1 July 2010 : Column 1849
1 July 2010 : Column 1849
1 July 2010 : Column 1849
Thursday, 1 July 2010.
10.45 am
Prayers-read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.
Introduction: Baroness Donaghy
10.52 am
Rita Margaret Donaghy CBE, having been created Baroness Donaghy, of Peckham in the London Borough of Southwark, was introduced and made the solemn affirmation, supported by Baroness Dean of Thornton-le Fylde and Lord McKenzie of Luton, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.
Introduction: Lord Hutton of Furness
10.58 am
The right honourable John Matthew Patrick Hutton, having been created Lord Hutton of Furness, of Aldingham in the County of Cumbria, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Triesman and Lord Darzi of Denham, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.
Introduction: Lord Boateng
11.04 am
The right honourable Paul Yaw Boateng, having been created Baron Boateng, of Akyem in the Republic of Ghana and of Wembley in the London Borough of Brent, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Janner of Braunstone and Lord Ouseley, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.
The Earl of Clancarty took the oath, following the by-election under Standing Order 9.
Human Rights: Journalists
Question
11.09 am
To ask Her Majesty's Government what representations they have made to other countries about harassment, intimidation and assassination of journalists, and the implications for democracy and accountable governance.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): My Lords, the Government are committed to upholding human rights and democracy in our foreign policy. Freedom of expression is fundamental to a democratic, accountable
1 July 2010 : Column 1850
Lord Judd: I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he agree that the situation is worrying enough with the accumulating evidence from Iraq, Philippines, Algeria, Rwanda, Laos and Cuba, but that, when one considers that in the two years between 2007 and 2009 12 journalists were assassinated in Russia and that there has been no convincing prosecution in any of those incidences, profound questions are raised about our colleague member country in the Council of Europe with all its principles? Will the Government make a rigorous stand to say that it is impossible to accept a trend of this kind in the context of a commitment to the growth of democracy and accountable government?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I strongly agree. These are repulsive occurrences wherever they occur and I salute the campaigning zeal of the noble Lord in his feelings on this matter. He mentioned three countries where I agree that some very ugly things have occurred. I have a long list of the areas where we, the Government, are seeking to help and work with the relevant Governments to tackle the terrorising, murder and threatened assassination of journalists, including in Russia, Mexico and the Philippines, as the noble Lord said, as well as in Afghanistan and Iraq. If he would like, I will send him the list, but it is long. We are determined to use what influence we have, which is bound to be limited in some cases, in all these horrific instances.
Lord Alderdice: My Lords, do my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government accept that an attack on a journalist is not merely an attack on a profession and a professional? Because of the extremely important part that journalists play in democratic governance and in holding Governments and others to account, an attack on a journalist in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Judd, is an attack on democracy. Therefore, countries which do not maintain the special place of journalists and protect them are countries which cannot properly be regarded as truly democratic, as our own can be.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My noble friend is absolutely right to put it in those terms. An attack on freedom of expression and responsible journalism anywhere is an attack on, as it were, the supply chain which leads directly to our own freedoms in this country.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that Iran in prison tortures and harasses more journalists than any other country in the world? What recent representations have the Government made to that vile regime about these continuing abuses of human rights?
1 July 2010 : Column 1851
Lord Howell of Guildford: I cannot confirm the precise figure, although I suspect that the noble Lord is right. Given the limitations of our contacts, we seek where we can to make the case-and to urge the lobbies and the countries which have got some influence to press all the time-that these kind of things are not acceptable in countries which seek to be part of the comity of nations and do not want to be branded as anti-democratic pariahs.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, is the correlation between freedom of association and free trade unions, and the inverse correlation with the number of assassinations, being noted by the Foreign Office? It is not surprising that this is so. Will the noble Lord take into consideration that support for the ILO principles of free trade unionism will be helpful in connection with my noble friend's Question?
Lord Howell of Guildford: Again, the noble Lord is right. Our freedom is not the sort of thing that you can slice up in different areas. It is a bundle, a grouping of inalienable freedoms and core principles by which we have to stand. People say, "Why bother about the rest of the world?", but it is in our interests at least to inspire others to follow our own principles and standards, even if we cannot guarantee that they will be accepted.
Lord Mawhinney: My Lords, my noble friend has said that he would make available the list of countries. When he puts that list in the Library, would he be kind enough to add beside each name on that list the last time Her Majesty's Government made a formal representation to a representative of the Government of those countries so that we can understand how actively this matter is being pursued, given its importance?
Lord Howell of Guildford: I will do my best to do that, but a number of the approaches are informal and some are continuous. Some have had an impact, as in Mexico, where we have had a lot of co-operation with the Mexican Government. Of course it is their concern, but they have welcomed our help in meeting the horrors of the assassination of journalists and other killings that have taken place.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead: My noble friend Lord Judd is right to raise these important issues. Is the Minister aware of the murder of a well known and respected Rwandese journalist, Jean Rugambage? Many NGOs and others are claiming that he was a victim of the current clampdown on the independent press and media in Rwanda in the run-up to the presidential elections. Can the Minister assure the House that strong representations have been and will be made by the UK to the Rwandan Government on the need for freedom of expression and freedom of the press?
Lord Howell of Guildford: The noble Baroness is right to raise this. Our embassy engages regularly with the Media High Council of the Rwandan Government and a range of journalists in Rwanda. We are very concerned not only about the case she mentioned but also about the reduction in media freedoms over recent
1 July 2010 : Column 1852
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: My Lords, as we try to maintain the freedom of the press and the media throughout the world, what steps are the Government taking to make sure that the BBC World Service receives all the encouragement and support it needs?
Lord Howell of Guildford: My noble friend knows that the service most certainly does receive encouragement and, more than just fine words, it gets very substantial funds. I think that the current outlay for the year is £231 million, which is considerably more than some years ago and is a reflection of the priority we place on the service in the promotion of this country's culture of diplomacy, reputation, interests and long-term aims.
Ports: Business Rates
Question
11.16 am
To ask Her Majesty's Government what arrangements they are making to collect backdated non-domestic rates in respect of port-side operators.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Hanham): My Lords, in June, the coalition Government implemented an immediate moratorium on port operators' backdated payments, and in the emergency Budget we announced our intention to take primary legislation at the earliest opportunity to cancel the "ports tax". The repayment scheme introduced by the previous Administration for businesses with backdated rates bills, such as those in ports, did not go far enough to address the problems facing these businesses, many of which are on the brink of insolvency.
Lord Bates: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply, which will be widely welcomed in the ports of the United Kingdom. They have been hit dramatically by the unfair imposition of this backdated tax. Is she aware that, while this will provide relief for many businesses already in place, it is too late for many hundreds of businesses and many hundreds of vital jobs that have already been lost? Will she consider introducing a thorough review of the chaotic handling of this entire revaluation process by the Valuation Office Agency and by the previous Government so that lessons can be learnt and mistakes not repeated?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that and I know that he has taken an interest in this matter over some time. The Valuation Office
1 July 2010 : Column 1853
Lord Greaves: My Lords, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats I, too, welcome the change of policy which the Minister has revealed. Did she say that the revaluation has been cancelled and, if so, on what basis will the rates now be paid by port-side businesses? If the revaluation has been cancelled, will those businesses which have already paid their backdated demands in part or in full be refunded?
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I said that the backdated rates will be cancelled-for the years between 2008 and 2010-and any that have already been paid will be refunded.
Political Parties: Funding
Question
11.20 am
To ask Her Majesty's Government what proposals they have to reform party funding and to limit donations to political parties.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord McNally): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister indicated during the debate on the Address that the Government will pursue an agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding to remove big money from politics. The approach to party funding is being worked up as part of the overall programme of reforms and an announcement will be made in due course.
Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for repeating what the Deputy Prime Minister said. I wonder whether my noble friend recalls a question that was posed in this Chamber:
"Is it not time for all parties to return to Sir Hayden Phillips's report on party funding and put in place a tight cap, some firm regulations and an Electoral Commission with teeth to enforce them?"-[Official Report, 5/12/07; col. 1700.]
The questioner was my noble friend. Can he now tell us what the timetable is? Is it not important that progress should be made as quickly as possible in the early part of this Parliament, rather than leaving it to the bitter end?
