house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
1101 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1102<br />
difficult to understand and operate in practice and<br />
could blur the respective roles and responsibilities <strong>of</strong><br />
the election agent, central party and local party.<br />
In the White Paper that preceded this Bill, the<br />
Government stated that they would assess whether<br />
there is clarity over which expenses count towards the<br />
party campaign and candidate spending limits. We<br />
stated that we would bring forward proposals to update<br />
the lists <strong>of</strong> regulated matters. However, such changes<br />
would be made via secondary legislation rather than<br />
in this Bill.<br />
The Government will consult fully with all the<br />
major political parties and the Electoral Commission<br />
before bringing forward proposals for change. Any<br />
proposals would then be subject to full scrutiny by<br />
both Houses. The concerns that the noble Lord, Lord<br />
Tyler, raises and the changes that he proposes to make<br />
to Schedule 4A would best be addressed during the<br />
course <strong>of</strong> that consultation and those discussions. I<br />
understand that there is due to be a meeting <strong>of</strong> party<br />
administrators and <strong>of</strong>ficials from my department, the<br />
Ministry <strong>of</strong> Justice. This could be a productive issue to<br />
be considered at that meeting, which I believe is due to<br />
be held later this summer.<br />
This is a complex area <strong>of</strong> legislation and any proposal<br />
for change would have to be considered very carefully<br />
if we are to avoid the unintended consequences that<br />
are always a danger <strong>of</strong> introducing changes that have<br />
not been sufficiently considered. I can give no guarantee<br />
that it will be possible to address fully the noble Lord’s<br />
concern, not least as his proposal would be a significant<br />
change and we have concerns about the practical effect<br />
<strong>of</strong> such a step. However, I reassure him that we intend<br />
to look at the lists <strong>of</strong> regulated matters, and to do so<br />
not on a solitary or party basis—although he tempts<br />
me, I shall resist the temptation to be parti pris—but<br />
on a consultative and co-operative basis.<br />
To return to the main thrust <strong>of</strong> the debate, which<br />
we are grateful to the noble Lord for raising, this<br />
group <strong>of</strong> amendments is based, in a broad sense, on<br />
the package <strong>of</strong> recommendations on spending put<br />
forward by Sir Hayden Phillips, although there are<br />
some key differences between Sir Hayden’s suggested<br />
reforms and the amendments before us today. The<br />
noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned the key one. Sir<br />
Hayden proposed that the whole <strong>of</strong> term limit should<br />
be £150 million, including a general election premium<br />
<strong>of</strong> £20 million. Sir Hayden’s proposals for the treatment<br />
<strong>of</strong> smaller parties also differed, and he did not propose<br />
introducing the new controls until after the next general<br />
election. These differences are significant. We are not<br />
considering the Hayden package <strong>of</strong> reforms with these<br />
amendments, but a revised version which has not<br />
come about as the result <strong>of</strong> cross-party talks and<br />
discussion.<br />
We have constantly stated that we broadly support<br />
the approach <strong>of</strong> comprehensive spending limits as<br />
proposed by Sir Hayden. However, we have also made<br />
it clear that there are concerns about how these could<br />
be made to operate effectively in practice. I talked<br />
about a meeting <strong>of</strong> <strong>of</strong>ficials and party administrators.<br />
Such a meeting has not yet been arranged but we will<br />
seek—I give that promise from the Dispatch Box—to<br />
arrange a meeting <strong>of</strong> the type I mentioned to take<br />
place this summer.<br />
We have also made the case—I know that the noble<br />
Lord, Lord Tyler, is not particularly happy with this—that<br />
it is necessary to proceed in this area only on the basis<br />
<strong>of</strong> cross-party consensus. We do not think that we can<br />
introduce fundamental changes to the regulation <strong>of</strong><br />
party funding unless all the main parties are signed up<br />
to the way forward. That requires detailed discussion<br />
between parties and scrutiny <strong>of</strong> any proposals for<br />
change. That is what the Sir Hayden Phillips talks<br />
sought to achieve. Alas, they failed to settle on proposals<br />
that all parties could support.<br />
We have always said that this Bill is not intended to<br />
be the last word on party funding issues. We hope that,<br />
in the long term, cross-party agreement can be achieved.<br />
We do not believe such agreement exists in your Lordships’<br />
House today. For that reason, we do not believe that<br />
this Bill is the correct place to introduce such a system.<br />
I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his<br />
amendments on the basis <strong>of</strong> what I have said in my<br />
reply. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, mentioned the<br />
restriction post-55 months. My right honourable friend<br />
Michael Wills said on Report in another place that<br />
CA would be restricted for the longer regulated period<br />
introduced in Clause 18. That is a matter for the<br />
House <strong>of</strong> Commons to agree, not for the Government.<br />
Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister<br />
for the very careful and positive way in which he has<br />
responded to our amendments. I am sorry that his<br />
colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is<br />
not in the Chamber, because he was so effective in<br />
demolishing this argument that everything has to be<br />
agreed by total consensus across the parties. I wonder<br />
what the Minister’s position would be if there was<br />
complete agreement between the Conservative and<br />
Labour Parties on an issue <strong>of</strong> this sort, but the Liberal<br />
Democrats did not agree. Would he still say that there<br />
was consensus, or would he say that the Liberal Democrats<br />
effectively had a veto on any agreement? The danger<br />
with the concept that we can do something in this field<br />
only when everybody is agreed is that we will not make<br />
any serious reforms to our political system at all.<br />
There will always be somebody who does not want to<br />
move. I have to say that we are usually rather more in<br />
advance when it comes to reform. However, this idea<br />
that consensus is essential, and therefore the slowest<br />
mover has a veto, is a dangerous new tendency in<br />
government. I do not see it in any other walk <strong>of</strong> life<br />
where government seeks to interfere or control.<br />
I hope I am not putting words into the Minister’s<br />
mouth, but I think that I can detect from what he is<br />
saying that the Government take very seriously the<br />
sort <strong>of</strong> anxieties and concerns that we have expressed.<br />
He did not say that he is seeking to reconstitute any<br />
cross-party discussions but I hope that it can be read<br />
into his words that he is not giving up on seeking to<br />
achieve some agreement, even if it is not complete,<br />
100 per cent consensus. As he rightly says, his colleagues<br />
in the other place are increasingly anxious about the<br />
failure <strong>of</strong> the present regulations, particularly in terms<br />
<strong>of</strong> qualifying expenditure, to prevent interference on a<br />
scale that has never been experienced before. Not in<br />
the past 100 years has there been such considerable<br />
expenditure by national parties to encourage people to<br />
support local candidates within the constituency. He