Mr.
Wills: Yes, there is, because we need to be quite clear
about the source of the donations. There are issues about how exactly
we would frame any amendment that might be considered necessary. I will
resist the hon. Gentleman’s invitation to go further at this
stage, because that is one area in which we are actively considering
tabling an amendment of our
own. I
ask my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South
Pembrokeshire to withdraw the amendment. I know that the Liberal
Democrats are anxious to reach their amendments, which are further down
the amendment paper, and I do not want to detain the Committee. I can
assure the Committee that we are continuing actively to examine these
issues. We recognise the concerns and feel that there probably
needs to be further movement on them, but we want to consider all the
options before coming back to hon.
Members. Nick
Ainger: Bearing in mind the debate and the
Minister’s positive response, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Martin
Linton: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 4, at
beginning insert— ‘(A1) In
paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act (prohibition on accepting
donations from impermissible donors), at the end of sub-paragraph
(7)(c) there is inserted “, or a compliance officer appointed by
the holder of a relevant elective office to act on his
behalf.”’. I
do not wish to detain the Committee for long, because there are
weightier items in other clauses to discuss. This is a little amendment
about the appointment of compliance officers. Political parties already
have compliance officers. Sir Nicholas has one—to judge from
today’s Question Time. I gather from the hon. Member for
Congleton (Ann Winterton) that there are regular breakfast meetings
with your compliance officer. Candidates have compliance officers
called agents, which has been written into law for more than 100 years,
but nominees for party office do not, and the amendment suggests that
they, too, should be able to have compliance
officers. The
Electoral Commission commentary supports the amendment in principle. It
would add to the list of relevant donees, which we all are, the
words “a
compliance officer appointed by the holder of a relevant elective
office”, as
well as five more
words— “to
act on his
behalf”— but
the Electoral Commission does not agree with those, as it believes they
would pass the legal responsibility to the compliance
officer. I
can assure the Committee that it is the intention of the amendment not
that the compliance officer should take over all the legal obligations
of a nominee or candidate, but that those should be shared with the
office holder. I do not know whether those words carry that
implication, but if they do they should be left out. The amendment
would allow nominees to elected party office to delegate to a
compliance officer some of the responsibility to make
declarations—which, the Committee has heard constantly, has
become quite onerous—without passing on the legal responsibility
for ensuring that that had
happened. PPERA
also relates to internal party elections. Similar legislation in Canada
provides an elaborate structure of limits and subsidies for nominees as
much as for candidates. Although many elections to party office are
internal, some are wider. We all know circumstances in which an
election to party office could be to choose the Prime Minister, as
happened only last year. That was an uncontested election, so many of
the issues did not arise, but it is not difficult to imagine
circumstances in which they would. The electorate in a party election
can be 5 million or 6 million, making it the largest election in the
country, although that probably does not quite beat the Mayor of
London, who has an electorate of 7 million, but it very nearly
does.
So, elections
for party office can be major events, and the candidate will have a
huge burden of responsibility—he or she has to take personal
responsibility for ensuring that every donation is declared. To take
final responsibility is one thing, but not to be able to delegate in
any way, to anyone else, creates enormous
difficulties. I
shall not go over the factors involved any more, because they are well
understood by everyone in the room—equally, the Electoral
Commission is not raising any opposition in principle—and I
commend them to the Minister. I hope that he can add the words
“or a compliance officer” to the list of regulated
donees.
Mr.
Djanogly: I shall be brief as I am interested to hear what
the Minister has to say. I wonder whether the amendment would make it
more complicated to work out who had the burden of responsibility.
Otherwise, we are
open-minded. 2
pm
Mr.
Wills: I have sympathy for the intention behind the
amendment. I understand why there is interest in such a measure, but I
ask the Committee to consider a number of points before we move
forward. First, we should consider whether, for those who are not
minded to appoint such an officer, it might be burdensome to require
them to do so. We need to be clear whether the provision could be
permissive.
There is
nothing in the Act as it stands to prevent a regulated donee from
appointing a compliance officer, but that person would have no
statutory basis. In that sense, if we were to provide in the Bill that
a person may appoint a compliance officer—a permissive
provision—that would serve primarily as a useful clarification
of the existing legal position.
Secondly, if
we accepted the provision, we would need to consider whether such an
amendment would extend to Members of this Parliament alone or to other
holders of relevant elective office within schedule 7. A holder of a
relevant elective office would include a member of the European
Parliament elected in the United Kingdom, a member of the devolved
institutions, a member of any local authority apart from a parish or
community council, the Mayor of London or any other mayor elected under
the Local Government Act 2000. Consideration and consultation on this
point would be necessary before the provision became part of the Bill,
although we would not necessarily foresee any problems coming out of
that
consultation. Thirdly,
the amendment as drafted would not achieve its desired effect. Rather,
it would be add “compliance officer” to the list of
regulated donees set out in paragraph 1(7)(c) of schedule 7
and would thereby result in regulating donations to compliance
officers. I do not think that that is the intention of the amendment,
but that would be its effect. For that reason alone, I must resist it.
However, following the consultation that I mentioned, I am happy to
consider tabling at a later stage of the Bill a similar provision that
would achieve the principle underlying the amendment, if there is
sufficient agreement from the Committee to do
so. Finally,
for the purposes of clarity, I should point out to the Committee that
the appointment of a compliance officer would not, as I think the
amendment intends, absolve the donee of responsibility for any breach
of
the regulations. Ultimate responsibility would depend on the
circumstances of each case and it could rest with both or either the
donee or compliance officer. That reflects the approach taken under the
Representation of the People Act 1983 in relation to candidates and
their agents. Were we to bring forward a Government amendment to make
it clear that these appointments could be made for regulated donees, we
would not depart from that principle. So, bringing
all those different points together, if it is clear that there is
agreement to move forward and introduce a measure that achieves the
intention behind the amendment, we will endeavour to do so. We will
consult and consider further the impact of the proposed amendment on
all officers whom it might affect. We would have to consider the
technical and legal matters as well. I am prepared to take the matter
forward and to consider it seriously. Bearing that in mind, I hope that
the amendment will be withdrawn.
Martin
Linton: On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn.
Nick
Ainger: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 4, at
beginning insert— ‘(A1) In
paragraph 1 of Schedule 7 to the 2000 Act (prohibition on accepting
donations from impermissible donors), at the end of sub-paragraph
(8)(a) there is
inserted— “(aa)
member of the House of
Lords;”’. This
is a probing amendment and I shall be brief. Members of the House of
Lords who are members of political parties are already regulated
donees, but Cross-Bench Members, who are of no party, are not. I would
like an explanation. We have three types of peers, including some
hereditary ones and life ones—
Mr.
Tyrie: Bishops and Law Lords—many
types.
Nick
Ainger: Many types—I accept that—who are not
regulated donees. Will the Minister give the Committee an
explanation?
Mr.
Wills: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for moving the
amendment, which allowed the hon. Member for Chichester, from a
sedentary position, to make the case admirably and succinctly for
reform of the House of Lords, for which I am grateful. I hope all
members of the Committee agree on that.
As my hon.
Friend pointed out, the amendment would amend schedule 7 to PPERA, such
that the holder of an elective office would include a Member of the
House of Lords as well as a Member of the House of Commons. Members of
the House of Lords would therefore become subject to controls on
donations contained in the 2000 Act. As my hon. Friend pointed out,
many peers are already subject to the schedule 7 controls by virtue of
the fact that they are party members. Therefore, as he observed, the
effect of the amendment would be felt only by those with no party
affiliation, such as Cross-Benchers and bishops.
I understand
the intention behind the amendment. As my hon. Friend knows, we are
planning to bring forward shortly radical reform of the House of Lords
and the way it is constituted. That has been about 100 years in the
making. We are on the verge, I believe, of cross-party consensus on
that. I look for nods around the Committee and see assent from all
parts. This is pertinent, Sir Nicholas. I am sticking to the clause. We
will shortly be introduce further proposals for
reform.
Mr.
Tyrie: Will the Minister at least consider and, I hope,
agree that whatever measure is proposed for reform of the House of
Lords, it should require that whoever currently sits in the House of
Lords becomes a new type of peer, one type of peer, which would satisfy
the concern underlying the
clause?
The
Chairman: Order. That question is outside the scope of the
schedule. If it were something to do with donations, it would have been
in order. The classification of peers is quite another
matter.
Mr.
Tyrie: May I complete my intervention by rephrasing it
slightly? Since we have established that different categories of peers
have different donation requirements, and since we have agreed in
principle that it might be possible to put peers on a similar basis,
might that not be the simplest way of addressing the concerns of the
hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire who tabled the
amendment?
The
Chairman: Very briefly,
Minister.
Mr.
Wills: I am grateful for your indulgence, Sir Nicholas. I
shall wrap up my answer to the intervention by addressing the purpose
of the probing nature of the amendment. I am not sure where the problem
exists. Presumably, those peers were excluded from the scope of the
2000 Act precisely because they are not elected and, as such, they
would be unlikely to receive political donations. That is not a problem
of which we have been made aware. But, most importantly, there is no
point legislating for a problem of whose existence we are not aware and
which, as I said, will shortly be resolved. When the House comes to
consider how a reformed House of Lords will be constituted, that will
be the proper time to examine donations, Members and the reporting
requirements, because then that will be pertinent. I hope my hon.
Friend the Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire will
therefore ask leave to withdraw the
amendment.
Nick
Ainger: In light of what my right hon. Friend the Minister
said, it seems that the matter will be addressed, although that may
take some time. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the
amendment. Amendment,
by leave,
withdrawn. Amendments
made: No. 160, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 7, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000 (where the regulated donee is
a members association) or £1,000 (in any other
case)’. No.
161, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 12, leave
out from ‘exceeding’ to second ‘by’ in line
13 and insert ‘£5,000 to be
received by a members association by way of a donation, or an amount
exceeding £1,000 to be received by a regulated donee other than
a members association’.
No. 162, in
schedule 3, page 34, line 25, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000 (where the regulated donee is
a members association) or £1,000 (in any other
case)’. No.
163, in schedule 3, page 35, leave out
lines 1 to
3. No.
164, in
schedule 3, page 36, line 2, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000’. No.
165, in
schedule 3, page 36, line 7, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000’. No.
166, in
schedule 3, page 36, line 20, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000’. No.
167, in schedule 3, page 36, leave out
lines 40 to
42. No.
168, in
schedule 3, page 37, line 30, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000’. No.
169, in
schedule 3, page 37, line 35, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000’. No.
170, in
schedule 3, page 38, line 6, leave
out ‘£200’ and insert
‘£5,000’. No.
171, in schedule 3, page 38, leave out
lines 26 to 28.—[Mr.
Wills.] Question
proposed, That the schedule, as amended, be the Third schedule to
the
Bill.
| 
