| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
I perfectly well understand the hon. Gentleman's argument for a cap, but what is entirely factitious is the use of the qualification to pay tax in this country as a preventive bar to donating. That does not seem to be rationally connected. On the question of multiple millionaires, who are largely situated abroad because they exploit looser tax regimes elsewhere, why should we not just say, "They shouldn't be allowed to donate large sums of money, but, in the same way, nor should other people who are perhaps so rich that it doesn't matter to them how much tax they pay in this country"? I do not understand the rational connection between the measure under discussion and the qualification or non-qualification to pay tax in this country.
David Howarth: The rational connection is money: the prospective overseas donor has deliberately distanced him or herself from the obligation to pay full tax in this country and, possibly, uses that money, which they have saved in tax, to influence the political system in this country. That seems to me to be a rational connection. It does not go far enough for me, but it is sufficient for the measure before us.
Mr. Cox: I should understand that, were it a reason for preventing somebody from voting, but the argument is that a British citizen has a sufficiently substantive connection with what is going on in this country to be allowed to vote and to stand in an election, but not to donate. The suggestion that there is somehow a moral or rational justification for the measure, based on the fact that somebody does not pay taxes in this country, does not fulfil the requirement that the hon. Gentleman knows the European Court of Human Rights would impose-namely, a rational justification for the intrusion into the right. We need a legitimate objective. The measure has to be rationally connected with the objective and to be no more than is necessary to achieve it.
We know that large numbers of people who are not in the Labour party's bête noire category, but are relatively modestly affluent, will be prevented from donating. The Secretary of State for Justice proposes a limit of £7,500, but that is an arbitrary figure, plucked from nowhere. Why not £15,000 or £20,000? Why not £30,000? The figures that the Labour party objects to are in the millions, but relatively modestly affluent people who feel strongly may wish to donate £7,500, £10,000, £15,000, £20,000 or £30,000.
Frankly, if we allow somebody to vote and stand in an election, and if they are a British citizen who feels strongly about the fate and destiny of their country, how can it conceivably be rational to prevent them from supporting their own campaigns or those of the party that they support? It simply makes no sense to me at all, and I am fortified in that opinion by the fact that the opinion of the Secretary of State for Justice is the same.
Mr. Graham Stuart: Is my hon. and learned Friend, like me, bewildered by the Liberal Democrat approach to the issue? It seems so anti-European. We are in a single market, where people are encouraged to move across Europe and where people are-in the Liberal Democrat vision, at least-one polity. Yet people who have used that freedom, which we all support and agree with, find themselves artificially restricted because of partisan points of view.
Mr. Cox: My hon. Friend will forgive me if I do not stray down that particular avenue. I am trying to engage with the hon. Member for Cambridge, who gave a thoughtful and impressive speech. He deliberated carefully and pieced his way through with careful fidelity to principle, and it is in that spirit that I want to try to answer.
Mr. Redwood: If the Government are worried about the issue, should they not say that nobody who wishes to be a Labour peer should give the Labour party any money? On the Government's theory, it would be wrong to give a peerage to anybody who had given money, would it not?
Mr. Cox: My right hon. Friend may well be right.
I want to concentrate on whether the proposed measure would have an impact within the context of the Human Rights Act and article 10, which is about freedom of expression. Unlike the hon. Member for Cambridge, I think that that is a real issue. The European Court of Human Rights has plainly considered that the right to donate, to put your money where your mouth is, is encompassed within article 10. One therefore has to answer this question: why single out those who live and are taxed abroad if we are allowing them to vote? The hon. Gentleman has given the reason; he says that tax exiles do not pay taxes in this country and that-I think this a little fanciful-the money that they save could be deployed for the purposes of donation. It is therefore, he says, perfectly legitimate to require that such people should be part of the tax system.
I say with respect to the hon. Gentleman that placing so invasive a restriction on an individual on so flimsy and artificial a footing is not consistent with the principles that he upholds as a liberal. I sympathise with those principles because personal, individual freedom is a fundamental principle about which all in the House, from whatever political tradition, should be concerned; I know that there are Labour Members who feel as passionately about that as I do and the hon. Gentleman does. In considering what principle and the freedom of the individual require, we should not give credence to the convenient and expedient arguments articulated with great elegance and some sophistication by the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman's position would have been far more principled, and would have had more of the integrity that he ordinarily evinces in the House, if he had said that the measure looks like what it is. It is, regrettably, a capitulation by the Secretary of State to pressures with which he does not agree; he has adopted a measure in which he has no confidence. He has put it before the House for reasons that the rest of us can only guess at. The principled approach would be to do precisely what the hon. Member for Cambridge said the Secretary of State should have done, and I completely agree: if a measure such as this is to be moved, it should be moved as part of a comprehensive settlement and on the basis of principle, not partisanship.
I have great respect for the Secretary of State for Justice, who is an urbane and civilised member of the Government and for whom one can only have considerable respect. However, on this occasion he has come to the Dispatch Box and, in a sense, declined to give a substantive rationale or justification for the measure. When challenged,
he said that he had used the same argument as his challenger-and he said that so half-heartedly and apologetically. That does not, I am afraid, attract confidence that the measure has the substance, solidity and soundness that it ought to have if the House is to feel obliged to vote for it.
Mr. Straw: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to respond to the debate. It has been characterised by two distinct kinds of speeches. The hon. Members for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) and for Cambridge (David Howarth) and many-but not all-contributors from my side have sought to address the issues in a relatively measured way. There have also been some hyperbolic and partisan performances.
I am only too well aware that if we scratch the surface, the issue of party funding arouses great tribal feelings. Whenever two or three Labour Members gather together, it does not take long for a peer's name beginning with "A" to fall from their lips; equally, a particular kind of Conservative Member will foam at the mouth at the very mention of trade unions. I understand that, which is why my general view has always been that we have to recognise the tribal nature of the issue and the fact that people feel strongly about it, and in a partisan way. However, we should also do our best to secure as close a consensus as possible on the issue.
We have a great interest in the fortunes of our own parties, but we are also the trustees of our democracy. The ground rules for that democracy are set here, and we have to hold back a bit in case we descend to the position arrived at in parts of the United States. In those areas, even the setting of boundaries is the subject of the most extraordinary partisanship; how the boundaries are set would make even Mr. Gerry Mander blush. In general, we avoid that here but it is important that we should.
To underline a point made by the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), Conservative Members' hyperbole about the issue sits rather oddly with their behaviour-or rather lack of it-in the other place. The simple fact is that 80 per cent., or four out of five, of the peers who take the Conservative Whip-there are just over 200 of them-failed to vote against Lord Campbell-Savours' amendment when it was before that House in the middle of June; they could muster only 40 Members altogether. That leads me to feel that some of the opposition to this measure, particularly given the amendments that we are now introducing, is, to a high degree, quite synthetic.
8 pm
I hope, in any event, that when the Conservatives are able to examine these proposals in more detail-I apologise to the House for the fact that they were tabled on Friday and were therefore not available to most Members until this morning-they will recognise that they are not quite the end of civilisation as we know it. Indeed, they are a considerable modification-because they have to be-of what Lord Campbell-Savours put forward.
It is also worth Conservative Members-I say this in a spirit of friendship-reflecting on the fact that, to my complete surprise, a significant number of respected Cross-Bench peers, who are wholly non-partisan, strongly supported the Campbell-Savours amendment. They
included Lord Jay of Ewelme, a former head of the diplomatic service; Baroness D'Souza, the chair of the Cross-Bench peers; and, in particular, Lord Neill of Bladen, who has a very distinguished academic and judicial record, and who chaired, very well, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and produced the whopping great report in 1998 that laid the foundation of the party funding Bill that I introduced in 1999-2000. He made a very strident speech in favour of these changes. Of course-I put this on the record in answer to the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Cox)-I acknowledge what is patently true: that my position, and that of the Government, has shifted. However, as my right hon. Friend the Minister and I have made clear, that is because we judged that we needed to take account of the change in sentiment highlighted not least by the debate in the other place.
It would probably be helpful if I answered one or two of the detailed points that have been made. It is continually amusing these days to see how the world has turned upside down somewhat as regards the European convention on human rights. I often notice that the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 have become so much part of the common currency of British public life that Conservative Members cannot help themselves in praying in aid articles 8, 10 or 11 when it suits them, forgetting that their party has pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act and all its works, and probably to denounce the convention as well.
Mr. Cox: The Secretary of State, almost certainly for reasons of forensic and rhetorical flourish, is misrepresenting and mischaracterising the policy of the party to which I belong. As he knows very well, our policy is to replace the schedule to the Human Rights Act with a new Bill of Rights based on British rights, devised and drafted here. There is nothing wrong with that, and many eminent people from many parts of the political spectrum support it.
Mr. Straw: I look forward to seeing further particulars of that proposal, especially as the other bit of the Conservatives' policy is that they apparently remain committed to the convention. How the devil one is able to draft a new schedule that is consistent with the convention without its ending up being the same as the convention defies me.
Mr. Cox: Will the Secretary of State give way?
Mr. Straw: No, because I think I would be brought back into order if I did so.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans)-he is not here, but it is important that I correct the record-asked whether aggregate donations would breach the limit. Although I did not say so in terms, I said that I thought that the current law was that donations were aggregated. However, that is not the case. At the moment, there is no requirement to aggregate multiple donations in one year. We are considering whether such a provision would be needed, and that will require a great deal of consultation down the track-not for this Bill. In any case, there are some practical problems as regards aggregating donations. That is an existing issue that is not affected directly one way or the other by the provisions in this group of amendments. I hope that that is helpful. I also hope that my note is correct; otherwise, I will end up having to correct the record again.
The hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon-I apologise again for my cough-asked about proportionality and whether these provisions are consistent with the provisions of articles 10 and 11. At the moment, there is no ban on any non-permissible donor giving up to £200, soon to be £500. We are proposing that, for these purposes, restrictions on a non-permissible donation apply only at £7,500, so somebody could play an active part in British politics from abroad while giving up to that amount. Overall, the restriction is relatively proportionate.
Mr. Graham Stuart: The Secretary of State's clarification again shows how important it is to take time to get such legislation right. I have calculated on my BlackBerry that someone who wanted to give money to a particular party in every constituency in the country could give £4,844,354 a year and apparently not be restricted in any way. That cannot be right, and it must prove my point.
Mr. Straw: I think that someone would soon notice that, and that on the whole people do not operate in that way.
Mr. Cox: You need a Fisherman's Friend.
Mr. Straw: I think I need more than that.
I am going to stop now; I think that would be wise, in the interests of my cough, if nothing else. I commend the amendments that stand in my name.
Lords amendment 11 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 12 disagreed to.
Government a mendments (a) to (f) made in lieu of Lords amendments 11 and 12 .
Mr. Deputy Speaker: 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.
Mr. Wills: I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 33.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 34 to 47, 50, 96 to 98,105 and 106.
Mr. Wills: These amendments were introduced on Report in the Lords and accepted without debate. They are seen as necessary for the implementation of the CORE scheme, the co-ordinated online record of electors. In particular, they are essential to ensure that there is authority to create a new non-departmental public body to fulfil the role of CORE keeper. Until November 2008, it was intended that the Electoral Commission would fulfil that role, and the Electoral Administration Act 2006 made provision for that. However, following recommendations from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the commission is seeking to refocus its functions and concentrate on enhancing its regulatory role, as the House knows. The Government agree with the commission that that is the right thing to do.
Moreover, the Government have now brought forward their proposals for the introduction of a scheme of individual registration. It is quite likely that we will require a central point through which electors' personal identifiers, such as national insurance numbers, may be validated with the relevant authority. The CORE scheme could provide that service. Such a role does not currently fit with the Electoral Commission's redefined regulatory role, but it is important that the public body taking on the role is demonstrably independent from Government. By introducing these amendments, we will ensure that the CORE scheme can be delivered without delay, and that the necessary infrastructure can be developed to facilitate the introduction of individual registration.
The new clause introduced in Lords amendment 33 inserts a new section 3A into the 2006 Act to enable the Secretary of State, by order, to establish a new non-departmental public body in the form of a corporation sole with a view to its being designated by a CORE scheme as the CORE keeper. Taking a power to create that corporation sole in secondary legislation is designed to provide appropriate flexibility so that the precise detail of the structure and operation of the body, and the timing of its creation, can be developed consistently with the CORE scheme order. The public sensitivity about the security and use of personal data is an extremely serious matter, and the Government take it seriously.
David Howarth: I appreciate the need for flexibility, but will the Minister say a bit more about what sort of body he has in mind? Simply requiring the power to be given to a corporation sole might mean that it ends up being given to the Secretary of State, or to a bishop. He must say a bit more than simply about the need for flexibility.
Mr. Wills: Of course I accept that, and I said that the corporation sole must be demonstrably independent of the Government. I do not think that the Secretary of State would quite qualify under that particular criterion.
Data security and protection are very important and, for that reason, the new power provides that the Secretary of State may, in the order that I mentioned, establish an advisory panel to provide advice and support to the office holder on any difficult issues that arise, for example in relation to the management, processing or supply of electoral registration information. The advisory panel would not be a separate non-departmental public body in its own right, but it would form part of the overall structure of the corporation sole.
The amendment provides for necessary matters of detail concerning the creation of the corporation sole to be addressed in the order, and it also makes provision for a number of matters that would be consequential upon the establishment of the corporation sole. In particular, it amends section 1(10) of the 2006 Act to provide expressly that a person designated as the CORE keeper under the CORE scheme order must be a corporation sole established under the new power, or some other public authority. That will preserve the ability of another public authority to take on the role of CORE keeper if that is considered appropriate in future.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |