Queen’s Speech

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 24th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard a real breadth and depth of experience from Bishops, lawyers, academics, medics, public servants, former Ministers and elected politicians, from business, police and military leaders, and from representatives of workers, the voluntary sector and local government. It seems that all life is here. I will not, therefore, try to summarise their views, except to say that they reflect the diversity, scope and seriousness of the implications of the gracious Speech for this House: devolution, law, our constitution, security, freedom of speech, human rights and justice—important areas of citizens’ rights.

At the anti-corruption summit, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, the Prime Minister said that,

“political will could begin a concerted effort to get to grips with … corporate secrecy”,

with everyone emphasising that an essential, not sufficient, condition for tackling corruption is transparency. But closer to home, we are a long way from knowing what the Government do in the name of their citizens. We have a register of lobbyists that excludes all the main lobbyists, trade associations and companies’ in-house lobbying. It requires the disclosure only of the lobbying of Ministers and Permanent Secretaries, despite most lobbying being of senior civil servants, MPs, and indeed Peers. It is for this reason that my noble friend Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe’s Lobbying (Transparency) Bill received its First Reading today. If the Government are genuine about transparency, they will support it.

As well as transparency, challenge is healthy for democracy. As my noble friend Lord Haskel said, the Government must accept that they are accountable to Parliament. Indeed, the gracious Speech and the noble Lords, Lord Faulks and Lord Tyler, referred to the primacy of the Commons, not of the Executive. Yet the Government seem so frightened of being questioned that they restricted charities’ advocacy work, such that even the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, concluded that they went too far. They removed civil society from questioning schools’ adherence to the admissions code. They tried to cut the Opposition’s money to hold the Government to account. They plan to restrict the use of government grants to put alternative views to Parliament or Ministers, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. They are giving Ministers a bigger say in appointments to supposedly independent arm’s-length bodies, and they will appoint a large chunk of the BBC board, including the chair and vice-chair, who will owe no duty to the licence fee payer but will be accountable only to the Minister who appointed them. This is not open government.

Furthermore, in a different area, the Conservatives plan to extend voting rights to Britons living permanently abroad, even if they pay no UK taxes and are unaffected by what a Government do. But it would mean, I assume, that they are then permitted to make donations to political parties, allowing offshore money to flow into a certain party’s bank account. Will the Minister inform the House whether this is indeed their intention, whether the Government favour the Private Member’s Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and whether they will convene all-party talks on party funding?

Without any cross-party support, the Government are removing 50 elected politicians from the Commons, yet are rumoured to appoint this number to your Lordships’ House, further increasing our size—already a laughing stock, in the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; and undermining our reputation, in the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar.

Turning to the role of your Lordships’ House and the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Wakeham, of course the usual channels have a key role in assisting the House, but in addition there are Back-Benchers to be listened to. There are also Cross-Benchers, who are also vital to such discussion. They are neither Tory nor Labour; they are not government nor opposition, but their expertise, insights and wisdom should surely also be heard. As my noble friend Lord Richard suggests, the Government’s power not to waive their financial privilege should also be revisited. Since the tax credit vote—about which we heard a lot this evening—and as the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lisvane, reminded us, three committees of this House and one of the House of Commons, all of them with Conservative chairs, each said that your Lordships’ House did not overstep the mark. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, put it rather better: we acted as a conscientious traffic warden stopping an overloaded lorry.

The noble Lord, Lord Butler, wisely asked for a more positive way forward to enhance the role your Lordships’ House should play in secondary legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Lisvane, and my noble friend Lord Haskel asked about the drafting of Bills, while the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, warned about skeleton Bills that depend on statutory instruments if these then cannot be amended. On this side, we want a constructive and positive way forward so that we can play our proper scrutiny and advisory role on all legislation in a manner that will use our time and talents, and be of benefit to the resulting Acts of Parliaments. We particularly look forward to the Government’s response to the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Norton: what is the constitutional settlement that they are striving to achieve?

