house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1087 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1088 [LORD TUNNICLIFFE] be established only for charitable purposes that are for the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable if its purposes are political. Campaigning activity can be legitimate but it must not be the continuing and sole activity of the charity. There is thus a clear difference between the campaigning activities of a charity and those of a political party. The provision of gift aid to charities does not imply that it should be provided to political parties. The Government do not support these amendments, and I hope that— Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I deliberately refrained from intervening until the noble Lord was close to the end of his speech. I am bound to say—I ask him to comment—that he appears to be endeavouring to support the view that political parties are unworthy objects of finance by members of the public. He seems to be prepared to accept a specious argument that because of some misbehaviour by a handful of politicians the whole basis of our democratic system—which is political parties—should be penalised. In fact, he seems to be kow-towing to the most prejudiced views about our democracy. If he does not recognise the absolutely essential part of political parties, not only in campaigning but in developing policy for Governments, he is failing to do the task for which the public are paying him. Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I did not particularly notice a question in that speech. I am drawing a clear distinction. There is a more or less universal consensus in the United Kingdom that charities are special; that they should have a peculiar position in our tax regime; that their activities should be carefully regulated by an Act that was passed relatively recently, after extensive debate in both Houses, which in particular stuck on the point that a charity should not be solely for the purpose of campaigning. I draw a distinction between political parties and charities. That is widely done. We are kidding ourselves if we think that the public out there are not at this moment asking themselves what political parties do and how they behave. Sadly—I entirely take the point of it being sad—the public do not hold political parties in the same regard and respect as they do the generality of charities. That is the basis on which I hope noble Lords will withdraw their amendments. Lord Tyler: My Lords, it falls to me to respond on the whole group of amendments, which I shall do as briefly as I possible can. It has been a most useful debate. I am very grateful for the support that has been expressed, not necessarily to the whole package that is represented in this group, but, in differing degrees, to important parts of the package. The speeches from the Minister and from the Conservative Back Bench reminded me that, whenever I look at the patron saints in the Central Lobby up on those murals, I think that we should replace them all with a mural of St Augustine, who, Members of your Lordships’ House will recall, said, “Lord, make me virtuous—but not yet”. Everybody who has opposed— very few have opposed—the proposals in the amendments seems to be in favour of them, but not yet. I am particularly struck by those who think that somehow or other it is perfectly appropriate for the dead to make contributions to political parties through the tax system, but somehow those of us who are alive are not able to do so. That is an extraordinary anomaly, to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart has referred. It is also ridiculous to suggest that those charities that make a virtue of their campaigning in political matters— small “p”; they are not supporting political parties—are given full tax concessions from all donations, and yet political parties are somehow thought to be second rate. I would resist absolutely the suggestions that somehow or other this is the thin end of the wedge for an increase in state funding. I must say in passing that the Conservative Party is of course the biggest recipient of state funding. The leader of the Conservative Party in the other place, in this place and a number of offices of the Conservative Party receive state funding in a way that no other group does, not even the government party. Let us not fool ourselves that somehow state funding is a problem. It is, however, absolutely true that this particular set of amendments is not linked to state funding, except in this respect. As my noble friend said, the estimate is that, if there was the tax concession regime that he postulates, something between £3 million and £4 million might be the annual cost. I remind your Lordships’ House that the current advertising budget of this Government is £300 million a year. This small sum, this little concession, is something in the region of 1 per cent or possibly 1.5 per cent. A lot of that funding for advertising is very close to party political persuasion. It comes a long way away from simply advertising what the Government are doing. It very often advertises what the Government wish to do. There is a point about the trades unions. I entirely understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. I must direct her attention, however, to what the Prime Minister—not some Minister in some debate, but the Prime Minister—said on 4 December 2007: “I have told the trades union movement that we have got to make the changes in the political levy so that it is more transparent as well”. That is why the very careful safeguards set out in the review by Sir Hayden Phillips, which are endorsed in Amendment 39, are very appropriate. The Minister constantly—at Second Reading, in Grand Committee and again this afternoon—refers to the need for consensus. In Grand Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, quite rightly poohpoohed the need for consensus. Consensus means that you move as slow as the slowest movers, which, in this respect, happen to be some of the most retrograde in the Conservative Party. In that regard, I very much appreciate the support this afternoon from the Conservative Back Benches. Here, I think that they are being realistic, and indeed the Cross-Benchers recognise that something has to be done. I am afraid that a major factor in the reduced respect that the public now have for parliamentary institutions—the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, made a very passionate reference to this—is that they think that big money buys influence. That thread went right through the cross-party agreement
1089 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1090 in the talks convened by Sir Hayden Phillips, and I believe that it has been the background to all the contributions from all sides of the House this afternoon, with the disappointing exception of the Conservative Front Bench and the Minister. It is a ludicrous Aunt Sally to say that allowing a small tax concession in the form suggested by my noble friend, with widespread support across the House, would somehow cause even more concern and angst among the public. I do not believe that. In fact, it would give the public the opportunity to put their money where their mouth is—in a small way, admittedly—but it would not increase state funding hugely. If members of the Conservative Party are so anxious about state funding, let them give it up. That is an obvious way in which they can make a contribution to the Exchequer. At present, in the course of a Parliament the Conservative Party receives in the region of £25 million to £30 million of taxpayers’ money, most of which is not available to any other party. We have had a very useful debate this afternoon and there has been widespread support for the changes that we would make. I remind your Lordships that it is a very simple quid pro quo—a restriction on very large donations and, in return, the encouragement of small donations through the tax system. I believe that that is a very appropriate stand for your Lordships to take, and I wish to test the opinion of the House. 5.01 pm Division on Amendment 38 Contents 71; Not-Contents 210. Amendment 38 disagreed. Addington, L. Allenby of Megiddo, V. Alton of Liverpool, L. Ashdown of Norton-sub- Hamdon, L. Avebury, L. Barker, B. Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B. Bradshaw, L. Bridges, L. Burnett, L. Chidgey, L. Clement-Jones, L. Cotter, L. Craigavon, V. Dholakia, L. D’Souza, B. Dykes, L. Falkland, V. Falkner of Margravine, B. Garden of Frognal, B. Glasgow, E. Goodhart, L. Greaves, L. Hamwee, B. Harries of Pentregarth, L. Harris of Richmond, B. Division No. 1 CONTENTS Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L. Hooson, L. Howe of Idlicote, B. Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. Lee of Trafford, L. Lester of Herne Hill, L. Linklater of Butterstone, B. Livsey of Talgarth, L. Mackie of Benshie, L. Maclennan of Rogart, L. McNally, L. Maddock, B. Mar and Kellie, E. May of Oxford, L. Methuen, L. Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B. Montgomery of Alamein, V. Neuberger, B. Newby, L. Northover, B. O’Neill of Bengarve, B. Pannick, L. Patel, L. Razzall, L. Redesdale, L. Roberts of Llandudno, L. [Teller] Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. Sandwich, E. Scott of Needham Market, B. Sharp of Guildford, B. Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] Steel of Aikwood, L. Sutherland of Houndwood, L. Taverne, L. Tenby, V. Thomas of Gresford, L. Adonis, L. Ahmed, L. Amos, B. Anderson of Swansea, L. Andrews, B. Anelay of St Johns, B. Archer of Sandwell, L. Arran, E. Astor of Hever, L. Attlee, E. Bach, L. Baker of Dorking, L. Barnett, L. Bassam of Brighton, L. [Teller] Bates, L. Berkeley, L. Bernstein of Craigweil, L. Billingham, B. Bilston, L. Borrie, L. Boyd of Duncansby, L. Brett, L. Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L. Brookman, L. Buscombe, B. Carter of Coles, L. Cathcart, E. Clark of Windermere, L. Clarke of Hampstead, L. Clinton-Davis, L. Cobbold, L. Colville of Culross, V. Colwyn, L. Condon, L. Cope of Berkeley, L. Corbett of Castle Vale, L. Courtown, E. Crawley, B. Crickhowell, L. Cunningham of Felling, L. Darzi of Denham, L. Davidson of Glen Clova, L. Davies of Abersoch, L. Davies of Coity, L. Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] De Mauley, L. Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B. Desai, L. Dixon-Smith, L. Donoughue, L. Eccles of Moulton, B. Elder, L. Elton, L. Elystan-Morgan, L. Erroll, E. Evans of Parkside, L. Evans of Temple Guiting, L. Evans of Watford, L. Falconer of Thoroton, L. Falkender, B. Farrington of Ribbleton, B. NOT CONTENTS Thomas of Winchester, B. Tonge, B. Tordoff, L. Tyler, L. Walmsley, B. Walpole, L. Warnock, B. Williams of Crosby, B. Young of Hornsey, B. Faulkner of Worcester, L. Ferrers, E. Ford, B. Fowler, L. Gale, B. Geddes, L. Gibson of Market Rasen, B. Golding, B. Goudie, B. Graham of Edmonton, L. Grantchester, L. Grocott, L. Hanham, B. Hannay of Chiswick, L. Hanningfield, L. Harris of Haringey, L. Haskel, L. Haskins, L. Haworth, L. Henig, B. Henley, L. Higgins, L. Hilton of Eggardon, B. Hollis of Heigham, B. Howarth of Newport, L. Howe, E. Howe of Aberavon, L. Howie of Troon, L. Hughes of Woodside, L. Hunt of Kings Heath, L. Hurd of Westwell, L. Inglewood, L. Irvine of Lairg, L. James of Blackheath, L. Jay of Ewelme, L. Jay of Paddington, B. Joffe, L. Jones, L. Jones of Whitchurch, B. Jopling, L. Kimball, L. King of Bridgwater, L. King of West Bromwich, L. Kirkhill, L. Laird, L. Lamont of Lerwick, L. Lea of Crondall, L. Lipsey, L. Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. Luke, L. Lyell, L. McColl of Dulwich, L. McDonagh, B. Macdonald of Tradeston, L. MacGregor of Pulham Market, L. McIntosh of Haringey, L. McKenzie of Luton, L. MacLaurin of Knebworth, L. Malloch-Brown, L. Mar, C. Marland, L. Masham of Ilton, B. Massey of Darwen, B. Maxton, L.
Page 1 and 2: Vol. 711 No. 91 Wednesday 17 June 2
Page 3 and 4: 1057 Police: Funding [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 5 and 6: 1061 Sri Lanka [17 JUNE 2009] Banks
Page 7 and 8: 1065 Banks: Lending [17 JUNE 2009]
Page 9 and 10: 1069 Political Parties and Election
Page 17: 1085 Political Parties and Election
Page 39 and 40: 1129 Organophosphates [17 JUNE 2009
Page 61 and 62: GC 271 Arrangement of Business [17
Page 63 and 64: GC 275 Companies Act 2006 Order 200
Page 65 and 66: GC 279 Overseas Companies Regulatio
Page 67 and 68: GC 283 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009
Page 69 and 70:
WS 69 Written Statements [17 JUNE 2
Page 71 and 72:
WA 207 Written Answers [17 JUNE 200
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Wednesday 17 June 2009 ALPHABETICAL
Page 79:
Volume 711 Wednesday No. 91 17 June
show all

house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?