Mr.
Kidney: For once, I think I speak on behalf of all Members
in saying that the present situation is not good enough, and one way or
another it must be resolved on Report. The current situation is making
fools of us all. On 3 July 2006, in a debate on the Electoral
Commission, the hon. Member for Buckingham (John Bercow) asked the hon.
Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), who speaks in the House on
behalf of the Electoral Commission, whether dual registration posed the
danger of duplication. The hon. Gentleman
replied: “It
is not often that an hon. Member can give total reassurance to a
colleague, but I assure my hon. Friend that the current legislation has
now amalgamated the requirement to make a declaration to the House
authorities and to the Electoral
Commission”.—[Official Report, 3 July 2006; Vol.
448, c. 587.]
So, two years ago, it
appeared that we had solved the problem, but still we have not. The
situation is urgent. If the Minister does not provide a solution on
Report, I shall table a similar amendment. For now, however, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Motion
made, and Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of
the
Bill:— The
Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes
4.
Division
No.
8] Question
accordingly agreed to.
Clause 8,
as amended, ordered to stand part of the
Bill.
Schedule
3Declaration
as to source of
donation Nick
Ainger (Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab): I
beg to move amendment No. 149, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 2, at
end insert— ‘Schedule 6
to the 2000 Act (details to be given in donation
reports) A1 In paragraph 2
of Schedule 6 to the 2000 Act (details to be given in donation
reports), after paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (10) there is
inserted— “(c)
the names and addresses of all the members of the association and
donors donating £1,000 or more annually to the
association.”.
Schedule 6A to the 2000 Act (details to be given
in transaction reports) A2
(1) In paragraph 2 of Schedule 6A to the 2000 Act (identity of
authorised participants: quarterly reports), after paragraph (b) of
sub-paragraph (10) there is
inserted— “(c)
the names and addresses of all members of the association and donors
donating £1,000 or more annually to the
association.”. (2) In
paragraph 2A of Schedule 6A to the 2000 Act (limit transactions), after
paragraph (b) of sub-paragraph (11) there is
inserted— “(ba)
the names and addresses of all the members of the association and
donors donating £1,000 or more annually to the
association;”’. We
have just completed our scrutiny of clause 8, which is designed to
improve transparency in systems. The amendment would extend that
transparency to unincorporated organisations. We have had much
discussion and debate—some of it seemingly
interminable—about transparency. The amendment addresses an
omission in clause 8. Although we have amended the clause to set new
monetary thresholds, it requires people to provide information about
the source of donations. Amendment No. 149 does the same thing for
unincorporated associations. I recognise that it may not be perfectly
drafted.
The Electoral
Commission, in the paper that it circulated to members of the
Committee, states that the commission sees merit in increased
transparency in this area. It goes on to say that it may be helpful to
introduce greater transparency about those who provide substantial
donations to unincorporated associations. However, it recognises that
that imposes an additional administrative burden on those
organisations, which was the debate we had about clause 8.
There is
cross-party consensus that there should be greater transparency in the
membership and source of funds through these unincorporated
associations. For example, although he is not in his place, the hon.
Member for Chichester said on 20 October this
year: “I
am fully in favour of transparency...I completely agree with the
point made earlier that nor can we allow
vehicles”— by
that, I assume he was referring to unincorporated
associations— “to
be created especially for the purpose of
concealment.”—[Official Report, 20 October 2008;
Vol. 481, c. 105.]
The shadow Leader of
the House, in an exchange with the Leader of the House at business
questions in March 2007,
said: “We
are happy to discuss...greater transparency on donations, such as
those by unincorporated associations, and new powers for the Electoral
Commission.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2007; Vol.
458, c. 469.]
Sir Hayden Phillips,
who in his report referred to unincorporated associations, has
said: “Unincorporated
associations and companies that make donations to political parties
should be required to identify the people involved in making the
decisions.” There
seems to be general consensus that that is an area where we need to
improve transparency. Amendment No. 149 may not be perfect, but it
addresses the need for us to legislate and extend transparency to the
source of donations and the individuals who make donations in excess of
£1,000 through unincorporated
associations.
Mr.
Djanogly: We are keen to avoid imposing further
administrative burdens on donors or party officials without a pressing
need to do so. I note that a similar amendment, which did not propose
the same threshold, was tabled but not selected. Although the
commission might support additional transparency, which everyone
probably supports, it is against the amendment, and it is worth putting
that on the record. It states
that “the
Commission does not support amendments 7 and 149 which seek to
introduce new reporting requirements for donations from unincorporated
associations. The Commission sees merit in increased transparency in
this area, but any change to the regulatory regime should balance that
against the additional administrative burdens on regulated entities and
on donors. We do not think these amendments strike the right balance,
since they impose sweeping new reporting requirements, going beyond
those applying to e.g. registered companies or trade unions where the
identities of those controlling the organisation are already in the
public domain so do not need to be listed in the donation
report. The
amendments also require details about donors to an association for any
purpose . . . not just those whose donations are political in nature.
Much of this information may be irrelevant and potentially misleading,
since it is unlikely that all the members of and donors to the
organisation will have participated to the decision to make any given
donation. It may be helpful to introduce greater transparency about of
those who provide substantial donations to unincorporated associations
which fund political parties, but the workability of any new
requirements in this area, and the administrative burden associated
with them, would need careful
thought.” We
agree with those
points. Tony
Lloyd (Manchester, Central) (Lab): It is interesting that
the hon. Gentleman praises anything that the Electoral Commission says
on that. Does he believe that it has done a good job so far on the
issue of transparency with regard to unincorporated associations? It is
a simple question, so I wonder whether he will put it on the
record.
Mr.
Djanogly: I am not sure whether it is for me to judge, and
as it is not part of the Bill, it is not a topic on which I have done a
huge amount of preparation. However, we believe that proxy donations
and intentionally using an unincorporated association as an agent are
already covered by PPERA. That threatens to create large volumes of red
tape for the voluntary sector, which could be discouraging for
donations to voluntary organisations and, in turn, to political
parties. We also have general concerns about the focus on transparency
issues for only one small donor sector. There are other donor sectors,
not least the trade unions, that should be looked at in the context of
the whole. We do not think that the focus should be on individual
sectors, but we would be prepared to examine the issue in the
round. David
Howarth (Cambridge) (LD): Earlier, the Minister talked
about consensus being a necessary condition of reforming the area. I
think he is wrong because it tends to give a veto to parties with a
particular interest, and I think that that is another area where we
might be suffering from that problem. I would like to put on record,
however, that I support the amendment. Its intention seems to be
extremely important and useful. Everyone knows that the unincorporated
bodies to which we are referring are organisations such as the Midlands
Industrial Council, which are devices to disguise the identities of
donors. That is what they are invented to do and that is what they have
been doing.
Martin
Linton (Battersea) (Lab): Is the hon. Gentleman aware that
telephone calls to Coleshill manor, the seat of the Midlands Industrial
Council, are not currently being answered and that there is a
suggestion that the Constituency Campaigning Services Board, exactly
the kind of organisation to which he is referring, might have closed
down? Perhaps that is a recognition that those organisations really are
merely a
conduit.
David
Howarth: I am not aware of that, but the conclusion that
the hon. Gentleman draws from the information provided seems a
plausible
explanation.
Mr.
Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman says that the Midlands
Industrial Council is there only to hide donations. That is a very
serious allegation, which has been put to the Electoral Commission,
and, my understanding is that it has been reviewed and shown not to be
the case. I do not know how the hon. Gentleman gets to make that
allegation, but he might like to back it up a bit
more.
1.30
pm
David
Howarth: This is an example of the Electoral Commission
being guilty of naivety. Its response to the hon. Member for
Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire’s amendment is an
illustration of why it is important to have political commissioners.
The idea that we are talking about “voluntary sector
associations”, in the words of the hon. Member for Huntingdon,
as if they are ordinary charities, set up for another purpose, which
happen to give money to political parties, is ridiculous. That is not
what is going on at all. These organisations are, for the most part,
set up to donate money to political parties. They must be scrutinised
with great care, and transparency is of immense importance. This is all
about whether they existed before and had a life prior to their
existence as bodies that donate to political parties. Are they real
organisations? For the most part, I fear that they are
not.
Martin
Linton: May I help the hon. Gentleman by pointing out that
the leader of the Conservative party has said that that shadowy
organisation, which is not answering its telephone, the Constituency
Campaigning Services board, based at Coleshill manor, is
“practically a part” of the Conservative
party?
David
Howarth: That is an interesting description, which
illustrates my point.
Mr.
Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con): I am a bit astonished by
what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. He seems to be saying that the
Electoral Commission is a waste of time, that it has fallen down on the
job and that it has not arrived at a reasonable level of transparency.
It has looked into this issue in immense detail and has produced a
thorough and comprehensive rebuttal; unfortunately, I do not have it
with me. The hon. Gentleman’s defence for continuing to make the
allegations seems to be that it has no idea how to do its
job.
David
Howarth: I would not go that far, but the views that the
Electoral Commission has expressed about the amendment show a deep
naivety about the nature of the problem that we face. We are not merely
dealing
with charitable bodies or voluntary associations that have a separate
life and suddenly happen to give money to political parties, which
should not, therefore, face an administrative burden because it would
get in the way of their other functions. These bodies do not have any
other functions—this is their point. Therefore, it is not
disproportionately burdensome to ask them to keep a record of how much
money they are getting from particular individuals so that they know
what has happened when they pass that money on to political parties.
That is perfectly reasonable given how, for the most part, these
organisations come into
existence. Dr.
Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab): If those
organisations, which appear to have no other function, were to keep a
record, would that not automatically be a reason for them to cease to
exist? Therefore, his suggestion is, perhaps, otiose. Would the hon.
Gentleman reflect on that?
David
Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has produced an interesting
reason for passing the amendment. Proxy and non-transparent donations
are to be discouraged. If the amendment discouraged that form of
donation, I would not be too
sorry. A
point was raised about how the amendment applied to trade unions. As
far as I am aware, trade unions are unincorporated associations, so I
am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South
Pembrokeshire for tabling an amendment that applies to the unions. The
trade unions are in the unusual position of existing anyway; they are,
in fact, voluntary organisations that would have a life without giving
money to a political party. The question whether that would be a great
burden to them is one that Labour Members are in a better position to
answer than me, but I am sure their answer would be that trade unions
would be willing to bear the burden of the amendment. Since that would
be the only objection, I do not understand why it cannot be
accepted.
| 
