Elections Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 1 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Redesdale (LD)]

My Lords, I also apologise for not speaking on Second Reading; I was unable to. I was not planning on speaking in this debate, but the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, raised the point of some of us being here permanently. I have been here a mere 30 years, but I cannot actually see the fact that I have been here 30 years as a legislator making that much difference to the country. I would love to say that being a Back-Bench Liberal Democrat is the bedrock of our whole system, but I cannot really put that forward. When I came here, it was the mantra that only Lords, lunatics and criminals could not vote, but that is no longer the case—though it depends on what bracket you put us in.

I have one question for the Minister. I am standing as a candidate in the local election, and my wife is standing as the agent for the Liberal Democrats in Islington. The complexity of the forms you have to fill in, with the understanding of the minutiae and detail, is incredibly difficult. What is the cost to the country of us being taken off the electoral register? Everybody has to be trained; it has to go through the whole system; it has to be part of the process. The cost is not insignificant for 800 people to be treated in a different category. Of course, it goes into a number of different areas. If the Minister could give us an indication of just how much our privilege of being taken off the register, so we can carry on with this view that we are a permanent part of the process, would cost, and whether that is worth it, I would be very interested.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I have a question—and I did not come in to speak either. Since I have been a Member of this House, which is 20 years, there is at least one Member—I think only one—who was here when I arrived, subsequently got elected to the other place and is now back here. Yes, he is here today. At the time that he left this place and got elected to the other place, was he able to vote in the election he stood in? I am not sure what his status would have been.

[Viscount Thurso (LD)]

Yes, I was allowed to vote.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Well, that is the answer to my question.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, we talk about piecemeal reform, and changes to this House have not necessarily been a result of legislative change or even reform. I have mentioned in previous debates the excellent book by Antonia Fraser about the debate on the Great Reform Act 1832. What I found most fascinating was that most Members of the House of Commons were sons of aristocrats and were put there by their fathers to have proper training to come into the House of Lords. Of course that was in the days when the powers of this House were great, as noble Lords have mentioned.

What recently shocked me even more—and I have cited this too—were the diaries of “Chips” Channon, who, when he was writing pre-war, leading up to the 1938 Munich debacle, mentioned that most of his friends in the House of Commons were sons of aristocrats who eventually ended up in this House. I hope things have changed. Constitutionally, things have radically changed, quite rightly, in the powers of this House, which can no longer challenge the democratic mandate of the House of Commons. The question is not simply about whether we are here for life or not; it is about what we do here. Even where we have particular circumstances of power, I am one of those people who would not use it to challenge the democratically elected House of Commons.

My noble friend made a very powerful case, and the point that struck me was that not many people in the public out there are aware that we have not got the vote. I remember campaigning in the 2017 election and a young, radical activist stopped me and asked if I had voted yet. When I explained I could not vote for Jeremy Corbyn, she nearly issued an internal disciplinary notice. Once I had explained, I was eventually forgiven. But I think it is a point worth making that most people assume that everyone in this country has a free and fair democratic right to vote, and it just seems ridiculous that we do not.

Elections Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Lords Hansard - Part 2 & Committee stage
Monday 28th March 2022 Lords Chamber

As I said, I do not suggest that these amendments in their present form cover all aspects of the issue, but when my noble friend comes to reply I would be grateful if he could tell the Committee whether this is an area of policy that could usefully be explored further with a view to stopping the sort of impropriety that I think we all agree disfigures our national scene.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I will say a few words about Amendment 212G, which is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell. It concerns risk assessment and due diligence policies, controls and procedures by political parties. This would be a major change for political parties, and is very strongly suggested by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, particularly in chapter 4 of its report published in July last year. This contains several recommendations and is a very powerful case for anti-money laundering style checks. Like others, it specifically cites the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report at paragraph 4.24. I shall give some examples later.

Dirty money in UK political finance leaves parties exposed to malign influence, fosters dependence on the proceeds of crime and other dubious sources as a source of party finance, and, as my noble friend said, risks undermining the integrity of the electoral system. Under PPERA 2000, political parties are not required to run anti-money laundering checks on donors. There is no indication that UK political parties do robust checks on the source of donations, nor that parties ever reject donations after such checks have been made. I would very much welcome being contradicted on this.

As the UK’s anti-money laundering framework has progressively tightened over the last decade—I applaud the Government for the changes they have made—the checks that political parties should undertake have stayed largely unchanged since 2001. Examples from the media suggest that if parties check the source of donations at all they are woefully inadequate and fail to prevent the flow of tainted money into UK politics, with damaging effects on the health of our democracy.

The Electoral Commission, which the Government clearly do not like, has argued since 2018 that risk management principles from anti-money laundering checks by business could apply to election finance. This would greatly increase transparency for voters. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has also recommended that.

As I was listening to a CD in the car the other week, the present system reminded me of the song “Money, Money, Money”. I will misquote Tim Rice’s lyrics from “Evita”; I have changed only one word, and I will not try to sing it: “When the money keeps rolling in, you don’t keep books. You can tell you’ve done well by the happy, grateful looks. Accountants only slow things down, figures get in the way”. That is the reality of our political parties at present: they do not do the checks.

So how does this amendment address the problem? It would update PPERA to require political parties to develop and publish a reasonable and proportionate risk-based policy for identifying the true source of donations above the figure of £7,500. Parties would need to have reasonable and proportionate risk assessment and due diligence controls and procedures in respect of those policies; the framework of the policies could be set out in statutory instruments.

For any donation or aggregated amount within a year exceeding that figure, parties would need to

“undertake enhanced risk assessment and due diligence checks”

to identify

“the donor’s principal place of business if different from its registered office … the nature of the donor’s business … the people with significant control of the donor’s business, and … the names of the donor’s directors or senior persons responsible for its operations.”

Donors giving more than £7,500 would need to give a written declaration as to whether their business is in a high-risk sector—these are listed in proposed new Section 54C(13) of PPERA—and whether they have been

“under formal investigation by a regulator or law enforcement body for, or convicted of,”

a range of offences; these offences broadly reflect the mandatory grounds of exclusion in the Public Contracts Regulations. Further, a political party would need to

“include a statement of risk management in its annual accounts that identifies how risks relating to the true source of funds have been managed.”

All major UK political parties have accepted potentially suspect donations, including from individuals and companies that have later been found to be involved in economic crimes.

I want be fair and clear on this; I will give one example from the Labour Party. However, as the party in government since 2010—although it constantly forgets this—the Conservative Party has accepted the majority of such donations in recent years. Russia’s brutal invasion of Ukraine has increased scrutiny on the large sums that the Conservative Party has received from donors with links to the Russian state. I will deal not just with links to the Russian state but with those who have been involved in criminal activity and economic crime, and I will use media and official sources to do so.

My noble friend referred to the £1.9 million from Lubov Chernukhin so I will not go into detail on that, but my source for the following example is the Guardian. Between May 2018 and May 2021, the Conservative Party accepted £366,765 from Aquind. It was first reported in January 2021 that Aquind’s major shareholder, Viktor Fedotov—a Russian-born oil tycoon—was alleged to have been involved in a major fraud in Russia during the 2000s involving the siphoning of funds from the Russian state pipeline monopoly Transneft.

My source for this example is the Financial Times. Between September 2018 and January 2021, the Conservative Party accepted £484,570 from Mohammed Amersi; he figures in a lot of examples but this one is worth going over, even though my noble friend alluded to it. In 2006—well before that time—a Swiss tribunal found that Amersi was closely involved in a business deal involving one of Russia’s largest telecommunications companies, which was later revealed to have been controlled via Cyprus by Leonid Reiman, then Vladimir Putin’s telecoms Minister. Reports in the press claim that Amersi acted as an adviser for a Swedish telecoms company on a transaction that was later accepted by the company as a bribe to the first daughter of Uzbekistan’s ruler, Islam Karimov. Despite the existence of an internal Conservative Party memo circulating in late 2020 warning of Amersi’s business dealings circulating, the party accepted an additional £50,000 in January 2021. Naturally, Mr Amersi has denied any wrongdoing.

My sources for this example are the Daily Mail, the Financial Times, the Independent and the Guardian. The Conservative Party accepted £202,540 from New Century Media Ltd, which represents

“an extensive list of state-connected Russian clients.”

Whichever way you check, it is basically a Russian front organisation. These clients include the Firtash Foundation, which is run by Dmitri Firtash,

“a Ukrainian gas and chemicals oligarch wanted by the US for bribery”.

He still is wanted; I think he is locked away in Austria. Of course, as I said in a recent speech, Ministers at the Ministry of Defence did business with him regarding the selling of a property to him while he hides from the United States.

