it could lower standards. Jenny Willott MP, speaking as a Minister in the other House, said that partial licences will reduce a little,

“the high bar on entry to the profession”.

That sounds to me like a dumbing-down.

We are talking about people’s futures—whether jobs are to be saved or a company liquidated, whether it can be sold off so that some of those jobs can be retained, whether individuals will be made bankrupt, whether creditors will get back money that they have already sent to the insolvent company, whether someone with unsupportable debts can be helped to find a way through or whether a company can be sold to someone else who can keep at least some of it running as an ongoing concern. These are big issues that affect people’s futures.

The clause is misguided; it is unnecessary; and it has been criticised by the profession and other stakeholders. The Government would do well just to withdraw it gracefully rather than be forced to do so. My guess is that the clause would never be commenced and that wiser heads would finally prevail. The provision may be in law but I doubt that it would ever be put into practice, so better perhaps to lift the threat now. I beg to move.

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

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for moving her amendment and speaking to Clause 18. When I came into the Grand Committee—I think that it was during the debate on Amendment 10—I saw the Benches absolutely crowded and I thought, “I didn’t realise insolvency practitioners commanded such interest, not even on a Sunday”.

The noble Baroness made some important points, which I will certainly seek to address, although I think that I will disappoint her, because neither do I feel able to indicate that the Government will accept the amendment nor do they have an intention to withdraw the clause. As she pointed out, Clause 18 will amend the law by introducing a new regime for the partial authorisation of insolvency practitioners. In future, those wishing to become insolvency practitioners will be able to qualify in relation to personal insolvency cases only, in relation to corporate insolvency cases only or in relation to both, as is currently the case.

The effect of the noble Baroness’s amendment would be to allow insolvency practitioners to be partially authorised but only in relation to individual insolvency. As I will come on to when I discuss the clause itself, partial authorisation will remove barriers to entry for those who wish to specialise in just the one discipline. However, I make it very clear that it is not the Government’s intention to restrict this opportunity only to those who wish to deal with individual insolvency. We believe that there should be an opportunity to specialise in individual insolvency, in company insolvency or, and as things stand at the moment, in both. There is no compulsion here; it would be the choice of those wishing to pursue a career as an insolvency practitioner.

The insolvency body R3, to which the noble Baroness referred and which, I acknowledge, is opposed to partial authorisation, has told the Government that 27% of insolvency practitioners work in firms that specialise in corporate insolvency. This compares with 5% who work in firms that deal only with individual insolvency.

The noble Baroness said that take-up of the measure will be small and she asked why we should proceed with it. Existing insolvency practitioners who have gained authorisation for both personal and corporate matters want to continue to cover both areas, but that will not necessarily be the case for new entrants. The Government believe that partial authorisation will be attractive to a minority within the profession who, by focusing on a specific sector or on specific clients, will find that partial authorisation allows them to take appointments in the types of insolvencies that they deal with.

We believe that the changes proposed in Clause 18 will result in lower entry costs into the profession for those who seek partial authorisation and that they will, over time, increase competition and lower fees. That, in turn, can lead to improved returns to creditors in insolvencies. That was certainly my experience when I was a Member of Parliament dealing with companies and small businesses that were often at the receiving end when larger companies went into administration. Very often, it is small businesses that suffer the most when there is an insolvency. If we can improve returns to creditors, including many small businesses, that must surely be a good thing.

It is important to have highly skilled professionals. While we are talking about partial authorisation, company insolvency practitioners and those engaged in personal insolvency matters require a full authorisation. I cannot accept what the noble Baroness says about this being a dumbing-down. Those who pursue that one part of the profession will have a full qualification and therefore I cannot accept that this is about lowering standards. It is important to have highly skilled professionals. We must not forget that imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens on entry into a profession itself has a detrimental impact, particularly on the public, who pay for the services of such professionals.

The noble Baroness mentioned exams and seemed to think that there would be an increased cost. I suspect that if someone is aspiring to become an insolvency practitioner and there are fewer exams to take, there will be a lesser cost for that individual. With regard to exams, I make it clear that the Insolvency Act 1986 provides that the recognised professional bodies that authorise and regulate insolvency practitioners must have in place rules to ensure that insolvency practitioners meet acceptable requirements in relation to education, practical training and experience. A memorandum of understanding between the Secretary of State and the regulators that underpins the Insolvency Act requirements provides that applicants for authorisation must hold a pass in the Joint Insolvency Examination Board exams. I assure the Committee that officials will work with the profession to modify the current exam structure to ensure that partially authorised insolvency practitioners can demonstrate a broad knowledge of both disciplines. The exam structure will obviously have to change, but I cannot see that it is going to lead to the greatly increased costs that the noble Baroness indicated.

As I said, Clause 18 is not about lowering standards; it is about setting appropriate standards. We are asking: why should someone who deals with only personal bankruptcy and individual voluntary arrangements have to know about the finer details of corporate administrations, unless of course they choose to do so? If they do, then of course that choice will still be there. For those insolvency practitioners who at present choose to practise only in corporate or only in personal insolvency, the time and money spent studying an area in which they do not practise will add little or no value to the service that they offer their clients.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I say first to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that I did not mention that the provision had started life under the previous Labour Government because I did not know that until he informed me of it. Of course, not everything that the previous Labour Government did was wrong, as I recall from going through the Lobbies at times in your Lordships’ House. I will take the point that the noble Lord makes and find out just who was behind that, if I might make that inquiry.

There were some specific questions asked and I will certainly respond in writing to those who have contributed to this debate. However, it is also important to make the point that existing insolvency practitioners are, by the very nature of their business and profession at the moment, people who are qualified in corporate and personal insolvency. I understand that my noble friend Lord De Mauley has in the past been an insolvency practitioner and he has indicated that these are two different specialisations. Clearly, however, the practitioners are duly qualified and may well question why everyone coming behind them should not go through the same route that they followed.

It may well be, as we believe, that aspiring insolvency practitioners have shown a desire for some partial authorisation. A survey of members of the Insolvency Practitioners Association showed that non-IP members were in favour of this. It would be wrong to go so far as to say that there is an element of protectionism here. However, one of my arguments is that we are looking at people who want to come into the profession—by their nature they are not already there, giving their views—and there are many benefits to allowing that specialisation.

Since I stood up, I have received a further response to the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I understand that this clause is a development of a policy started under the previous Government. An earlier version of it was proposed for inclusion in a legislative reform order, although the measure was withdrawn and, in the event, the order did not proceed. I will not to try to decipher this note further in case I get it wrong—I will write to the noble Lord.

With regard to the question from my noble friend Lord Sharkey, on 23 January the Government, on the recommendation of the Joint Committee, launched further consultation on whether any changes were required to what is now Clause 18. Responses were considered and included representations from insolvency practitioners, creditor representatives and others. I am not sure whether the responses have been published or whether there is any intention to do so, but perhaps I could write further to my noble friend and give him a flavour of the responses before Report.

My point is that we are dealing with people who are looking to the future and may aspire to a career as an insolvency practitioner but who do not particularly want to take on the whole gamut of it, preferring to specialise in one form or the other.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, perhaps I should mention—though it is not an interest, being from so long ago—that I was a member of the Insolvency Practices Council, which oversaw insolvency practitioners. I was there as a consumer, not as a trade union member, of the noble collection of insolvency practitioners.

One of the strange things is that this is a deregulation Bill, but it is going to create a new system of exams, oversight and monitoring. That is somewhat odd in a deregulation Bill, but that is beside the point. The assertion is made that it will attract new entrants, without any evidence. The assertion is made that IP fees will be reduced, without any evidence. The assertion is made that training costs will be reduced. Actually, the main training provider, BPP, has to apply its overheads across the exams, so the cost per exam will go up even if you do two exams rather than three. These are assertions, not evidence.

When I was involved in this area—this may answer the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, though not to me—there had been suggestions about a personal insolvency-only regime, never a corporate insolvency-only regime. The idea was that people working in debt management companies in particular might want a personal insolvency-only regime. However, despite the fact that I spoke on this at Second Reading and have had lots of lobbying and approaches from everyone else, none of the debt counselling people has approached me to support the idea of a single licence. There has been silence on that. However, it explains why the amendment would be to allow a personal-only insolvency regime. None the less, I remain worried about the idea of a corporate-only insolvency regime, whereby people dealing with corporates would have no training in personal insolvency. It is an issue that we may want the Government to reconsider, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw.

Succession to the Crown Act 2013

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Lords Chamber

[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.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 15th January 2014 Lords Chamber

[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.

--- 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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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 ---

[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.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

I was going to bring this up in our stand part debate, because it is important. With the permission of the Committee, I will do so now. On Monday an impression was given—I am sure misleadingly—by the noble and learned Lord, which he has just now repeated. He said that,

“organisations … will incur controlled expenditure … only where their activities, ‘can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success’, of ‘parties’ or ‘candidates’”.—[Official Report, 16/12/13; col. 1042.]

He keeps using that phrase, which is accurate, and in the Bill. However, that is only part of the definition. The House needs to recognise the point that my noble friend made on Monday. It is not simply about promoting but also, of course, about reducing the chances of electoral success. I think that the examples given were of the campaign against the war in Iraq or against the bedroom tax.

I will make just one other point. The law goes on to state:

“In determining whether expenditure can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success … it is immaterial that it can reasonably be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well”.

That, therefore, could be activity that is aimed at some other purpose, but which may damage a party, and so it would be covered. I am sure that the Minister did not want in any way to give a misleading impression, but by continuing to concentrate only on activity to promote a party rather than to harm it by discussing a policy—a policy that could suddenly become it—that is wider than his words perhaps suggest.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I hear what the noble Baroness says. I am sure, as she recognises, that it is difficult to be criticised for quoting directly from the Bill. However, she makes the point that there could be detriment to a party. It is quite proper, too, that if a third-party organisation was to campaign to try to defeat the Labour Party’s chances in a range of constituencies and its activities could be quite reasonably seen as aiming to thwart the Labour Party in a campaign, it is important that there is transparency—that people know where the money comes from and what is behind the campaign to do down a particular party. On Monday we had a debate on principal purpose which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, introduced. Of course there can be other purposes. It may be that in trying to do down the Labour Party that group hopes to raise funds and increase its membership. However, that does not detract from the fact that there is an electoral purpose, which is what we seek to catch. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head, but it is important to remind the House that the definition we are talking about is one that her party put into legislation in the 2000 Act. It is slightly ironic that I am having to defend that definition, when her own party put it into the original 2000 Act.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

That Act covered publications, which are quite clearly and easily defined as this. The worry about this clause is that it includes rallies that might happen. They are not aimed at harming the Labour Party. On Iraq, they were aimed at stopping the war. The effect was to affect a political party. Therefore again, the Minister is suggesting that the activity has to be aimed at electoral outcome rather than at a particular policy. Every group that has spoken this morning about this as a result of reading his words on Monday, says that his words are narrower than what its lawyers tell them is suggested by the wording of the Bill.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, it is not a subjective test—we made that very clear. The Labour Party did not put a subjective test into its legislation in 2000. It is an objective test. Therefore, to say that it is solely about what a particular third-party organisation aims to do is not a fair representation of what it says. It is about what can reasonably be regarded. That is an objective test, and we rehearsed all the arguments for and against an objective or subjective test. Therefore it is not unreasonable to remind the Committee about what is here in the Act, which is a definition that the Government introduced by amendment in the other place because people clearly expressed that they wanted us to use the tried and tested definition that was used in the elections of 2005 and 2010. However, I accept that there has been a perception of the possibility of a chilling effect. I think I said that on Monday, and I accept that representations have been made to me and to my noble friends.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, it will probably come as no surprise that the Labour Party supports reducing the cost of politics, not simply because that is right nor just because of the warnings sounded by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not in her place, on Monday and this morning, but perhaps because Labour is outspent by the Conservatives. The current situation is bad for democracy, not simply for ourselves, and the major reason is because money and politics rarely mix. We want all groups, candidates and parties to be able to put their views to the electorate without needing to raise large sums or without having to be rich enough to fund a campaign themselves.

Although we are slightly unsure about the wording of the Bill, we think we have much in common with the intention behind the Government’s changes, in that we support transparency and lowering costs. However, we are concerned, for the reasons that we have just heard, about what they have sought to do and the figures that they have chosen. Neither the noble Lord, Lord Horam, nor the rest of us know where the figures come from. The Electoral Commission quite rightly says that it is for the Government to propose and for Parliament to decide on the appropriate limits, in order to balance that freedom of expression against controls of undue influence. The commission listed some of the factors we ought to think about, such as inflation and the wider range of activities. However, we find it difficult to see how the Government have thought about those matters in the way that my noble friend Lady Lister suggested because we have seen nothing of the assumptions that they have made about the costs associated with policy research, press, meetings, debates and staff, which will now be covered by the Bill—and over a 12-month period.

In the earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, compared what a third party might be able to spend against what a candidate might spend; of course we are talking about a 12-month period, not when the candidates are affected in the short campaign. So, as others have done, we ask: what are the factors that led to these figures? Were they grabbed out of the ether, rather like the 500 seats in the Commons that the Government, as the House will remember, were set on last time? Did these figures just come out of a roulette wheel without rhyme or reason, or is there something that we could look at to test the Government’s assumptions that these are the rights figures? Without that, it is very hard to see the logic behind them.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, again we are grateful to the noble and leaned Lord, Lord Hardie, for introducing this part of the Bill and the consideration of the overall spending limits. As no doubt the Committee is aware, third parties are subject to limits on the amount of controlled expenditure that they may incur during the regulated period of a United Kingdom parliamentary general election. The initial figures set out in PPERA 2000 set the limit at £988,500 for the whole of the United Kingdom and this Bill, as has been heard, seeks to amend that limit to £390,000. The limit in either case is of course the aggregate of individual limits of each part of the United Kingdom. That means that expenditure is allocated in accordance with where its effect is most significantly felt. If a body has its head office in Scotland, for example, but undertakes and targets its campaign work only in England, then that spending will be allocated to the English limit and not the Scottish one.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has tabled amendments so that the spending limit for third parties remains as it is in PPERA 2000, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, has proposed limits that would take the spending limit to £1,406,000 across the United Kingdom as a whole. This substantial increase, as I understand it, is to reflect inflation since the original limit was set 13 years ago. There has been considerable discussion, not just in this House but also in the other place, about third-party campaigners and the potential to incur significant amounts of expenditure in campaigns. This was spoken about very eloquently by my noble friend Lady Williams. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated that her party has no desire to see the cost of politics increase, nor, indeed, do we want to see a disproportionate effect on elections by those who have lots of money to throw around.

There is also the potential, given that limits are imposed on political parties—let us remember that, if we look at this in its full context, there are limits on political parties—that we would undermine that regime if their supporters could still demonstrate their backing by diverting funding to a formally or informally aligned party. Allowing very large sums to be spent to the benefit of parties that are candidates in this way risks, I believe, undermining the basic rules that have evolved over the years in terms of restriction of political spending in elections. The nature of third parties means that controls on their spending are necessary. I do not believe that we have really debated limits, but I do not think that anyone has challenged the principle that there should be some control on substantial spending.

There is some evidence of third-party expenditure increasing. In 2010, eight third-party organisations spent more than £100,000, although, as I think my noble friend Lord Horam correctly pointed out, most who were registered—and only 30 were registered—spent considerably less than that. Indeed, some who were registered spent nothing at all. Although there were eight who spent more than £100,000 in 2010, in 2005 only two groups did so. I believe, and we have said all these things many times, that it is about trying to strike the right balance to ensure transparency. We believe that the figure in the Bill is a reasonable limit for national third-party campaigning. Most campaigns in the last election did not spend anywhere near either the total amount that was available then or the amount that is proposed in this Bill.

It has been argued that these previous campaigns did not require third parties to account for a much wider range of activities, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that the Green Party, a political party, spent £330,000 on its national campaign in the 2010 general election. That campaign activity included incurring expenses on advertising, unsolicited materials, manifestos, market research, transport, media events and rallies—all activities that third parties should also account for. No one can doubt that the Green Party had a very strong voice in that campaign and indeed succeeded in getting its first ever Member elected to the House of Commons. It was a voice within a national debate. In fact, only four out of well over 100 registered political parties spent more than £390,000 in 2010: the Conservative Party, the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats and the UK Independence Party.

We are setting a limit which, as I said, only four political parties exceeded in 2010, and a party that was recognised as having played a full part, albeit without standing in every constituency, in a national election in all its activities spent less than £390,000. We do not believe that third parties should be dominating the electoral landscape—by “third parties” I do not mean political parties but such as we have discussed in this debate, as of course I think third parties have an important role to play in the party-political scene—and creating campaigning inequality among political parties. We believe that the spending limits are appropriate and proportionate.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, drew attention to the differential that exists in Schedule 10 to the 2000 Act, and I accept that this Bill is looking at the UK limits. It will also recognise that while you might have a campaign to be undertaken on a pan-UK basis, it is not quite the same as if you were focusing solely on Scotland for a Scottish election and so I think that there is some scope for a differential.

