THE NEW REGISTERS

HL Deb 10 October 2000 vol 617 cc275-306

—(1) In place of the register of political parties maintained by the registrar of companies under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, there shall be the new registers of political parties mentioned in subsection (2) which—

1. (a) shall be maintained by the Commission, and
2. (b) (subject to the provisions of this section) shall be so maintained in such form as the Commission may determine.

(2) The new registers of political parties are—

1. (a) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in one or more of England, Scotland and Wales (referred to in this Act as "the Great Britain register"); and
2. (b) a register of parties that intend to contest relevant elections in Northern Ireland (referred to in this Act as "the Northern Ireland register").

(3) Each party registered in the Great Britain register shall be so registered in respect of one or more of England, Scotland and Wales; and the entry for each party so registered shall be marked so as to indicate—

1. (a) the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered; and
2. (b) if the party is a minor party, that it is such a party.

(4) A party may be registered under this Part in both of the new registers, but where a party is so registered—.

1. (a) the party as registered in the Great Britain register, and
2. (b) the party as registered in the Northern Ireland register, shall constitute two separate registered parties.

(5) In such a case—

1. (a) the party shall for the purposes of this Act be so organised and administered as to secure that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain are conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland;
2. (b) the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, shall accordingly constitute for those purposes the financial affairs of the party as registered in the Great Britain register or (as the case may be) the Northern Ireland register; and
3. (c) any application for the registration of a party in accordance with subsection (4) shall similarly be made and determined by reference to the party's organisation and activities in Great Britain and Northern Ireland respectively.

(6) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for the transfer to the Commission of any property, rights and liabilities to which the registrar of companies is entitled or subject in connection with his functions under the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998; and an order under this subsection may in particular provide for the order to have effect despite any provision (of whatever nature) which would prevent or restrict the transfer of the property, rights or liabilities otherwise than by the order.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish had given notice of his intention to move, as amendments to Amendment No. 63, Amendments Nos. 63A to 63J: Line 5, leave out ("registers") and insert ("register"). Line 10, leave out ("registers") and insert ("register"). Line 10, leave out ("are") and insert ("is"). Line 11, leave out from ("elections") to end of line 16 and insert ("as defined in section 20(3)."). Leave out lines 17 and 18. Line 19, leave out ("so registered") and insert ("registered in the register"). Line 20, leave out paragraph (a). Line 23, leave out subsection (4). Line 29, leave out paragraphs (a) to (c) and insert ("parties registered as minor parties shall only be authorised to nominate candidates for elections as defined under section 20(3).").

The noble Lord said: I do not intend to move any of these amendments because they all deal with the Irish situation. When I indicated earlier that I was irritated by the way that the Government had absolutely failed to spend the time between the 11th May and today on separating the issues in this group, I said that I would be minded to seek to divide the Committee if only to register my displeasure in the Division Lobby—even though I was pretty certain that the Government would win.

I am still so minded because the more that that debate went on during that hour and a half, the more it seemed to me that I was right. When the noble Lord accused me of not wanting the "Green Party" amendment because I was moving against the rest of them, that just confirmed my view. My objection is a matter of principle regarding the way that the amendments are "bundled". However, this will not in any way prevent me returning on Report on the major issue of the Northern Ireland parties. I shall not allow this amendment to pass without objecting to it.

[Amendments Nos. 63A to 63J, as amendments to Amendment No. 63, not moved.]

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I wish to test the opinion of the Committee on Amendment No. 63.

10.17 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 63) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 16.

Division No. 3
CONTENTS
Acton, L.	Brennan, L.
Alli, L.	Brookman, L.
Amos, B.	Burlison, L.
Bach, L.	Carter, L.
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Clarke of Hampstead, L.
Berkeley, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Bernstein of Craigweil, L.	Donoughue, L.
Billingham, B.	Dubs, L.
Bragg, L.	Evans of Temple Guiting, L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	McIntosh of Haringey, L.
Faulkner of Worcester, L.	Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.
Fyfe of Fairfield, L.	McNally, L.
Gale, B.	Massey of Darwen, B.
Goodhart, L.	Nicol, B.
Gould of Potternewton, B.	Parekh, L.
Hardy of Wath, L.	Pitkeathley, B.
Harris of Haringey, L.	Plant of Highfield, L.
Harrison, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hayman, B.	Rea, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Rennard, L.
Hunt of Chesterton, L.	Shutt of Greetland, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Stone of Blackheath, L.
Islwyn, L.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)	Turnberg, L.
	Watson of Invergowrie, L.
Judd, L.	Whitaker, B.
Layard, L.	Wigoder, L.
Lea of Crondall, L.	Williams of Crosby, B.
Lipsey, L.	Young of Old Scone, B.
NOT-CONTENTS
Astor, V.	Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.
Attlee, E.	Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Montrose, D.
Blatch, B.	Northesk, E.
Burnham, L.	Norton of Louth, L.
Caithness, E.	Onslow, E.
Fookes, B.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Henley, L.	Skelmersdale, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

10.27 p.m.

Clause 21 [The register]:

[Amendment No. 64 not moved.]

Clause 21 negatived.

Clause 22 [Office-holders to be registered]:

Lord Rennard moved Amendment No. 64A: Page 13, line 30, at end insert ("; and ( ) for ensuring the compliance with the provisions of Parts V and VII (campaign expenditure and referendums)").

The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I speak also to Amendments Nos. 66 and Amendments Nos. 197D to 197G, 199A to 199D, and 201A.

Amendment No. 64A divides responsibility for the financial concerns of the treasurer and the parties' nominating officer who is more properly in control of parties' elections and campaigning. The nominating officer will be responsible in this legislation for supplying lists of candidates and the issuing of certificates and approval of descriptions, emblems and so on. The amendment would also ensure compliance with the provisions of Parts V and VII of the Bill on campaign expenditure and referendums. Amendment No. 66 leaves the treasurer with the responsibility for the overall financial affairs of a particular party.

I speak as the nominating officer of the Liberal Democrats, so of course I have an interest. I am not seeking an extra work load, but I believe that it is more appropriate for me as nominating officer in charge of the election campaign to be held responsible for the election campaigning and accounts. Treasurers are often wonderful people. My party has a wonderful treasurer in Mr Reg Clarke, but the person who is responsible for taking round the begging bowl is not necessarily the one who should be held responsible for the party's detailed campaign expenditure and accounts, which follow from the declared election expenditure. Treasurers can often be a little remote from the day-to-day election process.

I note some sympathy from the Conservative Party on the issue. I am sure that they are anxious not to have "Lord Ashcroft of Belize" in charge of their day-to-day campaigning. It is more sensible for party treasurers to deal with party accounts and fundraising and for party nominating officers to be held responsible for election accounts. I beg to move.

Lord Norton of Louth

I was responsible for Amendment No. 66, which appears in this grouping, so I shall explain why I tabled it. I have two problems with the aspects of the Bill regulating the funding of political parties. One is that the provisions on donations are too complex. We now have official confirmation from the Minister that this is a complex and bureaucratic Bill. I prefer a simple and transparent system. I shall return to that on later amendments.

The other point that is central to the amendment is the scale of the responsibilities invested in party treasurers. The duties imposed by the Bill are onerous. Some of the amendments that the Government have tabled go some way to conceding that point, but not far enough. The provisions of Clause 58 are particularly onerous. We shall doubtless return to that on the clause stand part motion. That and related clauses, combined with the provisions on party donations, are likely to drive people away from serving as party treasurers. Why should anyone want to take on such a burden, having to comply with complex regulations and fearing having to face the courts if they make a mistake?

In debates on other measures we have touched on the difficulties facing political parties. There is nothing unique to this country in that respect. Political parties in the western world are under pressure. People are channelling their political activities in other ways and not getting involved in political parties. We have touched on the need to address that.

The Bill is designed to restore faith in the parties, yet the provisions on party donations and the reporting of campaign expenditure will threaten the capacity of local parties to function effectively. The Government need to address that. We shall doubtless return to that in detail on later amendments, but I wanted to raise it at this stage. I support much of what has been said. I should like to hear the Government's response and give them time to reflect on the issue before we discuss later amendments.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots

I share the concern about the confusion of roles between fundraising and fund reporting. That is a serious defect in the Bill. In the City, where I work, we have what is known as the "four eyes" principle, which means that those who carry out one function must be checked by somebody else. That division of control is an essential part of any commercial enterprise. Shareholders in Barings Bank will recall what happened when Mr Leeson not only did the business, but checked it and looked after it afterwards.

We need to find a way of separating fundraising and fund reporting. I am not sure whether the amendments go to the heart of the issue. The title of nominating officer contains a different implication. A commercial enterprise would probably have a compliance officer, but that may be adding yet another layer of bureaucracy. Certainly, I believe that what is being proposed and considered here both by my noble friend Lord Norton and by the proposer of the amendment is a significant improvement on the Bill as it stands at present.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

In the Commons Committee stage on 20th January, the Minister responsible for the Bill there, Mr Tipping, said: The Bill puts onerous duties on parties that register. Someone in the party must take responsibility for complying with them and it is really up to the political party to decide who that should be".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G; 20/1/00; col. 27.] In fact, the Bill is fairly prescriptive as to who it should be, and that is what concerns us.

I shall not go on at length because I believe that both the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson have more experience of the organisation of political parties than I do, and I hope that the Minister is listening to them. However, it seems to me that, by and large before this Bill started, the nominating officers were responsible for elections. That came under the Registration of Political Parties Act. Treasurers were a different breed of people.

However, suddenly the matter becomes much more complicated and the treasurer may well have to carry out duties which are different from those that he is used to. My amendment would simply take out the words, for the financial affairs of the party", so that the person registered as a party's treasurer must have overall responsibility for ensuring compliance. However, he would not necessarily be responsible for the financial affairs of the party because the person who does that is involved in collecting donations and in fund-raising and so on.

As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said, the person who collects and spends the money should not be the same as the person who ensures that all the regulations—and there are many in this piece of legislation—are complied with. It seems to me that we need to look at a way of separating the roles and that we should accept that all the political parties, including the Labour Party, have a huge amount of work to do. The treasurer plays a very important role within political parties. All our parties need cash and it is not an easy task to raise it. Frankly, I believe that it is piling far too much on one person to ask the treasurer to carry out other tasks.

I hope that the Minister will give some thought to the matter when he responds to the brief speeches from the four Members who have spoken on this side of the Chamber, if not on this side of the political divide. I am quite sure that we shall be able to find some common ground and common words on which we can all agree either on Report or at Third Reading.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

Clause 22 requires that a person is registered as the treasurer of a registered party. Subsection (4) stipulates that a party's registered treasurer must have, overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party and for ensuring compliance with the provisions of Parts III to V and Amendment No. 65 would remove the first part of the job description; namely, the requirement that the person registered as party treasurer has overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party. By contrast, Amendment No. 66 would retain that requirement but delete the requirement that the treasurer should be responsible for ensuring compliance with Parts III to V and VII of the Bill.

Under the Bill, registered political parties are required to account for their income and expenditure. If the requirements are to be properly observed, it is essential that a party official is identified as having responsibility for ensuring compliance with those provisions and that consequently he can be held to account for a failure to do so. For that reason, I cannot accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Norton.

In our view, whether a compliance officer (if I may refer to him or her as such) also needs to have overall responsibility for the financial affairs of the party is a moot point. Certainly I would expect a person who had overall responsibility for a party's financial affairs to be able to fulfil the role of compliance officer. However, I accept that there is an argument that the two roles do not necessarily have to be combined. But it is essential that the compliance officer has sufficient authority within the party as a whole to ensure compliance with the controls on donations and the restrictions on campaign expenditure. That will necessarily involve, among other things, conferring on the compliance officer the authority to determine how much any particular part of the party may spend during the course of an election campaign.

If the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, will agree to withdraw his amendment, I undertake to reflect further upon what he has said on this matter and see what we can do. That is the most helpful way in which to proceed.

The amendments in the name of the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Rennard, raise similar issues but they have a slightly different approach. We have had a number of discussions with the Liberal Democrats about the impact of the Bill on their federal party structure. As I understand it their state parties—that is the liberal Democrat parties in England, Scotland and Wales—have a considerable degree of autonomy from the federal party. Historically, the treasurer of the federal party has had no control over the financial affairs of the state parties. I understand that amendments to the party's federal constitution designed to square these internal party relationships with the provisions of the Bill were considered at the recent annual conference in Bournemouth. I congratulate the party on taking the necessary steps to comply with the Bill, but I accept that the changes made to the federal party's constitution do not put an end to the matter.

We are not unsympathetic to the Liberal Democrats' difficulties. Indeed, we have been wrestling with that problem and a number of other similar conundrums for some time. I understand that splitting the responsibilities of the registered treasurer would go some way to assisting the Liberal Democrats to reconcile the requirements of the Bill with their present structures. In principle, I see no reason why that cannot be done without upsetting the arrangements in the Bill. Such a split would, of course, add a further complication but arguably this would be a small price to pay.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, has suggested in his Amendment No. 64A that responsibility for compliance with the requirements in Parts V and VII should pass to the nominating officer. I know that as the nominating officer for the Liberal Democrats, he has overall responsibility for the party's national election campaigns. But while that may be true of the Liberal Democrats, it is not a model we should force on other parties. A preferable course might be to enable a party—it would not be obligatory—to register a person as treasurer with responsibilities for compliance with Parts III and IV and a second officer as the person responsible for compliance with Parts V and VII. As now, it would be open to a party to combine in one person the roles of registered leader, nominating officer, treasurer and responsible officer, or any combination of those.

If the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, would also agree to withdraw his amendments, I will similarly reflect carefully on the points he has raised with a view to bringing forward government amendments on this matter at Report. Therefore, that would help the Conservatives with the Ashcroft problem and help the Liberal Democrats with the federal problem.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

Before the noble Lord. Lord Rennard, decides what to do with this amendment and ignoring the Minister's last point, I should tell him that I am grateful for his acceptance that the way the Bill is drafted imposes a very onerous duty on treasurers, and that will include the treasurer of his own party who, I suspect, is equally unhappy with the load that she will have to take on if and when this Bill becomes an Act.

Therefore, I am content to withdraw the amendment, to wait to see what happens, and to hope that we make some progress in that regard.

Lord Rennard

I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. It is not our intention to impose our structures on any other party. But we hope it is possible for the Bill to reflect that different parties organise matters differently. Provided that the principles of the Bill are adhered to, it should not be too prescriptive in relation to who in each party is responsible for which parts. I should be happy to take on responsibility for Parts V and VII if our treasurer takes responsibility for Parts III and IV. If the Minister is able to bring forward an amendment which will allow us to do that, we should be very happy. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 65 and 66 not moved.]

Lord Bach moved Amendment No. 67: Page 13, leave out lines 38 and 39 and insert ("his appointment as treasurer terminates for any other reason").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 68 and 69, 76, 87, 87A, 90 to 92A, 98 to 101, 198, 199, 201, 282 to 286 and 287. Amendment No. 286 has been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.

These amendments are primarily designed to ensure that the register of political parties is kept up to date, both to assist the electoral commission in discharging its functions and for the benefit of the public generally.

Among the information included in a party's entry in the register will be the name and headquarters address of the party; the names of the party's registered leader, registered nominating officer, registered treasurer and deputy treasurers; and the name of each accounting unit and the name and address of its treasurer. It is clearly important that this information remains accurate and that the commission is notified by a party of any changes as soon as practicable after they occur.

As the Bill stands, there is no obligation on a party to alert the electoral commission to changes to the party's registered particulars as and when they occur. Clause 27 provides that a party may notify the commission of changes to the register, but there is no obligation on the party to do so. Indeed, a party is only required to confirm the accuracy of its registered particulars, or otherwise notify the commission of changes once a year under the provisions of Clause 28. That is not an adequate arrangement if the electoral commission is to have ready access to up-to-date particulars of any given registered parties.

The effect of these perhaps minor amendments, and in particular of the new clause to be inserted by Amendment No. 90, is to place a duty on the registered treasurer of a party to notify the electoral commission of changes to the party's registered particulars as soon as possible after they occur. Where the change arises from the death or resignation of one of a party's registered office holders, the new clause requires the registered treasurer to notify the commission of the appointment of a successor within 14 days of the death or resignation, as the case may be. In any other case, a registered treasurer has 28 days to notify the commission of changes to the party's registered particulars.

The noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has tabled three amendments to our Amendment No. 90. Perhaps I may briefly speak to those now. The effect of the amendments is to transfer responsibility for notifying the commission of changes to a party's registered particulars from the registered treasurer to any registered officer of the party or a person authorised by such an officer. The amendments also extend the deadlines for notifying the commission of changes to the registered particulars.

On the first point, it is entirely appropriate that responsibility for notifying the commission of changes in a party's registered particulars should rest with a senior officer of the party. Of course, the registered treasurer can look to his or her staff for support. But by requiring the treasurer to sign off a notification in person, both the electoral commission and the party itself can be assured that changes to the party's registered entry are made by someone of sufficient authority and standing within the party.

As regards whether notification should be made within one or three months instead of 14 or 28 days, the issue is really one of the accuracy of the register. Is it really acceptable that a party's registered particulars should be up to three months out of date? We have recently legislated for a rolling electoral register which will enable people to re-register within six weeks of changing address. Against that background, we do not think that the time limits set out in the new clause would pose a serious problem for registered parties, particularly where they make use of an electronic link to the commission.

The amendments to Clause 137 provide that the civil penalties set out in that clause will apply where a registered treasurer fails to comply with the requirements under the new clause.

Amendments Nos. 69 and 198 deal with a separate point. Clauses 22 and 69 already provide that a person may not be registered as a party's treasurer or deputy treasurer if he has been convicted in the past five years of an offence under the Bill or in any other enactment relating to elections. Clearly, if it is wrong for someone with a recent conviction for such an offence to be appointed as a registered treasurer, it is equally inappropriate for someone to continue to serve in such a role after his or her conviction. These two amendments accordingly provide for the automatic termination of the appointment of a registered treasurer or deputy treasurer on conviction of a relevant offence. In the event that such a conviction is overturned on appeal it would be open to a party to reappoint the person concerned to his former post.

Finally, Amendment No. 92A to Clause 29 provides that where a party ceases to be registered, it will remain liable for the controls set out in Parts III, IV and V of the Bill until the end of the financial year of the party following its removal from the register. That will ensure that deregistration is not used by a party as a tactic to avoid the controls set out in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

While at first sight Amendment No. 90 may seem innocuous, in fact it begins a trail which leads to some of the worst bureaucracy to be found in the Bill—and that is saying something.

I speak, first, to my Amendments Nos. 90A, 90B and 90C. These amendments seek to lighten the burden. The government amendment as drafted places an obligation on the national treasurer to inform the commission of changes in the detail of party officers, the party's headquarters, and so forth.

First, why should that duty fall on the treasurer? I thought that the treasurer's role was supposed to be concerned with financial matters rather than with the registration of detail. Why cannot that duty be performed by one of the other national officers of the party or even an authorised official?

The short time-scale laid down by the Government for the alteration of details also causes me concern. It may not be possible for changes in the details of local parties to be notified to the commission by the national treasurer within 28 days. My amendments invite the Government to think again about those periods, especially because in the case of Amendment No. 282 a civil offence is created which is punishable with potentially heavy fines for anyone who fails to deliver the details within 14 or 28 days.

These amendments relate to local parties and perhaps parties which are not very strong; for instance, local Labour parties in safe Conservative areas or local Conservative parties in safe Labour areas. An obligation has been placed on them to report that their treasurer has left them; that the treasurer has resigned or perhaps died. The report has to be submitted. It may be August and the holiday period may have begun. They have to find another treasurer and that will not be easy. It will be even less easy when the potential treasurer is handed a copy of this Bill when it becomes an Act and he is told, "You had better read that before next week". I am sure that we shall all find it difficult to find treasurers. A more generous time-scale ought to be considered by the Government. However, from the way the Minister spoke, it appears that nothing will change in that regard.

One needs to be a detective in order to understand what the amendments involve. But perhaps I may invite Members of the Committee to turn to subsection (8) of the new clause, which states: Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies to applications under subsection 3(a)". Fair enough, but there is a bit of devil in that detail. What are the applications under subsection (3)(a) to which Part IIA of Schedule 3 applies? They are the matters specified in subsections (2)(a) and (d). So we turn to those subsections and find that they are concerned with the alterations of the detail. Subsection (2)(a) relates to the name of any registered officer of the party, and subsection (2)(d)—this is crucial—to the name of any treasurer of any accounting unit of the party. That means, in broad terms, the treasurers of every local constituency Labour Party, every local Conservative Association and every local Liberal Democrat Association.

But Part IIA of Schedule 3 does not appear in the Bill itself, or in Amendments Nos. 90 and 91. It appears in Amendment No. 101, on pages 30 and 31 of the Marshalled List. The crucial provision of Part IIA of Schedule 3 (Amendment No. 101) is the proposal in paragraph 10C which appears at the top of page 31. I am sorry to make this sound like a lesson but Members of the Committee will appreciate that finding one's way through these amendments is not the easiest task. So we go to the top of page 31 and there it states that an application, including an application for the alteration of a treasurer of a local party association, must be signed by … each person … who is one of the responsible officers of the party". The paragraph goes on to state, very helpfully, For the purposes of this paragraph 'the responsible officers' has the same meaning as in paragraph 10". But paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 is not on the Marshalled List; it is already in the Bill on page 109.

I made the mistake of trying to fit all the Government's amendments into the Bill in order to discover what they were about and my copy is now full and complicated. However, paragraph 10 on page 109 defines the term "the responsible officers" as, the registered leader … nominating officer … treasurer", of the party. Where are we? I hope that that is not the intention but it may be—I know not—behind Amendments Nos. 90 and 101.

The effect is that, for any application to alter the registered detail of any treasurer of any local constituency association of our great parties, the signature must be obtained of three of the national officers of the party, including the Leader. So if the treasurer of any constituency Labour party, no matter how small it is, changes, the commission must receive a document containing the signature of the Leader of the Labour Party, the nominating officer and the national treasurer. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, can confirm to me that the Prime Minister is fully aware of the provisions of paragraph 10(2)(a) of Schedule 3. Is he aware that every now and then— and I suspect in reality quite often—somebody will be trotting up to Downing Street and popping into his Red Box a form which he will be expected to sign stating that Joe Bloggs has been replaced by Jeanie Bloggs in the Any Town Labour Party?

Lord Bach

Perhaps the noble Lord will give way. I had always thought that the noble Lord was in the wrong job. What he has said is an impressive display of forensic skill. Perhaps in order not just to shut him up but so that we may move on I may say that as a consequence of his remarks we will look at the proposed changes to the registered treasurer of an accounting unit. He seems to have a point there which perhaps he has made once or twice.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I have made it only once but I now know how to get something out of the Government: mention that the Prime Minister might he involved and the Minister rises almost instantly. I am grateful to the noble Lord.

I am sorry to bother him—he will table so many amendments—but I have another little point related to Amendment No. 69, which is in the group. It deals with convictions for offences. The amendment appears to provide that the treasurer of a registered party shall cease to hold office if, he has been convicted … of any offence under this Act or of any other offence committed in connection with a relevant election or a referendum". The key word is "convicted". I understand that, even if the treasurer were to appeal against his conviction and to win that appeal, he must relinquish his office for the duration of the appeal and might even be barred from returning to it after his conviction has been overturned.

I wonder whether the Minister can defend this provision in the light of a recent case involving the Member of Parliament for Newark, Mrs Jones, who kept her seat despite the fact that she had been convicted of election offences and was awaiting appeal. That is almost the same situation and it seems to me unfair that a treasurer must relinquish his post if he is appealing while a Member of Parliament had the pleasure of not doing so until the appeal, which was successful. The point is that the appeal by the treasurer could equally be successful.

I have not been able to trace that back to the Prime Minister but if the noble Lord gives me long enough I might manage it. I hope that he will consider the point.

Lord Bach

I will certainly look at that last point. We are suggesting that on conviction the treasurer's appointment is automatically terminated. However, I take the noble Lord's point and perhaps we should consider whether there is a possibility of delaying that until the date for leave to appeal is reached, after which it will automatically terminate. I make no promises but we will take that matter away too.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bach moved Amendments Nos. 68 to 70: Page 13, line 41, leave out ("accordance with section 27") and insert ("pursuance of an application under section (Notification of changes in party's officers etc.)(3)(a)"). Page 14, line 12, at end insert— ("(8) Where a person registered as treasurer of a registered party is convicted of an offence falling within subsection (7)(b), his appointment as treasurer of the party shall terminate on the date of the conviction."). Page 14, line 12, at end insert— ("( ) In connection with the registration of a party in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register in accordance with section (The new registers)(4)—

1. (a) a person may be registered in the Northern Ireland register as leader of the separate party registered in that register if (although not such a leader of the party as is mentioned in subsection (2) above) he is leader of the party in Northern Ireland; and
287
2. (b) references to a person's responsibilities in subsection (3) or (4) above shall be read as references to the responsibilities that he will have with respect to the separate party registered in the Great Britain register or the Northern Ireland register, as appropriate.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.

11 p.m.

Clause 23 [Financial structure of registered party: adoption of scheme]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 71: Page 15, line 10, at end insert— ("( ) The Commission shall, in relation to any scheme under this section, give guidance in the form of a "model scheme" for the use of political parties and the Commission shall be entitled to—

1. (a) modify any such "model scheme" from time to time as it thinks fit; or
2. (b) request additional information from each party registering, or registered, in respect of its financial structure.").

The noble Lord said: I shall be brief because I suspect that in part Amendment No. 71 has been overtaken by some rather complicated events. My concern in this amendment is that political parties must submit their scheme to the commission. The commission may play about with it and the matter may go to and fro until there is a form of agreement. I believe that to be unnecessarily cumbersome. The amendment proposes that the commission should bring forward a model scheme for the use of all political parties. That would be particularly helpful to the smaller ones. It may be that the three great parties would not have much trouble. However, some of the smaller parties—for example the Green Party—might face difficulties. It would be far more sensible to have a model scheme by the commission which indicated what it would like, especially as the Government want to introduce a good deal of this material quickly.

I am aware that political parties have recently been sent provisional guidance. I suspect that the Minister will tell me that that is enough. All I say is that the size of the provisional guidance underlines the enormity of the bureaucracy which the Bill imposes on political parties. It is far better for the commission to be asked to send a model scheme to the parties. If so, they would all know what they were aiming for. I beg to move.

Lord Bach

Clause 23 requires as a condition of registration that each political party submits a scheme for the commission's approval setting out the party's structure for the purposes of regulating its financial affairs under the Bill. Clearly, the preparation and approval of such schemes is central to the effective operation of the controls set out in the Bill. We entirely share the noble Lord's view that it is desirable for the commission to offer advice and guidance to the political parties as to the content and presentation of such a scheme. We have no doubt that it will do so; and advice on these matters has already been issued to existing registered parties.

Clause 9(3) specifically empowers the commission to provide advice and assistance to registered parties. The commission will wish to see the arrangements for the adoption of schemes work smoothly. It has nothing to gain from repeatedly having to request further information and will wish to avoid disputes about whether a particular scheme adequately describes a party's structure. However, we are not persuaded that we should seek to prescribe on the face of the Bill just how the commission should go about providing such guidance. Nor do we believe that Amendment No. 71 proposes the best practicable means of doing so. The proposal is that the commission should devise a model scheme upon which, presumably, parties may hang their own particular arrangements.

However, the very purpose of Clause 23 is to meet the point that political parties in this country are so diverse in their structure—we have had hints of that in the debates this evening—that any attempt to shoe-horn them into some kind of preconceived model of a political party is futile. We believe that the idea of a model scheme that is applicable to all registered parties is open to the same objection. However, the electoral commission project team in the Home Office is consulting on a draft model scheme that may fit the circumstances of the smallest registered parties which do not have accounting units. Paragraph (b) of the proposed amendment demonstrates the difficulties of a one-size-fits-all approach. The paragraph appears to suggest that the development of a model scheme would be dependent upon the receipt of information from the political parties about their financial structures. It may be that we begin to go round in circles.

We are sympathetic to the idea that the commission should provide guidance, and we have no doubt that it will. I hope the noble Lord is persuaded that his amendment may be more of a hindrance than a help to the commission and will accordingly withdraw it.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am grateful to the Minister for his sympathetic response. I hear what he says and appreciate that, on that basis, it would certainly be easier for the Labour Party, Conservative Party and Liberal Democrats to cope with these issues. I am pleased to hear that the unit in the Home Office is looking at the problem as it affects the smaller parties. On that hopeful note, I am content to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: moved Amendment No. 72: Page 15, line 15, at end insert (", with the exception of any organisation that—

1. (i) has paid an affiliation fee to a registered party, or
2. (ii) has a direct input into policy formation within a registered party, or
3. (iii) has a direct input into the selection of candidates for political office within a registered party").

The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 73 and 74. The amendments are directed to Clause 23. In order to show the enormity of what the Government are trying to do, I shall read out the important parts of Clause 23. Subsection (8) states: For the purposes of this section"— for example, financial structures of registered parties— none of the following shall be taken to be a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to a party—(a) a trade union within the meaning of the Trade Union and Labour relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 or the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1992". Therefore, a trade union affiliated to the Labour Party is not to be taken as an affiliated trade union. Subsection (8) then does the same for friendly societies and for, any other organisation of a description prescribed by order". I should be interested to hear what the noble Lord is considering under paragraph (c)—"any other organisation". I do not think many friendly societies are involved. It is Clause 23(3)(a) which concerns me. It is standing fact on its head. How one can possibly accept that the trade unions affiliated to the Labour Party—I have no problem with them being affiliated to the Labour Party—are somehow for the purposes of the Bill not affiliated to the Labour Party? That beggars belief.

The Committee should not accept my word that the trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. I could read out the evidence of the Labour Party to the commission. I shall not because it is late at night. There were submissions from political parties and at page 228 there is one from the Labour Party. I shall quote parts of it. It states: The Labour Party is a federation of affiliated organisations, of which trade unions are the largest". They are the largest affiliated organisation in the Labour Party, yet the Bill says they are not to be considered as affiliated to the Labour Party. The Labour Party's evidence continues: The principle of affiliated membership is a reflection of the fact that in the British political system, as in others, there is no single or one-dimensional view of how a political party should be organised or structured, whether in terms of composition or manner of internal government. In the British system we have accepted a plurality of forms of political party, and have accepted the principle that the members of political parties may properly include both individuals and organisations acting on behalf of their members. It further states: The rights vested in members of affiliated trade unions include, either under the constitution of the party or as a matter of practice, the right to vote for the leader and deputy leader of the party; and the right to vote on the election manifesto of the party". We know that. That is not disputed. The affiliated trade unions are fully part of the Labour Party. I am not complaining about that; that is what they are. But I complain about this almost sleight of hand that simply says "but for the purpose of the Bill they will not be affiliated". Noble Lords may wonder why a government will allow such a piece of legislation which is so clearly a sleight of hand. The simple reason is that if the Bill is enacted the trades unions will be able, as they do, to contribute to the funds of the Labour Party. I see from today's paper that the Prime Minister wants them to contribute even more to the party. The Daily Mail states: Blair begs the union barons for £20 million". He will not need more money from anywhere else because that is as much as he can spend on the general election. But there he is turning to them a3 major backers of the Labour Party. We all know they are. There is no problem with that. If they continue to do that they should be open and above board about the amount of money they contribute.

But it is open and above board. I believe everyone knows what they contribute. So why do the Government need to put this provision in the Bill? They want to have their cake and eat it. They want the affiliated trade unions not only to be fully paid-up members of the Labour Party, taking part in everything the Labour Party does and paying money to the Labour Party; they also want the trade unions to be considered separate from the Labour Party so that they can be considered as third parties when it comes to electioneering. Each of them will he able to spend jolly nearly £1 million on electioneering if they have any money left after Mr Blair takes away the money he wants from them.

I do not know how many trade unions are affiliated to the Labour Party. I fully accept that not all of them could afford to spend just under £1 million. If there are 18, they could together spend jolly nearly £18 million, plus the £20 million spent by the Labour Party. That is not just a small coach and horses through the principles of the Bill—we heard so much about the principles of the Bill when we were talking about Northern Ireland—it is an enormous coach and horses. The Government have a cheek to come forward with a proposal as blatant as this one. It is amazing that they have the brass neck to come forward with this amazing proposal, especially as, by their own evidence, the trade unions are the most important affiliated part of the Labour Party. Then, suddenly, we have all to pretend—it is like Alice in Wonderland—that they are not really affiliated to the Labour Party. I beg to move.

The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham)

As Amendment No. 74 has also been spoken to, I must point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 74 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 74A.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I enjoyed that mischievous and circuitous trip around the Bill and its contents. With these amendments we return to ground which has already been trodden in another place. I welcome the opportunity to explain the purpose of subsection (8) of Clause 23. It is not quite as the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, in his very entertaining way, described.

It is indeed the case that there are trade unions which are affiliated to the Labour Party and which, going solely by the party's constitution, would be regarded as parts of the party. If that were not so, the question of their inclusion in or exclusion from the party's scheme would simply not arise. But it should be remembered that the schemes adopted under Clause 23 are to be solely for the purpose of regulating the financial affairs of the party. They are not intended as a comprehensive description of what constitutes a political party. That is the key point for the noble Lord to take away from this debate.

As the noble Lord has pointed out, the Labour Party does indeed receive substantial amounts of money from the trade unions, properly and openly raised and accounted for under the distinct statutory arrangements which exist precisely for that purpose. Far from being a device to obscure those financial or political links, the very purpose of subsection (8) is to ensure that such funding and the relationship are transparent. I am confident that, when he reflects further on the matter, the noble Lord will accept and agree with this.

The controls on donations set out in Part IV of this Bill regulate the receipt of funds by a political party from other sources. They do not regulate a political party's internal transactions. If affiliated trade unions were included within the schemes for regulating parties' affairs for the purposes of the Bill, the first consequence would be that the party would then not be obliged to declare donations to the party from the trade union. The movement of the money would be on a par with, for example, affiliation fees paid by constituency organisations to the central headquarters of a party—an internal party transaction with no requirement for the payment to appear in the party's donation reports. I am sure that the noble Lord would agree, on reflection, that that would not be right.

One purpose of the Bill is to enable the public to gain a reliable account of where the money available to political parties comes from, and to compare one with another as to the money they receive and spend. In the public mind, and in reality, trade unions are donors to a party. Figures which excluded their contributions would be wholly misleading. A further consequence would be that, under Part III of the Bill, the party concerned would have to account for the financial affairs of the trade union—and for all its affairs, not just those relating to political activity. That is wholly unnecessary, given the substantial statutory regulatory provision which already exists for that purpose in legislation put in place in large measure by members of the party opposite. It would also be misleading and confusing. The treasurer of a political party does not in fact have any control over the financial affairs of an affiliated trade union and to create a scheme of control, when separate provision is already in existence, would be a difficult as well as a pointless exercise. Furthermore, it would burden the electoral commission with a large amount of financial information in which it would have absolutely no interest.

Subsection (8)(c), which Amendment No. 74 would remove, provides for the Secretary of State to prescribe by order other categories of organisations which are also to be regarded as not forming part of a party's structure for the purposes of the controls set out in the Bill. Again, the purpose of the provision is to provide a mechanism for ensuring that parties are not required to account for the financial affairs of organisations which have a relatively autonomous existence and, at the same time, ensure that transactions between parties and such organisations are subject to the controls set out in Part IV. The alternative is for a party to be responsible for independent affiliated organisations over which they have no financial or administrative control.

I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord is seeking to remove the order-making power in Clause 23(8)(c). We have already invited existing registered parties to put forward organisations mentioned in their party's constitution which should be included in a Clause 23(8)(c) order.

The Conservative Party for one has responded positively to that invitation. It has put forward a number of candidates for inclusion in such an order, including the Association of Conservative Clubs, the Conservative Medical Society and the Society of Conservative Lawyers. Indeed, I believe that I have some correspondence, a copy of which has come into the unit, which lists a whole range of other very interesting and worthy Conservative groups such as Conservatives at Work, the Conservative Disability Group, the Conservative Foreign Affairs Forum, the National Conservative Women's Council, the Tory Green Initiative, the Society of Conservative Accountants—that sounds an interesting body the Association of Conservative Clubs and even the Association of Conservative Peers. It is clear to me that the Conservative Party understands the purpose of this clause and why it has been included in the Bill. If Conservative Central Office can see the case for Clause 23(8)(c), I am sure that the noble Lord can also be persuaded that the provision should stand as it is.

Having received a number of proposals for inclusion in a Clause 23(8) order, it is apparent that the organisations affiliated to existing registered parties do not all lend themselves to being classified by generic descriptions. The government amendment in this group therefore enables an order to specify individual organisations as well as generic classes of organisation.

No decision has been taken on which organisations should be included in a Clause 23(8)(c) order. Existing registered parties have been given until 23rd October to put forward their nominations. We shall need to move quickly thereafter so that the order can come into force two weeks after Royal Assent. This will tie in with the start of the six-week compliance period during which existing registered parties will have to send their draft scheme to the electoral commission. I should also emphasise that in making any order under this clause, our aim is to proceed on the basis of a cross-party consensus. There should be no question of any party seeking to obtain partisan advantage from this process. Indeed, I would not suggest for a moment that the noble Lord opposite would go along such a path.

I trust that, in the light of my explanation, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.

11.15 p.m.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

That explanation was more interesting for what it omitted rather than for what it actually said. Of course I am familiar with subsection (8)(c) and the exchange of correspondence. However, I am not entirely certain that even for a moment the various associations of the Conservative Party mentioned by the noble Lord, any more than those of the Liberal Democrats or the Labour Party, will be in a position to spend a great deal of money as third parties in the election. I wondered about the Association of Labour Lawyers in that I am not sure whether I could include it in the list of those not able to spend £1 million. However, I doubt if it will do so. I should imagine that the lawyers make their donations rather more directly.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

I should think that the Society of Conservative Accountants might be able to offer a few pennies as well.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

They might be worth a few pennies, as I hope are the Conservative lawyers. Frankly, however, I doubt if they will electioneer as a third party. There is no evidence that any of those organisations have electioneered as a third party, which is my main point.

I noticed that the Minister did not confirm or deny my assertion that affiliated trade unions—I am not talking about other trade unions—would be able to give money to the Labour Party and be able to spend up to £1 million as third parties. If my memory serves me rightly, UNISON spent quite a lot of money at the previous election campaigning on issues which it thought were important and which were fairly directly connected with the direct proposition that one should vote Labour.

There is a huge difference between the various organisations he read out in subsection 8(c) and the organisations in subsection 8(a). His argument on subsection 8(a) was very simple. His first argument was that if trade unions were not outside the schemes in the Bill, all their financial affairs would have to be included—not only the ones involving political activity. I cannot believe that the Government and their officials would find it impossible to meet this point by including the affiliated trade unions and so on in the Bill for the purposes of political expenditure—that is, making the whole Labour Party, including the trade unions, subject to the £20 million limit.

The other interesting proposition is that the party would not be obliged to declare donations from a trade union were it not for this part of the clause. That is a totally spurious argument. Not only does the Labour Party publish the details of money it receives from the trade unions in its annual accounts, but the details of trade union political funds are regulated and made public. Unions are required already to make annual returns of their financial affairs available for public inspection. That is made perfectly clear in paragraph 6.21 of Lord Neill's report. I am afraid that the noble Lord's argument about that does not really stand up.

The open agenda here—it would he nice if we had a bit of open government—is to allow organisations which are reasonably wealthy and interested in politics not only to affiliate to and be actively involved in the Labour Party, not only to give the Labour Party large amounts of money, but to be able to spend large amounts of money—outside the cap on the political parties—on electioneering as third parties.

It would be refreshing if the Government were to own up. It is a simple proposition. The Minister knows that I am quite correct that this will happen. Is the Minister denying that this will be the consequence of the clause? Of course he is not. He cannot because this will be the consequence. However, at this time of night, I have made my point. I may return to it at a later stage if I think I can appeal to the noble Lord's sense of moral outrage. If I cannot do that, I may not return to it. We shall see. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendments Nos. 73 and 74 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 74A and 75: Page 15, line 20, leave out ("of a description prescribed by") and insert ("specified, or of a description specified, in an"). Page 15, line 24, at end insert— ("( ) In connection with the registration of a party in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register, subsection (1)(a) and the other provisions of this section apply (in accordance with section (The new registers)(5)) separately in relation to the party in Great Britain and the party in Northern Ireland, and in that connection—

1. (a) any reference in this section to a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to the party shall be read as a reference to a constituent or affiliated organisation in relation to the party in Great Britain or the party in Northern Ireland, as appropriate; and
2. (b) any reference in this Part to the party's constitution shall be read as a reference to the party's constitution so far as relating to the party in Great Britain or the party in Northern Ireland, as appropriate;

and the party's scheme must show that the financial affairs of the party in Great Britain will be conducted separately from those of the party in Northern Ireland.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 23, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 24 [Financial structure of registered party: accounting units]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 76: Page 15, line 39, leave out ("and (7)") and insert (", (7) and (8)").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 76A: Page 15, line 42, leave out ("the person registered as treasurer of the party") and insert ("any other officer of the accounting unit").

The noble Lord said: I am trying to be helpful to the Government by suggesting an amendment which seeks to correct a fairly bizarre piece of drafting in the Bill which is certainly bizarre in its effect.

I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Bach, is to reply to the amendment. We may make some progress here. The noble Lord's briefing probably says that as presently drafted Clause 24(3) applies the provisions of Clause 22(5) and (7) to the political parties' accounting units with certain modifications. Put more simply, Clause 24(3) means that if the treasurer of a local Conservative association or a constituency Labour Party dies, resigns or is voted out, until a successor is appointed the responsibility for the local party's financial affairs falls on the national treasurer of the national party.

How can the national party treasurer possibly ensure personally—and he must do so personally, for he will be legally liable under the Bill—that the financial affairs of such a local party are administered to the required standard, when the treasurer will probably have his or her hands tied with all the other consequences of the Bill?. He or she will be busily involved in the bureaucracy here in London, whereas the local party may be far away and may not be in a very good seat for the political party, which may not have a very big organisation there.

I may be wrong, but as I read the clause it appears that the national treasurer will be open to criminal prosecution if such a local party breaches any of the Bill's complex rules while he is responsible for its financial affairs. The drafting of the clause, in so far as it relates to local parties, does not reflect Clause 22(5) which relates to national parties. If the national treasurer dies or resigns, the leader of the party becomes legally responsible for the finances. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Bach, has told the Prime Minister about that as well. But if a local treasurer dies or resigns, it is not the chairman or the secretary of the local party who becomes responsible and takes over the legal responsibility, but the national treasurer of the party. Is it realistic to expect the national treasurer of a party to discharge all the functions relating to the United Kingdom and then to discharge these particular local functions as well?

My amendment would change the situation so that another officer of the local party, rather than the national treasurer, would take over responsibility if a local treasurer died or resigned. I believe that that is a simpler, better and fairer way to deal with this matter. I hope that the Government will be prepared to accept it. It seems more relevant to the reality of how political parties are run and not to the odd way that the Bill sometimes assumes that political parties are run. I beg to move.

Lord Bach

I am afraid that I cannot be as helpful as I have been earlier this evening to the noble Lord. Amendment No. 76A is concerned with the situation in which a person registered as the treasurer of an accounting unit ceases to hold office and a person has yet to be registered in his or her place. The Bill presently states that in such circumstances the person registered as the treasurer of the party as a whole shall be deemed to be responsible for that accounting unit's financial affairs until such time as another person is registered as the accounting unit's treasurer.

If the amendment were to be carried, that responsibility would instead fall to some other officer of the accounting unit itself. We understand the reasons for the amendment. The very purpose of providing for the registration of separate accounting units is to take account of the fact that constituency associations and other local party organisations are usually responsible for their own financial affairs. In these circumstances, it would not normally be appropriate to hold the national party treasurer responsible for the accounts of such local party units. However, under Clause 24, the national treasurer would step into the void only in exceptional circumstances, such as the death of the treasurer of an accounting unit.

The difficulty with the noble Lord's approach is that it envisages responsibility for compliance falling to, any other officer of the accounting unit". But there is no requirement on a registered party to notify the electoral commission of the names of any other officers of an accounting unit. How then would the commission know which particular officer is to be held responsible? Unless we were to complicate the registration scheme yet further by providing for the registration of other officers of each accounting unit, the only practical alternative is to deem the registered treasurer of the central party organisation to be the responsible officer.

In practice, the end sought by the amendment could be achieved if, in the event of the registered treasurer of an accounting unit ceasing to hold that position, the party promptly registered another officer of the accounting unit as its new treasurer. That would, of course, require the management committee of the accounting unit to act quickly to appoint a successor. But it would need to do that in any event under this amendment in order to ensure that one of its number took on responsibility for the accounts. This underlines the fact that political parties will need to be alert to the consequences of the registration arrangements.

If a party intends to register as a party with accounting units, it will be important to ensure that procedures are in place to respond quickly to the death, or resignation, of a registered officer of the party or of one of its accounting units. With a little planning and guidance from party headquarters, we see no reason why that cannot be done. Many of us have practical experience of how parties actually run. We do not believe that what we propose here is impractical.

11.30 p.m.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

This is another example of the view from 20,000 feet, as opposed to the view on the ground. In his eloquent explantion, the Minister talked about "accounting units". We are talking about constituency associations. They are real, live things: they are not creatures of Whitehall or of the commission. They vary enormously in their strength and their capability—and that applies to all parties—depending on where they are located. The role of the Conservative association treasurer in Stoke-on-Trent Central, or of the Labour Party treasurer in Cotswold, is not an enviable one.

In such circumstances, and bearing in mind the additional weight that will be imposed on them by other provisions in the Bill, there is a real chance that many of these associations will become de facto defunct because people will not wish to take on the burden, especially in parts of the country where their party is not the predominant one. If that were to happen, it would have serious implications for our democracy. It is important that all parties—indeed, even dear old Mr Bill Boakes's party—should be encouraged to have as wide a participation as possible.

My noble friend's amendment would provide greater flexibility at local level, instead of this moving immediately from the local "accounting unit"—a ghastly phrase, but I shall use it—to the centre. I can envisage a situation where the treasurer (if we have a treasurer when we come to the final version of the Bill) of, say, the Conservative Party, the Labour Party or the Liberal Democrat Party will end up being de facto and de lure the treasurer of a whole range of individual associations at local level, especially in parts of the country that are not favourable to that particular party's cause. It will not be possible to find people to take on the work and the responsibilities that will be thrust upon them by virtue of the Bill. At least the amendment of my noble friend offers an opportunity to take a slightly wider view. I believe it to be worthy of greater support and explanation than the Minister has so far given it.

Lord Bach

I am disappointed by that contribution from so expert and experienced a source as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. I believe that his view is much too pessimistic. There are many party activists in all three major parties. We are talking about parties with accounting units—not Bill Boakes's party, or his successor's party—which realise that the law as regards political parties must be, if I may use the word, "modernised" and regulated. On balance, they would much prefer to have a scheme like the one we propose than the haphazard methods previously employed. I do not believe that this would lead to such a shortage, any more than there is a shortage at present.

The noble Lord did not answer the point that I attempted to make in my response to the amendment. If it is to be any other officer of the accounting unit, is he suggesting that every officer of each unit should be registered through the electoral commission? Alternatively, is the noble Lord happy that it should be any other officer of an accounting unit, so that the commission would not even know who was responsible for the finances of, say, Cotswold or Stoke-on-Trent Central?

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

I thank the Minister for those comments. The simple answer is that a period of time should be allocated during which that can happen. My noble friend's amendment does not mention a timescale but it would be perfectly possible to allocate a period of time during which a local party could nominate another officer and, failing that, it could approach the national treasurer At least it would have a chance to sort itself out and make the necessary arrangements. If that is not the case, one becomes engaged in an enormous bureaucratic process and imposes on the national treasurer a range of duties that no sane man or woman would wish to take on.

Lord Bach

Who will be in charge between the time when the treasurer resigns and a new treasurer is appointed? Should it be the national treasurer with overall responsibility, or should it be some officer of the accounting unit whose name may not even be known to the electoral commission? That issue has not yet been properly addressed and therefore we cannot accept the amendment.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts

I say with respect that I do not believe that the noble Lord has addressed my next point. In regard to an intervening period before a new officer is appointed, has there been at constituency level or at accounting unit level the range of problems that the Bill seeks to tackle? Are we not taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut? I understand the concerns that have been expressed with regard to overseas funding. However, as regards the issue we are discussing at the moment, there have been relatively few difficulties for all parties at local constituency level.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

This has been a disappointing debate in that the scenario I painted seems to be the correct one and the paper trail I followed leads to the conclusion that I feared. The noble Lord has confirmed that. It would be much more comfortable to be able to say to the noble Lord that he has clearly never been involved in a political party at constituency level. However, I know that that is not the case. That makes it even stranger that he should live in Cloud-cuckoo-land with regard to political parties.

Lord Bach

For better or worse I was the treasurer of a constituency Labour Party for 15 years.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

That makes the position even worse. I should have thought that the noble Lord might have brought that experience to bear on the people who drafted the Bill who clearly know nothing about political parties or how they operate. As my noble friend said, it is preposterous to expect the national treasurer of a party suddenly to become responsible for the finances of a local party whose treasurer has died or who has not resigned at an AGM or a special general meeting when another treasurer could be appointed. If the noble Lord is not aware that these things happen, he must have lived in some fortunate constituencies. These things happen and treasurers are not easy to obtain. It will be a darned sight more difficult to obtain them once the Bill is enacted and they are told that they had better read it before they become local treasurers.

As I say, the noble Lord lives in Cloud-cuckoo-land if he does not appreciate that every week of every year treasurers of constituencies will, for whatever reason, no longer be in post. Therefore, I suggest that every week the poor old national treasurer will be responsible for at least one constituency funding. That is a ludicrous proposition. I cannot put it any higher than that. I should have thought that if the Government need to have another person nominated, we could devise an amendment which states that one of the other officers should be nominated pro tem. Simply to state that the duty will fall on the national treasurer is quite amazing.

I am amazed at the Government's response. My noble friend Lord Hodgson, who knows more about the matter than I, expressed his points well. I should have thought that the secretary's name or the chairman's name might suffice in these circumstances. As I say, the idea that the poor old national treasurer will have to take over the affairs of the local party is crazy. As my noble friend says, I wonder whether the measure is not a sledgehammer to crack a nut. What is the problem with constituency parties? Where is the corruption there? Does the noble Lord know of any? As far as I know, there has been none. If there has been corruption, that has involved electoral systems. However, I shall not go into that given where I live and what people do there on election day. I do not believe that there has been widespread misdeed as regards the funding of local constituency parties—and certainly not the kind of body which will have difficulty in finding a new treasurer. In addition to not having a new treasurer, such bodies do not have lots of money.

I am sorry the noble Lord has been so negative. We shall read carefully what he said and consider whether we can bring forward an amendment which addresses his concerns, although they are totally false, and relieve the national treasurer of the obligation of having one constituency association after another landing in his lap. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 25 [Registration of parties]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 77: Page 16, line 2, leave out subsection (1) and insert— ("(1) A party may apply to be registered under this Part by sending to the Commission an application which—

1. (a) complies with the requirements of Part I of Schedule 3, and
2. (b) is accompanied by a declaration falling within subsection (1A).

(1A) The declarations falling within this subsection are—

1. (a) a declaration that the party—
1. (i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections in Great Britain and one or more such elections in Northern Ireland, and
300
2. (ii) is accordingly applying to be registered (as two such separate parties as are mentioned in section (The new registers)(4)) in both the Great Britain register and the Northern Ireland register;
2. (b) a declaration that the party—
1. (i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections (which will not be confined to one or more parish or community elections) in Great Britain only, and
2. (ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Great Britain register only;
3. (c) a declaration that the party—
1. (i) intends to contest one or more relevant elections in Northern Ireland only, and
2. (ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Northern Ireland register only;
4. (d) a declaration that the party—
1. (i) intends only to contest one or more parish or community elections, and
2. (ii) is accordingly applying to be registered in the Great Britain register only.

(1B) A declaration falling within paragraph (a), (b) or (d) of subsection (1A) must specify the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which the party is applying to be registered in the Great Britain register.").

The noble Lord said: This amendment has already been spoken to. I beg to move.

[Amendments Nos. 77A to 77G, as amendments to Amendment No. 77, not moved.]

On Question, Amendment No. 77 agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 78 to 80: Page 16, line 9, leave out ("The Commission shall grant such an application by a party") and insert ("Where a party sends an application to the Commission in accordance with subsection (1), the Commission shall grant the application"). Page 16, line 11, after ("would") insert ("either—

1. (i) be the same as that of a party which is already registered in the register in which that party is applying to be registered, or
2. (ii)")

Page 16, line 12, at end insert ("in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Lord Norton of Louth moved Amendment No. 80A: Page 16, line 13, leave out paragraph (b).

The noble Lord said: This subsection stipulates the grounds on which the commission shall refuse an application to register the name of a particular party. Under paragraph (b) the commission must refuse an application from a party whose name comprises more than six words. That limit derives from the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1969 covering the candidate's description on nomination and ballot papers. It is maintained in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998. Indeed this, and the subsequent two clauses, re-enact with modifications provisions of the 1998 Act.

I raise the point as one of principle. A six word limit appears unduly restrictive. Perhaps the newly formed party would like to use seven or eight words in its title. That may not be sensible; it may not appeal to voters. On the other hand, it may help to convey what the party stands for. A description in excess of six words may be desirable, especially for parties with a territorial base which may wish to embody that in the title.

When the Registration of Political Parties Bill was debated at Second Reading in your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, commented on the imagination employed by some minor parties in keeping within the six word limit. I am sure that that is so. One has only to consider some of the titles used. But is it necessary now to force parties to keep within such a tight limit?

I appreciate that the counter-argument is the practical argument that there is only a limited space on ballot papers. That is the reason for the restriction. However, I am not sure that the title needs to be so limited as to confine a party's name to six words. I am not sure that the names of parties should be determined to such a degree by the amount of space available on a piece of paper.

I appreciate that there is a case for some limit, not only for reasons of space but also to prevent abuse. However, I raise the question as to whether the limit is set at the right level. The limit was not questioned by noble Lords when the Registration of Political Parties Bill was before the House and I thought it appropriate to raise the issue now. It is important for the parties and—to revert to a point made earlier—it may be to the benefit of electors that parties have greater latitude when describing themselves.

I appreciate that this is not the most crucial amendment that we shall debate but I do not regard it as wholly marginal either. I beg to move.

Baroness Gould of Potternewton

Is the noble Lord suggesting that we simply delete paragraph (b) and make no attempt to replace it? Does he believe that parties should be able to describe themselves however they like, or does he intend to come back with a further amendment limiting the description to, say, nine or 10 words?

Lord Norton of Louth

This is intended to be a probing amendment to see what response we get from the Government. I did not want to be overly prescriptive at this stage. I just wanted to see whether the Government were interested in amending the limit. There may be a case for increasing the limit slightly or giving the commission a little flexibility. I did not intend to remove the limit altogether.

11.45 p.m.

Viscount Astor

Amendment No. 81 is in this group. It may be helpful if I speak to it. It would apply a test of reasonableness to the Electoral Commission, ensuring that it would not unreasonably withhold registration and would explain in writing to the applicant if registration was withheld.

We do not think it very likely that there will be deliberate obstruction of a political party's registration, but it is important to establish that the commission must have good reasons for refusing registration and must explain those reasons fully. The amendment would greatly reduce the likelihood of cases going to judicial review or the High Court. As we have seen recently, commissions can be taken to court and can be found wanting.

As well as preventing the electoral commission from behaving unreasonably, as I am sure that it would not, the amendment would strengthen the idea that any party with a reasonable case should be given registration. Very importantly, it would also specify that if registration was refused, the reasons should be given in writing, so that the party in question could decide whether it wanted to appeal or was prepared to accept the judgment of the commission.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

As the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has explained, his amendment would simply delete subsection (2)(b) from Clause 25. That paragraph requires the electoral commission to refuse an application for registration from a party if the proposed registered name of the party comprises more than six words. As I am sure that the noble Lord is ready to acknowledge, the provision replicates an existing provision in Section 3(1)(b) of the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998.

The limitation on the number of words reflects the requirements of rule 6 of the parliamentary election rules contained in Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983. That rule allows a candidate to state a description on his nomination paper. Any such description is then carried through to the ballot paper. Under rule 6(2), a description must not exceed six words. If there were no such restriction on the length of a candidate's description, there would clearly be scope for abuse. A candidate could describe what he stands for in a 500-word mini manifesto. Does the noble Lord really want to be faced with that when he enters a polling booth? I suspect not. The limitation of six words is entirely reasonable. It has been an accepted part of our electoral arrangements for 30 years and I have heard no persuasive argument for changing it.

Amendment No. 81 would place the Electoral Commission under an obligation not to withhold registration unreasonably and to give its reasons for withholding registration in writing. We have heard many allegations and suggestions today that the Bill is overly bureaucratic—I have owned up to that—and over prescriptive. I have no doubt that the commission will give its reasons in writing, but I do not think that it is necessary to specify such good practice in the Bill. I am sure that the commission will be mindful of the fact that its adjudications could be challenged. No doubt it will want to confirm its view in writing, but I see no reason to specify that in the Bill. The only grounds for refusing an application for registration are those set out in Clause 25(2). It is quite clear that the electoral commission would be subject to a successful application for judicial review if it introduced extraneous and irrelevant considerations into its determinations. I am sure that that will be widely understood. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.

Viscount Astor

Before my noble friend decides what to do about his amendment, perhaps I may deal with Amendment No. 81. I understand the point that the Minister made about the reasonableness or unreasonableness of the commission's decision. However, he said that he was sure that the commission would want to carry out good practice and put its reasons in writing. Therefore, it seems to make perfect sense to include that provision in the Bill. It simply confirms what is said and I believe that it is important that that is so. That is the minimum safeguard that we would require without going for the full amendment as drafted.

I hope that the noble Lord will consider that point; otherwise, I believe that we shall have to return on Report with at least the second part of the amendment, which ensures that any explanation is, indeed, put in writing.

Lord Norton of Louth

I have noticed on past occasions that when the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, responds to points he sometimes delivers a speech of two halves. In the first half he expresses his own opinion, which tends to be extremely helpful; in the second half, he reads out the brief, which tends to be less helpful. I was a little disappointed in his response this evening because he confined himself to the brief.

I was disappointed because it struck me that he was either repeating points that I had just made or he was making points which I had anticipated and dealt with in my opening comments. Therefore, boiled down to its essentials, the only point that he made in response to what I said was that the system has worked for 30 years. Of course it has worked for 30 years; that is the law that has been applied, and parties have not been allowed to have more than six words in their name. Therefore, in that sense it has worked.

One can only really advance the argument that it has worked effectively if one knows whether anyone is pressing for more than six words. Of course, we do not know whether that is the case. Therefore, I raised the point of whether there should be greater flexibility. As I pointed out in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, I do not want to allow an unlimited use of words. However, I believe that there may be a case for a little more flexibility if there is a demand for it. As it may be worth reflecting on that point, I therefore raised the issue in order to put it into the Minister's mind. However, as I said earlier, I do not consider this to be the most crucial amendment that we are debating this evening. It is not something on which we should go to the wall. Having put the matter into the Minister's mind, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Amendment No. 81 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 82 to 84: Page 16, line 21, at end insert— ("(2A) In subsection (2)(a) "already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom" means—

1. (a) in connection with registration of the applicant party in the Great Britain register, already registered in respect of any part of Great Britain in respect of which that party is applying to be registered;
2. (b) in connection with registration of the applicant party in the Northern Ireland register, already registered in that register.").

Page 16, line 23, at end insert— ("( ) If—

1. (a) at any time two or more applications for registration are pending each of which would (in the absence of the other or others) fall to be granted by the Commission, but
2. (b) the registered names proposed by the applicant parties are such that, if one of those names was already registered in pursuance of the application in question, the Commission would be required to refuse the other application or applications by virtue of subsection (2)(a),

the Commission shall determine by reference to the history of each of the applicant parties which of them has, in the Commission's opinion, the greater or greatest claim to the name proposed by it, and shall then grant the application by that party and refuse the other application or applications."). Page 16, line 28, at end insert— ("(5) In this Part "the register" means—

1. (a) in relation to a party registered in the Great Britain register, the Great Britain register, and
2. (b) in relation to a party registered in the Northern Ireland register, the Northern Ireland register.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26 [Emblems]:

[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 85A: Page 16, leave out lines 35 and 36 and insert— ("(a) would either—

1. (i) be the same as a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in the register in which that party is applying to be registered, or
2. (ii) be likely to be confused by voters with a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom.").

The noble Lord said: I beg to move.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

I am slightly puzzled by the need for both the sub-paragraphs in this amendment. I should have thought that the Government need only the words, would … be likely to be confused by voters with a registered emblem of a party which is already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom". I do not understand why we require the first sub-paragraph, which refers to, the same as a registered emblem". Surely if it is the same as the registered emblem, it could certainly be confused by the voter. Therefore, I do not believe that both are required. I believe that the second sub-paragraph subsumes the first. Perhaps this is what I might call a "Simon of Glaisdale question", in that I am trying to reduce the size of the Bill. I wonder whether the Government can explain why they need both parts; I believe that only the second is required.

Lord Bassam of Brighton

The noble Lord may well be right. I shall find out and contact him shortly.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 85B: Page 16, line 41, at end insert— ("(2A) In subsection (2)(a) "already registered in respect of the relevant part of the United Kingdom" has the meaning given by section 25(2A).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 27 [Changes to the register]:

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 86 to 87A: Page 17, line 1, at end insert— ("( ) (if registered in the Great Britain register) changing the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which it is registered,"). Page 17, leave out line 2. Page 17, line 5, leave out ("the party applied for registration") and insert—

1. ("(i) the time when the party applied for registration, or
2. (ii) if a notification has been previously given under section 28 in relation to the party, the time when the last such notification was given").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

[Amendment No. 88 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 88A: Page 17, line 10, at end insert— ("( ) The Commission shall refuse an application to change the part or parts of Great Britain in respect of which a party is registered if, in their opinion, the change would be likely to result in—

1. (a) such confusion in relation to the party's registered name as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 25(2), or
2. (b) such confusion in relation to a registered emblem of the party as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of section 26(2).").

On Question, amendment agreed to.

[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 89A: Page 17, line 17, at end insert— ("( ) For the purposes of subsection (3), (4) or (5)—

1. (a) section 25(2)(a) and section 25(2A), or
2. (b) section 26(2)(a) and section 25(2A) (as it applies by virtue of section 26(2A)),

as the case may be, shall each have effect as if the words "applying to be" were omitted.")

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.

Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 90: After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—