New Century Media’s £900,000 a year contract with Firtash includes reputational management, personal introductions to individuals within politics, and support for his passport application. The firm has other notable—or should we say, in its terms, successful—dealings, introducing figures close to the Putin regime to Conservative politicians via donations. This included the introduction of Russian MP Vasily Shestakov and billionaire oligarch Andrei Klyamko, both close friends of Putin, to then Prime Minister David Cameron at a donors’ ball in 2014. New Century’s owner had already arranged for Shestakov to meet Prime Minister Cameron at the previous year’s ball in 2013. New Century also arranged for Sergey Nalobin, a senior diplomat at the Russian embassy, to meet Prime Minister Cameron at a Tory donor dinner in 2012. Nalobin, the son of a senior FSB spy, was expelled from the UK by the Home Office in 2015.

These Russian meetings with Cameron when he was Prime Minister take on a really new shape after the astonishing letter in the Financial Times last Wednesday, 23 March, from Carl Scott, a retired air commodore. He was the UK defence attaché in Moscow between 2011 and 2016, sending back regular reports, pointing out Putin’s long march to war in report after report to the Government. At exactly the same time, Cameron was Prime Minister and being nobbled and cossetted by these Russian interests.

The Independent noted in 2014 that:

“Unlike the vast majority of lobbying firms, New Century fails to provide details of its clients to the industry’s voluntary register of interests.”


While New Century Media did subsequently register with the Registrar of Consultant Lobbyists in November 2019, it has still never declared a single client.

As I was preparing to speak when I thought this might come up last Thursday, I was casting around with respect to my own party. All I had to do was open the Times last Wednesday, 23 March, to see pages 20 and 21 devoted to the “king of bling”, one Peter Virdee. The opening paragraph stated that:

“One of Europe’s most wanted men was welcomed as a donor by the Conservatives and Labour despite being under investigation for bribery and fraud.”


Even after his arrest by the NCA, both parties continued to take his money. It does appear from the figures given in the Times that he favoured Labour somewhat less than the Conservatives, but we still took the money. He lied about his membership of charity trusts, the ENO and NSPCC. It is not a good story for Labour, and even less so for the Conservatives.

There are other dubious donations from sources not connected necessarily to the Russian state. I will just give one, because of time: £726,300 from Javad Marandi, an Iranian businessman with close links to the kleptocratic Azeri regime. Marandi’s business relationship with individuals reportedly connected to the Azerbaijani laundromat was first identified in 2017, after which the Conservative Party accepted the majority of his total donations of £520,000. The source there was the Guardian and the OCCRP, the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project.

These are just a few examples. There are more I am not going to use, and other Members of the Committee will have their own. It is a simple process: political parties and other voluntary organisations—I fully accept that they are voluntary, but they are not charities—are more regulated now than they used to be, and it is just as well. Given the importance of the money, I cannot see any reason why the approach of anti-money laundering regulations that the Government have used over the last decade for other companies cannot be used for political parties. I would be interested in due course to know the views of the Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Earl Howe (Con)]

I will come to the subject of caps on donations in a moment.

On Amendment 212E, the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, recently tabled a Question for Written Answer about the uncommenced provision in the 2009 Act. This provision, Section 10, refers to residence and domicile for income tax purposes as a criterion for permissible political donations. Although a response was issued to him by my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh on 14 March, I hope that it will be helpful if I repeat it briefly for the benefit of the Committee.

The Government have no current plans to bring into force the uncommenced provision, Section 10 of the Political Parties and Elections Act 2009, regarding donations from non-resident donors. There is a very good reason for this: the provision is not workable given that an individual’s tax status is subject to confidentiality. It may therefore be difficult or even impossible for the Electoral Commission, political parties and other campaigners to accurately determine whether a donor meets the test set out in Section 10.

Furthermore, as a matter of principle, taxation is not connected to enfranchisement in the UK. If a British citizen is able to vote in an election for a political party, they should be able to donate to that political party subject to the requirements for transparency on donations. There is clear precedent here. Full-time students are legally exempt from paying council tax but still have the right to vote. Likewise, those who do not pay income tax rightly remain entitled to vote. For these reasons, the Government cannot support these amendments.

The other key theme that this debate has focused on is that of donations made by companies or other entities such as unincorporated associations. I will address Amendments 197, 198, 200, 210, 212 and 212G in the remarks that follow. As I have said before, only those with a legitimate interest in UK elections can make political donations, such as UK-registered companies which are carrying out business in the UK, trade unions and other UK-based entities. There is only a very limited exception to this, whereby, as I indicated earlier, for political parties registered in Northern Ireland permissible donors are a wider category.

The law is already clear that, if a company wants to donate to a party or fund a campaign, it must be a permissible donor. The recipient of a donation is responsible for checking that the donor is eligible; that is to say that it is registered in the UK and carrying out business in the UK. The recipient must also report the relevant donations to the Electoral Commission quarterly, and weekly during election periods. To ensure transparency about party funding, donation reports are published by the Electoral Commission on its online database.

Unincorporated associations are permissible donors only where they carry on business or other activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and where their main office is in the UK. Further to this, any unincorporated associations making political contributions of more than £25,000 in a calendar year must notify the Electoral Commission and are subsequently subject to various reporting requirements relating to their own funding. Members’ associations, many of which are unincorporated associations, are separately regulated as regulated donees and must report on donations and loans that they receive.

Amendment 197 would introduce a new obligation on unincorporated associations to take all reasonable steps to check whether donations they receive intended for political purposes come from a permissible donor. At first glance, “all reasonable steps” appears perfectly reasonable. However, this would represent a significant change for unincorporated associations which, as I outlined previously, are already subject to significant reporting requirements. It singles them out from other types of donors and puts them instead closer to the level of political parties in their due diligence obligations. This could mean many voluntary groups and local sports clubs and societies all facing a significant extra due diligence cost simply because they fall into an unlucky category. That does not strike me as fair, and I would be concerned about the possible chilling effect on democratic participation of those groups.

Amendment 198 is an attempt to restrict donations from organisations. As drafted, it would exclude UK-based companies with fewer than five employees from making donations. Furthermore, it is unclear how one would determine who has “significant control” of an unincorporated association, as their governance structures are not regulated in the same way as other legal entities. Although I am sure this was not the intention, it demonstrates quite well the risk of serious unintended consequences if amendments which place restrictions on who can participate in our democracy are made with haste and without consultation. Furthermore, Amendment 198 would make it an offence for an ineligible company to even offer a donation, regardless of whether it is accepted and regardless of whether it was aware the donation it was offering is impermissible. This is unnecessary.

Donations from impermissible donors are already illegal, and it is the political parties and campaign groups receiving the money, the ones which better know and understand this area of law, which are accountable and responsible for checking, returning and reporting impermissible donations. In addition—this point has been highlighted previously—it is an offence for a donor knowingly to facilitate the making of an impermissible donation.

I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for his Amendment 210, which would prohibit donations from individuals or companies that hold public contracts with a value equal to or exceeding £100,000. The complexities of procurement frameworks are slightly beyond the scope of this debate, but let me say that, while well-intentioned, it is not clear how this amendment would operate in practice. Seemingly, there is no limitation on a person making a donation to a party prior to entering into a contract with a public body, and it is unclear whether the prohibition extends beyond the lifetime of the contract and, if so, for how long. It is important to note that the existing legislation already provides for publication of donations to political parties, regulated donees and recognised third-party campaigners, therefore enabling any discerning citizen and our free press to scrutinise any large donations.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sikka, for his Amendment 212. As he explained, the intention of this amendment is to prevent shell companies being used to make large donations. Similar concerns on source of donations underpin Amendment 200 and the substantial Amendment 212G from the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Butler, which would introduce requirements for registered parties to carry out risk assessments and due diligence checks on donations.

However, as I have already outlined, there are strict rules requiring companies making donations to be incorporated and carrying out business in the UK. Existing rules also prohibit circumventing the rules through proxy donors. That is on top of a legal requirement for political parties and other recipients to conduct permissibility checks and report to the Electoral Commission.

The principle of strengthening the system to provide greater levels of assurance on the sources of donations to ensure they are permissible and legitimate is important. We take seriously the risk of donors seeking to evade the rules. Indeed, the Government recently set out their final position on the reforms to the corporate registration framework, ahead of introducing legislation, in the Corporate Transparency and Register Reform White Paper.

The introduction of mandatory identity verification for those incorporating and filing with Companies House will be essential for making information on the companies register more reliable. It will mean that those with the intention of fraudulently misusing the UK corporate registration framework will have their activities traced and challenged. For example, all directors of UK limited companies will be required to verify their identity in order to be registered, and overseas companies will be required to verify the identity of all their directors. This, in combination with a new power for the Companies House registrar to proactively pass on relevant information to law enforcement and other public and regulatory bodies, including the Electoral Commission, will help ensure that any company making political donations is properly trading in the United Kingdom.

However, we do not want to impose disproportionate legal obligations that hinder the ability of parties and other campaigners to generate funds against the cost of carrying out checks on donations to ensure that they come from permissible sources. To do so would risk it not being cost effective for parties to accept smaller donations and therefore exclude some people from being able to participate in our democracy in this way. The current rules are proportionate and achieve this balance.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to the Minister. Going back, say, a decade before the Government started to tighten up the anti-money laundering rules, companies, accountants, company secretaries and company lawyers all said, “Our professional obligations and institutions require us to do all these checks.” But they were not doing them, hence the Government had to bring in some anti-money laundering rules. Why are political parties any different?

[Earl Howe (Con)]

My Lords, I hope I have already explained how the Government intend to legislate in the future to create greater transparency of companies. As I said at the beginning, all we can do is keep the rules under review. I am suggesting that in this particular area, the balance is about right.

Elections Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 25th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sikka (Lab)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord for his observation. I am sure that members of the public would be quite interested to note that when an alternative proposal is put forward, it is called a “diatribe”. That kind of confinement of alternative, competing discourses to negative spaces does not do any good. But the message I want to get across is that there is a corrosive element at the heart of our democracy that can be dealt with only by ending the receipt of any private money by any political party.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, the purpose of Report is to report back on things that were inadequately dealt with in Committee. Amendment 69, which I am speaking to, was inadequately dealt with in Committee. We had a debate and a very unsatisfactory answer, so I want to return to it—not at the same length as in Committee, but nevertheless in some detail that might make for uncomfortable listening for different parties in the House.

The idea is for risk assessment and due diligence policies to be used to control and look at procedures on political donations. What is the problem? Dirty money in the UK leaves parties exposed to malign influence, risks fostering dependence on the proceeds of crime and other dubious funds, and undermines the integrity of the electoral system. PPERA does not require UK political parties to run anti-money laundering checks on donors. In fact, there are no indications that parties do robust checks on the source of donations, nor that parties reject donations after such checks have been made. As the UK’s anti-money laundering framework has been progressively tightened over the last decade—I pay tribute to the current Government on this issue, as I have done before—political parties’ minimal checks have become an increasingly glaring anomaly. Examples from the media suggest that if parties check the source of donations at all, they are inadequate and fail to prevent the flow of tainted money into UK politics.

The Electoral Commission has argued since 2018 that risk management principles from anti-money laundering checks by businesses could apply to election finance. In July 2021, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that parties have anti-money laundering style procedures to determine the true source of donations.

How would Amendment 69 address the problem? It would update PPERA to require parties to develop and publish reasonable and proportionate risk-based policies for identifying the true source of donations above £7,500—we are not looking at small donations here. Parties would need to have reasonable and proportionate risk assessment and due diligence controls and procedures in respect of those policies, as provided for in a statutory instrument. For any donation or an aggregate amount exceeding £7,500, parties would need to undertake enhanced due diligence checks, with a simplified process thereafter. Donors giving over £7,500 would need to declare whether their business is in a high-risk sector, which is defined in the amendment, and whether they have been under formal investigation or convicted of certain offences. Parties would need to include a statement of risk management in their annual accounts identifying that.

What have the parties done about due diligence checks on donations? The Committee on Standards in Public Life’s report, Regulating Election Finance, identified broad support for exploring anti-money laundering style regulations from the Liberal Democrats, Labour and the Scottish National Party. Both Labour and the Liberal Democrats agreed that there was merit in exploring this style of regulations but that it would be important to think about how the process would work and the administrative workload involved. The Conservative Party told the Committee on Standards in Public Life that it thought that current regulations for donations were sufficient.

In their response to the Committee on Standards in Public Life’s recommendation that parties should have procedures in place for the true source of donations, the Government said that

“it is very important to balance the need for parties and other campaigners to generate funds against the cost of actually carrying out checks on donations, to ensure they come from permissible sources. We think the current rules are proportionate and achieve this balance.”

When a version of Amendment 69 was debated in Committee—it was rather longer; it is still long but it has been tightened up a bit—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that

“all we can do is keep the rules under review. I am suggesting that in this particular area, the balance is about right.”—[Official Report, 28/3/22; col. 1378.]

Let us look at the balance: due diligence checks would be a relatively low administrative workload. If due diligence checks had been required on donations above £7,500 in 2021, the Liberal Democrats would have conducted checks on just 11% of donors, or 72 donations out of 642; Labour on 25%, or 133 out of 536; the Greens on 29.2%, or 19 out of 65; and the SNP on 63%, or seven out of 11. This means that, at most, Labour would have had to do checks on one donation every 2.7 days over the course of a year, and the Liberal Democrats would have had to do one check every five days. Obviously, because some donations come from the same donor, it would probably be less frequent than that.