I turn to something in the gracious Speech that I am very happy to welcome: the proposed national citizen service Bill, with the duty on schools and local authorities to promote this scheme to young people and their parents. Of course, that welcome depends on resources being available and not by taking from playgrounds, sport or other bits of expenditure. Meanwhile, what happened to the plans to amend the civil registration of marriages to include the names of couples’ mothers as well as fathers? Why was there nothing in the gracious Speech on the public service ombudsman, despite repeated assurances that draft legislation would be published as soon as reasonably possible? Could the Minister confirm that this is still the intention?

More broadly, as we warned, the EU alternative dispute resolution directive is failing in its intent. Businesses have only to identify a disputes body but do not have to let consumers take their complaints there. Will the Minister agree to discuss this issue with me and consumer representatives? This issue covers all departments: the Department for Transport dealing with passengers, DECC with water, the Treasury with bank customers, and the MoJ with legal clients. It requires some joined-up Cabinet Office thinking. Indeed, perhaps it is time for a dedicated Consumer Minister who could take a cross-department view on issues such as retail banking where customers have been so let down. The problem at the moment is that the Competition and Markets Authority comes under BIS and produces recommendations that somebody described as hitting the banks “with a feather”, whereas the Financial Services Consumer Panel, which says, “That really was not going to drive competition”, comes under the Treasury. We do not have joined-up thinking, which is surely something the Cabinet Office could take responsibility for.

For my part, the mention of consumer rights by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, was particularly welcome. Like human rights, these are a cross-department matter and they would be greatly strengthened by a consumer Minister or by the Cabinet Office taking its cross-departmental responsibilities seriously. That is a role that it can play; it is able to see citizens as people in the round across the various roles. It can speak up for consumers and citizens vis-à-vis the providers of services. The Home Office and Justice departments have essential roles in not just upholding the rule of law but ensuring equality of access across the whole community—including victims, as described by the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove. All of government should prioritise the needs of the vulnerable over the power of elites.

We have found the Government wanting on all these challenges, and in answering the question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, endorsed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf—is every country to be free to interpret human rights on its soil rather than across the whole of the European family?

Although we find that the gracious Speech has not shown the Government to be facing up to these challenges, we will face up to ours. We will play our role in improving legislation in front of us for the good of all citizens.

Elections: Campaigning

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 5th May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

As I say, we are carefully looking at all these recommendations and how they might be applied. Paragraph 6.14, on spending limits, states that:

“The Review found no evidence that the spending of third parties at the 2015 General Election was inhibited by”,

those spending limits. The paragraph continues:

“No third party spent up to the new limit”.

However, there are clearly concerns about this and the Government are considering their position.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the effect was chilling. We also have the chilling effect of the proposed gag—now paused—on the expenditure of grants by charities. However, the one bit that has not been chilled or stopped at all is lobbying by business, the vast majority of which is not covered by the statutory register of lobbyists. When will the Government bring forward legislation to tackle that much bigger form of lobbying?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

The Government are always looking at these issues and their implementation. I again thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson for looking into the subject matter of this Question. He has produced a very balanced set of recommendations. As regards the perceived chilling effect, he said:

“It was … far from clear the extent to which it was the reality of the legislation’s provisions rather than the perception of what restrictions they imposed, which affected organisations’ behaviour … nevertheless … there was an atmosphere of increased nervousness and caution”.

I repeat that the Government are looking at these points and considering their position.

Trade Union Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

I want to make just one brief point. We, too, welcome the amendment and the compromise which the Government are showing. However, having got rid of quite a lot of the powers, we are still left with a hell of a lot of bureaucracy—for no good purpose, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, was suggesting. It is now a very complicated procedure and one wonders whether this will disappear into the long grass and be quietly forgotten. It would have been much better to have a one-off review to see what the problem is and deal with it through the management of the public sector, rather than setting up this ridiculous bureaucracy for no good purpose.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clarity and brevity—after the previous debate—in introducing the amendment. I also thank him for taking the time to meet me and colleagues to discuss the possible introduction of a cap on facility time. He knows that we have serious concerns, which we retain, about the principle, and that we have even greater concerns about how it might work. How and when would a Minister decide that the amount of time taken needed to be restricted, and on what grounds? Would it be contrary to the desire of the relevant employer?

We raised the example of organisations going through contraction, restructuring, relocation or even growth, where more negotiating time with union reps is always needed. There is also the example of industries with particular safety issues or health issues—we discussed the health service—where safety reps might be needed more than average, thereby pushing up the overall amount of facility time recorded.

On the phrase,

“any other matters that the Minister thinks relevant”,

it would be helpful to hear from the Minister what sort of things he deems might be relevant. However, that is the only remaining issue, because the others we raised have been met by the safeguards he has just listed. They will spell out that particular instances can be given and that the employer will have time to give reasons.

The remaining issue is therefore one we discussed under the previous clause: whether charities might be caught by this provision. I acknowledge the discussions we have had and those that will now take place with the organisations likely to be affected, including with representatives of charities. We also recognise that we will be able to debate this further when the relevant regulations are brought forward.

These amendments show that the Government have clearly heard our original concerns. They have produced a schema which allows the relevant comparative data to be used and judged alongside similar industries and organisations, and which allows time for consultation with the employer, giving them the opportunity to explain the management practice that requires so much union reps’ time to do their work. We still concur with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, that this is an unnecessary measure and would prefer the cap to be dead and buried. However, having recognised that we were not going to win that one, we acknowledge the change that the amendments have made and are happy to support them.

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I thank the noble Baroness, the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, for their comments. Where there was discord, we have brought a bit more harmony, at least, on this point. There is clearly disagreement on the need for such a measure, but I would argue that that is precisely why we need the data. What the data will show will determine whether the reserve power needs to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. I very much hope that the assurances I have given today address a number of the concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kerslake, and others.

On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, about bureaucracy, I simply repeat that a considerable section of the public sector already considers publishing information on facility time to be best practice. I highlighted what is published in the local government transparency code and what the Department for Education recommends that all schools publish. His point about bureaucracy—ensuring that it is kept to a minimum—is of course one that every Government wish to heed.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, raised the question of other issues that are deemed to be relevant. In essence, they must be relevant without being capable of being specified now, because that will be set out in the evidence given when the Government bring in regulations—which, as I said, would be debated by both Houses of Parliament.

With that, I am once again grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, for their constructive comments and the conversations we have had. I beg to move.

Trade Union Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, I start by thanking those who have helped us reach a modicum of consensus—I should probably stress the word modicum, as I do not want to tempt fate—in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, with whom I have had several conversations, along with her colleagues on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham.

A number of legitimate concerns have been expressed about how far reaching these provisions relating to this clause will be and how they might be implemented. The Government have listened to these concerns and, to address them, have acted in a variety of ways.

First, we produced a clear list of bodies that will be in scope. We used the Freedom of Information Act as a starting point for this and, as I committed to do on Report, we have now shared this list with the House as part of the draft regulations. However, I clarify again that the scope of facility time transparency will mean that it applies only to organisations with 50 or more employees and at least one trade union official. Those bodies that do not meet these criteria may exclude themselves from the facility time transparency measures.

Secondly, there was equally legitimate concern about the need to ensure that we are clear which organisations may be in scope. In particular, several noble Lords were concerned about the provisions applying to organisations only partly funded by public funds. The Government agree that that is a legitimate concern and, with that in mind, I now put forward an amendment that would ensure that only those public sector bodies mainly funded by public funds could come within the scope of regulations made under Clause 13(9). I know that that change was important to a number of your Lordships.

Thirdly, we have also brought forward Amendments 5 and 7, which will ensure that any exercise of the power in Clause 13(9) will be by way of the affirmative resolution procedure. This should provide the assurance that a number of your Lordships sought—namely, that inclusion in regulations of bodies that are not public authorities but are performing functions of a public nature will come about only once both Houses of Parliament have expressly so agreed by affirmative resolution.

Let me now address a specific concern raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, regarding the scope of this clause and Clause 14, and the possible impact on charities. As I have said before, none of us wishes those clauses to apply to what I would call a typical charity—for example, Oxfam and charities of the type that fall outside what I would loosely refer to as the core public sector—or a relatively small charity performing laudable work in the community, such as tackling homelessness or addiction. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, highlighted, some of those charities might—might—receive most of their revenue in one year from the public purse. The Government agree that we need to give them the comfort that, were that ever to be the case, they would not and could not come within the scope of these provisions. I therefore committed on Report to continuing to work with officials and the noble Baroness to devise an approach to alleviate and address those concerns.

I now confirm that the Government are committed to ensuring that regulations made under the extension powers in Clauses 13 and 14 capture only those charities that could be captured by the Freedom of Information Act and its Scottish equivalent and are also mainly funded by public funds. In future, if a charity met both of those criteria, Parliament would properly scrutinise whether the scope of the regulations should be extended to them, and this would be done via affirmative resolution. Therefore, because I know just how important this issue is to noble Lords, I will ensure that we will not use the powers to capture a charity that the Freedom of Information Act and Scottish equivalent could not also capture.

I believe that we have given due consideration to your Lordships’ concerns regarding the scope of the clause. We have reflected on many of these matters, the Government have made amendments to discharge noble Lords’ misgivings, and we hope that your Lordships will support the amendments.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing the amendments, each of which we are pleased to support. In doing so, I recognise the movement that the Government have made—particularly from “partly” to “mainly”.

We should, however—the Minister is right to smile—read the amendments on the scope of facility time and check-off restrictions in the Bill in the context of the helpful, albeit slightly belated, letter that I received from him late on Friday, which I imagine is also in the Library, and which outlines which organisations will be caught by the provisions. In the light of that 15-page draft, a skeleton regulation which would give effect to the mandatory reporting on facility time and the restriction of an employer’s freedom to operate check-off, I fear that I have seven questions for the Minister.

First, have the 255 bodies listed in the draft regulations, which are about to find themselves caught by them, been consulted? Secondly, why is the Legal Services Board on the list? It does not get government money, being funded by a levy on lawyers, and should therefore be excluded, alongside the Gambling Commission, by virtue of the third of the Government’s exclusions, as set out at the top of the second page of the Minister’s letter of Friday 22 April. When this House accepted the Legal Services Act 2007, it felt it important that the Legal Services Board should be independent of government for international as well as domestic reasons. Its inclusion in a list of bodies, restricting its managerial freedom, could be of concern.

Thirdly, the list refers to the proprietor of an academy under the 2010 Act. Given that the Government are now threatening that all schools should become academies, despite the resistance of many Conservative MPs, to say nothing of that of head teachers, governors and parents, particularly of primary schools, will the Minister clarify whether, should that White Paper find its way into the Queen’s Speech, any forced new academies would be covered by this provision?

Fourthly, with regard to charities—and I thank the Minister for our discussions on this and for what he said today—would housing associations be covered under his definition? The Minister made what appears to be a useful statement today and in his letter: it is not the Government’s intention to include organisations which the general public would consider to be charities—such as Oxfam or others doing valuable charitable work funded by the public purse—within the scope of the Bill. However, the letter also states that the “starting point for scope on public bodies captured remains those public authorities in the Freedom of Information Act”.

Given the reports last year that Matt Hancock, the Cabinet Officer Minister, was considering extending freedom of information into the charitable sector, will the Minister confirm that the Government have dropped that idea or at the least confirm that even if it were to be resurrected, the Government would still exclude charities of the sort he described from these facility time and check-off provisions? The Minister has kindly had discussions with us about charities, but there remain problems within the sector and concern about the definition. Will he therefore look again, as we asked before, and give some comfort by using words to define the exclusion, such as: “charities, regardless of their funding arrangements, which are independent organisations that have satisfied the public benefit test and are regulated by the Charity Commission.”? This would not cover the exempt charities, such as universities, which are regulated by another body. That would give comfort, should freedom of information be extended in a way that has not been covered by what the Minister said today.

Fifthly the breadth of the scope on facility time, in particular the inclusion of public broadcasters, including the BBC, and arts bodies, such as the British Museum and the Tate, continues to concern us. What is the justification for intervening in such beacons of independent and artistic freedom? The Minister no doubt saw the amazing tribute to Shakespeare from Stratford on Saturday night. It must have involved lots of discussions of safety, overtime, copyright and performance rights. Is he content these would all need documenting before the show could go on?

Sixthly, with regard to the detail that employers will have to document on facility time, we remain concerned about both the onerous—indeed, “burdensome” is the word—amount of red tape and the bureaucracy involved, as well as about how much information employers will have to demand of union reps about how they spend their time, often encroaching on to confidential or contentious matters. For example, the draft skeleton regulations require employers to provide a breakdown of the proportion of facility time spent on different union duties. They list them: health and safety, redundancies, TUPE, collective bargaining, training, and representation in grievances and disciplinary hearings. This means union reps having to disclose that to employers, but those amounts of time will vary on a weekly basis, and in many workplaces it will be difficult for employers to decide what counts as time spent on collective bargaining as opposed to time spent on redundancy, on TUPE or on training, because these activities often take place at the same time, including when a lay official meets with a full-time union official or the employer to discuss a basket of issues.

Housing and Planning Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

135B: Clause 190, page 100, line 18, at end insert—
“( ) regulations under section (Power to require property agents to join client money protection schemes), (Client money protection schemes: approval or designation), or (Enforcement of client money protection scheme regulations),”

Lobbying: Government Grant Agreements

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 19th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, the press release that announced this said that it was as a result of research done by the IEA—so that lobbying led to this, with no consultation either with the academic world or anyone else. If I have understood the Minister, he is now willing to exempt academic research but not research carried out by other organisations, be they charities, the Marine Management Organisation, English Heritage or any others. Will the Minister consult with them before they are restricted from giving information to Parliament, government and, under the rules, to the European Union?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

My Lords, I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. Her concerns have been heeded in the sense that the consultation on the implementation of this clause began the minute that the clause was announced in February. As regards curbing freedom of speech by charities, that is not the case. Let me remind your Lordships that charities make up only 7% of grant spend. Charities can continue to use any other funds to lobby government. Indeed, in the DCLG, where this clause has been in place for the past 18 months, Shelter, which has been receiving a grant from the DCLG, has continued to lobby this House and the other place on the contents of the housing Bill, for example.

Trade Union Bill

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

18: Clause 12, page 9, leave out lines 16 to 19

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, we turn now to Clause 12, which would require public sector employers to log and publish how much time is spent on facility time, which allows union and safety and learning reps to do their jobs. We still maintain that Clause 12 is based on no evidence of need and no demand by public sector employers. However, we are not today contesting that clause but only new Section 172A(9) on page 9 of the Bill, which extends this reporting requirement to bodies well beyond the public sector, to include a body,

“that is not a public authority but has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds”.

In Committee, we challenged what this meant, and why Ministers would want to interfere with the managerial decision-making of an independent body, especially ones funded only partially by public money. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee concluded that the measure could encompass charities, and others have mentioned arts and cultural bodies. There was general concern about ministerial diktat to private organisations, especially given that Clause 13 enables Ministers to override management’s right to manage, by capping facility time. One letter from the Minister stated that the Bill—contrary to its wording—would cover ONS-defined public bodies, which would catch housing associations and various other organisations.

Another letter said that it had,

“never been the government’s intention to capture private or voluntary sector providers of contracted out public services or charitable organisations”,

despite what the Bill says. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, then said that they would look at the issue again. Indeed, yesterday the Minister wrote saying that the Government had revisited this and they now thought that lines 16 to 19 would mean any FOI-able body with at least 50 employees. Most noble Lords will not have a list of those bodies; mine, however, arrived this morning.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Lord Bridges of Headley) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by saying that I have read the previous debates and have met a number of your Lordships; I thank those I met for their time. I acknowledge the misgivings that have been expressed about this policy and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for extending the hand of friendship and co-operation on this. Before I address the point on scope, I repeat a key point to your Lordships that I wish no one to forget: it is not the intention that facility time is to be banned. As has been said—I repeat again—trade union representatives provide a valuable role in many organisations and facility time will always have a role to play throughout the public sector.

On scope, we are clear in our aim to cover core public bodies—employers that the taxpayer would expect to be covered by public sector transparency regulations. To meet this aim, our approach is to include public sector bodies in the regulations only if they meet the following policy aims. First, bodies that we wish to capture are already listed in Schedule 1 to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002—I refer to both of them as FOIA. We believe that whether a body is in scope of Schedule 1 to FOIA is a good indicator of whether they are a public authority for the purpose of Clause 12. However, to include all the employers on Schedule 1 to FOIA would be too wide for our aims. I totally take the point that the noble Baroness makes about small organisations. We will filter organisations out of this list where their inclusion would not be appropriate. The regulations will place obligations only on employers with more than 49 employees and at least one trade union representative. FOIA Schedule 1 includes several bodies that do not currently meet this criterion and will thus not be obliged to follow the publication. They will, however, appear in the regulations and it will be for any such body to appropriately exclude itself if it does not meet the criteria. This is in recognition of the fact that the size of organisations and their trade union membership is likely to fluctuate over time.

Next, in the event that at some point in the future the Government were to identify a body that is not in Schedule 1 to FOIA and not capable of being added, we would seek to capture such a body, relying on the powers in Clause 12(9), only where the body has not been set up to function in a predominantly commercial, competitive, or market-facing way; has more than 49 employers and one or more trade union representative; and has functions of a public nature and is funded wholly or partly from public funds. Furthermore, if the Government wish to add new bodies that pass these tests, they propose to amend the Bill so that the powers in subsection (9) are exercisable by affirmative resolution. This House would then have the chance to scrutinise and debate any regulations that the Government bring forward to include these bodies that are not public authorities but carry out functions of a public nature.

In the light of the noble Baroness’s wish to consider the content of my letter and potentially revisit this issue at Third Reading to discuss it further, I hope that the approach set out my letter, which the Government intend to stand by, will enable us to avoid revisiting this issue in depth at Third Reading. I have already also referred to the Government’s commitment to make the extension of the list an affirmative resolution procedure before the Bill leaves this House. On this basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel free to withdraw her amendment this evening.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

I thank the Minister for that. I think we have made progress. The Bill will probably need to be amended to take account of the approach that the Government are now taking. On the basis of our looking forward to future discussions and returning to this, we hope very quickly, at Third Reading, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 18 withdrawn.

Recall of MPs Act 2015 (Recall Petition) Regulations 2016

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Thursday 11th February 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

As an amendment to the above motion, at end insert “but this House regrets that the Government have made the decision to legislate on restrictions of use, supply and disclosure of the marked register following a recall petition in the draft Regulations, rather than in primary legislation.”

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I must thank the Minister, who could almost make statutory instruments sound fun. I seek, however, to move my amendment, which regrets that such an important decision on whether this is a secret vote or an open petition should be snuck away in a 174-page SI, which I think the Government hoped would be dealt with rather quickly in 10 minutes in the Moses Room, rather than, as we urged at the time, being included in the Bill. I will deal with my amendment to the Motion first and then attempt to cover all the remaining parts of the 174 pages before the moon rises.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I certainly undertake to do that and to give it some consideration. It is another very valid point.

The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, asked me to interpret Regulation 132. I will try to do so. It prevents people being paid—in other words, employed—to canvass on behalf of either side of the petition. To do so is an offence of illegal employment.

These regulations deliver on the manifesto commitments of the three major parties in the previous Parliament to introduce a system of recall. As I said in my opening remarks, I hope that they will go some way to restore the public’s faith in our elected representatives in Parliament. I commend them to the House.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank my noble friends Lord Lipsey, Lady Donaghy and Lord Campbell-Savours. My noble friend Lord Lipsey said that we had known each other a long time; it is actually some 45 years since we started work together. The last point, which my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours raised, about it being illegal to canvass, is very interesting. That means that an MP’s member of staff presumably could not work on behalf of the MP. I had also read and reread that. Presumably it means that no paid official of a party will be able to do it. It would be helpful for the Minister to be absolutely clear in writing that personal staff will not be able even to go around with the MP.

I will be brief because there are only two points I want to leave with the Minister. He has not answered the point about overseas voters. The significance of that is that there is no upper limit on what can be spent on a recall petition. The MP could spend only up to £10,000, but there could be 10 or 20 accredited campaigns working for a recall. Each of those 10 or 20 campaigns could spend up to £10,000. Indeed, there could be 20 or 30 campaigns spending up to £500 without even having to say where their money comes from. There is no upper expenditure on this. If the vote is extended beyond the 15 years to people who have been out of the country, these campaigns could be funded solely from outside the country. I do not expect the Minister to answer on that now because he has obviously chosen not to, but it is something that anyone who wants to keep big money out of politics has to think about.

I also remain worried about intimidation. The Minister said that people can, of course, apply for a postal vote, but that is only if the intimidation starts before the closing day for the postal votes. It is very likely, if people queue up and look at who is going into a signing place, that it would be much closer to the closing date, by which time it would be too late to apply for a postal vote. So the question of noting who goes in remains an issue.

Above all, my noble friend Lady Donaghy has shown the greatest wisdom today in her hope that this never has to happen. That would keep all of us most content—but, as my noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours said, if it happens it will be highly controversial. The way that these regulations have been written, and particularly the fact that they were not voted on either in this House or the other place, is regrettable. I thank the Minister for his time today, and my noble friends for supporting me on this Thursday afternoon. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to the Motion withdrawn.

Charities: Government Grants

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

Of course I agree with that, but I strongly believe that this clause does not do that. I point out that for a number of years government departments have included a provision that taxpayers’ money should not be used for political activity and this new clause simply clarifies what that means.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, on Tuesday last week we completed the Charities Bill. At 8.32 am on Saturday the Government announced this new policy. Did the Minister know about it on Tuesday when we completed it and would it not have been better to announce it then, when there could have been a debate on this important matter in Parliament, rather than issuing it by diktat?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

On the first point, I assure the House that this actually goes much wider than just relating to charities. As I said, it relates to numerous other points. I would also draw your Lordships’ attention to that fact that this has existed in the DCLG and been piloted since February 2015. The DCLG has not received any complaints that it has hindered the work of those charities involved.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very fast canter—it was almost a gallop. We on this side of the House continue to welcome the Bill, especially with the changes, some of which were made in your Lordships’ House and some by the Government in the Commons, most of which we applaud. The Bill strengthens the power of the Charity Commission and gives charities the power to make social investments which provide both a financial and social return. Importantly, in what we termed Olive’s law, in memory of that poppy seller, it now improves the regulation of fundraising by charities.

I want to make just three points as we bid this Bill farewell. The first is, unsurprisingly, on Commons Amendment 2, which overturns your Lordships’ vote by 257 to 174 to repeat what is, as the Minister said, current case law so that charities could not be,

“compelled to use or dispose of their assets in a way which is inconsistent with their charitable purposes”.

We feared then, and still fear now, that forcing housing associations to sell their properties to sitting tenants, where this is not allowed for in their charitable purposes, will fall foul of charity law. We will not seek to reinsert this clause today, but we tell the Government, and indeed the Charity Commission, that we will be watching to make sure that, as this part of the Housing and Planning Bill is implemented, it does not force trustees to breach either their trust deed or charity law.

The greatest wickedness, of course, is the selling off of the family silver, forcing councils to sell off their best council houses to fund £100,000 subsidies, not to housing associations but to the lucky few tenants who, within a few years, will be able to sell off that house and pocket the £100,000. We have yet to understand which part of charity law, or indeed general fairness, this meets.

Secondly, I turn to the Charity Commission’s regulation of charities and the increased powers in the Bill. Given that the lobbying Act restricts what charities can do in the way of campaigning and that, as we learned last week, the Department for Education is to stop “civil society”—usually charities—intervening on issues such as fair admissions, we see such restrictions on charities challenging government as part of a piece, alongside other attempts to curtail any opposition, whether from this House, through freedom of information or from other political parties.

The Government rejected our amendments to add the Charity Commission’s own guidelines to the Bill on charities having the right to campaign, thus leaving discretion on this with the Charity Commission. We will therefore look to the Charity Commission, in exercising its new powers, to enhance charities’ abilities to achieve their charitable objectives in the best way possible. We urge the commission to pay rather more attention to poor practice—for example with Kids Company, where it failed to grasp the extent of the financial mismanagement—rather than seeking to crack down on the legitimate activities of charities.

Thirdly, I turn to the Government’s amendment on fundraising, which we warmly endorse and which arose partly from our amendments in this House. I know the Minister had much sympathy with the approach then and tabled some of his own amendments on Report, which we were happy to support. We withdrew ours when the Government set up the Etherington inquiry. Even better, Sir Stuart and his three wise Peers reported in record time, and the Government adopted all their recommendations. Not stopping even to draw breath, they then appointed the noble Lord, Lord Grade, to chair a reinforced fundraising regulator.

Last week, as the Minister said, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, in its report, The 2015 Charity Fundraising Controversy, reiterated that this really is,

“the last chance for self-regulation”.

It commented:

“It would be a sad and inexcusable failure of charities to govern their own behaviour, should statutory regulation became necessary”.

We concur with that judgment as clearly as the Government. We also congratulate the Government on meanwhile tabling Amendment 6 in the Commons, which backs the new regulator and, vitally, includes that backstop reserve power for the Charity Commission should self-regulation fail. I congratulate both the Minister and his colleague in the Commons, Rob Wilson, on their fast footwork and firmness of purpose on this.

Finally, I thank the Minister, his Bill team and the Charity Commission for their help and hard work throughout this process. I add my thanks to those of the Minister to my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley and the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, who sat on the Etherington committee. I also thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his input, and our legislative office colleague, Molly Critchley, for steering us calmly and expertly through the process.

[Lord Grade of Yarmouth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank both Front Benches for the warmth of their greeting to me as the chairman-designate of this new fundraising regulator. I hope that the depth, sincerity and warmth of their kind remarks bear no relation to the level of lethal poison in the chalice that I have inherited. I join the thanks expressed to the noble Lords, Lord Leigh and Lord Wallace, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, for the incredible work that they put into the Etherington review, which has been so unanimously welcomed.

It might help the House if I gave a short update on where we have got to in the fast-track creation of the new regulator. The show is on the road: the chief executive has been appointed and began work on 4 January. Within four weeks, we now have an office, generously provided by the Charities Aid Foundation, and six staff. Appointments to the board will be announced in the next few weeks, and we will also need to put in place a standards committee and, to hear and resolve complaints, an adjudication committee.

I do not think I underestimate the task ahead if we are to deliver on our intention to be fully operational in the early summer, but we are on track at the moment. At the point of handover from the Fundraising Standards Board, we will take ownership of the code of guidance from the Institute of Fundraising, and the rule book on street and door-to-door collections from the Public Fundraising Association. We are working very closely with both organisations, and I welcome their endorsement of the new regulatory arrangements. At handover, the arrangements for registration—obviously, we want as many charities as possible to sign up to the fundraising regulator, although that will not stop us from investigating those which may not sign up—and for levy payments by the larger fundraising charities will need to be in place.

Our proposals for the fundraising preference service will also be ready. The working group developing those proposals, serviced by the NCVO on our behalf, is already well under way. Let me emphasise that until the point of handover, the 2,000 member charities of the Fundraising Standards Board will need to continue to support that organisation, financially and otherwise, while it retains responsibility for fundraising regulation, until we are absolutely ready to go. We and the Fundraising Standards Board are committed to a seamless transition, which is essential if the purposes of the Bill are to be realised, and we want to inherit its experience and learn from what has worked well.

There is general acceptance, however, that the Fundraising Standards Board was somewhat under -resourced. We will have the levy resources necessary to do the job. We will be independent, with ownership of the code of guidance, and we will not hesitate to apply sanctions where appropriate. We will liaise closely with the Charity Commission, taking full account of its revised fundraising guidance for trustees and, if all else fails, referring to it contentious cases that may breach the guidance.

The Etherington review, the Fundraising Standards Board’s excellent but deeply worrying report on the sad, sad case of Olive Cooke and the recent report from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other House have all demonstrated serious shortcomings in the fundraising practices of many larger fundraising charities. That is why this Bill is such an important and timely contribution. The public’s very negative view of this was confirmed last week in the YouGov poll published by the Information Commissioner’s Office.

The British public are as generous as anybody on this earth when it comes to putting their hands in their pockets to help those in need. However, charities cannot take that generosity for granted. There have been serious breaches in terms of the ethical way in which fundraising practices have begun to grow up in this country. We must take steps, which this Bill provides with the creation of this fundraising regulator, to make sure that that generosity is not taken for granted. The fundraising regulator now has a responsibility to the general public and, for the future of charities, to donors and potential donors, not least when they are vulnerable, to ensure that they are protected from undue pressure and unacceptable fundraising practices. That protection will be our first priority and these amendments and the Bill will, we hope, go a long way to ensuring that the public are protected and their generosity not taken for granted.