Party Funding Reform

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Thursday 3rd November 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, first, I apologise to the House and to our friends in Hansard for my voice. It is not at its best, having completed a half marathon for Water Aid just a short while ago. I should also make a declaration of interests, not all of which are in the register of interests because they are not required to be so, but I am a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party, and I have been a treasurer of the party for some 16 years. I am also chairman of the aforementioned Conservative Leaders Group. I hope to remain in the job and that it does not become redundant. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, on securing the debate. Surprisingly, I agree with quite a lot of what he has said. Somewhat ironically, he and I both served on a committee to investigate aggressive fund-raising by charities. I hope that there is no need for a committee to look at aggressive fund-raising by political parties.

I start from the initial premise that parties ought to be self-sufficient and not reliant on state funding for their resources. I was lucky enough to be invited to the ACRE dinner this week at which the Edmund Burke award was presented to John Howard, the former Prime Minister of Australia. We were reminded that the source of political parties some 220 years ago, largely thanks to Edmund Burke, was created from a loose coalition of people who had roughly the same ideas. Since then the precise nature of a political party, its ownership, rules and structure, has changed and evolved over time, and unlike the emergence of limited companies or professional partnerships, they are complicated organisations which defy the normal textbook rules of ownership and governance.

While some countries have looked to the state to finance independent political parties, we in the UK have had a very proud history of ensuring that our political parties are just that: independent and not reliant on state financing. State funding, in my view, would be a dangerous road to take and could threaten the existence of political parties. It would be extremely unattractive and unacceptable to most people in the UK to see our political parties in any way dependent upon the state, which then might have influence, directly or indirectly, with direct or indirect threats, nudges, promises, hints—however subtly done—about the ongoing nature of that state funding.

We can be proud that in the UK we have a plethora of parties at the moment, all of which exist because people with passion and vision have helped to create them and have invested both their time and their personal financial resources to make them what they are. I accept that there is some sort of soft state funding in the form of Short money, and I note that the other place has voted for greater transparency in this source of funding. Perhaps we could see the same for Cranborne money, all of which is, of course, taxpayers’ cash. Disclosure and transparency is the key. The Conservative Party is unique in that every member of the Conservative Leaders Group—[Interruption]. I will carry on.

As I say, there is some soft state funding through the Short and Cranborne money, and there has been a move in the other place for greater transparency. I think that the Conservative Party is unique in that members of the Conservative Leaders Group who attend dinners with Prime Ministers all have those names disclosed on a quarterly basis. That is not a legal requirement, it was something that David Cameron proposed voluntarily and it continues to this day. Again, I believe that disclosure and transparency is the key against any undue influence.

In my opinion, party funding is not, in the nature of the world, big money. Big money does not go to the parties and is not needed by the parties. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, will not agree, but the sums involved are small and they are decreasing. In the 2015 election, the total spending by all parties was £37.25 million as opposed to £31.5 million in 2010. All the candidates combined spent a further £11.7 million in 2015 in the short period as opposed to a much higher £14 million in the corresponding 2010 short period. Additionally, if one looks at the long period in 2015, the spend was £10.7 million as opposed to £11.2 million in 2010. Overall, the important numbers are as follows: £59.8 million was spent in the whole of the 2015 election as compared to £56.8 million in 2010. The whole of that increase is explained by the Labour Party’s spend in 2015 of £12 million, as opposed to £8 million in 2010, so congratulations must be extended to the new Labour Party treasurers on doing a great job, more on which anon.

Let us put these sums into context. To run your Lordships’ House alone costs some £100 million a year, just on day-to-day expenditure, excluding capital costs. Each and every year this House spends more on running costs than the whole amount spent in a general election in the UK by every political party combined, and that is only once every five years. Looking across the pond at the topical American elections, which the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, invited us to do, the figures are extraordinary and give us some perspective. As of last week, the disclosed figures are that the Democrat party had raised $1.3 billion and the Republicans some $800 million for the 2016 election alone. The predictions have been for a total spend in the US elections of some $5 billion, which is quite some distance from our £57 million.

It is perfectly true to point out that the Conservative Party manifesto made a commitment to,

“continue to seek agreement on a comprehensive package of party funding reform”,

but the key word in this sentence is “agreement” rather than “reform”. It is worth pointing out that on the same page of the manifesto is a pledge to,

“cut the cost of politics”,

which seems to rule out any state funding. We are therefore left looking only at existing donors to parties. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister would agree that we need to do more to encourage individuals to be donors to political parties, and that people will be so encouraged only if they feel a sense of pride in their contribution to British public life through these donations. At the moment there is a very unhealthy and unsatisfactory tendency for people who choose to donate money to political parties to be castigated for so doing. Currently the press uses the adjective “party donor” as a pejorative term. In reality, of course, the reverse is true.

All of us who have had any involvement with campaigning on the ground, as I think nearly every Peer speaking will have done, come across those who give their time tirelessly to a political party. I disclose my interest in this as president of the Westminster North Conservative Association.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con)]

I must remind my noble friend that this is a time-limited debate. He is limited to eight minutes and he has now had eight minutes.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I am most grateful to my noble friend. I apologise. There was a disruption in the middle of my speech.

I conclude by saying there is room for further progress on party funding reform, which will be to the benefit of all parties, to be achieved through agreement between them around a table—perhaps with the people here tonight—rather than elsewhere. But what is paramount is that we encourage citizens to step up to the plate and be proud of their role in helping UK political parties, of whatever colour, and that the Government take their part in achieving this ambition.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)]

My Lords, I think my noble friend Lord Forsyth has unravelled a puzzle. I, too, am disappointed by what has happened. I assumed that when the Conservative Party put in its manifesto the commitment to move from opt-out to opt-in, it thought it was the right thing to do. When it appeared in the Bill, I thought it was the right thing to do. I thought the party thought it was the right policy, and I think it was the right policy.

I have heard the word “compromise” used today. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, used it several times. I understand that we are at the end of the Session. I understand the need for compromise, concession and deals. But this is none of these things. This is the abandonment of a Conservative manifesto pledge, and we should say that. I notice that my honourable friend in the other place, Mr Nick Boles, turned what was a manifesto commitment into what he called a suggestion in the manifesto. It was not a suggestion; it was a promise. When we debated this last time, my noble friend the Minister said it was right for Governments to honour their commitments.

Of course I accept the decision of the other place. My noble friend Lord Forsyth has given his explanation of why this manifesto commitment was abandoned. I say only that junior Ministers in this Government, who are extremely able and good, often have a very hard task.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I will not speak for long because we have discussed this at length. I think we have all reached agreement as to why, as my noble friend Lord Sherbourne said, we are going from opt-out to opt-in. We have been through some people’s perception that there has been legislation in the past that has affected political disclosure, if not donations, and have discussed PPERA. But we have now reached a point where we have something before us. This time, unlike on previous occasions, I find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on where we are.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, for crystallising my mind: clearly I am not an influential Conservative Peer because my suggestions have not been adopted.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My noble friend is extremely influential. It was Mr Boles who did not think to include him.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I am grateful for that clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, has explained how Ministers approach these problems. Sadly, again, I have never had the honour of being a Minister. That is most unlikely. I come from more of a business background and in business when one wants to get things done invariably there has to be an element of compromise. Like the rest of the House, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Burns, on achieving a compromise. How and why it was achieved we will perhaps never know but it has been achieved. We will end up with an opt-in. It will take longer than other people thought appropriate but it will happen. The suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, of the publication of the opt-in levels achieved is excellent and to be welcomed. On all those grounds, I welcome these amendments.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords, I think we are in for a pretty bad couple of months, in which conspiracy theories will abound and suspicions of motives will arise in every possible circumstance as we approach an interesting referendum. I notice the good humour in the Chamber today. I think that if these amendments had not been tabled, there might be a very different atmosphere indeed. I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Forsyth and the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, have said.

Democratic power has to be used with discretion and responsibility. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to this, and I agree with aspects of what he said. I was worried about the way that the Bill, as originally drafted, was going to go. Whatever discussions there were in government and in another place when the amendments came forward and were considered, I hope that there was a bit of historical memory in them—I think that there was—because we have been here before.

I was there in 1984, when it was proposed that we would do something about opting-in. I do not think that I am breaking a great confidence if I tell the House that the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, who was then the Chief Whip, had an interesting discussion with the Labour Chief Whip of that time, Michael Cox, who some may remember. They were arranging the business, as Chief Whips do, in those awful usual channels. There was agreement and compromise at that time in the Session. Then the issue came up about opting in—and the message was delivered quite simply and clearly: “If you do that, there will be war”. That was because it is an essential problem of political funding, with which all parties have problems, that the trade union contribution is massively important to the Labour Party. A sudden change in that would have significantly affected the balance and would have seemed, to many eyes, to have been a pretty unfair action and maybe an abuse of majority political power at that time.

It was against that background that such a proposal was put forward. When we considered it in the Bill that became the Trade Union Act 1984, Mr Len Murray came to see me for the trade unions and we discussed the issue. He had previously had discussions with my predecessor and noble friend Lord Tebbit, who one could not call a soft touch on these matters. But my noble friend made it clear that if the Trades Union Congress wished to put forward alternative proposals, he would be prepared to consider them. It fell to my lot to consider those proposals. We agreed that we would not proceed with the opting-in proposals, on the strict understanding that actions would be taken by the TUC and all affiliated unions at that time. That is why I agree very much with the last comment of the noble Lord, Lord Burns, because we are where we are now. I support the actions in respect of new members coming in. That is an important step forward which did not exist before. We were not able to arrange it or go forward on it in my time; maybe we should have done.

I would like to read part of the statement that Len Murray—Lord Murray, as he was subsequently—gave when he came to see me and exchanged correspondence. He gave me a copy of the statement of guidance to the trade unions. It said:

“Following discussions between the TUC and the Secretary of State for Employment, the General Council have prepared the following Statement of Guidance on good trade union practice in respect of political fund arrangements and related matters for use by affiliated unions. Unions are asked to review their existing procedures as soon as possible to ensure that this guidance is acted upon”.

That guidance was satisfactory to me and to the Government because it made it clear that every affiliated union had given an undertaking that it would make sure that all its members were properly informed of what their rights were in these matters. The guidance ended with the statement:

“It is particularly important that unions’ procedures avoid the possibility of members being unaware of their rights in relation to the political fund or being unable to exercise them freely”.

On that understanding and on behalf of the Government, I agreed not to proceed with introducing changes to the situation on opting-out or opting-in.

The disappointment for me in the discussions on this Bill is to discover that only a very small number of the unions which were affiliated to the TUC ensured that the undertaking given to me on behalf of them all was actually carried out.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 25th April 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, although I welcome the Government’s movement on this, the original draft of the clause was, frankly, unworkable. This is definitely a step in the right direction, although my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Stoneham, require answers to their questions.

Before the Minister replies, I will point out something which I have mentioned at earlier stages in the passage of the Bill. In the five years to 2015, £64 million was given by trade unions in political donations, but £80 million was given to various parties—predominantly the Conservative Party—by other organisations. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that there is a parallel requirement for reporting for all the other organisations which make political donations?

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

I welcome Amendment 1. The Select Committee actually said there is a “lack of transparency” over how political funds are spent. Such transparency would assist union members in having an informed choice over whether to sign up to paying a political levy. The amount of money in political funds varies from £14.8 million in reserves for Unite to £8.2 million in UNISON and so on. While I welcome Amendment 1, which seeks to categorise payments, Amendment 2 would take away the whole point of the transparency that would allow union members to see how their money is spent when it is not being spent directly on political parties.

The move to transparency is taking place throughout all areas of our lives. In the Conservative Party manifesto—indeed, it is actually happening—the Government committed to disclose online any expenditure over £25,000. Given the amount of money the Government spend in a year, it does not seem unreasonable to look for similar transparency on union political spending.

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Leigh, forgot to declare in his contribution that he was the treasurer of the Conservative Party. I support my noble friend Lord Collins’s amendment to the amendment. Of course we support transparency but Amendment 1 adds another section, which in our view is completely unnecessary.

Many years ago I chaired the general political fund committee of—I think it was NALGO then, before Unison came about—and the amount of information given was extremely elaborate. There was an annual report and a magazine. There was absolutely no doubt about where the expenditure went, and I have no doubt that that information is still communicated.

I just wonder why this “Lord Leigh clause”, as I think I am going to call it, is really necessary. It seems to me that it is the thin end of a wedge and could be utilised in future. Amendment 1 adds an unnecessary burden to the unions. Without proposed new subsection (2E), it would still provide all the information that the Select Committee asked for.

Trade Union Bill

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2016 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

12: Clause 11, page 7, line 32, leave out from “union” to “exceeds” in line 34 and insert “paid out of its political fund in any calendar year”

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, my amendment seeks to clarify the nature of the transparency sought within political funds. I believe that my amendment simply ensures the transparency that was intended but is not covered in the current wording of Clause 11. Noble Lords will recall that I asked the Minister to consider this matter during the debate on the Burns Select Committee report. I believe that the intention of Clause 11 is to ensure that expenditure from the political fund is fully disclosed so that members of the union who choose to opt in can see how their money is being spent.

We heard from evidence given to the Select Committee on 4 February by Mr Iain McNicol, general secretary of the Labour Party, that less than 50% of the trade union political levy is actually sent to the Labour Party. I believe that is correct and supported by the facts. The amendment deals with the rest of the money in the political fund that is not spent on political parties.

Following encouragement from noble Lords opposite, I have examined the accounts of the political fund of two of the largest unions: UNISON and Unite. They are somewhat vague. UNISON notes that its membership’s contribution is some £6.6 million in the political fund in its most recent set of filed accounts, but does not really break down how this is spent. It lists as national expenditure—it just uses the words “national expenditure”, with no further detail—the sum of £2.9 million, and that is the largest single item. Quite intriguingly, it discloses at the end of the year that it holds on its balance sheets some £8.2 million of reserves within the political fund. Whether we do opt-in or opt-out, that £8.2 million still sits in the political funds to be allocated at the union’s discretion.

Unite has £7.7 million of income in its political fund and simply states that, of this, £1.17 million is classified as political fund expenditure. Again, there is no further clarification. Intriguingly, that union had £14.9 million of reserves on its balance sheet for the political fund exclusively.

Given the substantial sums involved it would seem only fair that those who choose to opt in, hereon in, have some idea how this is being spent. The problem is that Clause 11 restricts the disclosure requirements to expenditure falling within Section 72(1) of the 1992 Act. This section essentially focuses on money spent to or by a political party, and only to or by a political party. It does not cover any other payments by the political fund.

No one is suggesting that there should or would be any control or influence whatever over how the money is spent, but simply that there should be transparency over these payments for the members. Indeed, I am sure that there are many instances of payments from the political fund that would not be in any way controversial and would be welcomed by all of us in this House. For example, money spent on HOPE not hate, sponsored by the GMB and the National Union of Teachers, which seeks to campaign against the British National Party, could not be seen as controversial. However, other expenditure might be considered more controversial, such as support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. Many people might be surprised to see that some unions support this, given the many manufacturing jobs that depend on the nuclear industry.

While we do not know the amounts, we know that there has in the past been specific funding for particular think tanks, and, controversially, campaigns to lobby local councils to divest their government pension schemes from companies linked with Israel. Unions that, for example, are affiliated to the Palestine Solidarity Campaign would have had to make a payment to achieve that affiliation. It seems only right that members should be aware of this and the amount. Some might wonder why their money is being used in this way. For completeness, I disclose that I am a supporter and member of the Conservative Friends of Israel, but this is a very small part of the issue.

In every area of our society, there is greater consumer choice and transparency in how other people’s money is spent. Amendment 16, which follows, discusses whether the sum of £2,000 is appropriate. I said in Committee and at Second Reading that I personally did not think that £2,000 was high enough. Leaving that aside, I hope the Minister will accept the amendment, which does no more than achieve the greater transparency that we all believe is sought by the clause. I beg to move.

[Lord Robathan (Con)]

My Lords, I shall be very brief in supporting my noble friend Lord Leigh. I wish to bring up one point. In the last debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, reflected that the amounts we are talking about are trivial—less than 5p per member contributing to a pension fund a week. That is trivial, but the point is that the amount we are talking about is nearly £24 million a year, or nearly £125 million over the life of a Parliament. We should realise that these are not small amounts. They have an impact on the causes that my noble friend mentioned, and on donations to political parties or whatever. It is important that we bear in mind that this is a large amount of money and we should not dismiss it just because most people do not know that they are even paying into it.

[Baroness Neville-Rolfe]

My Lords, the Government are committed to greater transparency for all contributing union members in the use of union political funds. Not only should members have a choice whether to contribute, but it is only fair and reasonable that union members know how their political funds are used. As my noble friend Lord Robathan said, this is important because the totals can be large. We want members to make informed decisions about whether they want to contribute to such a fund. Increased transparency will also increase debate within unions about what the political fund is used for.

My noble friend Lord Leigh raises an interesting point about the level of transparency provided for by Clause 11. In particular, I understand that his amendment seeks to ensure that all expenditure from the political fund is subject to enhanced reporting requirements. I accept the principle of the point that my noble friend makes and I am sympathetic to his proposal. Our intention is that members should understand how the political fund is spent. It is important because, as I have already said, members need to know this if they are to make informed decisions about whether to opt in or opt out.

We will reflect and come back on that point of principle at Third Reading, giving careful consideration to how we deliver our transparency reforms in the most proportionate way. In the mean time, I ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I thank my noble friend the Minister for agreeing to review and to come back at Third Reading and, accordingly, beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment 12 withdrawn.

Charities: Government Grants

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2016 Lords Chamber

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I slightly dispute the second point. I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that DCLG has used this clause in 56 contracts since February 2015. For example, the Church Urban Fund, which the noble and right reverend Lord will know, the LGA, Mencap and the Royal College of General Practitioners have all received grants under the new clause. Shelter, likewise, has received a grant, and is currently running its Power to Renters campaign. A number of noble Lords will no doubt have received communications from it as regards the housing Bill.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as having served on the Etherington review of fundraising by charities. Would my noble friend the Minister not agree that, given that individual donors in this country give some £8 billion a year to charities, they should be encouraged to give greater transparency and accountability for the funds that they use for lobbying rather than for good purposes?

[Lord Bridges of Headley]

I entirely agree with that. I pay tribute to the excellent work that charities do up and down the breadth of this country and to the considerable contribution that many millions of people make in time, energy and commitment. I point out to your Lordships that, obviously, this clause is aimed at the £130 billion paid out in grants annually. While we may be talking here about charities, we should not forget the £74 billion of grant funding that goes to local government, the £24 billion to ALBs and public corporations, the £8 billion to international recipients and the £4 billion to the private sector.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)]

My Lords, I should admit that I spent the weekend in Yorkshire, where, to my surprise, my neighbours do not hate people outside Yorkshire and nor do they in fact hate each other. We had a very pleasant weekend. I should also admit that, some months ago, I enjoyed watching the filming of that part of “An Inspector Calls” in our very beautiful village.

We are concerned here with the future of charities. I have found it very constructive to be involved in the thorough Committee and Report stages that we have had on this important Bill. I think we all recognise that as government spending shrinks in the next three or four years, charities will have to play a more important part in looking after a range of good causes and disadvantaged people across our country. That means that the importance we attach to the regulation of charities—the subject of this amendment—is something that requires continuing attention. It also requires active support for philanthropy, and I trust that the Government will pay active attention to encouraging visible philanthropy. I was glad to see the Financial Times highlighting this last week.

Having been involved in the committee to which the noble Baroness referred, which will present its report to the Government shortly, I am slightly more sceptical about standards across the whole universe of charities than I was before. Clearly, there is need for tighter and more visible regulation. A number of charitable trustees have not understood how active and responsible their role should be, and these matters need to be addressed.

There is a continuing role for this House in providing oversight to the charitable sector. Perhaps we should consider, in future years, whether a sessional committee of this House might look at some aspects of the charitable sector. As we saw in Committee and on Report, there is some very valuable expertise in this House.

I think that all of us here accept that charities are not comparable to commercial enterprises, as I and others have heard it suggested on one or two occasions. Charities have a privileged status both in legal and taxation terms. The standards of behaviour that we rightly expect of them reflect that privileged status. These high standards should apply to the whole diverse field of charities: to the development charities, as well as to private schools; to libertarian think tanks, as well as to medical charities. We are entitled to expect that their trustees enforce that.

As a backstop, we need to consider what level of regulation is enforced and implemented and how that regulation is organised. We will indeed be reporting on that. I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness when she says that the role of the Charity Commission also needs to be re-examined as a backstop to whatever formal regulation the sector itself provides.

Having said that, I trust that when our report is presented there will be an opportunity to debate it, and certainly, when the Bill comes back from the Commons, there will be another opportunity to make sure that we have moved matters forward. I merely emphasise again that the charity sector is extremely important to our society and to aspects of our economy. It deserves, therefore, to be fully regulated and as transparent as possible.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interests in charities as listed in the register of interests. I was going to declare my interest in the fundraising regulation review panel, but I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, for doing it for me.

As she says, we are not yet in a position to present our report. On 10 July, Minister Rob Wilson rang me to ask us to start this report. That was an interesting call because, on 9 July, the Prime Minister had thanked me for accepting. But it shows that it is being taken seriously at a very high level. We will have an appropriate moment to thank Sir Stuart Etherington and Elizabeth Chamberlain of NCVO and Susann Hering from the Cabinet Office for the report, which we hope will be published extremely soon. If it is to be published at the Conservative Party conference—I do not think that is the plan—I will personally welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, and invite her to sit with me and listen to every word. I hope there will be opportunity for further debate in this House when amendments come back here.

Charities (Protection and Social Investment) Bill [HL]

Lord Leigh of Hurley Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2015 Grand Committee

[Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a trustee of a number of charities, national and local, a former trustee of a care charity and, of course, as a senior treasurer of the Conservative Party. I broadly agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I remember the arguments on the then transparency of lobbying Bill; I was fairly new to Parliament, and I found myself for the first and only time being lobbied—on a lobbying Bill, as it transpired—by charities. However, I take issue with his remark, unless I misunderstood it, about the charities doing good works being broadly on the left. In the charities that I see, the donors’ register broadly replicates that of the Conservative Party, and there are many good-works charities on the right that are helping people to help themselves. I may have misunderstood.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

As the chair of trustees of a musical charity, I would welcome the further conversation that we might have on that.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I thank the noble Lord. I also think that I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, when she talked about some charities not solely campaigning. My experience is that some charities are solely campaigning ones; in fact, I had personal experience of that only two weeks ago when a raven bird got stuck in my basement. In a moment of panic, and prompted by my young children, I was too frightened to address the issue myself so I rang the RSPB, thinking that that was a logical solution. The RSPB informed me that under no circumstances does it actually go out to assist birds in distress or in danger of damage; no, it is a lobbying charity. I was to either ring another charity or do it myself. In the event, I passed the buck to my wife.

My point is that there are charities that have evolved—some quite rightly, but some perhaps worryingly—into pure campaigning. The charities with which I am involved found the transparency of lobbying Bill helpful, in that it was clear that during the election we had to keep on the straight and narrow. On the boards of the charities with which I am involved sat a broad-array spectrum of political opinions, and it helped to ensure that we all abided by the Act and did not engage in political advocacy during the election.

I am particularly heartened by the comments from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts that he is taking further evidence on this issue. I rather hope that this can still be discussed at a later stage with that evidence, and I ask for the Minister’s comments on that.

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

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate. It is exactly the kind of debate that we need to have on these issues. I am grateful for all the contributions made by a number of your Lordships, especially the noble Lord, Lord Judd, who made a very eloquent contribution.

I make it categorically clear that the Government support charities’ right to campaign within the law. Many charities use campaigning and advocacy effectively and legitimately to support their charitable purposes and beneficiaries. This role is important to charities’ independence and is certainly of value to society. Campaigning for changes to the law or policy that would support a charity’s purposes is a legitimate activity for charities, and one in which charities in this country have a long and proud tradition, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Judd, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. The position that they occupy is largely derived from case law, and the Charity Commission’s CC9 guidance is clear on what charities can and cannot do. Its view of case law is clear: political activity by charities is an acceptable means of supporting their charitable purposes but it cannot be the sole and continuing activity of the charity, as that would indicate a political rather than a charitable purpose. So charities can undertake political campaigning or political activity that seeks to support the delivery of their charitable purposes where trustees consider it an effective use of their charity’s resources, but charities must never engage in political activity or support for a political party or candidate.

In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, about neutrality, I say that a charity can campaign strongly on an issue linked to its purpose, as long as it is not endorsing or supporting a particular party. As I said, political campaigning or activity cannot be the sole and continuing activity of a charity, and charity trustees need to ensure that political activity remains a means to an end and does not become the reason for that charity’s existence. Charities must, when undertaking political activity, seek to retain their independence from political parties. As the Charity Commission’s guidance makes clear, in the political arena, a charity must stress its independence and ensure that any involvement it has with political parties on the particular views of the parties is balanced. Trustees also need to ensure that any political activity is an effective use of the charity’s resources. In response to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Lea, about gauleiters, I am sorry, but I am not going to get into individual cases and words used in particular literature. It would be wrong for me to offer a view on whether a charity is on the right or the wrong side of the rules. That is rightly a question for the Charity Commission on the basis of the evidence it receives.

I turn to the amendment. Attempting to put into statute law a provision of case law risks changing the boundaries of what is permitted. Even if the boundaries of the law were not shifted by a statutory definition, one would still expect legal challenges to test the “new” boundaries of the law. Further, putting it in the Bill risks politicising charities’ right to campaign. Cabinet Office Ministers are responsible for charity law and would be responsible for this provision. That would leave it open to political interference over time—not that I am suggesting that any such interference would take place, but the risk would be there. I would argue that instead it is much better to have a case-law provision firmly in the realm of the independent regulator and courts.

One might question whether Amendment 14 permitted charities to support political parties—for example, by allowing charities to undertake political campaigning—without defining exactly what that means. The Charity Commission’s CC9 guidance runs to 31 pages. Trying to condense the legal underpinning into a short statutory provision that is five lines long, while attractive from the point of view of simplicity, would not properly reflect the current case-law position and could have unintended consequences.

In recent years, there has been a similar debate about whether the meaning of “public debate” could be distilled into a statutory definition. This is another area where the Government believe that we are better served by a long-standing case-law position supported by clear guidance than by attempting to define a solution in statute.

There has been discussion of the transparency of lobbying et cetera Act. It was not the Government’s intention that the changes to the rules for third parties campaigning at elections made by the Act should prevent charities and campaigning groups from supporting, engaging or influencing public policy. The Act is designed to ensure that campaigning by third parties to influence an electoral outcome is properly regulated, and there are few circumstances in which legitimate charity campaigning on policy would be caught. Very few charities registered with the Electoral Commission for the 2015 general election. It is worth noting that the test for “controlled expenditure” provided for in the Act is the same as was in operation for the 2005 and 2010 general elections: namely, only expenditure which,

“can reasonably be regarded as intended to promote or procure electoral success of a party or candidates”.

The Electoral Commission published guidance for third parties and engaged with a range of third parties in formulating this guidance. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said, he is currently undertaking a statutory review of the rules for third-party campaigners at elections. He is taking evidence, and I certainly encourage all your Lordships who are interested in this matter to respond to and engage with him. We look forward to his recommendations later in the year.

I turn briefly to the Charity Commission guidance. The commission has also monitored charities’ political activity and observance of its guidance during the election campaign, and is considering the findings from that monitoring and other issues relating to its current guidance. The commission will, I am sure, study the findings of my noble friend’s statutory review; I know that it has been engaging throughout. As I said at Second Reading, the Charity Commission has said that it keeps all its guidance under review to ensure that it remains relevant and up to date. If the commission considers that revisions need to be made to its CC9 guidance later, it has committed to saying so publicly and to consulting widely.

As has been said, there have been cases where charities have overstepped the mark of what is allowed under charity law or have failed to protect their independence by undertaking political activity that gives or risks the impression of being party political. In general, the numbers of cases that the commission takes on that are related to campaigning and political activity are low—in 2013-14, there was only one inquiry and a handful of operational compliance cases. However, where they occur they are often high profile and have significant impact. In the run-up to the election, for example, there were some clear cases where charities overstepped the line. For example, some charities signed a letter in support of Conservative policy and another painted a political slogan on its roof. These are clear cases of a breach in the law and the commission’s guidance. People with concerns about political activity are able to question whether or not a charity has stuck to the rules on campaigning and political activity, and an independent regulator in the Charity Commission can look at the facts and will reach a judgment in each case on the basis of the evidence provided. That is absolutely right and proper.

To conclude, the Charity Commission’s guidance CC9 makes it clear that charity law recognises that campaigning can be a legitimate activity for charities and sets out the general principles. Charities can campaign to raise awareness and understanding of an issue or to secure or oppose a change in the law or government policy or decisions, as long as the campaigning relates directly to a charity’s purposes and beneficiaries. Charities must retain independence and political neutrality, must never engage in any form of party-political activity and must avoid adverse perceptions of their independence and political neutrality. In addition, they must not embark on campaigning to such an extent that it compromises their legal status as a charity. I firmly believe that the existing case law and guidance serve us well and that there are major risks in attempting a statutory provision. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Gold (Con)]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Bew, has said, the purpose of the amendment is to remedy a deficiency in English charity law which prevents victims of wrongs committed in the course of the activities of an unincorporated charity being able to recover compensation from the charity’s assets. This is of particular concern when an unincorporated charity is used as a mask by those knowingly funding terrorism. Victims may have claims against individual staff or trustees of the charity, but if such individuals are men of straw or vanish from view then, unless the charity is obliged to provide an indemnity for its staff or trustees—and that can be uncertain—the claimant will lose out. Worse, the unincorporated charity can carry on just as before, while the victims or their families are cheated out of justice to which they are entitled.

As the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee stated in its report of 30 April 2014 on counterterrorism, bogus charities are being used as a means of funding terrorist activities. There is a serious risk therefore that, unless there is some redress to the assets of unincorporated charities, this anomaly will protect such charities, which will not be liable for the activities of their staff or trustees. The amendment would give victims of wrongs who have claims arising from the conduct of trustees or employed staff the right to bring a claim directly against the unincorporated charity, just as they can at present against an incorporated charity. This proposal does not affect any personal liability of trustees or employees, but the court would have power to determine what should be paid by the charity and what the wrongful individuals should pay.

For an unincorporated charity presently to be liable to indemnify staff members or trustees, it must be vicariously liable for the wrongful acts of its trustee or staff member. That will apply only if the tort or wrongdoing was committed by the staff member in the course of their employment or, in the case of a trustee, if they were not acting in breach of trust. Only in such a case would it be possible for the claimant to recover damages indirectly from the charity’s assets via this indemnity. Even so, the claimant in such a case would face uncertainty, delay and cost if he or she were to test the position, which would be made harder if the trustees were unco-operative. For example, it may suit the individual wrongdoer not to be able to call for an indemnity so that the charity’s assets are protected and can continue to be used to sponsor terrorist activity. Similarly, any insurance cover which the trustees may have is unlikely to apply where they deliberately or recklessly misapply or jeopardise the charity’s assets.

By supporting the amendment and giving claimants a more direct and certain way of gaining redress, we would also be making it far harder for those seeking to fund terrorism or other wrongdoing to do so while hiding behind a seemingly charitable veil.

[Lord Leigh of Hurley]

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Bew, the noble Baroness, Lady Deech, and my noble friend Lord Gold on highlighting this clear loophole; I think it has come as a surprise to many that it exists. I have tried to research this as best I can. I have read the Henry Jackson Society’s written submission to the Draft Protection of Charities Bill Joint Committee, which I found excellent and helpful. In trying to research it, though, I could not make out, and therefore I am not clear, whether there are any other legal remedies to resolve this problem. If that is the case, and if the Minister is not able to allow this amendment because of the necessary legal advice and argument that he must take, I very much hope that he, like me, can offer general support to the principle behind it.