Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Margaret Hodge: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (James Brokenshire) referred to the use of political funds by trade unions and the ability to switch money around, and asked about the transfer of money between general and political funds. That is not possible. I did not understand his point about the difference between direct and indirect contributions to the political fund, given that there is no possibility to transfer money between the two. That was basically my answer to his first question, but I would be happy to listen further if the hon. Gentleman wants to expand.
James Brokenshire: My point was about new clause 83(1), which includes the words
other than a contribution to the unions political fund.
It may be a legal expression, but I am seeking to clarify what happens according to whether the contribution is direct or indirect. The Minister may want to take further advice. I am raising a technical point, on which I would like some clarification. I accept that we may not obtain it this evening, but any further assistance would be helpful.
Margaret Hodge: The advice that I am getting is what I thought myselfthat there cannot be an indirect donation.
The point about trade union ballots on political funds was inappropriate in this context. I was very careful earlier not to raise an issue that would have been far more relevant to this evenings debateConstituency Campaigning Services, of Coleshill Manor, an organisation that appears to act as a Tory party front in the west midlands. Some say that the company is separate from the Conservative party, but the current Conservative leader believes that it is directly linked. Anyone who delves into the organisation can see that it is very closely linked. In debating the provisions on political donations, it would have been more appropriate for the hon. Member for Hornchurch to have reflected on whether there was proper transparency in respect of Conservative party funding, rather than head-banging and having another go at the link between the Labour party and the trade unions, of which we are extremely proud.
We had a long debate in Committee on lobbying, and I think that the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth) and I simply differ. I disagree with him on his definition of political lobbying, because lobbying in the interests of a company on an issue that may, in future, be decided by politicians is a very different matter from other types of lobbying. Such lobbying is utterly legitimate and utterly invaluable to any member of the Government and in no way should we attempt to intervene. I said in Committee and I say again that my decisions as a Minister are much better informed when I have listened to all the interest groupsas indeed we have in the process of devising the Bills clausesthan they would be if I took advice only from my civil servants, for whom I have huge regard for their endless work on the Bill, but who nevertheless come with the limited view of working within the civil service. I believe that we have to accept that situation.
The hon. Gentleman made a wholly proper point, which I accept, about it being much easier for richer individuals and richer companies to lobby, but I am not
sure that there is an easy answer to it. No doubt the hon. Gentleman would deal with the problem by finding mechanisms for equalising the voice of people in what I referred to in Committee as the political marketplace of interests. I believe that trade associations and other such organisations are hugely important in giving voice to smaller, less endowed companies.
In the end, we have to have faith in our own judgment that we can make an objective appraisal after lobbying from all sides. Indeed, we spent quite a lot of time this afternoon debating issues surrounding narrative reporting, about which we have been massively lobbied by business interests with differing views on a range of matters concerned with the environment and corporate social responsibility. In the end, we have to reach a balanced view and make a judgment on it. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and I disagree. We have already had the debate twice and no doubt we will have it again, but I believe that lobbying has a very important part to play in a vibrant, good democratic structure. We should look into ways of increasing the voice of people less able to fund that themselves, and we should nurture and value lobbying generally.
We have considered amendment No. 687 carefully and whether the drafting change to clause 372 that the hon. Gentleman proposes would make the meaning of the clause clearer. That is an issue for the lawyers and they have concluded that it would not. Subsection (3) clearly states that a resolution of members of a wholly owned subsidiary is not required, but a resolution of the members of its holding company is. I am, however, grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the suggestion and lawyers will no doubt continue arguing about it.
I forgot to move amendment No. 647 at the beginning of my remarks and it would remove
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Lady does not have to move the amendment. We will come to it in the course of our proceedings. She moves only the lead item in the group.
Margaret Hodge: With that helpful advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I draw my remarks on this group of new clauses and amendments to an end.
Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Question, That new clauses 82 and 83 be brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill, put and agreed to.
(1) A company must not in any financial year incur expenditure on lobbying activity in excess of the limit then in force, unless the expenditure has been authorised by a resolution of the members of the company.
(2) The provisions of sections 372(2) to (5), 372(6)(b), 372(7), 373(1), 373(2), 373(4), 373(6), 373(7), 374 and 375 to 379 shall apply to a resolution under this section.
(3) The Secretary of State shall have power to make regulations, which shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, to
(b) exempt, to any extent the Secretary of State sees fit, expenditure incurred by companies in responding to requests for information initiated by governmental or parliamentary bodies,
but if the Secretary of State fails to set the limit, the limit shall be £1,000.
(4) Companies must report expenditure on lobbying activity in excess of the limit in a form to be specified by the Secretary of State by regulations, which shall be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
(5) Failure to comply with reporting requirements established under subsection (4) shall count as a violation of the duty to keep accounting records under section 392 and shall be punishable in accordance with section 393.
(6) This section applies to overseas companies, as defined in section 1011, as well as to UK companies, and the powers of the Secretary of State in Part 34 shall be deemed to include a power to require overseas companies to report their expenditure on lobbying activity in excess of the limit.
(7) Lobbying activity means any activity intended directly or indirectly to influence legislation or policy at any level of government in the United Kingdom.. [David Howarth.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:
Question, That amendments Nos. 495 to 497, 706, 499, 647, 500, 501, 707, 503, 708 to 711 be made and that new clause 9 be brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill, put and agreed to.
Nothing in this Chapter affects
(a) any provision of a companys articles
(i) requiring an objection to a persons entitlement to vote on a resolution to be made in accordance with the articles, and
(ii) for the determination of any such objection to be final and conclusive, or
(b) the grounds on which such a determination may be questioned in legal proceedings.. [Margaret Hodge.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Margaret Hodge: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 14 Computation of periods of notice etc: clear day rule.
Amendment No. 682, in clause 291, page 137, line 1, at end insert
(3A) Directors of the company shall be ineligible to cast any proxy votes..
Amendment No. 355, in clause 307, page 142, line 23 , at end insert
( ) Nothing in this Chapter affects a provision of a companys articles which provides for a resolution in writing executed by or on behalf of each member who would have been entitled to vote upon it if it had been proposed at a general meeting, or at a meeting of any class of members of the company, at which he was present (whether such resolution consists of one instrument executed by or on behalf of each such member or of several instruments in the like form each executed by or on behalf of one or more such members) to be as effectual as if it had been passed at a general meeting, or at a meeting of any class of members of the company, duly convened and held. A resolution in writing passed in accordance with such a provision of the companys articles shall be treated as if it were a written resolution for the purposes of this Chapter..
Government amendments Nos. 443, 302, 348 and 349.
Amendment No. 418, in clause 316, page 146, line 2, at end insert and
(d) be communicated directly to the member either in electronic form or in hard copy form.
Amendment No. 419, in clause 327, page 149, line 30 , at end insert
(1A) The chairman must demand a poll when he is aware that the outcome would be different from that reached on a show of hands..
Amendment No. 420, in page 149, line 30, at end insert
(1A) The chairman must announce the number of proxy votes in favour and against each resolution, before such a resolution is put to a vote of members in general meeting..
Amendment No. 421, in page 158, line 13, leave out Clauses 349 to 352.
Government amendments Nos. 446 and 350.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |