HC Deb 29 November 2000 vol 357 cc1088-100

Lords amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 31, leave out subsection (4) and insert—

("(4) The person registered as a party's treasurer shall be responsible for compliance on the part of the party—

  1. (a) with the provisions of Parts III and IV (accounting requirements and control of donations), and
  2. (b) unless a person is registered as the party's campaigns officer in accordance with section (Parties with campaigns officers), with the provisions of Parts V to VII (campaign expenditure, third party expenditure and referendums) as well.

(4A) In the case of a party with accounting units the person registered as the party's treasurer shall, in relation to the provisions of Part III, be responsible for compliance on the part of the party's central organisation (rather than of the party).")

Mr. Tipping

I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments Nos. 35 to 39, 42 to 45, 52, 56, 58 to 60, 63, 64 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 65 to 67, 147, 148 and amendments (a) and (b) thereto, 150, 312 to 317, 379 and 381 to 389.

Mr. Tipping

This group of amendments deals with various points relating to the registration of political parties. Amendment No. 34 is concerned with the responsibilities of the registered treasurer. Clause 22, as considered by this House, requires the registered treasurer to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance on the part of that party with the provisions of the Bill—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The Minister must be heard. Will Members remaining in the Chamber please be quiet?

Mr. Tipping

We accept that it is not essential that a registered treasurer perform the former role as well as the latter. What is needed is a compliance officer, who may or may not have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party.

Amendment No. 34, taken with amendment No. 39, also addresses concerns that the Liberal Democrats have expressed about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. The amendments provide for the registration of a campaigns officer with responsibility for compliance on the part of the party with the provisions of parts V to VII, namely, the controls on election and referendum expenditure. Where a party appoints a campaigns officer, the responsibilities of the registered treasurer would be confined to compliance with parts III and IV. In another place, Lord Rennard welcomed these amendments as addressing his party's concerns. Earlier, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who has pursued the matter fairly vigorously, acknowledged that the amendments would satisfy his party's concerns.

11.30 pm

Lords amendments Nos. 52, 56 and 63 require the Electoral Commission, when it refuses an application under clauses 25, 26 or 27, to give the party concerned a notification in writing of the reasons for such refusal.

The new clause inserted by Lords amendment No. 64 ensures that a party's registered entry is kept up to date. A change to one of the party's registered officers would need to be notified to the commission within 14 days; all other changes to a party's entry in the register would need to be notified within 28 days.

Although I favour the amendments, I note that there is dissent in the House on the matter. I note carefully the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and his colleagues. Indeed, in an earlier intervention, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) made it clear that the Conservatives had real anxieties about these matters. I do not want to pre-empt them, but the argument is not about principle, but about practice.

The Government's view is fairly straightforward: we believe that the 14 day and 28-day provisions are commensurate. In the example cited earlier—of a death—the appropriate course would not necessarily be for the party to find a new treasurer immediately, but to ask another of its officers to take the position temporarily until a permanent replacement could be found.

I ask the House to accept the Lords amendments.

Mr. Grieve

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for his brevity. The matter was touched on earlier, but it is, nevertheless, one to which we must return.

The Minister is right—the bulk of the amendments are sensible. They command agreement and are an illustration of the operation of the good aspects of the passage of the Bill. However, there is a point of detail that cannot be ignored. One feature of the Bill is the extent to which it places onerous burdens of compliance on local constituency associations and, as I pointed out earlier, with draconian penalties if such compliance is not forthcoming.

I ask the Minister, as I did earlier, to consider the position of a small constituency association—possibly of a minority party—that does not have a huge input from the centre, and whose treasurer drops dead. Given the mechanisms that have to be employed to replace a treasurer—the fact that one has to remember all those matters—is it reasonable to expect that association, within 14 days, to select someone else and to put the name forward to the Electoral Commission?

The Minister kindly informed us that the local association should have a replacement available—someone who could easily step into the breach. However, we know that the Bill places onerous burdens on treasurers; not many people will be willing to take on that task. Indeed, that is one of the anxieties that has been frequently expressed during the passage of the measure. In those circumstances, our proposal—to lengthen the period to 21 days in the event of a death and to 42 days otherwise—is reasonable, prudent and sensible.

I cannot believe that the Electoral Commission's principles of control will founder as a result of that provision. Although it may appear to be a detail, it is upon such detail that the Bill's success as law will rest. We consider that our amendments—especially our amendment to Lords amendment No. 64—should be pressed to a vote; they offer a better course of action than that proposed by the Government.

Mr. Stunell

I shall not rehearse the points that I have made about the Bill's adaptation to accommodate the philosophical viewpoint of the Liberal Democrats on federalism, except to say that it is appreciated that a lot of work has been done on topics with which civil servants and Ministers were not especially familiar initially. I should like to give credit to Lord Rennard for the work that he has done in the other place.

I want to say a few words about the amendments to which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has spoken. We feel strongly that a tremendously burdensome, bureaucratic requirement will be placed on local party officers, especially small-scale branch treasurers and the smallest fry in the political arena. On hearing the hon. Gentleman, a colleague of mine said, "Well, it is not surprising that the first treasurer dropped dead, considering the burdens created under the Bill." Many treasurers will be reluctant to take office and people will be reluctant to come forward if a vacancy arises.

The suggestion that there could be acting treasurers is a little fanciful. Accounts would not be changed and the necessary resolutions would not be passed at formal meetings in the time scale that would allow such appointments to be made. I suspect that in the average branch, the cheques would collect behind the clock until the new treasurer was appointed. There would be serious difficulties in the unhappy circumstance of a vacancy occurring during an election, when the treasurer's role might be more acutely focused. Parties will be required to live with those difficulties under the Bill.

I spoke earlier about the transitional, training and preparatory arrangements necessary to make all this happen. If people are told that they must have another treasurer in place within 14 days—the funeral, the inquest or whatever will have hardly taken place—and that they will be in default if they have not, the dominoes will start to topple as the offences mount.

Mr. Tipping

Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), both of whom have been talking about the treasurers of accounting units. Of course the provisions on those units are for a replacement within 28 days, but Lords amendment No. 34 deals with the replacement of national treasurers within 14 days. If the real concern is about the treasurers of accounting units, I believe that there is no disquiet or argument across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Stunell

I thank the Minister for that helpful intervention, which perhaps clarifies some of the issues. I was making a general case by reference to a particular example. If that example is not appropriate, I am happy to move on.

Any organisation faces difficulties when such a tragic vacancy occurs. I should like the Minister to explain why he thinks it so important to refer to two weeks. What would be the effect on the Bill's effective implementation if 21 days were adopted? What control would be lost? What offence or abuse do the Government fear would be created by an interregnum of three weeks rather than two? Without a treasurer at any level in the party, there will be no authorisation, so there can be no illegal or unmonitored expenditure. Such decisions will be delayed until the vacancy is filled.

If a vacancy occurs in the middle of an election, there will be every pressure on the party to make an alternative appointment so that progress can be made. There is a requirement for reporting at seven-day intervals during elections, so 14 days is insufficient to ensure that that occurs. I want to press the Minister on that point. Why does the time scale have to be 14 days? Why not 21 days? What abuse are the Government trying to stop? Given the grave difficulties that a party will face in such an unfortunate circumstance, why is it essential to include such a barrier? I will join the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and his colleagues. If the matter is put to the vote, we will support the extended deadline—not because it creates a loophole, but because it prevents a major disincentive to political parties delivering the goods.

Mr. William Ross

I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), which is widely supported by Opposition Members. I suspect that if Labour Members thought about it, they would also support it.

Frankly, we always have difficulty getting people to take on the onerous task of being secretary. One will always get a chairman, or a vice-chairman—he figures that he will not have to do much—but one needs an enthusiast or a fanatic to take on the job of secretary. In the case of a treasurer, one needs someone who is extremely careful with money and who enjoys the trust of the whole party. In a small party, it is difficult to find people to do such jobs in a voluntary capacity.

Organisations the size of the major parties—the Liberal Democrats, the Labour party, the Conservative party—can employ full-time officials. I suspect that the treasurer in the larger parties is merely a figurehead, who can be replaced at short notice with another figurehead. That is not the case with a smaller party, where the person does the work. Frankly, my party and the other parties in Northern Ireland consider the time limit proposed by the Opposition to be modest. We would prefer a longer period.

I agree with those who have said that they see no dangers in the extension. I see great merit in it, and I beg the Government to think seriously about the difficulties in which they are placing the small parties with their proposals. Will the Government please accept the Opposition amendment on this occasion?

Mr. John Redwood (Wokingham)

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to catch your eye at this late hour, when we have made so little progress on this substantial rewrite of the Bill.

Mr. Tom Levitt (High Peak)

Get on with it!

Mr. Redwood

I have been speaking for all of two sentences. The hon. Gentleman should be a little more patient. What I am about to say is of considerable importance to the way in which the Government conduct their business, draft sloppy and rotten legislation, and do not give us proper time to consider substantial rewrites.

The amendments in the group run to many pages and represent a comprehensive rewriting of the clauses to which they refer. The Bill was made up of 181 pages. There are now 127 pages of amendments, which is a disgraceful ratio.

We have just reached clause 22—due to the detailed rewrite of the preceding clauses—and we find that 73 lines of amendment have been tabled to straighten out the original 43-line clause, which went through its due processes in both Houses. We are being asked to approve 73 lines of amendments that completely change the mechanism by which this part of the legislation will be implemented.

The main substance of the amendments to clause 22 that we are invited to approve is to allow in a new person—a party's campaign officer—to take on the responsibilities that were originally to go to the treasurer.

Amendment No. 39 would insert a new clause after clause 22. The new clause uses stumbling phraseology to define a campaign officer, to explain that he may have 12 deputies because he may find the task too onerous and to point out that responsibilities are split between the campaign officer and treasurer, depending on the different parts of the legislation for which compliance is being requested or sought. This is an enormously bureaucratic and complicated set of procedures and the more titles and registration requirements the Bill introduces, the more difficult judgments will have to be made when deciding when a party can comply, will comply or has complied. Mistakes, controversy and disagreement will therefore be more likely.

11.45 pm

The Minister must realise that these issues will be hard fought. They go to the heart of our party political process. He is inviting us to agree to amendments that make the detail even more complicated, greatly increasing the scope for genuine dispute. What should be a relatively straightforward regulatory matter will be caught up in a deeply political process. It is not a good idea deeply to politicise regulation, and the complexity proposed for clause 22 makes that much more likely.

I should have liked to have time to talk about the split of responsibilities between local and national political organisations and about the element of discretion by considering units, as they are called, as well as the national hierarchy. It is more normal to ask for national responsibility in such matters, but there will not be time to examine the issue because my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has draw attention to an issue that he thinks is even more important and on which he would like a ministerial reply. [Interruption.] I am glad that Labour Members think that this is a suitable occasion for snoring, but they must understand that their elections and constituency organisations could be tied up in the very disputes to which I am drawing attention and about which they appear to have no knowledge whatever. They now seem to think that our parliamentary democratic system—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker

Order. The right hon. Gentleman must he heard in silence.

Mr. Redwood

It is very rare for me to be heard in silence. I would think that something had gone wrong if Labour Members listened to me in silence. The more they barrack, the more worried they are. The looks on their faces reveals it all. They know that it is another piece of botched legislation and that it is an appallingly badly drafted clause. The Minister is nonchalantly recommending a comprehensive rewrite of the clause and of most of the rest of the Bill without having a clue as to how it will work and without having any answers to the disputes that will doubtless arise when we try to implement such nonsense.

I have skipped many important amendments to reach amendment No. 64, which would add a new clause to the Bill after clause 27. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield pointed out that the timing allowed would be tight for a national treasurer let alone a unit treasurer. I understand the Minister's point that we shall be allowed double the short period of time for the unit than we are for the national situation, but many other features of the registration process in the new clause worry me considerably.

Even though there is so little time, I will give the Minister time to reply. I hope that he will explain why registered officers of a party have to register themselves not only as registered officers and register the address of the party headquarters—that is entirely reasonable—but have to register their own address. A political party knows where its registered officers live and would know how to find them if it needed to. However, is it a good idea to put their addresses into the public domain? At times in Britain, security is a worrying issue and that might become a problem not just for elected representatives, but for volunteers in a voluntary party system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield made a good point when he said that it was not always easy, particularly in small minority parties—not the Conservative party or even possibly the Labour party—to find people to carry out such jobs. Subsection (2)(a) to (f) of the new clause contains the requirements for registration, and they will make some people think again. People have to make a great voluntary effort to exercise the eternal vigilance that party organisation and democratic debate require. We know, however, that the audience out there is walking away from the Government and the kind of politics for which they stand. They cannot get their own supporters to vote in elections.

Is it right to make it so much more bureaucratic, cumbersome and difficult to organise in parties and to go through the party political process, as the Government seem to wish to do? They are making a rather out-of-date political point relating to events long ago, instead of understanding that the modern problem is the lack of engagement by many people in the democratic party political process. Given the way in which the Government are going, they will make it even more difficult to get those missing voters back and to turn them into Labour party activists.

With great regret, I sit down before I have made three or four more points that need making, because we need the benefit of the Minister's reply on these crucial weaknesses in amendment No. 64, which inserts a new clause after clause 27. I hope that he will also explain why we have faced such a huge rewrite of the Bill. The Government's incompetence in the original draft was obviously overwhelming. Does he regret not giving us more time this evening to consider what is, in effect, a completely new Bill?

Mr. Tipping

I listened with great interest, as I always do, to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). Madam Deputy Speaker asked the House to listen to him in silence. Some right hon. Members listened to him in somnolence. I know that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has played an active part in our debates this week. I hope that, after his exertions, he becomes a late convert to programming. I trust that his exertions will not get the better of him, and that he will be enthused by the comments of the right hon. Member for Wokingham.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham complained about the split between the responsibilities of treasurer and compliance officer. He described it as bureaucratic and unhelpful. I remind him that that is similar to an amendment from his hon. Friends which we accepted on Report. He asked us to be a listening Government. We are a listening Government, and we heard what his hon. Friends said on Report. In the light of their complaints about the onerous duties that would be imposed on the party treasurer, we accepted their view that it might be better to split the post between the treasurer and a compliance officer.

The right hon. Gentleman complains that that has made the terms of the Bill wider and more difficult. I hope that his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will welcome the steps that we have taken to ensure that the voice of his party is heard in the Bill.

The same applies to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who during the deliberations on the Bill pursued the need to make arrangements so that parties with a federal structure could have a fair deal. Earlier in the debate this evening, he complained about the looks of astonishment and the difficulties that Ministers and officials perceived in solving the problem.

I am pleased that we have been able to resolve the problem. I gently chide the hon. Gentleman and remind him that there have been a number of meetings with him and employees of his party to try to find a solution. It ain't been easy, and I am delighted that we succeeded. I am sorry to say that that has complicated the Bill, but I firmly believe that it is right for us to ensure that the provisions meet the needs of the third major party in the United Kingdom.

I do not think that we should be criticised for doing that. We should be commended for it. We listened to his hon. Friends and made adjustments to suit them. We listened to the representations from the Conservatives and made adjustments to suit them. Both parties complained

that the Bill would not work, but we have taken steps to ensure that it will. I suspect that it may be necessary to divide the House, and I am disappointed about that because discussions throughout the Bill's passage have generally been constructive and helpful.

The hon. Members for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and for Hazel Grove talked about the branch treasurer, the constituency treasurer and the treasurer of the accounting unit. The amendment applies to the national treasurer. If there is a need for a new treasurer for a new, smaller accounting unit, the Bill provides 28 days for such a person to be appointed.

Mr. Grieve

The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that in Committee we agreed that many registered political parties are very small and localised. Many are no bigger than the accounting units of the larger parties. It was in relation to the concerns of small parties in particular that I made the point that 14 days was insufficient.

Mr. Tipping

That is right, and the Bill has been amended to provide 28 days for a replacement to be made in such cases.

Amendment No. 64, which is under dispute, concerns a 14-day period for replacement. The hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are pressing us to extend that to 21 days. The provision applies exclusively to the national treasurer. The hon. Gentleman has followed the debate closely and, dare I say it, influenced it and brought about changes. He was kind enough to acknowledge earlier that this has been a valuable and helpful experience. He knows that the national treasurer is the linchpin of the Bill's provisions. We cannot allow that linchpin to be removed and not replaced within a reasonable period.

I point out to the hon. Gentleman, who is normally very helpful, that the difference between 14 and 21 days is not large. I suggested earlier that if one of the party's officials were unable to continue their duty, perhaps because of death, the appropriate step would be for one of the other national officials temporarily to hold the post. That is not unreasonable. If an election were approaching it would be vital for the Electoral Commission to have a responsible person in post, and 14 days is not an unreasonable period in which to appoint such a person.

Mr. Grieve

We may be slightly at cross-purposes. I understand that the amendment relates to national treasurers, but there are national treasurers of registered political parties that are absolutely minute, and they stand to be criminalised.

Mr. Tipping

I have some sympathy on that point, which was raised by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross). He said that his party was relatively small and might have difficulty in finding a national treasurer. However, the mechanism will ensure that such a party can proceed. As the treasurer acts as a linchpin, it is not unreasonable to say that in an unexpected case, such as a death, another national officer should temporarily take the treasurer's place, and that is what would happen in practice. As I said, I hope that it will not be necessary to divide the House on that point.

On a relatively minor point, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield asked me why it was necessary to have the name and address of the treasurer on the record. It is important that the Electoral Commission should be able to check whether someone is on the electoral register, and giving the name provides the opportunity to do that.

It being Twelve midnight, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [this day].

Lords amendment agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the remaining Questions required to be put at that hour.