Now we come to the Conservatives; no wonder we get complaints from the Tory Benches about what is being said. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, but that was a very unfortunate intervention. The Conservatives would have checked 51.5% of donors— 457 donations out of a total of 887 were of £7,500 or more. Of course, this reflects their greater resources, with donations of almost £19 million in 2021—around double what Labour received.

I have three examples of potentially suspect donations. I gave a lot more in Committee, and I stand by them all; they are all there on the record. All major political parties have accepted potentially suspect donations from individuals and companies that were under investigation or later found to be involved in economic crime. The media has reported on a catalogue of such donations, with Spotlight on Corruption providing most of the information. The Conservatives received £2 million in cash donations from Lycamobile, a company whose premises were raided by French authorities in 2016 on suspicion of money laundering, leading to the arrest of the company’s directors. Despite evidence emerging in 2015 that Lycamobile employees were dropping off rucksacks full of cash at post offices across London, the party took a further £587,000 from the company until July 2017.

Elections Bill

Lord Rooker Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 27th April 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

My Lords, in relation to my noble and learned friend’s amendment, I have a short but I believe very important question to ask of your Lordships. What is your Lordships’ House here for if it is not this? My noble and learned friend has demonstrated beyond doubt that there is a risk—a measurable risk, not a fanciful risk—that the Electoral Commission might have its independence damaged and impugned if these amendments are not introduced into the Bill. What would the Government lose by accepting these amendments?

I therefore suggest to your Lordships that we have not yet heard any good reason why these amendments should not be sent back. I am unpersuaded by the argument that because some robes are hanging on hangers somewhere in the building, no doubt losing their creases—which is as good an argument as anything I have heard against my noble and learned friend’s amendments—we should not delay matters for another day, which is available. There is an option: the Minister can go and consult his ministerial colleagues and come back to the House in a matter of minutes and say, “I have listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge; he has argued a brilliant case and it may well be that he is right”. And if there is a risk that he is right—which is what I believe—we should not let this pass just because it is inconvenient to delay the end of the parliamentary Session.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

My Lords, I had not intended to speak, but the fact is that, following what we have just heard, the Order Paper for Tuesday and Wednesday next week has Questions down from noble Lords. It is not as though we are slicing off tomorrow: the Order Paper is there, and it is there for a reason. Somebody worked out, in terms of the management of this place, that the House would sit. People put bids in for Questions, and they are sitting there on the Order Paper. The Minister —to whom I pay tribute for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill—did leave a gap open, which is not completely closed.

On what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, we are certainly going to find out what the mettle of the electoral commissioners is made of, as a result of this kind of legislation. This is going to test those individuals—both the officers and the commissioners—in a way that they never contemplated when they applied for or were appointed to their posts.

I do not want to delay the House, but the other day I was reading—and I have not finished it—David Runciman’s How Democracy Ends. I came across this page where he quoted an American political scientist Nancy Bermeo, who had identified six different varieties—David Runciman called them “coups”—of ways in which things get manipulated. These are two of them. I would just like the Minister to explain how this Bill differs from these two examples:

“‘Executive aggrandisement’, when those already in power chip away at democratic institutions without ever overturning them. ‘Strategic election manipulation’, when elections fall short of being free and fair but also fall short of being stolen outright.”


Now where does this Bill differ from those two definitions?

[Baroness Altmann (Con)]

My Lords, I was not going to speak in this debate, but, having listened very carefully, I am deeply troubled at the idea that we would not try to see whether we can persuade the Minister and Conservative colleagues in the other place, right-thinking Conservatives, that there is a significant risk here of gerrymandering elections—something one would think was impossible to imagine in this country.

I think the House has been done a great service by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who has challenged us to stand up for what we can see is a significant risk. Indeed, when we think about what happens in the other place with the amendments that we are trying to point out are really important to insert in the Bills that are coming through in these final days, we see that they are not even being sufficiently debated. With a significant majority there is a risk that a Government can try to gather for themselves permanent or long-lasting powers that are not designed for the kinds of constitutional arrangements that we have in this country.

I therefore am finding myself deeply conflicted and troubled as to—in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile—what we are here for if it is not consider, and ask the other place to consider, these matters.