Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: Before the Minister commends the amendments to the Committee, perhaps he could respond to and clarify a few further points. I meant to ask him whether I understood the position correctly. I have written down here that,

Is that the case?

Lord Carter: Can the noble Lord say which definition says that an independent Member of this Chamber is not a member of a political party? Some choose not to be a member of a party grouping in this House, but there is nothing which says that they cannot be ipso facto members of a political party.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I fully accept that there may be reasons for Members of the Cross Benches being members of a political party and yet not members of a party grouping in this Chamber, but I suspect that the majority of Members of the Cross Benches are not members of political parties. Therefore, my question still stands; namely, would they be able to be members of the commission, despite the fact that they are obviously Members of one of the Houses of Parliament?

My next point concerns donors to a political party. If someone is a large shareholder, or perhaps the chairman, of a company, and that company, not the individual, gives a donation to a political party, would that individual be eligible to be considered for appointment as a commissioner? Perhaps this is something we should consider further. However, if I heard the noble Lord aright when he responded to my question on whether a member of the commission's staff could be a member of a political party, I think he told me that everyone, including the chief executive,

11 May 2000 : Column 1769

could be a member of a political party. I drew in my breath a little at that. I would not have minded if the noble Lord had told me that people in the commission below a certain level could be members of a political party. However, I drew in my breath when he said that the chief executive could be a member of a political party. I may want to contemplate that matter further.

The noble Lord may wish to contemplate the following proposition. Would he be content to discover that the person who is recruited to be the chief executive of the electoral commission is a member of the Conservative Party or of the Liberal Democrat Party? He might be quite content to find out that that person is a member of the Labour Party, but I wonder whether I or the noble Lord, Lord Harris, would be content about that. We may all wish to contemplate this matter further.

I take the point--my right honourable and honourable friends in the other place were keen to point this out--that the electoral commissioners should not be involved in political parties, although the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, and the noble Lords, Lord Harris and Lord Rennard, put forward a good argument on this point. I believe that my right honourable and honourable friends are a little suspicious of the Prime Minister's powers of patronage. Perhaps I share that suspicion, but perish the thought that I should have a suspicious nature! The chief executive is a pretty important person, who will be doing much of the work. I suspect that he will go through the accounts with his accountancy staff. It will not be a case of the commissioners going through the accounts, but the staff. We ought to consider that point.

My final point is one that I should already have made. I refer to the Neill committee's recommendations on the membership of the electoral commission. The report states that the commission should not follow the path of the US Federal Election Commission. The report further states,

    "nevertheless, the individual members of the Commission should be acceptable to the leaders of the main parties, who should be consulted in the course of their appointment".

Will that recommendation be followed, as I do not think that it appears on the face of the Bill? Have the Government adopted that recommendation of the Neill committee?

Lord Jopling: I wonder whether the Government Chief Whip put his foot in it by making the comments that he did from the Front Bench a few moments ago. He asserted that there were Members of the Cross Benches in this Chamber who were members of political parties. Within the past year or two I have heard it said that there has been a tendency for the Labour Party to introduce supporters of that party as new Members of this Chamber under the guise of Cross-Benchers. I always imagined that Members of the Cross Benches were not members of political parties. However, now the Chief Whip asserts that they may be. There is a convention in another place

11 May 2000 : Column 1770

that Chief Whips are seen but not heard. The Government Chief Whip may regret having made that Freudian slip and having let the cat out of the bag.

Lord Carter: That is extremely unworthy of the noble Lord. The noble Lord, Lord Mackay, appears to assume that Members of the Cross Benches are not members of a political party outside the Chamber. I said that that did not follow. I should not be surprised to discover--I do not know what the position is--that some Members of the Cross Benches are members of political parties but choose not to join a party grouping in this Chamber. That was all I was saying. I understood the noble Lord to imply that Members of the Cross Benches are automatically not members of a political party. I do not think that is the case. I have not let any cats out of any bags; I am simply saying that we do not know what the position is. However, as I say, I should be surprised if there are not some members of some political parties on the Cross Benches. That is all I am saying.

Lord Molyneaux of Killead: I do not know whether I can help the noble Lord but I can say only that I am not aware of any Cross-Bencher who is in receipt of a Whip of any party.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shudder to consider that I should come between Members of this Chamber in a debate on whether Cross-Benchers do or do not receive a formal or informal party Whip or have a party political affiliation. I am interested in and amused by the debate but it is not one that I intend to be drawn into.

I shall try to respond to the point about donors and political levy payers. If I do not cover all aspects of the matter, I shall write to those who raised this issue. My understanding is that levy payers would not be affected by the measure we are discussing. Neither do I believe that low level donors would be affected in the way that has been suggested. I do not believe that they would necessarily be considered to be active in the political process. Many people are levy payers. They may not even realise that they are levy payers. That may be a matter of regret to some but it is the case. I believe that we can leave that matter on one side.

I have listened carefully to the debate which, as I said earlier, I believe has been useful. I am happy to continue to listen and to receive further representations on some of the important issues we have discussed. I shall endeavour to take up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, with regard to the chief executive having a party affiliation. I take note of the noble Lord's concerns. However, I believe that in the real world many chief executives or leading civil servants may have undeclared party memberships; they are sleeping members, if you like. Who are we to say that they should cease to hold that party membership? Towards the end of the 1980s there was much discussion on this subject and members of the party opposite tried to prevent people who worked in local government having a party political affiliation.

11 May 2000 : Column 1771

Concerns were expressed at that time that to move in that direction would infringe human rights. I certainly shared that concern and expressed it at that time.

This has been an interesting debate. As I said, I am happy to receive further representations on this matter. I hope that the Committee will endorse the Government's amendments.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: I do not think that the noble Lord answered my point about the Neill committee's recommendation that appointments to the commission should be made with the agreement of the leaders of the main parties. I read out the recommendation in the report which stated that those appointments should be acceptable to the leaders of the main parties.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: As far as I am able to give an undertaking, it is an important recommendation and I shall give it further consideration; we have not ruled it out. I shall be happy to clarify the matter later if the noble Lord is content with that.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

6.30 p.m.

Viscount Astor moved Amendment No. 6:

    Page 98, line 25, leave out ("the House of Commons") and insert ("both Houses of Parliament").

The noble Viscount said: In moving Amendment No. 6, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8 and 24.

The amendments concern an important point of principle. The committee will find Schedule 1 to the Bill on page 98. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule deals with the term of office of the electoral commissioners, and paragraph 5 relates to their salaries and allowances. Sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 3 states:

    "No motion shall be made for such an Address unless the Speaker's Committee has presented a report to the House of Commons".

On page 99, paragraph 5(1) states:

    "as may be specified by a resolution of the House of Commons".

Amendment No. 24 relates to Clause 3(1) of the Bill, which states:

    "The powers of Her Majesty under section 1(4) and (5) shall be exercisable on an Address from the House of Commons".

The Bill puts all those powers in another place. There is no reference to Parliament as a whole; there is no reference to your Lordships' House. We think that is wrong.

Referendums, elections and political parties are important matters, and this Bill covers both Houses. It is extraordinary that the Government would want to exclude your Lordships' House from having the opportunity for this order to be presented to it. In effect, the Bill states that your Lordships are not allowed to have a view on this issue; that it is purely a matter for the other place; that it is really nothing to do with this House.

This Bill is very important. It concerns the constitution of this country. This House has traditionally been the guardian of the constitution of

11 May 2000 : Column 1772

this country. Excluding it from taking affirmative action on this issue in the same way as another place is quite wrong. Not only is it wrong, but we find it surprising that the Government should do so.

We regard this matter with the utmost seriousness. I hope that the Minister will consider the issue carefully and give a favourable reply. I beg to move.

Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page