HL Deb 03 July 1997 vol 581 cc397-404

(" .—(1) A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence.

(2) A person shall be guilty of undue influence—

  1. (a) if he directly or indirectly, by himself or by other persons on his behalf, makes use of or threatens to make use of any temporal or spiritual injury, damage, harm or loss upon or against any person in order to compel any person to vote or refrain from voting, or to campaign or refrain from campaigning in the referendums;
  2. (b) if by any duress or contrivance or threat of loss or rights or privileges, or by any attempt by duress, contrivance or threat he prevents the carrying on of the normal and legitimate activities of any person in order to induce or prevail upon an elector to vote or refrain from voting, or any person to campaign or refrain from campaigning in the referendums.").

The noble Lord said: Those who are familiar with the Representation of the People Act 1983 will instantly recognise that I have borrowed a good deal of this amendment from that legislation. I am prompted to do so by the extraordinary things which have been happening in another place and the vigorous argument that has been going on both in another place and outside, between the right honourable Ron Davies, the Secretary of State, and Mr. Llew Smith and his special adviser.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, I rely of course on the Western Mail for a great deal of the information that I have on such matters. I am sure that when that newspaper puts words in quotation marks it does so with due care and attention. On 24th June it reported that Mr. Smith had told the Western Mail, speaking about the Welsh Secretary, He said to me if you campaign against a Welsh Assembly you will be kicked out of the Parliamentary Labour Party and if any other party member should follow your lead, they will be expelled from the party too".

He also said that after the Labour victory on 1st May Mr. Davies's special adviser, Huw Roberts, had phoned him with the same story. He said that if he behaved in that way he would be disciplined.

Later, after the parliamentary Whitsun Recess, Mr. Smith said that his constituency's local council, Blaenau Gwent, had been told on the phone by Mr. Roberts that if Mr. Smith campaigned against an assembly and was the subject of disciplinary action, it would be difficult for Ministers to meet the council with him in attendance.

These assertions were immediately denied by the Secretary of State. Both these people are Members of another House and therefore by definition are honourable Members. I do not wish to get involved in any examination of their probity and honesty except to say that clearly there was a pretty profound disagreement between them, which has been reported day after day in the press and has been referred to both in Parliament and in the Welsh Grand Committee.

On 25th June we were informed that Mr. Smith, described by the Western Mail as, Labour's arch anti-devolutionist in Wales", said that Mr. Roberts, who is the special adviser, had contacted his local council saying that the Welsh Office's relationship with the authority might be adversely affected if Mr. Smith actively campaigned against a Welsh assembly. That is a claim vehemently denied by Mr. Davies.

The Secretary of State said that there is no question of threats. He said that if people hold strongly individual views then they had to be free to express them. He then went on to say, It is one thing to be tolerant of strongly held personal views, it is quite another matter if individuals wish to flout the election manifesto on which they were elected, to show disloyalty to the Government which they were elected to support, and to campaign publicly against the Labour Party, allying themselves with the Conservative Party in a public referendum. He said that if Labour members failed to toe the party line, then the PLP would have to look at what action was available to it".

I suppose that that is not a threat or, if it is, it is the kind of threat that the Mafia is inclined to deliver to people as they gently sidle up alongside them and say, "We are not going to do anything to you—well, not unless…". Clearly, Mr. Smith continued to think that it was a threat because the argument went on. We were then told by Mr. Roberts, who was the individual who had telephoned the local authority, I simply said to Mr. Assinder"—

who is the representative of the local authority— that if Llew insisted on making himself effectively the Opposition it would be best for the council to meet Ron (Davies) without him".

I suppose that that is not a threat either, but it is a pretty disreputable tactic.

The saga carries on. The matter was reported on 27th June and subsequently. Then we were suddenly told that the Prime Minister had said that there would be no question of expulsion and that people would be allowed to campaign. We also had a very welcome Statement from the Speaker of the House of Commons who in the great tradition of Speakers of the House of Commons had something very important to say about the principle that freedom of speech was one of the most cherished parliamentary privileges of a democracy and she was determined to defend it.

One of the difficulties is that, while the Speaker is in a position to control what happens in another place it is uncertain whether she can control the growing army of special advisers who appear to act as Ministers' messengers in a most remarkable way. During my time at the Welsh Office I had one special adviser. He did a certain amount of valuable research for me. It never occurred to me to send him out to local authorities to convey messages about what the Secretary of State might do or think or what he might inflict upon them if they did not toe the line.

This is a very important matter. In the past year or so there has been a great deal of debate, as my noble friend Lord Tebbit has reminded the Committee, about sleaze. I am the first to condemn in the strongest possible terms any form of financial corruption or sleaze in parliamentary life. However, I believe that if there is a worse offence than financial corruption and sleaze it is political corruption and sleaze. It is quite clear that here pressure has been applied in the past. We are running into a referendum campaign at a time when threats have been uttered, and there is still a possibility that similar threats will inhibit public debate.

I believe that there is now agreement on all sides of the House that open and free debate on these issues is absolutely vital if there is to be a proper referendum and decision by the electorate. It means that we must have an assurance about the way in which that election is conducted. The Representation of the People Act was not passed essentially to deal with referendums. It deals in very precise detail with the situation of parliamentary candidates but does not cover in anything like the same detail the holding and proper conduct of referendums. I do not believe that that situation can be allowed to continue.

I repeat that we are dealing with two individuals who are honourable Members of an honourable House. However, we are entering a campaign in which many others will be involved—some will be special advisers, but there will be others who will be campaigning—who will not be subject to the constraints imposed in a parliamentary election by the Representation of the People Act. I put it to noble Lords that a measure of protection needs to be introduced. I am not a lawyer. It may well be that my attempt to amend a particular provision in the Representation of the People Act, which was drafted for another purpose, has imperfections.

I hope that the noble Lord opposite, who is a distinguished lawyer, will not say in reply that this is simply imperfect drafting, because I can think of no one better qualified to redraft it so that it does what I want it to do. Therefore, if the noble Lord has any doubts about the drafting, I hope that he will redraft it to provide the simple protection that I seek for an uninhibited debate in which no one on either side of the argument feels that they are under threat from any quarter. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Drumadoon

I should like to offer a few words of support to the amendment moved by my noble friend. In the draft orders reference is made to Section 115 of the Representation of the People Act. Under that provision it is an offence to threaten to withdraw the whip from an MP who has voted in a referendum contrary to the policy of his own party or to threaten to withdraw party membership from any individual who voted in a way that was contrary to the policy of the party, because that would amount to a threat to inflict some form of temporal injury, damage, harm or loss upon any such MP or individual.

My noble friend's amendment takes the matter one stage further, to the issue of campaigning. Without repeating my noble friend's comments, clearly in Wales there is a difference of view between different members of the Labour Party about the approach to be adopted to the referendum. In Scotland, within individual parties there is also a difference of view as to the approach that should be taken. As the noble Lord said, I know more about that because we have been happy to discuss it in public, unlike the private communings which seem to be a speciality of the party that is now in power.

As the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, will be aware, at the conference held by the Scottish Conservative Unionist Party recently, it was recognised that some members may take a contrary view to that of the majority of the party. While the party committed itself to offering support to a broad based referendum campaign against the Government's proposals, it recognised the right of individual members of the party to campaign to a different effect; and I fully expect that they will do so.

I will not venture to investigate whether members of the Scottish Liberal Democratic Party may take different views lest I join the increasing number of noble Lords meriting some form of rebuke from the noble Lord, Lord Mackie. It is well recognised that the Scottish National Party has conducted a serious debate within the party as to whether to support the Government's proposals. The Member for Linlithgow, formerly West Lothian, has demonstrated that there is not unanimity of view in the Scottish Labour Party.

I seriously suggest that, if all parties recognised that there is a room for difference of view within their own party on the issues in the referendum, we would have a healthier debate about the merits or otherwise of the Government's proposal than if we impose some form of party discipline. If party discipline is imposed on individual party members, whether or not they are members of Parliament, and they are precluded from campaigning contrary to the policy of the individual party, members of the press will spend hours, and acres of newspaper print, seeking to expose such rifts within parties. They will try to identify the dissidents and to get them to say something contrary to the party line, and they will then go to the party managers asking what they are going to do about the situation.

If, on the other hand, it is recognised that there should be freedom of speech within parties about important issues to be encapsulated in the White Paper, the debate will be healthier and the people will be better informed. Furthermore, if the Government obtain the votes that they seek in the referendums they may be able to claim that they offer greater legitimacy to the proposals than if the campaign were in some way inhibited. There may be some technical imperfections in the amendment tabled by my noble friend. I do not concede that that is necessarily so, but the spirit of what he is about is commendable and for that reason I support his amendment.

10 p.m.

Earl Russell

I wonder whether the Minister can help me in his reply. The wording of the amendment is general. If it were to be carried, would its effect be to free members of the Shadow Cabinet to campaign in favour of devolution without fear of dismissal?

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I certainly shall help the noble Earl, but in a moment or two if I may. Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, of the replies given by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place on 25th June and again yesterday. He said that no one had been threatened with expulsion from the Labour Party simply for expressing an opinion. Neither had the Government suggested to any council that relations with them would be damaged if their local Member of Parliament campaigned against a Yes vote. Everyone in the House and in another place was free to speak his mind on policy matters. There was no question of any undue influence being exerted on any Member of Parliament.

As I read the law, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, correctly referred to the draft orders in council which have been made available to your Lordships and which apply Sections 113 to 115 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. That deals with bribery, treating and undue influence on persons to persuade them to vote or refrain from voting. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary because this is a referendum as opposed to a general or other kind of election. However, it attempts to widen the law to bring about undue influence to cause a person to campaign or to refrain from campaigning.

I have just read the amendment, which states: A person shall be guilty of a corrupt practice if he is guilty of undue influence". "Undue influence" is thereafter defined. However, most criminal offences that I know of carry penalties, although the noble Lord the Lord Advocate may have a different experience. What is the penalty here? Is it the mark of Cain or the brand of Tebbit? I do not know. In answer to the noble Earl's question, it seems to me that the amendment is so widely drawn that it would cover any dissent of any kind. I am intrigued to see that, Any duress or contrivance or threat of loss or rights or privileges", to induce someone to campaign or not to campaign will be an offence. Any spiritual injury will be an offence.

I must not tease unduly, but the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, asked for my advice and assistance in redrafting the amendment. It is well known that any member of the Bar who gives free legal advice is automatically disbarred and therefore I must not fall into that trap! I recognise that there is a serious purpose behind the amendment. I do not dismiss that serious purpose but simply suggest as gently as I can that this is not the way to bring it about. It is not necessary. In fact, if it were to be extended to general elections, a number of names offer themselves who might at various times have been subject to pressure one way or another, possibly even on European matters.

Lord Tebbit

The noble Lord tempts me. Not only have I been subject to pressure I have exercised pressure—but not undue pressure, of course. I was intrigued as the Minister quoted the words of the Prime Minister about the immunity of Labour Members of Parliament in the other place from pressure in relation to which way they vote. But he said nothing about immunity from pressure in relation to which way they might campaign. Will the Minister give an assurance about the mind, the mood, and even the guarantees that the Prime Minister has offered in that respect? After all, the vote is only one vote but the influence of a Member of Parliament when he is campaigning may be worth far more.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

I did say that there is no question of any undue influence being exerted on any Member of Parliament. Any Member of this House or the other place is free to speak his mind on policy matters. I cannot make it plainer than that. I must say that I was very surprised, disappointed—almost shocked—to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said about his past convictions.

Lord Crickhowell

I noted carefully what the Minister said and his quotation of the Prime Minister, who said that there was nothing improper happening at all. I also noted that Mr. Llew Smith insisted that he was not withdrawing his accusations but that, in view of the assurances that he had been given that he was not going to be thrown out of the party he was not going to press them for the time being. So there is a nice stand-off here and long may it continue.

The Minister quoted a number of phrases from my amendment and criticised some of them. I was amused because almost all of the ones that he criticised were the ones that I had not amended at all but were lifted straight out of the Representation of the People Act which already imposes criminal offences. One would have to look further, if the amendment is passed, into what the penalties should be. I have not taken it that far.

We will have to wait over the coming weeks and see whether there is a relaxation; whether Members of another place, those who represent them in the country and the individual members of political parties do feel free and appear free to campaign openly and join in campaigns.

In view of what the Minister said, I intend for the time being to await events and watch very carefully what happens next. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 [Referendums supplementary]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknishmoved Amendment No. 43: Page 2, line 27, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) The referendums shall be conducted according to the provisions set out in Schedule (Conduct of referendum in Scotland) and Schedule (Conduct of referendum in Wales).").

The noble Lord said: This amendment would have been the subject of a long speech if it had been moved earlier in the day, but I can now be extremely brief. The subject of these two schedules is the two draft orders which accompany the Bill. They are considerable and they advance my argument that we should be dealing with a referendums Act if we are to have a number of referendums and not with a piecemeal adaptation of the Representation of the People Act. Although I put my argument in that shorthand way, it in no way diminishes the strength of my feeling that we ought to be doing this properly. However, we are not doing it properly; we are doing it this way.

My second reason—again in shorthand—is that, having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on a number of occasions talk about the superiority of primary legislation over secondary legislation, when the draft orders are already available we should at least consider putting them into primary legislation.

The third and perhaps most important reason is that if we do not act in that way the House will have to sit well into August. That would be very unkind on those Labour Members of the other place who have school children in Scotland who go back to school quite early in August. I am thinking about them in a way that the Government do not.

The way to overcome the problem, to be tidy and to show that the Opposition do not wish to hinder the passage of the Bill is to incorporate these two draft orders into the schedules in the way I have suggested. I beg to move.

Lord Sewel

I have listened to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, and have reflected long and hard upon the wisdom of his case. The noble Lord is concerned about groups of people—that is, those who perhaps have angling holidays at a particular time of the year. I, too, wish also to protect their interests. At this stage of the proceedings and in the spirit of concord and co-operation which has marked our debates today, perhaps I may confirm that the Government are certainly prepared to accept the amendment in principle. I give the Committee an undertaking that I will bring forward suitable amendments on Report because there are some technical difficulties involved.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that response. Of course, I appreciate that there will be some technical difficulties; indeed, there were one or two gaps in the draft order which I am afraid I completed in a rather arbitrary fashion.

Therefore I can appreciate that the Government may want to fill them in a more serious way or with an eye to the dates of the referendums which they know and I do not. I should tell the Minister that I do not actually have any fishing engagements during the first week of August. However, if anyone wants to ask me, I am always free. In this very satisfying way of concluding today's sitting of the Committee, I should add that I am most grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The Earl of Balfour moved Amendment No. 44: Page 2, line 32, leave out subsection (2).

The noble Earl said: I tabled the amendment to give me the opportunity to ask a certain question. The voters' roll is made up in Scotland in October of each year. I have no doubt that the voters' roll will have been brought up to date to some extent for the election in May. However, from what I can gather, the Government's referendum will take place before the voters' roll will be adjusted. I have in mind in particular the last few words contained in Clause 3(2), namely, alterations made after a specified date in a register of electors to be disregarded".

I am concerned about those words and can only hope that not too many people will be disregarded because of that sort of fault. I beg to move.

Lord Williams of Mostyn

The noble Earl has raised a point of some interest. As I know that he has difficulties which may prevent him from being here on Monday next, perhaps the better course would be for me to write to him directly in an effort to set his mind at rest.

The Earl of Balfour

I am much obliged to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton

I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

House resumed.

House adjourned at thirteen minutes past ten o'clock.