We believe that, having reduced the limit to a sum that has not inhibited, or would not have caught, the Green Party at the last election or indeed the vast majority of third parties that were registered and campaigned, this is not an unreasonable balance to be struck. I invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we gave notice of our intention to oppose the Question in order to say some of the things that have now been covered, so the Committee will be pleased to learn that I shall not repeat them. One of them is the lack of rationale given for the figures for the threshold and, indeed, for the spending limit. I congratulate the Minister, who has managed to give a whole answer without explaining why the figures were chosen. Given the questions that he was asked, it is a clever move. It remains the case that the Electoral Commission, which after all is the Government’s independent adviser, has called on them to raise the thresholds and put up the spending limits, because everything is going to be covered. Some organisations have been mentioned already, but the BMA, NCVO, RSPB, Oxfam, the Royal College of Nursing and ACEVO, which have to work with this, all say that they do not know why the changes to the thresholds and the spending limits are there, or how the new figures were chosen. That remains our worry about this clause.

I want to add one point, but I do not want to repeat the exchange that the noble and learned Lord and I had on the first group of amendments today. He again used the phrase that the provisions will cover only those things that are done in a way to “influence” an election. But as we know, the law says that it is immaterial whether something can be regarded as intended to achieve any other purpose as well, and therefore things that can be done not with the intention of influencing an election could well be covered. The definition of electoral material goes on to include, for example, a definition of a “candidate”, which,

“includes a future candidate, whether identifiable or not”.

There is no need to mention parties or candidates by name for an activity to be deemed to be controlled expenditure. That, I think, is one of the issues that remains with us even after the debates today. I think the Government still feel that the NGOs are exaggerating the potential damage. However, the NGOs will continue to worry about what is covered by both sets of limits in this clause, and by the lack of a rationale for the new figures.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising these issues once again. The Government accept that the figures for the spending threshold for registration set out in the Bill need to be revisited, and I suspect that the outcome of that will reflect the concerns that have been expressed. However, I do not think I can honestly say that there is a scientific means of arriving at a figure, any more than I suspect the Labour Government used a scientific method to reach their figures for spending limits and thresholds in 2000. I repeat that the balance we seek is one that will secure greater transparency but not lead to unnecessary regulation, particularly taking into account the concerns that have been expressed by a number of smaller organisations. I hope that when we come back with our amendment, it will meet the test of not imposing undue burdens but providing for fair transparency.

I shall not rehearse again all the arguments that were made in the debate immediately prior to this on the total spending limit, but we must have regard to the fact of what one political party is able to do, and bear in mind that the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life thought that the existing limits were quite generous. Of course, no science will ever get this absolutely right, but the figure will nevertheless still allow the healthy involvement of a number of campaigning organisations.

The possible difference between us is that the noble Baroness takes the view that a subjective test should apply, whereas we are sticking by the objective test. That is a perfectly legitimate difference of view for us to have, but I believe that the objective test is more rational. It is reasonable and is the one that informed the legislation currently on the statute book. In respect of some of the concerns that the noble Baroness has expressed, organisations which are properly campaigning on issues and trying to persuade Governments to change policy or reinforce policies they already have would not be seen, on an objective test, as trying to secure an electoral advantage.

I hope that that reassurance will be passed on because it is important that those organisations continue to play their very proper role in trying to persuade Governments, Oppositions or whoever about particular policy issues. There is certainly no desire on the past of this Government to try in any way to inhibit that. With those remarks, which I hope were reassuring, I ask the Committee to agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, we have talked about taking money out of politics. If I heard the noble Lord, Lord Horam, correctly, he received a donation from the noble Lord, Lord Ashcroft, of £6,000. It is Labour Party policy that donations should be limited to £5,000, so perhaps the most important thing that we could do to get money out of politics—not under the Bill—would be for him and other members of his party to sign up to a maximum donation of £5,000.

Whatever the intention of constituency limits, we have heard that they are unworkable for campaigning organisations and certainly unenforceable by the Electoral Commission. As the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, said, political parties do not have these rules for national campaigning, let alone for a whole 12-month period. They do not have to account for staff costs nor try to parcel up their national spending by ward or constituency boundaries. However, political parties at least have a very good reason to organise by constituency; campaigning organisations do not. They campaign against wind farms, for a new zebra crossing, against payday lenders, or in favour of badgers. As we know, badgers move, as does HS2, which will run through hills and dales, counties and boroughs. Such campaigning does not fall into neat little constituency boundaries, which of course the Government anyway want to change for every election under their new law.

The new limit is £9,750 per constituency spread over a full year. That must cover costs of staff, hire of halls, adverts for meetings, posters and publicity. It will cause difficulty for small organisations which run a campaign limited to a geographical area but also for national campaigns with a federated structure. The boundaries for national and even local organisations rarely follow the constituency boundaries that we in politics know well.

Those organisations will need to estimate whether their campaigning costs relate to activity in particular constituencies and ensure that their planned spending will then stay within the new limit for each activity in each constituency. That will be problematic. First, they will have to find what the constituencies are. Many of them will not know—they are not political anoraks and they do not know the boundaries of those constituencies. They will then have to see which bit of spending lies where. It will be different for local organisations, but it will also be, as has been mentioned, virtually unenforceable within the time limit of this election by the Electoral Commission, particularly where breaches occur in the last few weeks of a campaign. It will require real-time monitoring; it will require the commission to respond to allegations across 650 constituencies during a whole 12-month period—that is, starting in May. I defy anyone who, like me, has run an organisation to be up and able to do by then something of that nature.

As has been said, this clause is incomprehensible, unworkable and unnecessary. The Conservatives, of course, have form on Clause 28. I suggest that they get rid of this one so that they do not have the same trouble as they did with the last one.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I accept that clarification and apologise if I misrepresented the noble and learned Lord. As I think my noble friend Lord Horam indicated, the current political parties expenditure rules are not always the easiest to enforce. Very often the best enforcers are the opposition—because, as those of us who have had active experience of political campaigns know, if there is any hint that somewhere or other there has been jiggery-pokery or money spent that should not have been, the candidates on the receiving end will be very quick to alert the regulatory authorities to what has gone on.

