Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Political Parties and Elections Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 20 October 2008 (Political Parties and Elections Bill (Programme))-
Consideration of Lords Amendments
1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at this day's sitting at the moment of interruption.
2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely Nos. 11, 12, 33 to 47, 50, 96 to 98, 105, 106, 1 to 8, 51 to 65, 99, 9, 10, 13, 28, 66 to 68, 14, 48, 49, 100 to 102, 104, 15 to 24, 103, 25 to 27, 69 to 92, 107, 29 to 32, 93 to 95.
Subsequent stages
3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.-( Mr. Wills.)
Consideration of Lords amendments
Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): I must draw the House's attention to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment 33. If the House agrees to that amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.
The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 11.
Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.
Mr. Straw: Before I deal with the substance of the amendments, Madam Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether I would be allowed to put on record my deep shock and sorrow at the death of Lord Kingsland, of which I learned yesterday. I have recently had a great deal to do with Lord Kingsland, although I did not know him particularly well before that. I talked to him only last Thursday in the context of the Parliamentary Standards Bill. I know that I speak for all Labour Members in saying that everybody who dealt with him found him utterly delightful, courteous, and firm in his opinions but ready to concede that others have opinions. I would like to send my deepest condolences to his family and friends, and to his party.
The amendments arise from those moved by Lord Campbell-Savours in the other place during a well-attended debate on 15 June. At that time-I had expressed this view in this House-the Government advised the other place to vote against amendments that would have had the effect of making donations impermissible unless the donors met standard conditions for a permissible donation and, in addition, were ordinarily resident and domiciled within the United Kingdom. My noble Friend Lord Bach spoke, at Hansard column 914, about the Government's serious concerns about the amendments on what he described as "principled, practical and legal grounds", and set out the position of the Government. It is no great secret that that has indeed been the Government's position.
No one, least of all myself, has a difficulty with the idea that those who make donations to political parties, like those who participate more widely, should have a clear and practical connection with our democracy, not just a technical one. The issue is not one of sentiment but about the matters to which my noble Friend referred in the other place.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister of State said a short while ago, we in this House have to take account of sentiment here, among all parties and on the Back Benches as well as the Front Benches, as well as sentiment in the other place. That does not mean that we simply accept every amendment that is moved, but two things
were striking when the matter came before the other place. One was the extent of the alliance that led to the amendments tabled by Lord Campbell-Savours going through, and the other was the difficulty that both the Conservative and Labour Front-Bench teams, if I may say so, found in encouraging otherwise loyal party supporters into the Lobby.
There has subsequently been a lot of discussion, and I understand the concern of the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) about the short time in which the amendments were tabled. We sought to consider actively whether there was any basis on which we could accept the principle behind the Lords amendments. However, in producing our amendments we had to acknowledge that although Lord Campbell-Savours did his best with his amendments, which are found in Lords amendments 11 and 12 and in clause 9 of the Bill as it came out of the other place, they were completely technically unworkable and complicated. I think that Lord Campbell-Savours and his supporters in this place accept that.
Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I assume that the amendments relate not just to financial contributions but to benefit in kind. I have campaigned in American elections in the past, which would clearly have a cost. If an American student wished to come across here and campaign during the next general election for a Member of Parliament of whichever political party, would that be seen as a benefit in kind? Would it have to be registered somewhere?
Mr. Straw: I am afraid that I had no notice of that question, but I shall try to provide the hon. Gentleman with a clear answer before the end of the debate. I hope that that is helpful.
Mr. David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op): One of the things about which some of us on the Labour Benches feel strongest is the allegation that there has been no debate on these substantial and substantive issues. It is true that we did not have a debate about them in this place, much to the sadness of some of us on the Back Benches, but there has been forthright debate led by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) about what many of us who believe in democracy want to do-outlaw those from abroad who wish to buy elections. That is why we thoroughly welcome the Government's change of heart.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. How much time is spent on legislation in this House is a wider issue to consider, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Dr. Wright) and the Committee of Back Benchers of all parties that he is establishing will consider that in much more detail. I regret that the matter was not discussed on the Floor of the House on Report some months ago. One curiosity is that, in comparison with the time for which previous Parliaments sat, we are not sitting for fewer days or hours overall. The crucial issue is how the time is used and the balance between legislation and non-legislation.
Bob Spink (Castle Point) (Ind):
I am sympathetic to the sentiments that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) expressed a moment ago. Notwithstanding reasonable
Government concerns about the practicalities and enforceability of Lords amendments 11 and 12, does the Secretary of State share the public concern, as well as that in the House, about the need to restrict the definition of "permissible donors", and to exclude people from abroad who do not participate properly and fully in our tax system? We could thus exclude people such as Lord Ashcroft, who has bankrolled the Conservative party for many years. That abuse of the electoral system must be stopped, and stopped quickly.
Mr. Straw: I understand the hon. Gentleman's argument. Part of what concerned Lord Bach, other colleagues and me was ensuring some consistency between the regime for donations and that for more general participation in our system. As I said, the Government have decided that it is possible to accept the burden of the amendments, and I now want, if I may, to get some important points on the record, not least to take account of the point that the right hon. Member for Horsham made about the short time for tabling amendments.
Lords amendments 11 and 12 refer to residence for the purposes of the Income Tax Act 2007, but residence is not appropriately or meaningfully defined. Part 14 simply sets out residence in certain specific cases. The amendments fail correctly to refer to the place where an individual is not domiciled. That risks casting unnecessary doubt on the way in which the provisions are supposed to work. The Government have therefore tabled amendments (a) to (f) in lieu of amendments 11 and 12. However, let me state from the outset that the amendments do not fully deal with the problems these the defects of the amendments in their current form cause. Should amendments (a) to (f) be agreed by the House today, the Government will table, when the Bill returns to another place, such further amendments as they consider necessary to put a fair and workable scheme in place. I am happy to make the drafts of those amendments available to members of other parties. I do not ask them to endorse them, but if they find it helpful to see them, it is our responsibility to provide them, and I happy to do that. I recognise the frustration about the time available.
I also want to make it clear that any restriction on permissibility of donations-one of the major problems with the proposition-linked to an individual's taxation status would not currently be fully enforceable without further steps being taken. Should the amendments be agreed, we would want to discuss the implications carefully with the parties and the Electoral Commission before the new restriction came into force.
Next Section | Index | Home Page |