Lord McNally: My Lords, I sometimes think that all old copies of Hansard should be pulped on change of Government. Nevertheless, I stand by the thrust of that question. For the good of all parties and politics, we should move quickly to see whether we can get all-party agreement on this. It is good that the Deputy
1 July 2010 : Column 1854
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, why cannot tax relief be applied to small individual contributions to political parties, perhaps to a capped contribution sum of £50 per annum? Will the noble Lord refer the matter to Treasury Ministers, because the proposition has support on all sides of the House?
Lord McNally: My Lords, as on many other subjects, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. I have supported that idea for a long time. I can assure him that I shall report our exchange to the Deputy Prime Minister and suggest that he raises the matter with the Treasury.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom: My Lords, popular as the idea of tax relief is with the coalition Government, I do not think that it will solve the problem of funding political parties for the duration of a Parliament. I met no one at the last election who complained about the Conservative Opposition receiving £4.2 million of taxpayers' money. Indeed, I think that very few taxpayers knew that they were contributing to the Conservative Opposition to that extent. It is critical that we get ahead with this. I am disappointed that it was not in the Queen's Speech as part of our legislative programme for this Session. I suspect that at the next election no one will be talking about it.
Lord McNally: I take the point that my noble friend is making. That is why I said that we will be getting ahead with the issue early in this Parliament. We need to deal with this. As long as I have been in politics, one party or another has become embroiled in some scandal or another-and it will happen again unless we face up to the fact that politics costs money. If you want to keep big money and big influence out of politics, you have to do some radical things about party funding.
Lord Clark of Windermere: Does the Minister accept that the problem is not only the total amount of money spent on political parties but the disproportionate amounts spent in individual constituencies? It is now so expensive that in certain constituencies independents simply cannot afford to run. That cannot be good for democracy.
Lord McNally: That is absolutely true. We have seen in all political parties a nuclear arms race of political spending. I pay tribute to the last Government for putting a cap on it, for which I think even the Conservative Party was grateful in the end. If there was no cap, fundraising would go on and on. The problem with campaign expenditure is that it is like expenditure on advertising: we all know that half of it is wasted, but we do not know which half.
Lord Ryder of Wensum: My Lords, while I vividly recall the introduction of Short money 35 years ago and the help that it gave to the then Opposition, does my noble friend not agree that during these days of
1 July 2010 : Column 1855
Lord McNally: It would ill become a government Minister to start suggesting that. I was a special adviser to the Government who brought in Short money and I know the benefit that my party got in opposition from Cranborne money. I know that it is easy to play to the media on this, but political parties need proper funding to do their democratic duty. If you do not do it through legitimate, open, transparent public funding, big money will come in, which, in the end, corrupts the whole system.
Lord Howarth of Newport: My Lords, what is "proper funding"? Would it not be better if the political parties spent less on advertising, opinion polls and helicopters, raised more money voluntarily in accordance with the new localism and resisted the blandishments of the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, to pick the taxpayer's pocket?
Lord McNally: Again, we have all heard "picking the taxpayer's pocket"-it gets approval from the media, which have an interest in keeping politicians and politics weak and dependent on their approval-but it is time that politicians got off their knees. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, that too many of the consultants and advisers who surround political parties think up ways of spending money to justify their own existence. Perhaps the answer lies in what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, suggests: some tie-in between small donations and tax relief that would give a greater and broader base to funding.
Lord Goodlad: Is my noble friend aware that in Australia in the early 1920s, because the political parties were finding the cost of getting people to the polls in a huge, sparsely populated country very onerous, compulsory voting was introduced, with universal support? It has had universal support ever since. The noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said the other day that she supported compulsory voting. Will he give it his consideration?
Lord McNally: I will certainly give it my consideration and I will report it to the Deputy Prime Minister. I think that I had better stop there.
Lord Grocott: Is it not worth noting one of the lessons from the history of funding and politics? At the end of the 19th century, very strict limits were introduced on the amount that could be spent in individual constituencies, for very good reasons. Does it not strike the Minister that to concentrate on how much is being spent is more important than examining precisely where the money comes from? We need to look, at a national level, at the ludicrous amounts of money that are spent in general elections; we do not want to get anywhere near American levels. Any review should concentrate on putting much more severe, strictly applied limits on expenditure.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |