House of Lords
Monday, 13 January 2014.
2.30 pm
Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Newcastle.
Banks: Payment Protection Insurance
Question
2.37 pm
Asked by Lord James of Blackheath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to require all banks which have refunded payment protection insurance (PPI) monies to customers to send each such customer a statement, without charge, setting out how much money has been refunded under each of the three separate elements comprising a PPI payout.
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Financial Conduct Authority requires banks to explain clearly to customers, free of charge, how their PPI redress offer has been calculated. The FCA is actively monitoring banks to ensure that they are complying with this requirement. If a bank has not provided this information, or it is not clearly presented, the consumer can bring a complaint against the bank and, if it is not resolved, raise a complaint with the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Lord James of Blackheath (Con): I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but will he take it into account that the banks got off on the wrong foot with the repayment programme by refusing to write a letter to everybody telling them that they owed them some money? It was left to customers to initiate their own claim and there is no certainty that many have not slipped through the net. The noble Lord’s Answer does not allow for the possibility that there are a great many people out there who have no knowledge that a great deal of money is still owing to them.
Lord Newby: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that the FCA is taking this matter seriously and I am sure that someone would be happy to meet him to discuss this in more detail. The FCA is already looking at this general area as part of the thematic review it is currently undertaking into PPI complaint handling.
Lord Wrigglesworth (LD): My Lords, does my noble friend not agree that the breathtaking scale of the PPI scandal is matched only by the volume of telephone calls that have been received by many people throughout the country, offering to help, and taking a slice of the proceeds that are then obtained? Will the Government look into this to see whether another scandal is not under way?
Lord Newby: My Lords, I think that all Members of your Lordships’ House will have had such telephone calls. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government have acted in this area. During last year’s passage of the banking reform Act, we gave the claims management regulator the power to impose penalties on claims management companies which make speculative claims. We are also giving the regulator more enforcement staff and requiring claims management companies to pay for this extra effort.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab): But they are still doing it.
Lord Newby: My Lords, every call made in respect of PPI is not necessarily inappropriate. Some are. Many people have used claims management companies because they did not feel confident going through the process themselves. I accept that there has been abuse. The key thing we have done is to give the regulator power to crack down on firms which make speculative claims to the banks when there is no justification for it.
Lord Eatwell (Lab): My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered the point made by the noble Lord, Lord James, which was that individuals have to apply to the banks for restitution of PPI claims rather than the
banks recognising the obligation that they know they have. Why are the Government letting the banks off the hook?
Lord Newby: My Lords, the Government are not letting the banks off the hook. The banks have paid out almost £13 billion in respect of PPI claims, which is about 70% of the total we think is payable, and a lot more claims are in the pipeline. The concern raised by the noble Lord in his Question relates primarily to the way in which the detailed amounts were calculated and the extent to which individuals can understand those calculations from the material that they receive from the banks.
Lord Soley (Lab): My Lords, is not the problem around individual complaints that very often those people who do not claim are the most vulnerable?
Lord Newby: My Lords, a great deal of publicity has been generated on this issue, and consumer organisations are looking at how they can do more. As I have said, a very considerable number of claims have already been made.
Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab): My Lords, the noble Lord will recall that in 2011 the chief executive of Barclays said that the period of remorse and apology should now be over. Since then we have had this scandal, described by the noble Lords, Lord James and Lord Wrigglesworth, as breathtaking and utterly unacceptable. We have Lloyds Bank, which is still being funded from the public purse, in the middle of it. Since 2011, we have had the rigging of LIBOR and we have had RBS, another publicly supported bank, handing out massive bonuses while declaring a pre-tax loss. When are the Government really going to get tough with the banks and make sure that the Vickers reforms are honoured in spirit and in practice?
Lord Newby: I think that the noble Lord must have been somewhere else in recent months because I seem to remember spending many days over last autumn in your Lordships’ House putting through, under the banking reform Bill, the tougher new approval regime for senior bankers, instituting the new criminal offence of reckless misconduct and more generally looking at ways of vetting the suitability of bank staff to a greater extent. The legal framework within which the banks operate moving forward is substantially different from that in place when this Government came into office, and it will make it much more difficult, although not impossible, for many of the problems we have seen in the past to recur. It will be much easier for the regulators to take effective action if they think it is necessary to do so.
Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB): My Lords, it is not for the claimant to put his or her claim forward, but for the banks to justify the holding of moneys to which they are in no way entitled. If the banks know that to be the case, are they not deliberately withholding those funds from their rightful owners? If they do not
know, although in most cases and with few exceptions they should know, that puts them constructively in a position of trust with regard to the holding of those moneys. Is not that the way to look at it?
Lord Newby: My Lords, there is a certain amount in what the noble Lord says, but I repeat what I have said: there has been a huge amount of publicity around this issue and not only have a very considerable number of people made claims, but £12.9 billion has been paid out in respect of those claims.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): When will my noble friend go a little further than Vickers and actually break up those banks that are too big to fail and seem also to be too big to manage?
Lord Newby: My Lords, again this is something that we have debated at some length. The Government have taken effective steps to ring-fence retail banks and to make sure that a resolution position is in place so that if they get into difficulties, there is a prearranged way of dealing with that to ensure that the Government are not faced with the problems they had in 2008, when essentially all the banks which got into financial difficulties had to be propped up.
Businesses: Business Rates
Question
2.45 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on high street businesses and employment of measures relating to business rates announced in the Autumn Statement.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Communities and Local Government (Baroness Stowell of Beeston) (Con): My Lords, our £1 billion package will benefit all 1.7 million business rate payers. The measures announced in the Autumn Statement include the annual increase to be capped at 2%, around 360,000 businesses to receive 100% small business relief, and around 300,000 shops, pubs and restaurants to get a £1,000 discount. The package exceeds expectations and was welcomed by the CBI and the British Retail Consortium, and it will provide the support that high streets need to grow and provide employment.
Lord Borwick (Con): I thank my noble friend for that Answer, but does she agree about the importance of the problem of empty shops on the high streets, made worse by empty rates introduced by Gordon Brown and the Labour Party some time ago? What action are the Government taking to address that matter?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My noble friend is right that this pressure on businesses was made worse by the tax hikes on empty premises introduced by Gordon Brown. To help to relieve that pressure, and as part of our £1 billion business rate package announced at the Autumn Statement, we also included a relief that provides a 50% discount for 18 months for new
occupiers of retail premises that have been empty for a year or more. This is on top of exempting all empty new-build property from business rates for 18 months.
Lord Naseby (Con): Is my noble friend aware that the Government’s actions have been exceedingly well received and that many in the business community would like to say “Thank you for listening for once”? Nevertheless, is it not true that the business rate today, particularly in the retail sector, where more than 20% of trade is done online and those companies pay no business rate, is no longer fit for purpose? Therefore, will Her Majesty’s Government look to review in toto the impact and structure of the business rate as we move forward?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My noble friend is right that the measures that we introduced were born out of listening to businesses, and measures have been introduced that support them to grow the economy without adding any extra burdens on other taxpayers. I make two points. Online retailers do, of course, still pay taxes, including business rates, on the properties that they use to facilitate their businesses. As to the business rate system itself, as my noble friend will know, my right honourable friend the Chancellor keeps all taxes under review. He is certainly looking at the administration of business rates and this review will take place later this year.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab): My Lords, we are in the era of the business rate retention scheme but there are emerging representations from councils, via the LGA, that currently the risks of the new system outweigh the rewards. This is partly to do with appeals but also business rates avoidance—exploiting the current relief and discount framework. What specifically are the Government doing to address these concerns about business rates avoidance?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston: The noble Lord will know that one of the changes that we have introduced is to allow local authorities to retain 50% of all the business rates that they raise. This is so that they can enjoy and benefit from business activity in their area. We have also changed the law so that local authorities are able to introduce their own discounts, and since April this year central government is funding 50% of those discounts. We think this is the right thing to do to make sure that there is the incentive there for new businesses and local authorities to receive the benefit from that activity.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Con): My Lords, many of the shops in secondary retail locations will never return to retail. Given the figures that we have seen on the growth of online shopping, it seems inevitable that they will remain empty. Does my noble friend agree that the sensible thing is for local authorities to encourage the ground-floor units, as well as those above, to turn into residential accommodation?
Baroness Stowell of Beeston: My noble friend is right to highlight the changes in the way that consumers are shopping and spending their money. We have introduced, as she has acknowledged, some flexibility
to high streets and are currently consulting on additional measures that will allow towns and high streets to adapt even further to this new world.
Housing: Leasehold Valuation Tribunal System
Question
2.50 pm
Asked by Baroness Gardner of Parkes
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on leaseholders of changes to the operation of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal system, introduced in October.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con): My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare my interest as listed in the register.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con): My Lords, in October 2013, a revised fee remissions scheme was introduced across the courts and tribunals system. The impact of the revised remissions scheme will be reviewed after October this year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thank the Minister for that. Can he confirm that people will not be charged management costs unless their lease specifies that they must be and that they will not be obliged to pay—win or lose—the head lessee’s or freeholder’s slice of the action?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My noble friend comes to this issue with great experience and has been a long-standing campaigner in this regard. She raises the issue of administration charges on leases. Some leases contain covenants for the recovery of legal costs, which is a slightly different issue from the recovery of costs as service charges. I understand there have been calls for the Government to consider the feasibility of creating a provision to prevent the recovery of administration charges, similar to the protection over service charges already provided under Section 20C of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. We understand the concern that this topic provokes but, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, we need to look at this very carefully and consult quite widely before deciding on any action that can be taken in this regard.
Lord Beecham (Lab): My Lords, I declare an interest as I have some interest in a leasehold flat. The former cap of £500 on costs has been removed, as the Minister has said, and the Church Commissioners, of all people, recently persuaded the court that a default judgment over service charges allowed them to forfeit a lease. Furthermore, in another case, a landlord recovered from two pensioners £40,000—not £500—as an administrative charge in a dispute over service charges. Is it not time that the Government acted to replace leaseholds for residential properties with commonhold?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, the Government have already taken forward the issue of legal costs in relation to service
charges. I have already alluded to the Section 20C order, as provided for in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which allows a leaseholder to seek for those service charges—if the landlord is claiming that—to be voided. He also raised the point about the £500 fee. Normally in tribunal cases, we have found that parties pay their own costs, and it is rare for costs to be awarded in the property chamber itself. Only where the tribunal considers that a party has behaved unreasonably could it make a costs order against them.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I remember debating the Bill very carefully here in 1996, because it was stated that the total costs would be recovered from the applicants, down to,
“the milk for the office cat”.—[
Official Report
, 10/7/96; col. 348.]
These charges, under the previous system, were limited to a maximum of £500 and the only abuse was when the other side charged it back to all the leaseholders in the block, even if only one had brought the case. Now, it is a different matter. You have to put up the £500 even to take your case to the tribunal and you have to pay further costs all the way. Can we at least be assured that if, as the noble Lord says, it is not possible to limit it in some cases, the costs will not be charged to all the tenants, as is now the case, instead of just to the one person who brought the case? Will the court, or the First-tier Tribunal as it is now called, have the power to determine where these costs are actually justified?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: Bearing in mind the series of questions that my noble friend has asked, perhaps writing to her in this regard would be more appropriate and beneficial.
EU: Free Trade Agreements
Question
2.54 pm
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress is being made in European Union free trade agreements.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Livingston of Parkhead) (Con): The EU is currently negotiating 12 free trade agreements, including those with major trading partners such as the United States and Japan. The EU has also reached conclusion on 10 more agreements that have yet to enter force, adding to the 50 that have already been agreed and are now active. These negotiations are complicated endeavours, but I believe that the EU has made good progress. The Government will continue to be a champion for free trade and of the benefits that it brings to this country.
Lord Trimble (Con): I thank the Minister for that Answer, which draws our attention to the huge number of free trade agreements that are in course. I would direct his attention to the EU-US free trade agreement. In that connection, has he seen the projections that
were issued of the benefit there would be to both the EU and the US, which, interestingly, appears to be roughly evenly divided? Does he agree that the assumption of a virtually equal division of the benefits should be revisited in the light of the huge competitive advantage that the US now enjoys, thanks to its access to abundant supplies of cheap energy, whereas we are increasingly locked into expensive energy to the disadvantage of our businesses?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: My noble friend is right to draw attention to TTIP, the US-EU agreement, which will indeed bring substantial benefits. I believe that the UK is expected to gain around £10 billion a year, which is about £400 for every family in the UK, the US is expected to gain about £80 billion and the EU about £100 billion, so there are very substantial gains. In addition, there will be very substantial gains for the rest of the world, which are believed to be in excess of £80 billion.
I take my noble friend’s point that energy presents some challenges. Certainly, we hope to see the US exporting energy, so that the benefits of shale to global energy prices would help all industry rather than just those in the US. In any event, we believe that helping to have openness and convergence of standards will assist all citizens, not just in the EU but in the US and around the world.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP): My Lords, if we left the political construct of the European Union, is there any reason why, as one of the world’s largest economies, we could not maintain our existing trade agreements and sign new ones with Commonwealth countries and the markets of the future? Surely we would enjoy our own seat on the World Trade Organisation.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: If we were to exit the EU, there would be no certainty that any of the free trade agreements would actually continue. While the UK is a significant economy in its own right—and that is important—these agreements take many years to negotiate. Even assuming that we could renegotiate them, we would not have the leverage that the EU has, as the single largest trading bloc in the world, to make such agreements. Therefore, I think that it would be very difficult to replicate them, particularly within a short space of time.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab): My Lords, will the Minister comment on progress on the negotiations between the European Union and African, Caribbean and Pacific countries, which have now been going on for 10 years and are meant to focus on development and reciprocal free trade? Is it not the case that there is a strong chance that, unless the October deadline is met, we will see an unprecedented situation wherein African countries will lose their preferential access to European markets?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: The noble Baroness makes a good point in raising those countries. There has been a lot of focus on the most developed nations,
but we also have an obligation to continue to push the economic partnership agreements that we have been trying to make with Caribbean and African countries. However, I would stress that there was a major breakthrough with the WTO agreements. The WTO agreement to aid trade facilitation is worth around £100 billion to the world economy as a whole and the vast majority of that will go to developing nations, which I think is to be welcomed. Certainly the UK will continue to push for trade agreements with Caribbean, African and ASEAN countries. We are great proponents of free trade and of the benefits that it brings for all nations involved in it.
Baroness Suttie (LD): My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that concluding the EU-India free trade agreement would bring enormous benefits to the economies of both sides and, therefore, that finding solutions to the remaining obstacles should be a priority this year?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: Indeed, the Indian agreement would be of great benefit. Of course, India is one of the major powers and is growing fast. However, as we know from our debates in this House, there are challenges with internal Indian beliefs on trade and there are elections in India in, I believe, April this year. Discussions are ongoing, and I believe there will be discussions in Davos with the Indian trade Minister regarding progress on this agreement. We will certainly be pushing the Indian Government for a wide-ranging agreement, but whether that will be feasible this side of the Indian election is extremely doubtful.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab): Will the EU-US prospective trade agreement as currently envisaged continue to allow the United States to ban the export of crude oil or natural gas, as they do at the present time?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: The discussions are still ongoing. Clearly, we would like to see free trade of all descriptions, but the TTIP agreement will be largely focused on reducing import tariffs and particularly on the convergence of rules, which will help all countries. We would certainly like to see its energy exports being made available all around the world, as is the case with UK exports from the North Sea.
Lord Tugendhat (Con): Does the noble Lord agree that the advantages of TTIP to the consumer need to be more emphasised? At the moment, most of the emphasis is on the benefits to producers on both sides of the Atlantic, but in terms of price reduction and a widening choice of products and goods the TTIP stands to do the consumer a great deal of good as well.
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: My noble friend is entirely right that the TTIP will bring a lot of benefit to consumers. When you get a convergence of standards, global models being made and lower tariffs, prices will come down and consumers will have more choice, not just in the UK or the EU but in the US as well. Certainly, we feel it is very important—Her Majesty’s Government have done a number of pieces of good work on this—to highlight the benefits that free trade
will bring to consumers on both sides of the Atlantic. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that it is very important to highlight the positive impact that will arise.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB): Does the Minister agree that it is a very encouraging sign that the US Administration are now pressing for fast-track authority for this agreement, as with the Pacific one, and that this is essential if the agreement is to go through in a reasonable amount of time? Will the Government do what they can to let their friends in Washington know that this fast-track authority is really important and to let our friends in Brussels know that this is a sign that the negotiation really is for serious?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: Indeed it is. The timetable for TTIP is very aggressive, with the aim of completion by 2015, which would be almost unprecedented. I met with the US ambassador to the UK just before Christmas and we discussed TTIP at some length. Certainly, his enthusiasm for it is there, albeit that I recognise that not everyone in the American political system feels that way. However, we made that point very clearly. The Prime Minister said at the G8 conference that this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity and, understandably, I would not disagree with the Prime Minister on this issue.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab): Is the Minister confident that free trade agreements would be good for African economies? Historically, did not the US, our own country and the countries that are now successful—the industrialised countries of south-east Asia—build up their economic strength behind protectionist barriers? Is it not the case that when the countries of the advanced West pressure African countries into free trade agreements, they are doing so not for the benefit of those African economies but for themselves?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: As I indicated earlier, from the free trade agreement that was recently conducted in Bali, for example, the biggest beneficiaries by far will be the developing nations. The improvement of trade facilitation will yield £100 billion in benefit, most of which will come to them. Actually, a lack of free trade, rather than the absence of it, has been the challenge for a lot of developing nations. The UK will continue to push to see free trade around the world, not just with developed countries but with developing countries.
Lord Avebury (LD): My Lords, in all these agreements that the European Union makes with third parties, there is a standard clause on human rights. Can he tell me of any such agreement in which that clause has ever been invoked?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: My noble friend is correct that EU agreements, including for instance the one with Canada, have standard clauses on human rights. I am not aware that any of these clauses have been invoked, although it is feasible to suspend all or part of the agreement if human rights have got worse in a particular country. I think that the engagement in free trade and the free movement of people, services and goods, is something that should help human
rights. I certainly think that ensuring that human rights are on the agenda when we try to negotiate is a major help.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB): My Lords, without doubting the importance of free trade agreements to lifting an estimated 800 million people in the world out of starvation, despair or poverty, will the noble Lord nevertheless take into account the exploitation of children in a country like India, for instance, or exploited labour elsewhere in the world? Will he tell the House what balance is struck in determining free trade agreements in relation to protecting the rights of those who are likely to be exploited?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: The challenge of child labour in certain countries can happen irrespective of free trade, but I think that free trade will actually help through the exposure and openness of the economies, which is a major help to improving the conditions of workers in individual countries. That is something we will continue to push for. As I said earlier, we also put human rights clauses in the various agreements and the UN has certain statements on human rights, which we also look to comply with. It is an important subject, but it is not peculiar to free trade agreements.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con): My Lords, is it not inevitable that, as long as European energy prices are double—or, in the case of Germany, triple—that of the United States, there is inevitably going to be a transfer of manufacturing to the United States?
Lord Livingston of Parkhead: As I said earlier, energy prices are a significant issue for EU-US relations, but they are not the only issue and there are many industries that are not wholly reliant on energy prices. In fact, energy prices are just one part of the total package. We would also look to see the exploitation, for instance, of alternative energy sources in the UK, which will hopefully act to balance some of that. With that in mind, I was delighted to see the comments from the Prime Minister about looking for alternative energy sources. The UK, which is already an energy producer through conventional means, is also looking at alternative sources of energy, and that is going to be very important for the future of the UK.
Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill
Report (1st Day)
3.07 pm
Relevant document: 3rd Report from the Constitution Committee.
Clause 1: Prohibition on consultant lobbying unless registered
1: Clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out “carry on the business of consultant” and insert “engage in professional”
Lord Hardie (CB): My Lords, this amendment seeks to extend the legislation requirements introduced by Clause 1 to all lobbyists who are engaged in that activity on a professional basis. If the amendment is agreed, incidental amendments will be required, but these can be included at Third Reading. I do not intend to rehearse my observations at Second Reading or in Committee but will set out my reasons for this amendment.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the main purpose of the provisions in the Bill on lobbying is to ensure that people know whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists who make representations to government. To that end, Clause 1 requires that those carrying on the business of consultant lobbyists must register. They cannot operate unless they are entered in the register. I agree that lobbying undertaken in an open, transparent and responsible manner is integral to our democratic system, but it should be regulated to ensure, as was said by the Minister at Second Reading, that we dispel any public perception that,
“certain powerful organisations and individuals could exert a disproportionate influence on government”.—[
Official Report
, 22/10/13; col. 893.]
The registration system proposed in the Bill will not dispel that public perception. It is limited in scope and is confined to those businesses above the VAT threshold which are involved in lobbying as consultants for others. It does not apply to lobbyists employed by those firms of consultant lobbyists, nor does it apply to national or multinational companies or organisations which seek to exert influence on the Government and choose to do so by using in-house lobbyists. The public want to know who is engaged in lobbying the Government and are not interested in whether the lobbying is undertaken by consultants or in-house lobbyists. In short, the decision to restrict registration to consultancies is fundamentally flawed.
The desire to include in the provisions in-house lobbyists is not academic. They represent about 80% of the lobbying industry. Moreover, the statutory register would replace the current voluntary register operated by the Public Relations Consultants Association, which is the professional body that represents United Kingdom PR consultants, in-house communication teams and individuals. Those who have chosen to register with PRCA include the largest consultancies in the industry as well as the in-house teams of various organisations. Registration in the voluntary register requires members to update their entries about staff and clients on a quarterly basis and to sign up to the PRCA’s code of ethical conduct, which is supported by rigorous disciplinary structures. It is appropriate that there should be a statutory register, assuming that it is supported by enforceable codes of conduct—a matter to which we may return in later amendments.
However, it is unlikely that the voluntary register will survive after the introduction of a statutory scheme and, in any event, it might be confusing and undesirable to have more than one register. The existing provisions would have the effect of removing from the public domain information that already exists about certain in-house lobbyists. Rather than concealing such
information, it would be more appropriate to extend it to those lobbyists who have not already registered on a voluntary basis.
I invite your Lordships to support this amendment for a number of reasons. First, it will increase transparency of lobbying. Secondly, it will give the public greater confidence in the political system by affording them greater powers of scrutiny of lobbying activity than is offered by the Bill. Thirdly, it will ensure that they are not denied information about the activities carried out by the vast majority of lobbyists in this country represented by those employed by large national and multinational companies representing the energy sector, alcohol, tobacco and gaming industries and many other activities affecting people’s lives. It is only right that the public can judge the extent to which government policy has been influenced by lobbying activities and the extent of such activities. The consequences for the public are the same, whether lobbying is by a consultancy firm or by in-house lobbyists. Finally, this amendment will ensure that the benefits of the current voluntary system of registration are maintained and indeed enhanced. I beg to move.
3.15 pm
Lord Norton of Louth (Con): My Lords, I will speak briefly, simply because my Amendment 136 is grouped with the other two in this grouping. My amendment is slightly different from the others, and signals what we will need to do if some of the amendments we are discussing this afternoon are not accepted. My amendment seeks to change the title of the Bill. As it stands, it is Transparency of Lobbying, but the Bill does not enhance transparency and it is not actually about lobbying. It is about lobbyists; it is about status, not about activity. There is a mismatch between the Short Title and the Long Title. The Long Title makes clear what the Bill is about: it is about the registration of lobbyists; it is not about transparency of lobbying. As I say, this is really to signal later debates, but unless the Bill is changed quite substantially, we will have to amend the title to bring it into line with what the Bill actually contains.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab): My Lords, I want to speak for less than a minute; I spoke at some length on this matter in Committee. The Bill is deceiving the public. The public expect the matter of the registration of lobbyists to be dealt with in this legislation. However, Parliament is now considering a Bill which excludes the vast majority of people in the industry. I object and I hope that the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, is accepted by the House.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab): My Lords, I also support Amendments 1 and 11. I hope that I will not also have to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Norton, as we hope that we will have made the changes that will make supporting it unnecessary. Amendment 1 also stands in the name of my noble friend Lady Royall and myself. It is already clear that establishing a register only of consultant firms would add nothing to the existing voluntary register. It would omit hundreds of employers—the
in-house, public bodies, charities and, perhaps most importantly, trade associations—as well as more than 1,000 individuals who work in this industry.
We have heard the Government boast about being part of the Open Government Partnership, and Ministers say that the public should be able to see who is lobbying Ministers. However, as we know, the Bill will not do that. It will only tell us the companies for which, for example, Bell Pottinger has had direct contact with a Minister over the past quarter. It will not name the individual lobbyists concerned, nor will it identify the company on whose behalf that meeting took place. So if a lobbying company met a Minister, for example, on behalf of a defence company, we still would not know that. In the hypothetical Bell Pottinger case, it has, according to Marketing Week, some 900 clients; so we would only know that Bell Pottinger was meeting somebody on behalf of one of those 900 clients but not which one it was. If the Minister, instead of meeting a consultant, met the actual defence company itself, or its trade association, that would not appear on the register at all, because the lobbyists would be direct employees.
This is very different from the United States where, we understand, Mr Cameron’s election guru, Jim Messina, has just taken up a job with the American Gaming Association, which is about to lobby on online gambling. That will all be declared, but in the UK, there will be no record of such lobbying by organisations such as the Association of British Bookmakers, despite the public interest in knowing who is lobbying the Government, in this case, on gambling.
According to today’s Daily Mail, the Chancellor took the boss of one of the world’s biggest makers of betting machines on his trip to Beijing. That is something that the company would not have to declare because it would be doing that lobbying direct. It is interesting that the Rank Organisation discloses far more than the Bill actually asks. It has decided to set out the spending that it makes in its government and regulatory affairs work—for example, £115,000 to Luther Pendragon, Ernst & Young and FTI and another £88,000 in membership fees to three trade organisations: the Bingo Association, National Casino, and the Remote Gambling Association. However, none of those would be required under the Bill. So, congratulations to Rank but not to the Government.
Similarly, we would know nothing about meetings between the big six energy companies and HMT or DECC officials because they use their direct staff for that. Or consider the anti-electronic-cigarette lobby, largely funded, I understand, by the pharmaceutical industry, which produces nicotine replacement therapy and ideally would like e-cigarettes off the market. Johnson & Johnson, GSK and Novartis have teams dedicated to that lobbying work, and none of that would be known under the current provisions.
I am afraid that the Bill is rather a damp squib and, unless we amend it, it will exclude virtually all business lobbying, whether done by the companies themselves or by their trade bodies. Worse, even where one of the big agencies such as Weber Shandwick or Bell Pottinger register, we will still not have a list of their staff so that
if one of their lobbyists met a Minister, we would be no more the wiser about who that lobbyists’ clients actually were.
In the debate on Part 2, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who is not currently in her place, warned us of the danger to our democracy of American-style lobbyists, and indeed her autobiography, which I recommend, draws on her wide experience of that side of the Atlantic. She talks of the powers of lobbyists there and the extraordinary influence of organisations such as the American Association of Retired Persons, the National Rifle Association and the American Israel Political Action Committee. As she and your Lordships’ House must know, though, none of those or their UK equivalents would have to be registered under the Bill—nor the British Insurance Brokers’ Association; the Building Society Association; Philip Morris; FOREST; the nuclear industry; One Hub or None, which is in favour of Heathrow’s expansion; the CBI; the TUC; or the drinks industry, despite 130-odd meetings with civil servants to resist minimum unit pricing.
What is the point of the Bill, particularly this clause, if it does nothing to shed light on what goes on behind closed doors in Whitehall? For the sake of democracy and good governance, we need to see who is lobbying whom and about what. The register should cover the act of lobbying—the status, I think the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said—not the type of lobbyist, otherwise this is open to abuse. If an issue becomes very sensitive, you can simply have the lobbyists who have been working for an agency become directly in-house and put on the payroll of a particular company at that time, and then none of their activity will have to be registered. Or a small lobbyist could simply work part-time for 10 clients and be paid directly by them, and then we would know nothing about them.
A list of lobbying firms is not enough. That is not what was foreseen in the coalition agreement, it is not what the lobbyists themselves want and it is not what Unlock Democracy or Spinwatch want. The charities and trade unions have told us that they are very content for their public affairs professionals to be registered and to disclose their lobbying meetings. We strongly support Amendment 1 regarding the production of a proper, comprehensive and statutory register of all professions lobbying the Government. Democracy demands nothing less.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness) (LD): My Lords, the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and supported by the opposition Front Bench would amend Clause 1 such that the register applied to professional, rather than consultant, lobbyists. The noble and learned Lord said that if the amendment was carried then it would need some consequential amendments. I respectfully suggest that it would need more than just consequential amendments because there is no definition of “professional lobbyists” in what he is offering to the House, of which I will say more in a moment.
From the discussions which I understand took place in Committee on this issue and on amendments previously tabled by the Opposition, it appears that they would capture—as the noble and learned Lord and the noble
Baroness, Lady Hayter, made clear that they would wish them to—so-called in-house lobbyists in addition to consultants and, with Amendment 11, also employees. However, as I have said, there is no definition given of professional lobbying to accompany the amendment and its effect would therefore be that the provisions of this Part would be undermined such that a functioning register could not be established. I do not believe that that could simply be resolved by a number of consequential amendments.
We have discussed at length, in various debates on the Bill, the importance of clear definitions. Until now, the Opposition have struggled somewhat to define what they mean by “professional lobbying”, and now seem to have abandoned such a definition altogether. It is vital that we understand exactly who is intended to be captured by the amendments—whether this includes, for example, charities and all the paid employees of charities. Does it include church groups? Does it include the vicar who makes representations on behalf of his parishioners, because he is in paid employment? The noble Baroness shakes her head, but the problem is that without any definition we simply do not know who is intended to be covered by what she proposes.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: We have said throughout that the definition used by the professional organisations—which would absolutely answer every point, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord must have read—is one that we are very content with.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, it is fair enough to say that, but it is not what the House is being asked to vote on today. It is being asked to vote on something which is devoid of any definition.
Lord Campbell-Savours: If the professionals have designed a system which includes them, why can that not be in the consequential amendments? Why do the Government not come back at Third Reading to include those provisions?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: Because, my Lords, there have as I understand it been many attempts made to pin down and define what is meant by “professional lobbyists”, none of which has met with approval or the kind of certainty we want in previous debates. Perhaps we can answer two of the points of the noble and learned Lord and the noble Baroness. Simply to introduce ambiguity to a prohibition provision that is accompanied by serious criminal sanctions is unacceptable. That lack of clarity leaves the amendment fatally flawed.
As the Government have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, our proposals for a register are designed to address the specific problem that we have identified. One of the things that gave rise to complaints in the media was that when consultant lobbyists were lobbying, people did not know who their clients were. That is the issue which the Bill addresses. It is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists when they meet Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. The context is that this Government have for the first time made it clear to the public exactly
who Ministers and Permanent Secretaries are meeting. The Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report on the Government’s initial proposals for a statutory register of lobbyists made clear that identifying the problem that the register is intended to address is critical if successful regulation is to be achieved.
While we acknowledge that there are those who consider the focus of the proposed register too narrow—I am aware that these criticisms have been made—we have yet to see a clear articulation of the problem that would be addressed by expanding the scope to all so-called professional lobbyists. The point has been made about in-house lobbyists. It is quite clear whose interests are represented by an in-house professional lobbyist: it is the person who employs him or her. If you are an in-house lobbyist for the Scotch Whisky Association—I am not sure if that association has in-house lobbyists, but let us assume that it does—it does not take a genius to work out that if you are lobbying a Minister or Permanent Secretary, those are the interests that you would be representing. If you are an in-house lobbyist for one of the utilities and you meet a Minister or Permanent Secretary, it does not take a huge leap of the imagination to guess that you are representing the interests of the organisation which employs you. I cannot honestly see what is added by creating a list of people and their employers. If I have missed the point, I am more than happy to have it explained.
3.30 pm
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town: There are two issues. The first is that there are some enormously large employers and we do not know whether they are lobbying over a particular application for planning permission, for a new medicine or for something else. The second is that unless they meet a Minister or a Permanent Secretary under the silly bit of this Bill, we will know nothing; whether they meet senior civil servants, Bill teams or policymakers in the Civil Service, that will not be covered at all.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, we shall come on to the second point made by the noble Baroness. I think it is the subject matter of the next group of amendments. We would not know any more just by listing the names of in-house employees who engaged in lobbying. You would still not know from doing that—and that is what this amendment seeks to do—whether that person was actually lobbying with regard to planning permission or not. That is why it is important that the parallel provisions which the Government are doing in quarterly returns as to which people Ministers and Permanent Secretaries are meeting is an important part of the whole picture. We shall deal in a moment with the points made by the noble Baroness because I think that she is missing out that crucial part.
Lord Norton of Louth: Just on the example the noble and learned Lord was giving of the Scotch Whisky Association, if it was to buy in a consultant lobbyist to advise it but did the lobbying itself, how would that be caught by the Bill?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: If the Scotch Whisky Association was lobbying itself, then the important thing is that if the Scotch Whisky Association is meeting a Minister or a Permanent Secretary, then that would be in the returns which the Minister or Permanent Secretary makes. That would make it very clear that it is the Scotch Whisky Association that the Minister has been meeting. That is what I think people wish to know. In a moment I will address my noble friend’s amendments to say some of the things which the Government intend to do to actually improve the openness to which we are already committed and delivering.
The position—as I understand it—which we have adopted or sought to adopt is the position in Australia. I am delighted to see my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire here—I just wish he was actually right here because he has a wealth of knowledge and experience on this Bill. He very helpfully reminded me that we have modelled these provisions on the position as it is in Australia, whereas Canada has what might be described as medium regulation, which requires some of the information on employees and in-house lobbyists to which the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord referred. That system costs £3 million a year and, as my noble friend says, there is actually so much detail that it almost ceases to be useful. There is almost a detail overload, whereas our system replicates the Australian model. We expect it to cost considerably less, at £200,000 a year, and we believe that that is a very good system where the consultant lobbyists are identified, their clients are identified and the Minister works hand in hand with the regular returns from Ministers and Permanent Secretaries as to whom they have met.
I was actually struggling to see how the problems raised by the noble Baroness would be addressed by just adding more names to a register of people who are employed, unless—as we have committed to and are doing—you also indicate who Ministers are actually meeting. It does not add anything else by having the name of the person who was the in-house lobbyist, for the sake of argument, at one of the utility companies when they met the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.
Until we see evidence of the case for introducing a register of all professional lobbyists, we remain reluctant to expand the scope of these proposals because we believe that what we have here is proportionate and problem-specific and will increase transparency without discouraging engagement by those who will be affected by policy and legislative decisions, such as businesses, charities, community groups and members of the public.
Amendment 11 would require consultant lobbying firms to disclose the names of all who undertake consultant lobbying activity on their behalf. The Government do not consider that such a requirement is either necessary or appropriate. The Bill requires the publication of the clients of consultant lobbyists, and the existing meeting publication scheme publishes both the persons Ministers and Permanent Secretaries meet as well as the body or firm that employs them. Transparency of who a consultant lobbyist is is therefore achieved on that information alone. To require the
disclosure of the names of every private individual who is employed by a consultant lobbying firm would raise issues of proportionality and justification when the disclosure of such names provides no greater transparency, because we will know what the group, organisation or company is that meets the Minister or the Permanent Secretary. Therefore in return for listing a large number of names there seems to be no increase at all—not even a proportionate one—in the amount of the transparency than what is made available at the moment through the scheme of publication of persons whom Ministers and Permanent Secretaries meet.
Lord Tyler (LD): The Minister will recall that at every previous stage of the Bill I have pressed that the Government should recognise that the key issue is not who the lobbyist is but who he or she meets, for what purpose and when. I very much welcome what my noble and learned friend has just said about the quality of the record of meetings that this Government have introduced. Perhaps he can go just a step further. He will be aware, from the discussions that have taken place across the House—and there has been support for this at every stage—that the present records of meetings are very often way out of date and not very detailed, and there is a grave discrepancy between the records that come from some government departments and those that come from others. In addition, it is very difficult to access them in a normal way through the computer. I instanced that we tried to find 23 different websites that would give us that information. Is my noble and learned friend now saying that there will now be active involvement by the Government to make sure that the situation is improved right across government?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am very grateful to my noble friend and I recognise his long-standing interest in this, not just in terms of the Bill. I hope that I will directly address the points he has raised in responding to points made by my noble friend Lord Norton.
My noble friend’s amendment would revise the title of the Bill so that it referred to the registration of consultant lobbyists rather than the transparency of lobbying. His amendment appears intended to suggest that the provisions outlined in Part 1 of the Bill will not enhance the transparency of lobbying. He will not be surprised to learn that I respectfully disagree. This Government have done more than any before to enhance the transparency of government and decision-making, and these provisions will extend that transparency. We are the first Government to proactively and regularly publish details about Ministers’ and Permanent Secretaries’ meetings with external organisations, and we do so alongside a huge amount of open data regarding departmental spending and procurement. We are recognised as international leaders in open government and we continue to introduce initiatives to further extend transparency in government and the public sector.
We listened carefully to the concerns expressed during the Committee stage debate. In response to the question raised by my noble friend Lord Tyler, I am pleased that I can today commit to noble Lords that we will make further improvements to the accessibility
of government transparency information. We will ensure greater co-ordination of the publication of data sets so that all returns within a quarter can be found on one page. I hear the criticism that he makes, and we ought to get better at the speediness with which we make this information available, but we will improve the access to and presentation of those data, including by improving the consistency of presentation and titling. We will also ensure greater consistency in the content of departmental reporting, particularly on including the subject of meetings. Finally, we will ensure that the gov.uk transparency pages contain a link to the statutory register of lobbyists so that the data can be easily cross-referenced.
The practical implications of those improvements are that: rather than having to visit a number of different sites or pages, all information will be accessed via one easily located page of gov.uk; the consistency of those data will be improved so that the transparency reports can be more easily located via search functions; and the subject of the meetings will be set out more helpfully—for example, rather than describing them as “introductory” or “catch-up” meetings, the detail of the meeting discussion will be outlined. Therefore, if, for example, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change was meeting someone, the subject would include not just energy policy but things such as fracking.
I hope that these practical proposals to which the Government are committing themselves will improve the transparency of decision-making further than we have already achieved, and that the Part 1 provisions will complement and enhance them. I dare say that they will do more to improve transparency than just having a long list of employees of a consultant firm. Obviously, if an employee—the noble Baroness mentioned Bell Pottinger, so for the sake of consistency let us say that this was an employee of that firm—had a meeting, the record would list not just “Joe Bloggs” but “Joe Bloggs of Bell Pottinger” and the subject of the discussion. As a result of the Bill, the list of Bell Pottinger’s clients would also be made available. I therefore believe that what we propose today does far more to improve transparency than simply making available a list of employees, and it reflects suggestions made by a number of colleagues who have made representations.
Although this does not relate directly to the actual register or to the Government’s scheme, I can also indicate that in our response to debates in Committee and to concerns that have been raised by Members of your Lordships’ House—I do not believe that this has been raised on any of the amendments now before us—we are committing ourselves to subjecting the appointment of the registrar to the scrutiny of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee of the other place. By doing so, we are reiterating our commitment to the independence of the registrar.
Lord Campbell-Savours: If I put a scenario to the Minister, perhaps he will be able to give me the answer. If an in-house lobbyist from, let us say, IGas, the shale gas production company, were to meet a junior Minister or a civil servant in the department, by what means would a member of the public or a journalist know about that?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, if a lobbyist meets a Minister or the Permanent Secretary, there will be a scheme of publication—as, indeed, we are committed to publish at the moment, and we do. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, who moved the amendment, will recognise the name if I mention Mr Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland. If I met Mr Clancy, at the moment I would register that, and put on my quarterly return that I had met Mr Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland. In the last term I think there was an issue relating to the banking reform Bill; I cannot remember if I actually met him or had correspondence with him about that—but this is what I would envisage would happen. There would be a reference to “Mr Michael Clancy, Law Society of Scotland: representations on the banking Bill”, or whatever its formal title was. That is how I would envisage the system working. The record would not simply say “catch-up meeting”—a term which has, perhaps, caused frustration to some in the past.
My Lords, these commitments show that the Government have listened—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con): Perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend for further clarification about meetings. When I was in business I sometimes found that a note of a meeting was sent to the company before being made available under freedom of information or other provisions. The problem often was that the report of the meeting was not very accurate. Will there be any system of clearing or showing notes of the formal meetings that he has described to the people who were involved in them, simply for the sake of accuracy?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I am grateful to my noble friend for asking that question. I have not said that we will publish the minutes of meetings; the example I gave showed that we would record the detailed nature of what the meeting was about. I hesitate to use the word “subject matter”, because until now that term has also covered “catch-up meetings” and “introductory meetings”. It is not anticipated that we would publish minutes of such meetings. If a meeting had taken place on fracking, I do not think that any clarification would be needed between the Minister and the company as to whether the meeting was about fracking. It is not proposed that minutes would be made available, but there may be other ways—under, say, freedom of information provisions—in which other information might become available. None the less, what we are committing to today takes our commitment as a Government that much further. Ours has been a listening response, and I believe that it will do far more for transparency than—
Lord Hardie: Can the Minister help me in the following regard? He relies upon the fact that a system of recording meetings has been introduced. That is, of course, very welcome. He gave the example of a meeting with Mr Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland—and I am sure that he and his officials are very diligent in recording such meetings. However, what if we have a Minister or officials who are not as diligent and who perhaps record it as a meeting with Mr Michael Clancy full stop and do not explain who he is? Clearly, if
Mr Michael Clancy is a lobbyist and my amendment is accepted, the cross-reference of the register will identify who he is and what his interests are.
3.45 pm
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I hear the point that the noble and learned Lord is making. As I think my noble friend indicated, if the register is anything like the Canadian register you may have difficulty finding out who it is. However, more importantly, the transparency part of it comes in because of what Ministers would be obliged to put in their scheme. There is an ethics and propriety department in the Cabinet Office. I assure the noble and learned Lord and your Lordships’ House that when we submit our returns that department can get back to us. If we just put “Mr Michael Clancy” and there is no indication of who he is, we will be pushed to elaborate on that.
The noble Baroness said that, if a defence contractor was involved, we would not necessarily know that. In fact, under the publication scheme, the company’s name would have to be given. If that company was a defence contractor and the meeting was about the provisions of the defence Bill that is before your Lordships’ House, such information would be far more relevant, transparent and informative for the public than just giving the name of an employee of that particular company. Therefore, I ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether his amendment advances transparency at all, given what I have indicated that the Government are willing to do, and whether it would lead to considerable uncertainty. Indeed, if it took the matter as far as the Canadian experience, it could, through an overload of information, be even less effective in promoting the transparency that we both wish to see.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short debate and to those who have spoken in support of the amendment. As regards the noble and learned Lord’s criticism that the amendment does not include a definition of professional lobbyists, I would say two things. First, is not that definition self-evident from the words “professional lobbyists”? Is it not a similar situation to that of a solicitor who is a lawyer performing legal services as either an employer—a principal—or as an employee? Equally, is not a professional lobbyist someone who lobbies as part of his profession as either a principal or as an employee? As regards the noble and learned Lord’s difficulties with the definition, what efforts have the Government made since the very full debate we had in Committee to try to come up with a definition? If that is a difficulty for the Government and this amendment is carried, perhaps they could put in a definition, although I do not think that is necessary.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: The noble and learned Lord asks a fair question. The answer is that that is not the scheme that the Government have been following. We did not think that we needed to produce a definition of professional lobbyists. I ask him to reflect on the fact that if the managing director of a large drinks manufacturer were to meet the Secretary of State on a particular issue—for example, minimum unit pricing—I do not think that one would consider that person to be
a lobbyist. Why should it matter that the name of a lower-ranking official in a company who lobbies on behalf of the company is in the public domain but not that of the managing director, when the information that the public want relates to the latter? I have said that we are willing to give that information, because a Minister would have to say that he had met the managing director of company X to discuss minimum unit pricing. Surely that is a much better route to transparency than putting the name of a much lower-ranking official than the managing director.
Lord Hardie: I take the noble and learned Lord’s point but it is not an alternative: it is not either disclosure by the Minister or registration. The transparency arises from the combination of the disclosure by the Minister and the registration, and the ability of the public to cross-reference the two to see precisely on whose behalf the lobbyist is speaking.
The noble and learned Lord also mentioned cost and referred to the Canadian system. He will be aware that the system has to be cost-neutral. The cost would be met by the various people who had to register. Of course, the larger number of entries in the register would—or should—offset the increased cost.
The professional body, the Public Relations Consultants Association, supports this amendment. Although it currently operates the voluntary register, it sees the benefit in having a statutory register provided that that register covers all in-house lobbyists as well. As I said earlier, some of the register already includes entries relating to in-house lobbyists. The noble and learned Lord also referred to charges, but there are already charges on the existing voluntary register. In all the circumstances, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
3.51 pm
Contents 185; Not-Contents 218.
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Adonis, L.
Ahmed, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Bach, L.
Bakewell, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Beecham, L.
Berkeley, L.
Best, L.
Bhattacharyya, L.
Bichard, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Boateng, L.
Boothroyd, B.
Borrie, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Browne of Ladyton, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Christopher, L.
Clancarty, E.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Collins of Highbury, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crisp, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.
Donaghy, B.
Drake, B.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falkland, V.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Glasman, L.
Golding, B.
Goudie, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grenfell, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hardie, L. [Teller]
Harries of Pentregarth, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Hattersley, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Hayter of Kentish Town, B.
Healy of Primrose Hill, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St Davids, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Hylton, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones of Moulsecoomb, B.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Jordan, L.
Kennedy of Cradley, B.
Kennedy of Southwark, L.
Kerr of Kinlochard, L.
Kidron, B.
King of Bow, B.
Kingsmill, B.
Kinnock of Holyhead, B.
Kinnock, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Knight of Weymouth, L.
Laming, L.
Lawrence of Clarendon, B.
Layard, L.
Levy, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lister of Burtersett, B.
Lloyd of Berwick, L.
Low of Dalston, L.
McAvoy, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McFall of Alcluith, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Meacher, B.
Mendelsohn, L.
Monks, L.
Montgomery of Alamein, V.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Ely, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Myners, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Loan, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Ouseley, L.
Palmer, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Prescott, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Ramsbotham, L.
Rees of Ludlow, L.
Reid of Cardowan, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rix, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Sherlock, B.
Simon, V.
Singh of Wimbledon, L.
Slim, V.
Smith of Basildon, B.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Smith of Gilmorehill, B.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stern, B.
Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Walpole, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
West of Spithead, L.
Wheeler, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wigley, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Winston, L.
Wood of Anfield, L.
Woolf, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Worthington, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
NOT CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.
Allan of Hallam, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Arran, E.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B.
Balfe, L.
Barker, B.
Bates, L.
Benjamin, B.
Berridge, B.
Black of Brentwood, L.
Blencathra, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L.
Browning, B.
Caithness, E.
Carrington of Fulham, L.
Cathcart, E.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Colwyn, L.
Condon, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cormack, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Deben, L.
Deighton, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dobbs, L.
Doocey, B.
Dykes, L.
Eaton, B.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eccles, V.
Eden of Winton, L.
Empey, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Faulks, L.
Fellowes, L.
Fink, L.
Finkelstein, L.
Flight, L.
Fookes, B.
Framlingham, L.
Freeman, L.
Freud, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardiner of Kimble, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Goodlad, L.
Green of Hurstpierpoint, L.
Greengross, B.
Greenway, L.
Grender, B.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Henley, L.
Higgins, L.
Hill of Oareford, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holmes of Richmond, L.
Hope of Craighead, L.
Horam, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Humphreys, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussain, L.
Hussein-Ece, B.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jenkin of Kennington, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jolly, B.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kakkar, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Kramer, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Leigh of Hurley, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.
Lexden, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lingfield, L.
Liverpool, E.
Livingston of Parkhead, L.
Loomba, L.
Lothian, M.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Magan of Castletown, L.
Manzoor, B.
Marland, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Naseby, L.
Nash, L.
Neville-Jones, B.
Neville-Rolfe, B.
Newby, L. [Teller]
Newlove, B.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Noakes, B.
Northover, B.
O'Cathain, B.
Paddick, L.
Palmer of Childs Hill, L.
Pannick, L.
Parminter, B.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Popat, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Rawlings, B.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Ribeiro, L.
Ridley, V.
Risby, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Sassoon, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selsdon, L.
Shackleton of Belgravia, B.
Sharkey, L.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.
Shipley, L.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Smith of Kelvin, L.
Spicer, L.
Stedman-Scott, B.
Stewartby, L.
Stoneham of Droxford, L.
Stowell of Beeston, B.
Strasburger, L.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Suttie, B.
Swinfen, L.
Taylor of Goss Moor, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tonge, B.
Trefgarne, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
True, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Turnbull, L.
Tyler of Enfield, B.
Tyler, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Warnock, B.
Warsi, B.
Wasserman, L.
Wei, L.
Wheatcroft, B.
Whitby, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Trafford, B.
Willis of Knaresborough, L.
Wrigglesworth, L.
Wright of Richmond, L.
Younger of Leckie, V.
4.04 pm
Clause 2: Meaning of consultant lobbying
2: Clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out “or permanent secretary” and insert “, Parliamentary Private Secretary, civil servant or political adviser”
Lord Hardie: My Lords, this amendment reflects a similar amendment to that which was debated in Committee, along with other amendments, including an amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. The Bill regulates lobbying activities only where the object of the lobbying is a Minister of the Crown, a Permanent Secretary, a Second Permanent Secretary or a person serving in the government offices listed in Part 3 of Schedule 1. Again, I do not intend to repeat what I said in Committee, but it is my respectful submission to your Lordships that the class is too restrictive, as was observed by many noble Lords both at Second Reading and in Committee. There seemed to be a general consensus across the Committee that the persons listed would not be the first port of call for lobbyists, who would probably concentrate on political advisers, Parliamentary Private Secretaries and more junior civil servants before approaching Permanent Secretaries, Second Permanent Secretaries and Ministers. Indeed, in the very helpful contribution made by my noble friend Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, who is not in his place, it appears unlikely that Permanent Secretaries will be lobbied if the noble Lord’s own considerable experience is taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, confirmed my own experience that Parliamentary Private Secretaries have direct access to Ministers and are involved in some
meetings determining departmental and government policy. The noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, observed in Committee:
“When this Bill was considered in the other place, the point was well made that it appears to have been written by people who do not understand lobbying”.—[Official Report, 5/11/13; col. 139.]
Lobbyists would focus on the channel for reaching the Minister and that channel would include a political adviser, a Parliamentary Private Secretary or civil servants below the level specified in the Bill. It is clear that the Bill will be of little effect if it confines communications to those currently specified in it and does not focus on those people more likely to be the object of lobbying activity. If lobbying is confined to the more effective targets and the Minister is not directly lobbied, there will be no requirement for registration, not even by the restrictive category of consultant lobbyist. Such a result is contrary to the stated desire and the desirable intention of transparency that underpins Part 1 of the Bill.
In his response in Committee the Minister—I am delighted to see him in his place after his illness—referred to the number of civil servants who would be affected if the scope of this provision were extended as proposed. As noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, observed in his intervention at col. 149, the number of such civil servants is irrelevant. What is at issue is the identification of the class of persons the lobbying of whom will require registration. That class has to be sufficiently wide to make lobbying transparent.
In view of the discussion in Committee, it is disappointing that the Government have not come forward with their own amendment to improve the Bill in this respect. The amendment in my name is an attempt to remedy that omission. Without this amendment, the Bill will fail in its objective of increasing the transparency of lobbying Government. It will further undermine public confidence in our political system because it will be seen as an example of Parliament either failing to understand the lobbying process or failing to take effective measures to address and identify a problem. I beg to move.
Lord Tyler: My Lords, Amendment 3, in my name and that of my noble friend, is grouped with the amendment just moved by the noble and learned Lord. As has already been made very clear this afternoon, the key issue is not the role, title or job description of the people who take part in the activity of lobbying but the activity itself. That is absolutely critical. I have a lot of sympathy with my noble friend Lord Norton, who, in his usual way, has put his finger right on that point. That is why I thought that it was extremely important to have the statement from my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness a few minutes ago about the nature, character, efficiency and accuracy of the register of meetings with those who are taking decisions, or making proposals to Parliament, on behalf of the Government.
I should say in parentheses, in welcoming back my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire, that way back at Second Reading, let alone in Committee, he expressed a lot of interest in the proposals that we were making from these Benches about improving the status of the record of meetings that was introduced for the first
time—for which the Government should get credit—in the past few years. As I said in that earlier debate, I am not so worried about who the lobbyists are but am very worried that we know who they lobby, what they lobby about and when. The very full statement made by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness a few minutes ago goes a very long way to meeting that anxiety. We have made it clear at every stage of the Bill that, for us, that is the core issue. The proactive publication of data on ministerial meetings by the Government makes a potentially huge difference. That is what transparency should be all about.
We also believe it is important that that record should indicate when the meeting with in-house lobbyists takes place. Whether they are the managing director of a whisky firm, or a lowly employee of any other firm, it is the subject matter of the meeting, when it happened and with whom that is of considerable importance. I agree with my noble and learned friend and I am delighted that the House agreed too, a few minutes ago, that simply extending the register into a sort of enormous directory, like a telephone directory, with every lobbyist in the land, whether from a church, charity or voluntary organisation, would not really seem to be anything more than disguising the wood for the trees.
Amendment 3 deals very specifically, and only, with the issue of special advisers. Many in your Lordships’ House have had enormous responsibility in the Civil Service. What is unusual about a special adviser is that he or she of course is not responsible to the head of the department: he or she is not a full-time employed member of the Civil Service, and their first loyalty and responsibility is to the political master for whom they work. The special adviser’s responsibility is to the Secretary of State, or other ministerial politician, and his or her relationship is with them. It is therefore our view that this is the one major exception that should be tackled, either in this Bill or in some other way, because these are special people—special advisers are, by definition, outwith the normal hierarchy of responsibility to the Permanent Secretary in the department.
The principle in the Bill is that if the consultant gains access to or influences a Minister on behalf of a client, the public should know who they and their clients are. However, anyone who has been in this building for any length of time or who has lobbied knows perfectly well that influencing a Minister does not necessarily mean seeing them yourself. There is sometimes an even better way: to meet the Minister’s special adviser. Spads have a rather unfair bad reputation in the press. Many will remember Clare Short’s description of them as living “in the dark”. I think that was about a particularly period in the previous Government, perhaps, and it may not be appropriate for all periods of recent history. That epithet then led to a thought-provoking analysis of the role of special advisers in a book of the same name by the respected academic Dr Andrew Blick. In my limited experience of being on the Government side of the House in the past three years and therefore having spads in my own party, it does not feel as though many now live in the dark. We see them all the time. They are helpful, they are influential; in many cases persuading a spad is the first step to persuading a Minister.
I know that this is also part of their job: to meet outside groups. It is very proper and very effective—a proper role that they should undertake. Perhaps it is a better one than a civil servant in the normal hierarchy. Ministers have only a certain amount of time and sometimes it is the right judgment to ask a senior adviser to see someone first, sound them out and explain the Government’s thinking—there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. However, these meetings with outside groups are important and details of them, like the ministerial meetings which were so fully referred to earlier, should be transparent.
The first step we could take today to make that point in this House is to say that in this Bill those consultants who lobby spads should have to register, just as if they were meeting Ministers. It would then follow, of course, that although this is outside the immediate scope of the Bill, for this to be meaningful spads would also need to publish all their meetings with all lobbyists, whether they be consultant lobbyists or in-house, just as Ministers do. I very much hope that when we look in detail at the record of meetings in future to see how these can be improved and made even more influential and transparent, my noble friends on the Front Bench will acknowledge that this would be an important step to take.
This is not in any way intended to malign spads or imply that anything they do is wrong. It is the opposite. It says that what they do is useful and, on many occasions, necessary, but keeping any aspect of it hidden feeds a largely unnecessary suspicion that they are up to no good. I referred at earlier stages of the Bill to the fact that two of the big lobbying scandals in this Parliament have involved close advisers to Ministers rather than Ministers themselves, and that resignations resulted.
For example, the Murdoch empire recognised these facts of life very early on. We should too. Both scandals would probably never have got to this stage had encounters between close ministerial advisers and outside groups been a matter of public record. It is therefore as much in the Government’s interests as in the public interest—surely the two should fit hand in glove anyway—for this information to be freely available. I quoted before and I shall quote again. The Prime Minister memorably said:
“Sunlight is the best disinfectant”.
4.15 pm
Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, briefly I support the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and those of my noble friend Lord Tyler. I also associate myself with my noble friend’s comments about special advisers. He is absolutely right. This Bill is flawed in two major respects. First, political consultants rarely lobby directly. They advise clients and the clients do the lobbying. That point was well made in the other place, not least by those who have direct experience of the lobbying industry.
The second flaw is that when they do lobby, they rarely lobby Ministers or Permanent Secretaries directly. We know that from the debates in this House from those who have served as Ministers and Permanent
Secretaries. The amendment before us goes at least some way to addressing that second problem. The Bill remains flawed and we want to look at that later in more fundamental respects, but at least this amendment would try to make a bad Bill less bad.
Baroness Williams of Crosby (LD): My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend’s amendment and that put forward so effectively by the noble and learned Lord on the Cross Benches. Having been a Minister, I want to say a few words about what in my view is the absolutely vital importance of including special advisers in this Bill. I would add to that the first three ranks of the Civil Service, by which I mean under-secretary, deputy secretary and Permanent Secretary.
I find it very puzzling that the specific rank of civil servant mentioned in the Bill is that of Permanent Secretary. I can think of almost nobody less likely to be open to exploitation by lobbyists. To be a Permanent Secretary, you have to be somebody of outstanding integrity, whose honour cannot be doubted, who will be respected in his or her own department and who sets the quality and standards of that department. You are, frankly, the last woman or man to be likely to fall for the more dodgy approaches of some slightly dodgy lobbyists. In fact, it is close to inconceivable that this particular person is likely to be open to temptations of a kind that all of us would eschew.
However, I am asking the Government to include the first three levels because, as has been very rightly said, the much more tempting position is that of people near but not at the top. For example, I was for some years on the Government’s Advisory Committee on Business Appointments. We looked consistently at what the gap should be between a senior civil servant leaving his or her department and being free to take up other employment afterwards. Members of this House will know that certain departments have very close links with the private sector and that, therefore, their officials carry with them a level of expertise that is quite exceptional. They are indeed very attractive recruits to private business because obviously they have a great deal of experience and knowledge.
Generally speaking, in the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments, consideration is given to how wide the gap should be between leaving one’s employment as a civil servant and joining a private industry with which one may previously have had some kind of relationship. It is extremely tempting, obviously, for somebody to join a private sector business when they have a great deal of knowledge that would be useful to that business, but the longer the gap the less useful that knowledge may be. It is therefore strange, to say the least, that the level of seniority in the Civil Service that makes an individual so attractive to major industries that have close relations with a certain department should not be covered by this Bill.
I have suggested that we should limit that practice as much as possible. I quite agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness, but it is no good having what he called a laundry list or a telephone list of names. Deputy and under-secretaries are very limited in number and particularly attractive to those who want their expertise. I do not doubt that both sides behave with full honour but I also think that
lobbyists will be very attracted to people in that situation, and therefore it would be strange if the Bill did not cover that particular group of civil servants.
When I first became a Minister the number of special advisers was extremely closely controlled. According to Prime Minister Wilson, the absolute maximum number of special advisers any Minister, however senior, could have was two. They had to be shown to be knowledgeable about the kinds of organisations with which that Minister would interact; for example, in my own case as Minister of State for Education and Science, it was very clear that the special advisers I needed had to be able to show expert knowledge and evidence of science, universities or the education of children in schools. The two I had were both eminently well suited in that way. But the general attitude towards special advisers was very limited. They were experts, they were there to advise, but they were not there to substitute.
That has rather changed over the years. There are now many more special advisers than there were. There have been one or two worrying cases where a special adviser has taken upon himself or herself responsibility for something that clearly should belong to the Minister. My noble friend Lord Tyler gave an example. Some of your Lordships may remember the famous occasion when a special adviser told her Minister that it was a good time to issue bad news and crises were ideal because they meant that the bad news was hidden by the interest of the media in other issues. I do not want to push that very far, but there are certainly a few cases—not many—where special advisers have behaved as if they were autonomous, and beyond what seems to be either the wishes or the desires of the Minister concerned. Some people may remember that the previous Prime Minister, Mr Gordon Brown, had difficulties with at least one of his special advisers, which did not do him or his reputation any great good, despite the fact that he is undoubtedly a man of integrity and honour himself.
Quite straightforwardly, that means there is a very strong case indeed for recognising that special advisers are, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and my noble friend said, something of a highway to a Minister. They are the quickest route to his personal information; they are probably closer to him than anyone else in his department, with the possible exception of his PPS. Often, they are also people who have their own agendas, and those agendas may not invariably be the same as that of the department. I therefore feel that it is important that special advisers should be held accountable. Indeed I would go further and say that it is crucial that they should be held accountable, and that this Bill takes congnisance of the relationship between a Minister and a special adviser.
Therefore I hope that the House gives full consideration to the proposals in these amendments and will recognise that, without some movement towards including special advisers, the effectiveness of this Bill will be very much limited. I have already argued for the top three ranks of the Civil Service. I hope that the amendment will be seriously considered in this House, and that the Government will reconsider the narrowness of the interpretation of which people are open to lobbying.
As the Bill stands, it is steadily getting better. I pay full credit to my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness and his noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire for the improvements that have been made to this Bill, but we should include special advisers in evidence that we are serious and committed to the idea of limiting unfortunate and ill-motivated lobbying to those who might be effecting it.
Lord Woolf (CB): Could I ask for the noble Baroness’s assistance from her great experience on whether she sees any difference between special advisers, to whom Lord Tyler refers, and political advisers, to whom the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, refers?
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My impression is that there is not any real difference between the two. It is possible that some Ministers prefer to use the term “political adviser” to indicate to the public the scope of a particular special adviser’s responsibilities, but I do not believe there is any more to it. I hardly dare say that to a former leading justice in this country, but I hope he will agree with me that there is no real difference between them in terms of their responsibility.
Lord Aberdare (CB): My Lords, I, too, support the amendment put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie. I very much welcome the statement made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, in terms of improving the quality, the usefulness and the timeliness of ministerial reporting of the meetings they have. But that makes me even more puzzled about what specific problem this Bill and this register are intended to solve. As we have heard, it is only going to cover consultant lobbyists who represent—if anything—less than 20% of all those operating in this area. Currently, this amendment extends only to Ministers and Permanent Secretaries.
When I worked for IBM in its public affairs function, I occasionally met Ministers, usually on what I might call ceremonial occasions. I hardly ever met Permanent Secretaries. What I did have was numerous contacts with other civil servants, and indeed with special advisers. That is where all the real lobbying activity went on, and where we pursued our interests as a company for IBM. I am completely baffled why my activities on behalf of IBM should be treated differently from the consultant lobbyists that we sometimes employed to advise us, one of which was an extremely good firm of which the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was one of the leading lights. They would advise us on how we should approach civil servants, special advisers and others in the political process. It was not self-evident what we might have been lobbying for, because the range of interests that IBM had, and the range of issues in which it might have had an interest, was very broad indeed.
I am very conscious of the risk pointed out by some members of the lobbying industry that, under the Bill, transparency might end up being less than it was previously because the Bill sets such a low threshold that it might remove any incentive to go beyond it—although I welcome the intention to include reference to codes to which lobbyists have subscribed. If it turns out to be only a very small number of consultant lobbyists who need to register, I take the point made
by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, that the burden of cost on that small number of firms of this rather elaborate structure may be unacceptable.
Finally, I am completely baffled as to how the Bill will address concerns among the public about who is saying what to whom on some of these issues. I therefore strongly support what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has put forward and some of the related points made by the noble Lords, Lord Norton of Louth and Lord Tyler.
4.30 pm
Lord Bichard (CB): My Lords, as a former Permanent Secretary, I rise still bathing in the warmth of the comments from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams. Would that some of the current Permanent Secretaries were here to hear them; I think that they might have been moved to tears.
I shall speak only briefly in support of the amendments proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, and the noble Lord, Lord Tyler. It is one thing for Parliament to show that it does not fully understand, or understand very much, the lobbying process; it is a rather more serious thing for Parliament to show that it does not understand how Whitehall and the decision-making process work. That process works increasingly through special advisers and senior civil servants, not through Ministers and Permanent Secretaries. For this not to be recognised in the Bill is very odd and shows serious flaws.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I spoke in Committee on this matter, so I shall be brief today. My concern is that special advisers often have more influence on ministerial decision-taking than do Members of Parliament, because they have daily access.
I want to tell a story of an incident that I experienced in 1999 on a train coming from my former constituency of Workington to London. To my side in the carriage was the Member of Parliament for Blackpool and opposite were two young men who were on their way to London, and we struck up a conversation. They told us that they were going to London to lobby in the department on the need to introduce new gambling legislation. As Labour MPs, we had absolutely no idea that discussions were going on in the department about gambling and gambling legislation. That was in 1999—some 14 years ago. Those two young men were going to meet the special adviser in the department concerned. I was very interested and asked them how they had made contact. They explained that they had done so at a political level, locally to start with, and had then been referred to the special adviser. There was no need as far as they were concerned to see Ministers.
In that particular case, the embryo of the debate had started with access from the industry directly to political advisers in the department. The discussion would then permeate within the department between, as has just been said, civil servants and the special advisers, to the exclusion of Parliament and individual Members of Parliament. I find that deeply troubling. One of the reasons why I want special advisers to be included in the Bill is that I want that process to become more transparent, so that individual Members of Parliament can at least see what is happening
within a department, what influences are being brought to bear and the dangers that might arise. If those special advisers then organise meetings between various groups and Ministers without Members of Parliament being aware of the scale of the lobbying going on—I know that I am making a very subtle point—it is at that point that Members of Parliament need to know that such relationships are being forged. That is why I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I hope that we have the opportunity to vote on it.
Lord Turnbull (CB): My Lords, this is the first time I have got involved in this Bill.
The current structure is indeed rather peculiar: lobbyists or lobbyist consultants are to register themselves and report those whom they represent, but we will find out whom they lobby only by an indirect process of interrogating a list of external meetings of all kinds that Ministers and Permanent Secretaries have attended. The case for this amendment is that lobbying takes place with a much wider group of people, which in a typical department would be about five or six individuals. I was a Permanent Secretary for 11 years in three departments and I do not think I ever had a conversation with a lobbyist as defined in this Bill. The lobbying always took place with officials who were working on the policy or were experts on the subject or were working on a Bill team.
Should we extend the requirement to civil servants? Well, there are 412,000 of them, so we have to define whom we mean. The people working on a policy would probably include the senior Civil Service, which is probably about 3,000 people. The logic of this Bill is that we extend the requirement to assemble and publish a list of external meetings—of course, these are not only meetings with lobbyists—to a very much wider group. In my view, there would be a lot of dead-weight cost in this: most of those contacts are part of the regular and desirable interchange between government and industry. In the White Paper that launched this whole process, it was stated:
“The Government does not wish to create an obstacle to necessary interaction with policy makers”.
If that is the price—that we extend this to all of the senior Civil Service, who then have to report all external meetings involving not just these people but everyone—in my view that is a price too high.
On the other hand, I am taken by the arguments about special advisers. There are now 98 of them; there were 38 in 1997 at the exit of John Major’s Government; there were about 74 by 2010; the number dipped for about three months but now there are 98. If I really had to distinguish between the amendments in this group, I would vote against Amendment 2 but for Amendment 3.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab): I rise to speak to Amendment 2 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, my noble friend Lady Hayter and myself, which extends the parameters of who needs to be lobbied to prompt registration to include special advisers, civil servants and PPSs.
I, too, welcome the enhanced transparency in relation to reporting that was mentioned by the Minister in
response to the earlier debate. However, I believe that will not be enough if the subjects who are principally lobbied are not asked to report. There has been progress, but it is simply not enough.
Both today and in Committee, a powerful and clear case has been made by former Ministers, former senior civil servants—which includes those in the Diplomatic Service, pursuant to the discussion we had in Committee—and former special advisers as to why the remit of the Bill must be extended if it is to have proper impact. As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, said in Committee, the target is normally the Minister and you therefore have to focus on the channels for reaching the Minister. The Permanent Secretary, as we have heard, is not a significant channel for this purpose. Indeed, the lobbying industry itself has said on numerous occasions that,
“we do not make personal representations to Ministers or Permanent Secretaries”.
So there we have it from the horse’s mouth. Yet the Government did not provide any convincing reason for why only meetings with Ministers and Permanent Secretaries should be subject to the provisions in Part 1. I hope that this short debate will persuade the Minister that there need to be some changes to this Bill in order to make it properly creditable.
Civil servants here and in Brussels should be included, not because there is any suggestion that they are conducting themselves in any inappropriate manner but to fulfil the purported aim of the Bill—that is, transparency. Last week it was revealed that there had been 130 meetings between representatives of the alcohol industry and the Government since 2010. The BMJ investigation showed that they had an extraordinary level of access to the Department of Health, which later decided to U-turn on the question of minimum unit pricing. It was a comment from the Minister for Public Health on the “Today” programme on Wednesday that caught my attention. Of those 130 meetings, she said, “But most of those were with officials”. Precisely. If the Bill is to increase transparency, the public should have access to this information.
I turn to special advisers. Naturally, I support Amendment 3 in the name of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Greaves. Special advisers should certainly be subject to the same level of transparency, given how closely they work with their Ministers and the influence that they can and do have on policy. The case has already been well made but I make no apology for returning to the News International lobbyist Fred Michel, whose case proves quite how large the loopholes in the Bill are. He was summoned to the Leveson trial after DCMS released 164 pages of e-mails between him and Adam Smith, the then Secretary of State’s special adviser. This came to light only in what I am sure everyone would agree were quite extreme circumstances. Again, if the Bill is to increase transparency, the public should be able to access these details.
Given the stance taken in Committee, I imagine that the Minister may well object by saying that the provisions in our amendment are disproportionate; indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, has just made that case. Of course that argument cannot apply to extending the Bill to cover special advisers—that should
be a given now—but, if proportionality is the Minister’s only concern, I hope that he will commit to bringing an amendment back at Third Reading that at least includes special advisers, civil servants and Parliamentary Secretaries. There is time for the Government to work on an amendment that could ensure that these people are included in the least bureaucratic way.
The Minister may also point to the fact that the limits that the Government have put in the Bill mean that there is no obvious place to publish such information. In Committee I asked the Government to look at the least bureaucratic way of extending the scope of those lobbied, but they do not seem to have taken the opportunity to find a solution. We can provide the Minister with two solutions. No doubt the Minister will be aware that on the website data.gov.uk, the meetings between special advisers and newspapers editors, proprietors and executives are already published, so there is no convincing argument why that cannot be extended. The other solution may have been provided by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, and it is elegantly simple: the Minister, when publishing details of his own meetings, publishes information about the meetings of civil servants and special advisers in his department.
This House has explained—very graphically, in many ways—the problems relating to the Bill and its extent, but we have also pointed the Government towards solutions. I very much hope that they will accept these amendments. If not, I trust that they will go away and come back with an amendment at Third Reading that takes these crucial issues into account.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, has moved an amendment that would extend the scope of the register to include meetings with Parliamentary Private Secretaries, civil servants and political advisers, while the amendment of my noble friend Lord Tyler would extend the scope to include meetings with special advisers.
At the outset, I want to pick up the point that was made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, who asked whether there was a difference between “political adviser” and “special adviser”. My understanding is that the term “special adviser” is defined in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. In Committee the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, indicated that the term “political adviser” was really referring to special advisers. One is a term of art already recognised in statute, but for the purposes of this debate I think that everyone is talking about the same entity, if that is the right word.
The Government have previously outlined that the register is designed to complement the existing government transparency regime, to which I referred and on which I made announcements in the previous debate, whereby Ministers and Permanent Secretaries proactively publish details of their meetings with external organisations—I should add, for the avoidance of doubt, that these will be external organisations whether the Minister meets them in Whitehall, Edinburgh, Brussels, Washington or wherever. The register will address a specific and discrete problem within that context: that it is not always clear whose interests are being represented by consultant lobbyists.
4.45 pm
To extend the scope of the register to other public officials would provide no appreciable benefits because they are not required to publish their diaries. Yes, we accept that lobbyists make communications to government other than directly to Ministers and Permanent Secretaries but, ultimately, it is the Minister who makes the decision. I noted the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. Ministers are of course the ultimate decision-makers and Permanent Secretaries are the accounting officers for their departments; that is the thinking which underlies the scope of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Tyler suggests that the register should apply to those who lobby special advisers. While special advisers may provide advice, they are not decision-makers. Indeed, my noble friend said that even talking to special advisers may be a first step towards trying to achieve a decision from a Minister. However, it is the Minister, not the special adviser, who ultimately has responsibility for the actions of the department.
The noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and my noble friend Lady Williams accepted that the cases cited in making their points were extreme. My understanding is that, in both the case of the special adviser who said that 9/11 was a good day for burying bad news and the example of Adam Smith, the special advisers resigned. We recognise that there is a code for special advisers. In cases where that code was breached, they took the significant step of resignation. It is therefore right that Ministers are the focus of the meeting reporting system and the register.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hardie, suggests that, in addition to special advisers, the register should apply to those who lobby civil servants and Parliamentary Private Secretaries. The amendment says, “civil servants”; my noble friend Lady Williams talked about the top three grades, but the amendment goes far further—further even than the senior Civil Service.
While registers are designed to reflect different contexts and to address broader problems sometimes cast their scope wider, by doing so they can greatly increase the cost, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull. The necessary complement to an extension would be the introduction of meeting reporting obligations for all public officials. Such a system would result in an unnecessary, disproportionate and unhelpful administrative burden. The cost to the public purse that it would involve could not be justified in the light of the limited transparency benefits that would be achieved.
The noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, suggested a figure of 412,000 civil servants; my speaking note says that there are 450,000 civil servants in the United Kingdom. One must ask whether there is really a public interest in seeing the details of all of their meetings with external organisations. Even if the scope were limited only to senior civil servants, it would still require the diaries of 5,000 individuals to be published. That would be a huge cost and would include, as the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said, much dead weight.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: On that point, I raise the question of whether the three most senior classes of the Civil Service are not in a much narrower area in
terms of cost than the wider range of civil servants to which my noble and learned friend has been referring. They seem to be almost completely distinct in terms of the costs involved.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I accept that it would be more proportionate, but I really am not in a position to say. One of the problems is that some of the terms used, such as “director-general”, mean completely different things in different departments. That has been another issue. At a time when we should be streamlining public services, not imposing additional costly burdens upon them, I do not believe that the added burden of 5,000 extra diaries would be proportionate.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: I should like to raise two issues. First, nobody is suggesting that all meetings with all civil servants should be included—I have some sympathy with what the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said—only meetings with lobbyists. Secondly, the Minister has not answered the point made earlier in Committee, I think, or the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, that when publishing details of his or her own meetings, Ministers should also publish information about the meetings of civil servants and special advisers in his or her department. That seems a very unbureaucratic way of addressing the issue.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, the noble Baroness says that they are not asking to include all civil servants’ meetings with everyone, but the amendment does say all civil servants, although I admit that she says that it would cover any lobbyist who met civil servants. As for Ministers’ reporting regime, we have said that Ministers will report the people with whom they have had meetings whether they are lobbyists or non-lobbyists. To further subdivide that would be a considerable burden on 450,000 civil servants. I do not believe that it would add to the transparency that we have tried to enhance and improve by what we have already done as a Government, some of which has been unprecedented. I think that the noble and learned Lord is seeking to intervene.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. The point that I am seeking to make in this amendment is that one has to go back to the definition in Clause 2. In the terms of that definition, it is people who fall within the category of persons carrying on the business of consultant lobbying who have to register under Clause 1. Clause 2(1)(a) states that they are required to register if, in short,
“in the course of a business and in return for payment, the person makes communications within subsection (3)”.
It is the communications that we are addressing. Subsection (3) states that the communications are,
“oral or written communications made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary relating to”,
the various matters mentioned. I think that second Permanent Secretaries are on the list of people in the schedule.
The point of this amendment is to highlight that the narrow definition of people to whom communications are being made which require registration on the part
of consultant lobbyists renders the whole concept of registration almost worthless because, as has been clear from the contributions across the House, these people are not just lobbying Ministers. To get round that, a lobbyist who lobbies a special adviser or a civil servant concerned with policy would not be required to register.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: I think I understand the point that the noble and learned Lord is making about the requirement to register if you are making communications with these people. It may be that that would bring more names on to the register—I simply do not know—but to enhance transparency, the complement to such an extension would be the introduction of meeting reporting obligations on these public officials. Otherwise you have a list of names of consultant lobbyists and their clients but there is nothing there to which you can then relate them. It becomes fully meaningful only if you have that complementary extension of the scheme. On the amendment, I sought to make the point that that would be a huge burden and one that would not be consistent with efficiency in government; nor indeed would it be proportionate to improving transparency.
Lord Campbell-Savours: The Minister has not responded to the very narrow point that was made by my noble friend Lady Royall of Blaisdon. She asked a very simple question: why should a Minister, in his or her registration, not register the activity of that Minister’s individual political adviser? That political adviser is working on behalf of that Minister. No doubt the noble Lord, as a Minister, has political advisers of his own. In the event that they meet lobbyists from outside, they are meeting them on his behalf. Why should not he, in his registration, refer to those meetings?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, until I became Deputy Leader of your Lordships’ House I did not have a special adviser. I now have one but I am not sure that she has met anyone, although she has said that if she could get a diary secretary it might be a bonus. We take the view, as I indicated earlier, that it is the Ministers who are making the decisions. On that basis, we believe that it is communications with Ministers—and not just meetings, as the noble and learned Lord said—that are pertinent. We believe that these proposals are appropriate and proportionate. I therefore urge the noble and learned Lord—
Lord Tyler: I am grateful to my noble and learned friend, who is very good to take points from us all. I sympathise with the point he makes about the scale of the increase in the number of people who would be involved if Amendment 2 was agreed, and the potential enormous cost as a result. However, that does not apply to Amendment 3, as has been made clear on all sides of the House. The very specific nature of the character, responsibility and role of special advisers—I think the noble Lord, Lord Turnbull, said that there are 98 of them—would not require a great increase in the amount of information to be given by government in terms of both the record of meetings and who, as
regards lobbyists, meets them. Can he give an undertaking that between now and Third Reading he will look very hard—in sympathy with the views that have been expressed on all sides of the House—at the practicalities of including special advisers? In terms of both the meetings they have and the nature of the people who they meet, there is broad support right across the House for their being exceptional. They are indeed, as their title states, special. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend is prepared to look again at that issue.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, I know that my noble friend knows me well enough and I hope that I have made enough appearances at this Dispatch Box for noble Lords to know that I would not wish to give the kind of undertaking that my noble friend seeks if it were to raise an expectation that I am not necessarily able to deliver on. I therefore invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth: Can my noble and learned friend clarify what he has said? If a consultant lobbyist lobbies a Minister directly to achieve policy X, that consultant lobbyist must register. If that consultant lobbyist only lobbies the special adviser, who then advises the Minister, who decides to implement policy X, they do not have to register. The second point is on civil servants. Does he think that lobbyists will lobby any passing civil servant as opposed to those members of the senior Civil Service who have responsibility in particular areas, and are therefore a very narrow and usually clearly defined group?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: On the second point, I was responding to the amendment as it is tabled, which does not narrow it down at all to senior civil servants—it applies to all civil servants. I am sure that bodies make arrangements with junior officials as well as with members of the senior Civil Service. On the issue of special advisers, I cannot elaborate on what I have already said.
Lord Hardie: I am grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for their support for the amendment. I realise that the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Turnbull, suggest that the matter should be confined to special advisers. However, as I said in Committee, when I was in practice at the Scottish Bar I was standing junior counsel to the City of Edinburgh district council, and then, latterly, senior counsel—and it was clear from my experience there that it was not the senior director of administration or the director of planning who was the subject of contact by people seeking to influence policy. The contact was with the local authority officials—in this context, the civil servants—who were concerned with the formulation of policy. It strikes me that to exclude the very policymakers, whether civil servants or special advisers, makes nonsense of the registration process. I therefore beg to test the opinion of the House.
5.01 pm
Contents 191; Not-Contents 242.
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Ahmed, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Bach, L.
Bakewell, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Beecham, L.
Berkeley, L.
Best, L.
Bichard, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Boateng, L.
Borrie, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Browne of Ladyton, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Christopher, L.
Clancarty, E.
Clinton-Davis, L.
Collins of Highbury, L.
Condon, L.
Corston, B.
Coussins, B.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
Curry of Kirkharle, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dear, L.
Donaghy, B.
Drake, B.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Gavron, L.
Gibson of Market Rasen, B.
Giddens, L.
Glasman, L.
Golding, B.
Goudie, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grenfell, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hardie, L. [Teller]
Harries of Pentregarth, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Hattersley, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Hayter of Kentish Town, B.
Healy of Primrose Hill, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Hollins, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howells of St Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Stretford, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones of Moulsecoomb, B.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Jordan, L.
Kennedy of Cradley, B.
Kennedy of Southwark, L.
Kerr of Kinlochard, L.
Kestenbaum, L.
Kidron, B.
Kingsmill, B.
Kinnock of Holyhead, B.
Kinnock, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Knight of Weymouth, L.
Layard, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Liddle, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lister of Burtersett, B.
Lloyd of Berwick, L.
Low of Dalston, L.
McAvoy, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McFall of Alcluith, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Martin of Springburn, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Meacher, B.
Mendelsohn, L.
Monks, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Ely, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Northbourne, L.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Loan, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Ouseley, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Prashar, B.
Prescott, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Rees of Ludlow, L.
Reid of Cardowan, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Richard, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Sherlock, B.
Simon, V.
Slim, V.
Smith of Basildon, B.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Smith of Kelvin, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L. [Teller]
Turnberg, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Uddin, B.
Valentine, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Walpole, L.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
West of Spithead, L.
Wheeler, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wigley, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Winston, L.
Woolf, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Worthington, B.
Young of Hornsey, B.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
NOT CONTENTS
Addington, L.
Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.
Allan of Hallam, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Arran, E.
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Avebury, L.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B.
Balfe, L.
Barker, B.
Bates, L.
Benjamin, B.
Berridge, B.
Black of Brentwood, L.
Blencathra, L.
Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, B.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L.
Browning, B.
Buscombe, B.
Caithness, E.
Carrington of Fulham, L.
Cathcart, E.
Cavendish of Furness, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Clement-Jones, L.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cormack, L.
Cotter, L.
Courtown, E.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Crisp, L.
Cumberlege, B.
De Mauley, L.
Deben, L.
Deighton, L.
Denham, L.
Dholakia, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dobbs, L.
Doocey, B.
Dykes, L.
Eaton, B.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eccles, V.
Eden of Winton, L.
Edmiston, L.
Empey, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Faulks, L.
Feldman of Elstree, L.
Fellowes, L.
Fink, L.
Finkelstein, L.
Flight, L.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Framlingham, L.
Freeman, L.
Freud, L.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gardiner of Kimble, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Gold, L.
Goodlad, L.
Grade of Yarmouth, L.
Green of Hurstpierpoint, L.
Greenway, L.
Grender, B.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hamwee, B.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Higgins, L.
Hill of Oareford, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holmes of Richmond, L.
Hooper, B.
Horam, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howe, E.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Humphreys, B.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussain, L.
Hussein-Ece, B.
Inglewood, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Kennington, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jolly, B.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kakkar, L.
Kilclooney, L.
Kirkham, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Kramer, B.
Laming, L.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Leigh of Hurley, L.
Lexden, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lingfield, L.
Liverpool, E.
Livingston of Parkhead, L.
Loomba, L.
Lothian, M.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Magan of Castletown, L.
Mancroft, L.
Manzoor, B.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Moynihan, L.
Naseby, L.
Nash, L.
Neville-Jones, B.
Neville-Rolfe, B.
Newby, L. [Teller]
Newlove, B.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northover, B.
O'Cathain, B.
Paddick, L.
Palmer of Childs Hill, L.
Pannick, L.
Parminter, B.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Popat, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Purvis of Tweed, L.
Randerson, B.
Rawlings, B.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rennard, L.
Ribeiro, L.
Ridley, V.
Risby, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Sassoon, L.
Scott of Needham Market, B.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Shackleton of Belgravia, B.
Sharkey, L.
Sharman, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.
Shipley, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Spicer, L.
Stedman-Scott, B.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoneham of Droxford, L.
Stowell of Beeston, B.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Suttie, B.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Goss Moor, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Thomas of Winchester, B.
Tonge, B.
Tope, L.
Trefgarne, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
True, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Turnbull, L.
Tyler of Enfield, B.
Tyler, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Walmsley, B.
Warnock, B.
Warsi, B.
Wasserman, L.
Wei, L.
Wheatcroft, B.
Whitby, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Trafford, B.
Willis of Knaresborough, L.
Wrigglesworth, L.
Younger of Leckie, V.
Lord Tyler: I beg to move, and to test the opinion of the House.
5.13 pm
Contents 213; Not-Contents 195 [The name of one Member voting Content was not recorded].
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.
Ahmed, L.
Allan of Hallam, L.
Anderson of Swansea, L.
Andrews, B.
Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon, L.
Avebury, L.
Bach, L.
Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, B.
Bakewell, B.
Bassam of Brighton, L.
Beecham, L.
Benjamin, B.
Berkeley, L.
Best, L.
Bichard, L.
Blackstone, B.
Blood, B.
Boateng, L.
Borrie, L.
Bradshaw, L.
Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.
Brookman, L.
Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, L.
Browne of Ladyton, L.
Butler-Sloss, B.
Campbell-Savours, L.
Carter of Coles, L.
Chandos, V.
Chidgey, L.
Christopher, L.
Clancarty, E.
Clement-Jones, L. [Teller]
Collins of Highbury, L.
Corston, B.
Cotter, L.
Craig of Radley, L.
Craigavon, V.
Crisp, L.
Cunningham of Felling, L.
Davies of Coity, L.
Davies of Oldham, L.
Dear, L.
Dholakia, L.
Donaghy, B.
Drake, B.
Elder, L.
Elystan-Morgan, L.
Evans of Temple Guiting, L.
Falkner of Margravine, B.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.
Finlay of Llandaff, B.
Foster of Bishop Auckland, L.
Gale, B.
Garden of Frognal, B.
Gavron, L.
Giddens, L.
Glasman, L.
Golding, B.
Goudie, B.
Graham of Edmonton, L.
Grender, B.
Grenfell, L.
Griffiths of Burry Port, L.
Grocott, L.
Hannay of Chiswick, L.
Hanworth, V.
Hardie, L.
Harries of Pentregarth, L.
Harris of Haringey, L.
Harris of Richmond, B.
Harrison, L.
Hart of Chilton, L.
Haworth, L.
Hayman, B.
Hayter of Kentish Town, B.
Healy of Primrose Hill, B.
Henig, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.
Hollick, L.
Hollins, B.
Hollis of Heigham, B.
Howarth of Breckland, B.
Howarth of Newport, L.
Howe of Idlicote, B.
Howells of St Davids, B.
Howie of Troon, L.
Hoyle, L.
Hughes of Stretford, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L.
Jay of Ewelme, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.
Jones of Moulsecoomb, B.
Jones of Whitchurch, B.
Jordan, L.
Kennedy of Cradley, B.
Kennedy of Southwark, L.
Kerr of Kinlochard, L.
Kestenbaum, L.
Kidron, B.
Kingsmill, B.
Kinnock of Holyhead, B.
Kinnock, L.
Kirkhill, L.
Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L.
Knight of Weymouth, L.
Laming, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.
Levy, L.
Liddle, L.
Lipsey, L.
Lister of Burtersett, B.
McAvoy, L.
McDonagh, B.
Macdonald of Tradeston, L.
McFall of Alcluith, L.
McIntosh of Hudnall, B.
MacKenzie of Culkein, L.
McKenzie of Luton, L.
Maclennan of Rogart, L.
Mallalieu, B.
Martin of Springburn, L.
Masham of Ilton, B.
Massey of Darwen, B.
Maxton, L.
Mendelsohn, L.
Monks, L.
Moonie, L.
Morgan of Drefelin, B.
Morgan of Ely, B.
Morgan of Huyton, B.
Morris of Aberavon, L.
Morris of Handsworth, L.
Morris of Yardley, B.
Norton of Louth, L.
O'Loan, B.
O'Neill of Bengarve, B.
O'Neill of Clackmannan, L.
Pannick, L.
Patel of Bradford, L.
Pendry, L.
Pitkeathley, B.
Plant of Highfield, L.
Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Quin, B.
Radice, L.
Razzall, L.
Redesdale, L.
Rees of Ludlow, L.
Reid of Cardowan, L.
Rendell of Babergh, B.
Rennard, L.
Richard, L.
Roberts of Llandudno, L.
Rooker, L.
Rosser, L.
Rowe-Beddoe, L.
Rowlands, L.
Royall of Blaisdon, B.
Sawyer, L.
Sharp of Guildford, B.
Sherlock, B.
Shutt of Greetland, L.
Simon, V.
Smith of Basildon, B.
Smith of Finsbury, L.
Snape, L.
Soley, L.
Stevenson of Balmacara, L.
Stoddart of Swindon, L.
Stone of Blackheath, L.
Strasburger, L.
Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Taylor of Bolton, B.
Temple-Morris, L.
Teverson, L.
Thomas of Gresford, L.
Thornton, B.
Tomlinson, L.
Tope, L. [Teller]
Triesman, L.
Truscott, L.
Tunnicliffe, L.
Turnberg, L.
Turnbull, L.
Turner of Camden, B.
Tyler, L.
Uddin, B.
Valentine, B.
Wall of New Barnet, B.
Walmsley, B.
Walpole, L.
Warnock, B.
Warwick of Undercliffe, B.
West of Spithead, L.
Wheeler, B.
Whitaker, B.
Whitty, L.
Wigley, L.
Wilkins, B.
Williams of Crosby, B.
Williams of Elvel, L.
Willis of Knaresborough, L.
Wilson of Tillyorn, L.
Winston, L.
Woolmer of Leeds, L.
Wrigglesworth, L.
Young of Norwood Green, L.
NOT CONTENTS
Ahmad of Wimbledon, L.
Anelay of St Johns, B. [Teller]
Arran, E.
Astor of Hever, L.
Attlee, E.
Baker of Dorking, L.
Balfe, L.
Bates, L.
Berridge, B.
Black of Brentwood, L.
Blencathra, L.
Borwick, L.
Bottomley of Nettlestone, B.
Bourne of Aberystwyth, L.
Bowness, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.
Bridgeman, V.
Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.
Brookeborough, V.
Brougham and Vaux, L.
Browning, B.
Buscombe, B.
Caithness, E.
Carrington of Fulham, L.
Cathcart, E.
Cavendish of Furness, L.
Chalker of Wallasey, B.
Colwyn, L.
Cope of Berkeley, L.
Cormack, L.
Courtown, E.
Crathorne, L.
Crickhowell, L.
Cumberlege, B.
Curry of Kirkharle, L.
De Mauley, L.
Deben, L.
Deighton, L.
Denham, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.
Dobbs, L.
Doocey, B.
Dykes, L.
Eaton, B.
Eccles of Moulton, B.
Eccles, V.
Eden of Winton, L.
Edmiston, L.
Empey, L.
Faulks, L.
Feldman of Elstree, L.
Fellowes, L.
Fink, L.
Finkelstein, L.
Flight, L.
Fookes, B.
Forsyth of Drumlean, L.
Framlingham, L.
Freeman, L.
Freud, L.
Gardiner of Kimble, L.
Gardner of Parkes, B.
Geddes, L.
Gold, L.
Goodlad, L.
Grade of Yarmouth, L.
Green of Hurstpierpoint, L.
Greenway, L.
Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.
Hamilton of Epsom, L.
Hanham, B.
Harris of Peckham, L.
Higgins, L.
Hill of Oareford, L.
Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Holmes of Richmond, L.
Hooper, B.
Horam, L.
Howe of Aberavon, L.
Howe, E.
Howell of Guildford, L.
Hunt of Wirral, L.
Hussain, L.
Inglewood, L.
James of Blackheath, L.
Jenkin of Kennington, B.
Jenkin of Roding, L.
Jolly, B.
Jones of Cheltenham, L.
Kakkar, L.
Kilclooney, L.
Kirkham, L.
Knight of Collingtree, B.
Kramer, B.
Lamont of Lerwick, L.
Lawson of Blaby, L.
Lee of Trafford, L.
Leigh of Hurley, L.
Lexden, L.
Lindsay, E.
Lingfield, L.
Liverpool, E.
Livingston of Parkhead, L.
Loomba, L.
Lothian, M.
Lucas, L.
Luke, L.
Lyell, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.
Macfarlane of Bearsden, L.
MacGregor of Pulham Market, L.
Mackay of Clashfern, L.
McNally, L.
Maddock, B.
Magan of Castletown, L.
Mancroft, L.
Manzoor, B.
Marland, L.
Marlesford, L.
Mayhew of Twysden, L.
Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.
Morris of Bolton, B.
Moynihan, L.
Naseby, L.
Nash, L.
Neville-Jones, B.
Neville-Rolfe, B.
Newby, L. [Teller]
Newlove, B.
Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Noakes, B.
Northbrook, L.
Northover, B.
O'Cathain, B.
Palmer of Childs Hill, L.
Patten, L.
Perry of Southwark, B.
Popat, L.
Powell of Bayswater, L.
Purvis of Tweed, L.
Randerson, B.
Rawlings, B.
Ribeiro, L.
Ridley, V.
Risby, L.
Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Rogan, L.
Roper, L.
Ryder of Wensum, L.
Sassoon, L.
Seccombe, B.
Selborne, E.
Selkirk of Douglas, L.
Selsdon, L.
Shackleton of Belgravia, B.
Sharman, L.
Sharples, B.
Shaw of Northstead, L.
Sheikh, L.
Shephard of Northwold, B.
Sherbourne of Didsbury, L.
Shipley, L.
Shrewsbury, E.
Smith of Clifton, L.
Spicer, L.
Stedman-Scott, B.
Steel of Aikwood, L.
Stewartby, L.
Stoneham of Droxford, L.
Stowell of Beeston, B.
Sutherland of Houndwood, L.
Taverne, L.
Taylor of Goss Moor, L.
Taylor of Holbeach, L.
Tonge, B.
Trefgarne, L.
Trenchard, V.
Trimble, L.
True, L.
Trumpington, B.
Tugendhat, L.
Verma, B.
Waddington, L.
Wakeham, L.
Waldegrave of North Hill, L.
Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Wallace of Tankerness, L.
Warsi, B.
Wasserman, L.
Wei, L.
Wheatcroft, B.
Whitby, L.
Wilcox, B.
Williams of Trafford, B.
Younger of Leckie, V.
5.25 pm
4: Clause 2, page 2, line 18, leave out “the Minister or permanent secretary” and insert “the person to whom the communication is made”
Lord Wallace of Tankerness: My Lords, the amendments in this group are a number of technical amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. It may assist the House if I briefly go through them and explain their purpose.
Amendments 4, 5 and 6 clarify, and provide greater consistency to, terminology used in relation to the recipients of the lobbying communications and the communications themselves. The minor amendment, Amendment 6, which clarifies the term “Minister of the Crown”, does not, in the context of the Bill, capture the corporate bodies of the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. As Clause 2 makes clear, the communications that the register is intended to capture are those that are,
“made personally to a Minister of the Crown or permanent secretary”.
The definition in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 includes the Defence Council and the Board of Trade. Both these entities, however, are corporate bodies with which it is not possible to make personal communications. As such, these amendments remove those bodies from the definition and, in doing so, provide further clarity regarding the communications that fall within the scope of consultant lobbying.
Amendment 8 clarifies the position in relation to employees who make lobbying communications as a part of their employment. Specifically, the amendment provides that employees will not be considered as carrying on,
“the business of consultant lobbying”,
if they make lobbying communications as an employee in the course of a business carried on by their employer. The amendment therefore clarifies that in-house lobbyists are not captured by the Part 1 provisions, and that it is a consultant lobbying firm rather than its employees that are required to register in respect of any lobbying activity. As Ministers have made clear—indeed, as we have already debated—the register is designed to address the problem that it is not always clear whose interests are represented by consultant lobbyists.
Amendment 9 provides, first, that where an individual makes a communication in the course of the business of another, then both the individual and that other business or person make that communication. As such, the amendment ensures that the client on whose behalf consultant lobbying communications are made is always declared on the register even if that communication is undertaken by a subcontractor that the consultant lobbying firm has engaged. The amendment also provides that if the individual happens to be an employee—as opposed to a contractor, for example—then the employee is not to be regarded as making the communication on behalf of their employer but, rather, only on behalf of their employer’s client, reflecting the fact that in-house lobbyists and employees of consultant lobbying firms are not required to register.
Amendment 10 is intended to remove any ambiguity as to the maximum period of a reappointment term of the registrar, which is three years. An individual may be reappointed twice, and the maximum period for each of those terms is three years.
Amendments 18, 20 and 21 ensure consistency in the language used in the provisions relating to the cancellation of an information notice or the variation or cancellation of a penalty notice. By ensuring consistency of terminology, these amendments will further clarify the detail of the provisions relating to the cancellation and/or variation of these notices and ensure consistency with approaches to such matters in other legislation.
Amendment 19 clarifies that any individual, not just employees, can commit the offence of carrying on the business of consultant lobbying while unregistered if they and/or their organisation are unregistered. The amendment will remove any ambiguity as to whether the provisions apply to individuals who undertake consultant lobbying in the course of a business but are not employees of that consultant lobbying business—for example, contractors. It will therefore ensure that the application of the provisions in this respect is absolutely clear.
Amendment 24 has been tabled to clarify that the charges associated with registration will be set to ensure that the sums received offset the total costs of the registrar’s activities. Treasury guidance requires that if a charging regime recoups costs other than those directly associated with the service provided—in this instance, the keeping of the register—then the position should be made explicitly clear to Parliament. This amendment reiterates that the charges provided for in Clause 22 will be set to recover the total cost of the registrar’s activities, including those that are not directly connected with the keeping of the register, such as enforcement activity.
Amendment 25 removes drafting in relation to the netting-off of monies from the Consolidated Fund for the funding of the registrar. Such funding will instead be arranged administratively between the Cabinet Office and the Treasury.
Amendment 27 is tabled to fulfil the Government’s commitment to implement the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in relation to Part 1. The Government, as ever, are grateful to the committee for its thoughtful consideration of the delegated powers in Part 1 and have accepted its recommendations in relation to this part in their entirety. The amendment alters the part to require that regulations under Clause 4(5) or Clause 5(4), the first regulations to be made under Clauses 11(3) and 17(3), and any regulation which amends or modifies the provisions of the part, must be made by the affirmative procedure. As a result, Parliament will be provided with the opportunity to undertake detailed scrutiny of any regulations made under the powers in these clauses. Again, I express thanks to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for its detailed report on this part of the Bill. I beg to move.
5.30 pm
6: Clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 24 and 25 and insert—
““Minister of the Crown” means the holder of an office in the government, and includes the Treasury;”
Schedule 1: Carrying on the business of consultant lobbying
Lord Hardie: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I declare an interest. As I explained in Committee, I am a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan and have received hospitality from that Government in the form of social events. Several years ago, I visited Taiwan on two occasions as a guest: the first was as part of a judicial delegation from Scotland and the second was as a lecturer at an international conference. As I advised the registrar of interests last week, I have now been invited to speak at another conference next month, and my expenses will be paid by the Taiwanese Government. It is a legal conference.
Paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 excludes from lobbying activities communications from an official or member of staff of a sovereign power. In Committee, I sought clarification on whether that included countries such as the Republic of China (Taiwan), which is not a member of the United Nations and with which we have no formal diplomatic relations, although we do have an office and a representative there and it has offices in this country. The Minister promised to write to me. I received a letter dated 7 January from the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General to the effect that communications from any foreign Government, irrespective of their country’s membership status with the United Nations or its diplomatic status with UK, would not meet the criteria for lobbying for profit in Clause 2.