The same applies to the question that was raised, quite fairly, about how expenditure could be attributed to a constituency. We believe that it would be in line with the current guidance that attributes spending between different parts of the United Kingdom. Where spending in constituency A has a minor effect in constituency B, the entire spending amount should be allocated to the constituency that it was aimed at. For example, if a third party advertised in a local paper in constituency A that just happened to be distributed in a small part of constituency B, the entire amount should be allocated to constituency A.

That was really brought home to me when the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, asked, “How would we allocate the timing of the activities of a battle bus?”. I say this with no criticism whatever, but those who have not been involved in party election campaigning do not understand the difficulties that are sometimes experienced by those who have to act as election agents in allocating and working out expenditure returns for those who are involved in it. The noble Baroness wishes to intervene but I am just going to give an example. In 1979, my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood, then David Steel, the leader of the Liberal Party, probably introduced the battle bus to British politics. Immediately after that election in May 1979, I was adopted as the Liberal European candidate for the south of Scotland, which included the constituency of Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles. I had as my election agent the agent for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, who had been David Steel’s election agent in the general election that immediately preceded it. He went by the wonderful name of Riddle Dumble, and, as my election agent, he told me, “I’ve got this nightmare of trying to do David’s election expenses return; I have to sit down and allocate the amount of time that his battle bus was in the constituency, and what part of it represented constituency campaigning and what was part of the national campaign”. This is not something that is new.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

We are professionals in a party. It is our job to run elections. That is the whole point that we are making. It is core to us; it is what we are trained for. I ran European elections. We know about it; we train our agents; we have the systems and have our computers set up for that; and we know ward boundaries and constituency boundaries. Here we are talking about different organisations that are here to help people with a drink problem, people in poverty and people who are going to be affected by the bedroom tax. They do not get trained in the way that we do.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 18th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[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 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.

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

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 16th December 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

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

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

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I wonder what the noble Baroness is thinking. Activity by candidates, which is caught by other parts of the PPERA, is completely different from non-party expenditure, which is what we are debating in Part 2 of the Bill. I want to give the noble Baroness the opportunity to tell me what I may be missing, but activity by candidates seeking election is clearly political.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

The NUS and other student groups have raised an interesting question about work done in the year before an election. Can the noble and learned Lord assure the student groups—and it is the Bangor student union that has been writing to noble Lords—that they can continue to campaign? The fact that student groups are concerned is another example of the uncertainty about this issue. It is not just charities: other groups would also need to be concerned that expenditure on a campaign like tuition fees—or the Stop the War coalition, which we knew rather a lot about—early on before a general election could fall within this. If a political party adopted what another group had been campaigning on and that became a big issue at an election—I recall that the Iraq war was such an issue—then the work done maybe 12 months before the election would be caught by this provision. If we understand it correctly—and this is why a stand part debate is absolutely right for this bit—this clause would have the effect of expanding the scope of the Bill to bring into account the cost, in that 12 months, of activities like rallies, marches, hire of transport, stewarding and all those sorts of things.

The other point I want to raise on this clause is the administrative burden brought in by the addition of these types of activities; they are separate from publications, which are relatively easy to account for. It is interesting that another part of the Government is doing a lot about getting rid of red tape at the moment. Last month, this House agreed a statutory instrument allowing small companies to no longer do full accounts if they do not exceed two of either: gross assets of over one-third of a million pounds, a turnover of over two-thirds of a million pounds or an average of 10 employees. That will not apply to charities, which are excluded, but it will exempt other small groups from having to do full accounts. However, those exact same groups, having been relieved by BIS from all that red tape, will, because of the extended activities related to the items included in this clause, have to go through an enormous, complicated, bureaucratic form-filling process.

This is not about taking the big money out of politics. These groups are not about getting elected. They are about giving a voice to the unrepresented and the unheard. They are a key part of our democracy and perhaps that is what the Government do not like. They have not responded to the concerns of these groups. The Electoral Commission—the Government’s own adviser—says:

“Because the Bill brings some kinds of activity into the regime for the first time, we have said to the Government that the wording that defines controlled spending needs close consideration and scrutiny … to assess the cumulative impact … on campaigners, taking into account … the scope of controlled spending … lower thresholds”,

which we will come to, “lower spending limits”, which we will come to,

“new limits on spending in constituencies”,

which we will come to, and, “concerns about administrative burdens”. We will come on to these points, but they all flow from this clause, which extends the scope. The Electoral Commission urged the Government to think very carefully about the wording. As we have heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, those concerns remain or he would not have moved his amendment.

I am sorry that some noble Lords seem to think that this is a Second Reading issue. To me, this is a part of Committee, a way of saying to the Government that if what they intend is transparency and this Bill fails to produce it but instead produces unintended consequences of fear, of people not campaigning when they want to, surely this is the point for us to say to the Government that the wording of this clause is not good enough. The Government should both explain why they have failed to find a solution to the concerns that were raised at Second Reading and give a reason to the House why this clause should stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That reflects some of the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Tyler, to which the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, lent his support. We are grappling with real issues here as to the clarity or otherwise of when people will cross a line. I accept that there are some cases which are quite clearly on one side of the line and others that are nearer the margins. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said that some people had been advised by the Electoral Commission that what they were proposing to do would be regulated. I would say to them, “Take the advice of the Electoral Commission. If it says you should be regulated, then register”. There is nothing stopping people campaigning. In fact, they might campaign with a lot more confidence if they know that they are doing the right thing because they have taken the advice of the Electoral Commission.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I dread going on to other clauses, because I am going to get told off, but this is rather important. Registration is a threat to many of these organisations. They do not have the staff to fill in the forms. Charities are worried that by being registered with the Electoral Commission rather than the Charity Commission, it will look as if they are political because of the word. The bureaucracy of it frightens them. Some organisations will be responsible for 15 or 20 local groups. They will get caught by coalition funding. The Minister says, “Let them register”. The problem is, that in itself is a threat. Maybe he has misunderstood the threat of registration to these organisations.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I do not think that I have, because I indicated that one of the concerns we have is the potential chilling effect. I am trying to make it clear that the threat is not that they cannot campaign at all. I regret sometimes the language used. It may be inadvertent, but the problem is that if we as politicians dealing with the Bill say that people will not be allowed to campaign on certain issues, it will be picked up outside and people will believe that they might not be allowed to campaign on certain issues. I hear what the noble Baroness says about the threat. I do not believe that registration is necessarily a threat. It is part of trying to secure transparency, as my noble friend Lord Tyler said. It is trying to secure the right balance, because the more transparency you have, the more likely it is that you will have more regulation. We are doing an important task as a Committee, which is to put up issues to make sure that we try to achieve the right balance.

In relation to other amendments, my noble friend Lord Greaves sought to exempt activities relating to research, press conferences, meetings and the lobbying of government and other legislative bodies. Again, the same explanation applies. The day-to-day activities of third parties, including working with legislative bodies across the United Kingdom, is not, and under the Bill would not be, subject to regulation under PPERA. Only activities which a reasonable person would regard as intended to promote or procure electoral success are captured.

Amendment 159D is about the same issue: issues being debated in another legislature. In the European election, the European Parliament cannot determine whether Britain continues its membership of the European Union, but it is not impossible—it does not need too much imagination—to think that it might be what third parties might be campaigning on in the forthcoming European elections. If that is what they are campaigning on to promote one party over another, it is not unreasonable, if they meet the thresholds, to require them to register.

The noble Lord, Lord Walton, talked about the all-party groups and the important work that was done in relation to muscular dystrophy. I understood him to ask whether the charities that support those groups with staff will be covered. It is difficult to see how the work of all-party groups—he knows this, as he showed in his remarks—could be caught or how the groups could be promoting electoral success in the reports they produce. However, the difference might be if one of the charitable bodies that had been supporting the all-party group were to turn around and say, “We helped produce this report. Member X and Member Y are really good people and people should go out and support them”. I am not suggesting for one minute that they would do that, as charity law might make it very difficult for them, but that would be trying to procure an election result and so on. Simply supporting an all-party group doing the very valuable work that the all-party groups do could not be seen as promoting a particular—

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Wednesday 13th March 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, this is an interesting discussion but, as the House will know, the Bill has three purposes, all of which are about changing the succession to the Crown. One is to allow women to inherit if they are the eldest; the second is to allow people not to have to forgo their place in respect of the Throne if they were to marry a Catholic; and the third is to allow people to maintain their position should they marry, in certain circumstances, without the monarch’s permission. Those are the three changes to the laws of succession. It seems to us that nothing in the Bill alters the current position that only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne. Interesting though these questions are, we would not seek to have them included in this Bill and therefore do not support these amendments.

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

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord True and Lord Elton for bringing forward these amendments. As my noble friend Lord True said, he brought forward a very similar amendment in Committee and it is important that he has given us an opportunity to debate these issues again. Following on from the Committee stage, I assure my noble friend and the House that I have given this matter thought. It is an important matter. When the phrase “heirs of the body” was incorporated into the Act of Settlement no one could conceivably—possibly—have anticipated the kind of advances that we have seen in the past 50 years, which raise these kind of issues, particularly with regard to human fertilisation and embryology.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the laws governing succession to the Crown require that the descendant be the natural-born child of a husband and wife. As I indicated in Committee and, indeed, as I said to my noble friend Lord True in the letter from which he quoted:

“Although the Adoption Act 1976 and the Family Law Reform Act 1987 refer only to the succession of titles being left unchanged by their reforms, the Lord Chancellor stated at Second Reading of the Bill that became the 1987 Act that there was no intention to alter the rules on the descent of the Crown”.—[Official Report, 28/2/13; col. 1217.]

My noble friend Lord Elton raised the important point about Section 48(7) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 concerning England, Wales and Northern Ireland, which has the effect that nothing in the sections concerning parenthood in cases of artificial reproduction,

“affects the succession to any dignity or title … or renders any person capable of succeeding to or transmitting a right to succeed to any such dignity or title”.

Although I acknowledge that the Crown is not expressly mentioned, it is the Government’s view—we have given this considerable thought, and the phrase “the lesser must include the greater” has already been used—that if titles are not affected by this then, a fortiori, neither is the Crown. Therefore, we do not believe that there is a need for this amendment.

The Government also consider it unnecessary to define marriage as is set out in subsection (1) of the proposed new clause under this amendment, as only a natural-born child of a husband and wife can succeed to the Throne. We believe that that is clear as a matter of common law, as I think my noble friend Lord True acknowledged. I do not think that my noble friend referred to this in moving his amendment, but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne did pick up on proposed new subsection (3), on which I was going to reflect, because I think my noble friend Lord True said that the last thing that he wanted to do was engender controversy. I fear that this could become quite a controversial matter if Parliament is asked to pass a resolution on whether proposed new subsections (1) and (2) would apply, but it may be that he was not particularly pressing that leg of his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as we said in Committee, the Duchy is about property, business, title and, indeed, money. Although we agree that those are, as my noble friend said, important issues and we would undoubtedly welcome the end of the inequality—the mistreatment, we might say, of women—as regards the Duchy, they do not concern the Crown succession and therefore, along with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, we feel that they are not appropriate for the Bill.

I also repeat the comment that I made in Committee in response to the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, about the experience that that gives to a monarch. I said then that the current monarch has done extraordinarily well without having had that title. Perhaps we can take this moment to hope that she is soon fully recovered.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I immediately associate myself with those wishes of full recovery to Her Majesty. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, for raising the issue, which gave rise to a very good debate in Committee. I certainly valued the input from those who contributed, as I have today, on what is a very important issue with a great historic heritage. The noble Lord referred to the founding charter of 1337 and offered to pass me a copy. I was not sure whether he was going to pass me a copy in Latin or the translation. My higher in Latin from 40-odd years ago is probably so rusty that the translation would be better.

As I sought to explain in Committee, the Dukedom of Cornwall can pass only to the eldest son and heir of the monarch. I will come back to the points made about the exceptions to that. Therefore, when Her Majesty was Heir Presumptive as Princess Elizabeth, she did not hold the title of Duke of Cornwall, and we believe that the position would be the same now if there were a female heir, because of the terms of the charter. It is important to bear in mind that, because of limitation to the eldest son and heir of the monarch, the title cannot pass to a younger brother. The two exceptions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley—that of Henry VIII, Prince Henry when his brother, Prince Arthur, died and of Charles I, then Prince Charles, when his elder brother, Prince Henry, I think, died—were interesting. The noble Lord made it clear that exceptional steps were taken. That almost proves the point that it was not an automatic transfer of the dukedom. In the case of Charles I—Prince Charles, as he then was—King James asked the courts to make the alteration.

I also indicated that if the monarch has a son who is the heir apparent and that son dies before the monarch leaving a son of his own, the grandson of the monarch, the grandson will become heir apparent, but will not become Duke of Cornwall because he is not the son of the monarch.

It was recognised by those who contributed to the debate that this Bill is not the vehicle for making some pretty fundamental changes to a charter that has not changed, with two exceptions over the years involving parliamentary or court intervention on a one-off basis—if you can call Henry VIII a one-off. To make fundamental change is not the purpose of this Bill.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd, asked whether I can give a guarantee that the Government will bring forward legislation. I am afraid I am not in a position to do that. A huge amount of consultation would be required before we were in a position to do that.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, the purpose of this Bill is important, but very limited. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to use this Bill as a vehicle to change the charter. I take the point made by my noble friend Lord Lexden on the valuable experience which the present Prince of Wales has undoubtedly had with regard to his involvement in the duchy. I shall reiterate something that I said in Committee: although the title cannot pass to a female heir, there is nothing to stop her being actively involved in the running of the duchy or, should the reigning monarch so wish, chairing the Prince’s Council. If that was what the monarch wished, that would be entirely possible and would give that valuable experience to which my noble friend Lord Lexden referred.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked about the creation of the Princess of Wales. As he acknowledged, the title of Prince of Wales is not automatically conferred on the heir apparent on his mother or father becoming sovereign. In the case of the present Prince of Wales, it was bestowed upon him some six years after the accession of our present Queen. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said—my noble friend disagreed with the disparaging way it was put—the Crown is the source of all honour and dignity, and I agree with him. It would be a matter for the sovereign, but if the Crown is the source of all honour and dignity and the sovereign chose to establish a Princess of Wales, it would be a matter for the sovereign. However, I do not think it is very helpful to speculate on what might happen at a future date.

For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I will live up to what the noble Lord, Lord True, expects and disappoint him. Not everyone was here in Committee, when this was discussed at greater length and there was an amendment to reduce the number—I think to four, or even to zero—so it was not as clear-cut then that the number should be increased. Indeed, the number six is not the full number of people who will necessarily always have to seek permission, because they have to seek permission at the point at which they marry. It could well include far more people. Someone who may not be heir to the Throne within the first six at any one point could be in that position by the time that they want to marry. It applies at the time of their marriage, so more people may well have to seek permission.

As we said when this was discussed at greater length in Committee, with more evidence given than perhaps all noble Lords have had a chance to read, we feel that this is not an exact science. We know that five were probably as many as were ever needed, so we thought that six gave a useful additional margin.

We certainly do not think that it is sensible to involve an unnecessarily large number of people in having to seek permission of the Crown in order to marry when they have no realistic possibility of inheriting the Throne. We do not know on what grounds a monarch would debar someone from a particular marriage if it was not about religion, although one noble Lord suggested that. We do not know what sort of reasons a couple would have to consider when deciding whether to go ahead with the marriage and give up their place in line. It seems to us strange to put a young couple through that when there is no good reason for doing so.

I should add that although this was not in the original Perth agreement, it is part of the agreement that has been discussed with all the other countries, with all the hard work done on everyone’s behalf by New Zealand. It would need an enormous amount of unscrambling to change the number now when it has been discussed at great length. I am sure that it is in no way the intention behind the amendment that it should be wrecking or delaying. However, I fear that changing the number from six would have that effect. I am sure that we would not want to risk the other really important parts of the Bill, the two bits that the whole House strongly supports—the succession to the Crown of the first born, should it be a woman, and the ability of someone in line to the Throne to marry a Catholic—by delay. We support the continuation of the Bill as it stands.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, again, I thank my noble friends Lord Lang, Lord Hamilton and Lord True, who have signed the amendment. My noble friend Lord Lang raised this issue at Second Reading and again in Committee and on each occasion stimulated a very good debate. It is clear that a balance needs to be struck somewhere between mitigating a remote but potentially catastrophic event, on the one hand, and the risk of impinging unnecessarily, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said, on the lives of those who are more distant from the Throne.

My noble friend Lord Lang said that there were two differences in what was being proposed from what was there before. I think he said that, before, consent under the Royal Marriages Act 1772 related to religion and marriage to a Catholic. In fact, it went much wider than that. As my noble friend Lord True said, it was George III’s concerns about his siblings that prompted it. It was not actually to do with religion because the provision on religion was such that if you married a Catholic, you lost your place in the line of succession. I suspect that you also still had to get consent, being one of the descendants of George II, otherwise your marriage, albeit one that took you out of the line of succession, would have been void. Nothing is changing there. It is not related solely to religion.

My noble friend also said that the other change is that rather than the marriage being void, as is the case under the 1772 legislation, the person and their descendants from that unconsented-to marriage lose their place in the line of succession. Hitherto, failure to get consent did not cause the individual concerned to lose their place in the line of succession, as the examples given by my noble friend indicated, but their children did not have any place in the line of succession because by definition the marriage was void. Therefore, the children could not take up any place in the line of succession. Being the children of a void marriage, they would not be legitimate.

This change has taken place first to reduce the very large number of people who are today the descendants of George II. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, I just do not know how many consents Her Majesty has given during the 61 years of her reign. If my memory serves me correctly, I think I said in Committee that no one seems to have any record of consent having been refused. I would not like to suggest that information about how many consents have been given might be available. The fact is that as each generation comes to bear another generation, the number of descendants of King George II increases. Indeed, it may well be that some of them do not know that they are descendants of George II and may be contracting marriages which are void. That is one of the principal reasons why we wish to change this, so that the consequence of failure to get consent or of consent being refused is not that one’s marriage is void, which has considerable consequences for the couple concerned and their family, but rather that the person loses their place in the line of succession.

As the House will be aware, I indicated that we believe that the six steps provide sufficient proximity to the Throne. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, made an important point about consent at marriage: people who at the time of the consent for their marriage were in the first six may subsequently no longer be within the first six in line to the Throne, so the number at any one time who have had to receive consent will almost certainly be greater than six. If one looks at the 240 years of history since the Royal Marriages Act 1772 was passed, the person furthest away from the Throne at the time of marriage who subsequently ascended the Throne was William IV, who was third in line to the Throne, so the position as it stands provides twice as many steps away from the Throne than have ever been necessary in more than 200 years.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Thursday 28th February 2013 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, says, the issue is a sensible one. I then break with the tradition of everyone else who has spoken by saying it may be a sensible issue, but the issue is about property, the ownership of an estate, about title—as reflected in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lang—or about a business, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick. While it may be an important issue, it is not about the constitution of this country and therefore not really appropriate to what is an important and, in our view, welcome change in our laws of succession. That is what this Bill is really about.

It is quite possible that the founding charter governing the Duchy of Cornwall may need changing—I had not realised that it was in 1337. Interestingly, 600 years after that, from 1937 to 1952, the title fell into abeyance. Our present monarch seems to have done a fantastic job without the benefit of being the Duke of Cornwall in that period, so I am not certain that this needs to be done. If it does, it should be done by another way and not in this Bill, which is about our rules of succession. I hope that this is what your Lordships’ House will address itself to.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Northbrook for introducing this amendment, which has generated a considerable amount of debate and discussion. I understand where he and other noble Lords who contributed to the debate are coming from as they seek to remove gender bias in the descent of the Duchy of Cornwall. I will try to clarify the current situation. The title can pass only to the eldest son and heir of the monarch. Thus—as has been indicated—when she was heir presumptive to the throne, Her Majesty, as Princess Elizabeth, did not hold the title of Duke of Cornwall.

As has been said, the title and inheritance of the Duchy were created by King Edward III in 1337, and vested in the Black Prince by a charter having the authority of Parliament. My noble friend Lord Deben said that this was an opportunity seek to remove anomalies. It is fair to say that this one is perhaps even slightly more anomalous than it might appear on the surface. The mode of descent specified by the charter is unusual, and differs from that which commonly occurs in respect of hereditary titles. The monarch’s eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall immediately that he becomes heir apparent. However, if the monarch has a son who is the heir apparent and that son dies before the monarch, leaving a son of his own—a grandson of the monarch—the grandson would become heir apparent but would not be Duke of Cornwall because he is not the son of the monarch. It is not just a question of daughters not inheriting the title; it would be that grandsons did not, either.

With the Duchy of Cornwall we therefore have an unusual and interesting piece of English history that does not conform to the standard rules of descent for hereditary titles. However, it is exactly that: a piece of English history and not an issue that is of direct relevance to the succession to the Crown—as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, indicated—nor to the other realms of the Commonwealth. I made it clear at Second Reading that it is not the Government’s intention to deal in this legislation with UK-specific matters. This amendment very much falls into that category.

My noble friend Lord Lang referred to other titles, to which the same arguments apply. I tried during my reply at Second Reading to set out what would happen to these. I am happy to write to my noble friend to outline the cases in these situations.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town

Monday 21st March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am in no way trying to dismiss the suggestion that my noble friend makes. I am not in a position to indicate how that committee will be established. No doubt there will be nomination procedures from both Houses. I suspect that it would be rather odd if a contrary view or two was not expressed on it, but I am not in a position to indicate that ahead of the Bill being published. I assure the Committee that the timings of elections to the reformed second Chamber has been considered carefully by the Government and the proposals will be in the draft Bill.

I certainly take my noble friend’s point that, having spent most of the time on the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill listening to the Opposition saying that the Bill should be split, it is somewhat intriguing then to be told that not only should it be split but that two other Bills should be added on to it. I do not think that the experience of the CRAG Bill in the previous Parliament, where numerous constitutional principles were put together under the one heading of a constitutional reform Bill, was necessarily the most satisfactory experience.

The noble Baroness mentioned entrenching the election date for one House while the other was pending. At least it will be known when this Bill has got on to the statute book what Parliament has agreed with regard to a fixed-term election. If this Bill had not come forward and we did not have fixed-term Parliaments, an election to the other place could have happened at any time. The potential for some of the confusion and concerns to which the noble Baroness referred would have been multiplied many times over if it was proposed that this House should have a fixed term while the other place could have elections as and when the Prime Minister of the day thought best to call them. Therefore, when the Joint Committee of both Houses considers the draft Bill, it will do so in the knowledge of what Parliament has passed in the context of fixed-term Parliaments. This Bill deals with dates of the general election to the other place. These should be set before we consider the dates of elections to the reformed second Chamber. There will be ample opportunity to discuss elections to this Chamber when the Bill is published in draft form and, I suspect, plenty of further opportunities to discuss it when the reality of the Bill comes before the other place and your Lordships' House. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister and the other speakers for their contributions. The Minister said that it was an interesting amendment, rather like the Chinese proverb, “May you live in interesting times”. I am not sure about the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, calling it mischievous. It was seriously meant because it is about a package of reforms, as my noble and learned friend said. I do not think that means putting them in one Bill but rather having a real idea of where we are taking our constitution before we tackle any one bit of it, so that we see it in the round. Nevertheless, given the comments that have been made, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.