| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 6:
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 48 [Political party descriptions]:
Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 7:
The noble Lord said: My Lords, admittedly, this is a fairly minor amendment. It relates to the descriptions that parties can use when campaigning in elections. At the moment, there are no restrictions on the number of descriptions that a party can use. Of course, there are restrictions on the wording—one cannot use indecent wording or anything like that—but in a general election, for example, a party in any constituency can describe itself as the Oxford and West Abingdon Liberal Democrats or in a local election the Southwark Liberal Democrat Focus Group.
Clause 48 amends the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to limit the number of descriptions that can be used by a party at any time to five. Of course, that makes enormous difference in regard to descriptions. We would much prefer that the situation were left as it is, but that has apparently caused concern among registration officers. For that reason the Government have introduced this point.
In earlier proceedings, I moved an amendment that would increase the number, very modestly, from five to 12. The figure of 12 was not chosen at random, but because it is the number that one obtains by adding up Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions, and so that parties can describe themselves by a regional title as well as by a national one. That way, in England, we could have "the Conservatives for East Anglia", "the Labour Party for Yorkshire and Humberside" or "Liberal Democrats for London". That seemed a modest but possibly useful increase.
I moved this amendment on Report and, since the Government said that they would go away and think about it, I withdrew it. Since then, I understand that the Government have thought about it favourably. In those circumstances, I hope that this amendment will now be acceptable to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Lord Greaves: My Lords, I shall say a few brief words; it is the only time I intend to speak at Third Reading. I take this opportunity to say how grateful I was in Grand Committee for the sympathetic, sensible and constructive way the Minister dealt with the raft of amendments that I moved—which, no doubt, some people in her department thought were tedious and time-wasting, but which I thought were all important—providing answers and, in some cases, taking them on board. That is symptomatic of the way this Bill is going through. It is going to be a much better Bill than it was when it came to this House, which is a tribute to all sides and the Minister in particular.
I also apologise for not being able to be here during Report stage. I was actively engaged in other aspects of the electoral process and thought that was more important than coming here to talk about the legislation which I was campaigning under at the time. No doubt some people are quite grateful that I did not come, because proceedings did not take as long as they otherwise might.
I am entirely in favour of this amendment. It is sensible to increase the number of sensible party names which can be used. If I had been here on Report,
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1297
I would perhaps have gone into more detail and moved some amendments which would not be appropriate at Third Reading, because an underlying issue has not been properly addressed. It is entirely sensible for people to be able to call themselves "the Yorkshire Liberal Democrats" or "the Yorkshire Conservatives"— although my noble friend Lord Shutt of Greetland says "Not the Yorkshire and Humberside Liberal Democrats, please". It is perfectly sensible for people to call themselves "the Scottish Liberal Democrats", "the Welsh Liberal Democrats"—or "Democratiaid Rhyddfrydol Cymru".
What is not sensible and needs to be addressed—the Electoral Commission could do this—is political parties using their party name on the ballot paper to introduce a slogan. That is wrong and ought to be stopped. There have been a number of such instances. For example, the Liberal Democrats in London fought elections as "Liberal Democrats against the privatisation of the Tube". At the last European elections, the Conservatives did not just put "Conservative and Unionist party". I forget what their slogan was, but it was something like "Conservatives for reform and modernisation of Europe". There is a political party purporting to call itself "the Liberal party" which at the last European elections had the simple party name of "No Euro". This seems an abuse of the system. Whether used in the logo or the name, slogans should not appear on ballot papers. Legitimate party names should appear on ballot papers. While supporting my noble friend's amendment, I hope that the Electoral Commission will look at this, and find a way of banning people from abusing the ballot paper by putting political slogans on it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, for his kind remarks. We think that this is a proportionate and reasonable increase in number, and we are perfectly happy to accept the amendment.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I also thank my noble friend Lord Greaves for his sensible point of some importance about slogans. I hope it will be considered by the Electoral Commission.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart moved Amendments Nos. 8 and 9:
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 58 [Reporting donations to members of the House of Commons]:
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1298
Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 61, line 5, leave out "member of the House of Commons" and insert "holder of a relevant elective office unless he is not a member of a registered party and is either—
(a) a member of the Scottish Parliament, or
(b) a member of a local authority in Scotland."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 10, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 11 to 18 inclusive. Perhaps I may start by explaining the reasoning behind this group of amendments. As noble Lords will be aware, the regulatory regime established by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 followed from the recommendations made by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the then Neill committee, in 1998. Schedule 7 to that Act sets out, among many other things, the requirement that holders of elective office should report the donations they have received to the Electoral Commission, which will then publish them. That has the effect that MPs, MEPs, Members of devolved Administrations and local councillors throughout the United Kingdom have to report donations to both the Electoral Commission and the relevant Register of Members' Interests of the body of which they are a Member.
Transparency and accountability on the funding of holders of relevant offices are of crucial importance. Reporting donations that holders of elected office receive and publishing them are valuable and important activities, and we should do nothing to diminish that. However, many holders of these electoral offices take the view that such duplication is unnecessary. It can lead to confusion, and unintentional errors can sometimes be made in the reporting of donations.
This group of amendments follows from amendments tabled in another place that applied only to MPs which received widespread support from all parts of another place. Those amendments became Clause 58 and removed the need for duplication in reporting from MPs only. When that clause was tabled, the Government gave a commitment to resolve to work with the devolved authorities on a solution to remove the requirement for all holders of elective office to report donations to the Electoral Commission. We have been successful, and I am pleased to present this group of amendments, as I promised we would.
These amendments remove the requirement of dual reporting for MPs, MEPs, Welsh Assembly Members, Welsh and English local councillors, Members of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish local councillors who are members of a political party. They mean that holders of any relevant elected office would not have to report any donations received to the Electoral Commission, whether the donations were received in their role as a relevant elected officer or in their role as
7 Jun 2006 : Column 1299
a member of a registered political party. However, the Electoral Commission will still be obliged to record any such details it receives from the relevant Registers of Members' Interests. The commission will also continue to monitor compliance with the regulatory system set out in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. However, it would have no role to play regarding the non-reporting of donations. The Register of Members' Interests of the body that Members belong to will retain its functions on that issue.
The provision will commence only once the Electoral Commission is content that the relevant authorities have in place sufficient arrangements to ensure that it is still able to maintain an accurate register. This amendment seems to us to strike the right balance between, on the one hand, requiring transparency in the donations made to holders of elective office and, on the other hand, removing the bureaucratic duplication of reporting requirements.
I should add that the amendments I present today are supported by the Electoral Commission as well as by other relevant bodies including the Scottish Executive and the Standards Board for England. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |