house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

Vol. 711 

No. 91 

Wednesday 

17 June 2009 

PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 

(HANSARD) 

HOUSE OF LORDS 

OFFICIAL REPORT 

ORDER OF BUSINESS 

Questions 

Police: Funding 

Sri Lanka 

Banks: Lending 

Prisoners: Voting 

Policing and Crime Bill 

Order of Consideration Motion 

Bank of England (Amendment) Bill [HL] 

Third Reading 

Saving Gateway Accounts Bill 

Third Reading 

Political Parties and Elections Bill 

Report (2nd Day) 

Organophosphates 

Question for Short Debate 


Report (2nd Day) (Continued) 

Grand Committee 

Companies Act 2006 (Part 35) (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and 

Savings) Order 2009 

Registrar of Companies and Applications for Striking Off Regulations 2009 

Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 

Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2009 

Companies Act 2006 (Accounts, Reports and Audit) Regulations 2009 

Debated 

Written Statements 

Written Answers 

For column numbers see back page 

£3·50

Lords wishing to be supplied with these Daily Reports should 

give notice to this effect to the Printed Paper Office. 

The bound volumes also will be sent to those Peers who similarly 

notify their wish to receive them. 

No proofs of Daily Reports are provided. Corrections for the 

bound volume which Lords wish to suggest to the report of 

their speeches should be clearly indicated in a copy of the 

Daily Report, which, with the column numbers concerned 

shown on the front cover, should be sent to the Editor of 

Debates, House of Lords, within 14 days of the date of the 

Daily Report. 

This issue of the Official Report is also available on the Internet at 

www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/index/090617.html 

PRICES AND SUBSCRIPTION RATES 

DAILY PARTS 

Single copies: 

Commons, £5; Lords £3·50 

Annual subscriptions: 

Commons, £865; Lords £525 

WEEKLY HANSARD 





Index—Single copies: 

Commons, £6·80—published every three weeks 


Commons, £125; Lords, £65. 

LORDS CUMULATIVE INDEX obtainable on standing order only. 

Details available on request. 

BOUND VOLUMES OF DEBATES are issued periodically during the 

session. 


Commons, £105; Lords, £40. 

Standing orders will be accepted. 

THE INDEX to each Bound Volume of House of Commons Debates is published 

separately at £9·00 and can be supplied to standing order. 

WEEKLY INFORMATION BULLETIN, compiled by the House of Commons, 

gives details of past and forthcoming business, the work of Committees and 

general information on legislation, etc. 

Single copies: £1·50. 

Annual subscription: £53·50. 

All prices are inclusive of postage. 

© Parliamentary Copyright House of Lords 2009, 

this publication may be reproduced under the terms of the Parliamentary Click-Use Licence, 

available online through the Office of Public Sector Information website at 

www.opsi.gov.uk/click-use/

1057 Police: Funding 

[17 JUNE 2009] 


1058 

3pm 

House of Lords 

Wednesday, 17 June 2009. 

Prayers—read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the 

Lord Bishop of Bradford. 


Question 

Asked By Lord Trefgarne 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what proposals 

they have for funding Surrey police force this year 

and next year. 

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the 

Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. At 

the same time perhaps I may declare an interest in that 

I happen to be resident in the county in question. 

Lord Brett: My Lords, the Government have provided 

general grant funding of £101.8 million for 2009-10, 

and provisionally £104.4 million for 2010-11. This 

represents years two and three of the three-year settlement, 

providing a background of stability and continuity 

against which the police and all stakeholders can plan 

with much greater certainty and confidence. In addition 

to general grant, Surrey will receive approximately 

£15.4 million from specific grants and capital provision 

for 2009-10. 

Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the 

noble Lord for that reply. Is he aware that funding for 

the Surrey police force has, uniquely in the United 

Kingdom, been capped by Her Majesty’s Government 

at what is in fact below the level of last year; that 

Surrey faces some unique security threats, and that 

this capping sits ill with the threats to which I have 

referred? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, I think that there may a 

slight overuse of the word “unique” by the noble 

Lord. In the first context it is not used correctly, 

because last year Lincolnshire found itself in the same 

situation, so Surrey is not unique. I suspect that the 

noble Lord’s second use of the word is not accurate 

either. While there are problems with Surrey—the 

great M25 motorway goes through it—there are also 

great motorways in the north of England, the west of 

England, and many other areas. The arguments about 

this can be seen by noble Lords if they take the time to 

read the proceedings of the 90-minute debate held in 

another place two days ago. They will see that the very 

adequate response given by the Minister in the other 

place answers the points raised by the noble Lord. 

Lord Imbert: My Lords, is it sensible or fair that 

although Surrey has been adjudged by the Audit 

Commission to give excellent value for money—the 

commission commented that Surrey police authority 

has a very low level of central government grant—it 

has the lowest proportion of band D properties in the 

whole of England and Wales? Is it sensible that the 

Government are now forcing the Surrey police authority 

in addition to the 144 front-line personnel who have 

already been cancelled out this year to scrub around 

another 50 front-line officers? Is that fair to the public 

of Surrey? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, it is not the Government 

who are scrubbing anything. If the word “unique” is 

to be used, it is that Surrey uniquely is a police 

authority that twice in two years has gone beyond the 

cap, knowing in advance what was likely to happen 

this year. It is now the case, of course, that there are no 

central targets. Each police authority must manage its 

own affairs within the money raised locally and provided 

centrally. In that sense, Surrey is in the same situation 

as any other county. It has an excellent police force, as 

the noble Lord rightly said, but there again the number 

one police force happens to be that for the county of 

my birth, which is Lancashire. 

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, will the Minister 

acknowledge that the police authorities all around 

London, not only Surrey, suffer huge losses of experienced 

people to the Met because it pays more money and has 

a better pension scheme based on the final year’s 

salary? Will he make sure that the Government once 

again look at the funding of authorities around the 

periphery of London and do something about the 

quite unjust boundary between the police forces? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, as the noble Lord knows, 

funding is a matter of continuing review. While it is 

true, perhaps, that Surrey would raise the argument 

that it loses police officers to the Met—the so-called 

doughnut effect—that also applies to other counties 

that border on the Metropolitan Police area. All those 

other areas have met their requirements within their 

budget. 

Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, does my noble friend 

agree that there is a paradox in noble Lords opposite 

frequently asking for more and more decentralisation 

of responsibility and, when they get it, they do not like 

the consequences of their own decisions? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, my noble friend makes an 

accurate comment. It is, of course, a question of 

human nature. 

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, is the noble 

Lord aware that the amount per head proceeding from 

the Government in the present year at some £93 is well 

below the average for police authorities as a whole of 

£132, and that the Surrey figure has been reduced by 

39 per cent in real terms over the past 10 years? Will he 

take account of my own experience when I was Chancellor 

of the Exchequer and the Member of Parliament for 

East Surrey and found it possible to be generous, as he 

ought to be in the present circumstances? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, we can spar about percentages 

and amounts of money across the Chamber without 

necessarily getting to the root of the problem, which is 

that the Surrey Police Authority and all other police 

authorities have a responsibility both to raise money 

from council tax payers, which we want to ensure does 

not exceed a certain amount, and to do an excellent

1059 Police: Funding 

[LORDS] 

Sri Lanka 

1060 

[LORD BRETT] 

job of policing their own areas. I do not quarrel with 

the first point. However, in the last year before capping, 

the band E council tax increase in England was 12.9 per 

cent—which is why capping became a necessity—but 

in Surrey it was 40 per cent. 

Baroness Hanham: My Lords— 

Lord Desai: My Lords— 

The Minister of State, Department of Energy and 

Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My 

Lords, if we are quick, we can hear the noble Baroness 

first and then my noble friend. 

Baroness Hanham: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied 

that the reductions in the police force—there are 

reductions—as a result of the budget cuts will not give 

credence to the Home Office’s own predictions on the 

effect of the recession of a rise in theft and burglary 

offences, racist attacks and terrorism? What assurance 

can the Minister give the House that the police forces 

will remain with adequate manpower to deal with 

that? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, the responsibility that the 

noble Baroness charges me with is, of course, a charge 

on the local police authorities. They have resources— 

indeed, Surrey has £5.8 million in unallocated reserves— 

which they can use in whatever way they want. This 

carries with it a responsibility to act in accordance 

with the wishes not only of the council tax payers of 

Surrey but of taxpayers at large. In that sense, the 

assurance the noble Baroness seeks is found in the 

activities of every other police authority that is living 

within its budget. 

Lord Desai: My Lords, is it not likely that capping 

will lead to beheading if there is a 10 per cent cut 

across the board—and especially in the Home Office 

budget—if we have the misfortune of the party opposite 

coming to power? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, far be it from me to intrude 

on private grief, but I am sure that the sponsor of the 

Question will bleat even more loudly in his annual 

Question next year or the year after if we get to the 

stage of having a Conservative Government and they 

do as they say and take £930 million out of the Home 

Office. Cutting police funding by the same 10 per cent 

as the rest of the Home Office could lose us 15,000 

police officers, exactly the number of extra police 

officers delivered since this Government came to power 

in 1997. That means 30 officers off the beat in every 

constituency in England and 188 in Surrey. 

Sri Lanka 

Question 

3.09 pm 

Asked By Lord Naseby 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what financial 

help they will give to Sri Lanka in addition to 

contributions to international aid agencies to help 

with the resettlement of Tamils out of the displaced 

persons’ camps and into their former homes. 

Lord Brett: My Lords, DfID recently announced an 

additional £5 million in humanitarian funding to Sri 

Lanka, bringing the total committed to £12.5 million. 

That money will help the Government of Sri Lanka to 

meet their pledge to return 80 per cent of the 280,000 

displaced population to their homes by the end of the 

year. All DfID humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka is 

provided directly to humanitarian agencies that are 

neutral and impartial in all contexts. The UK has no 

plans to provide funding to the Government of Sri 

Lanka. 

Lord Naseby: My Lords, I thank the Minister and 

the Government for that Answer with regard to the 

£12.5 million. It is extremely welcome and much needed. 

Is he aware that in the refugee camps there are four 

United Nations organisations and four international 

organisations that have free access, while 14 others 

have to work through the government agent? The 

greatest problem is resources. Is he aware that India 

has found 1 billion rupees, while Her Majesty’s 

Government have spent £650 million on infrastructure 

projects in Iraq? Will they perhaps consider diverting 

some of the aid budget to six infrastructure projects in 

Sri Lanka? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord’s 

comments and his appreciation of the Government’s 

endeavours. Some 50 per cent of the £12.5 million has 

been spent on international agencies and NGOs; I 

could spend the next minute regaling your Lordships 

with them, but I will not, on the basis of short answers 

to short questions, although I am happy to provide 

that information if he wants me to. About £6 million 

remains to be spent on the endeavours that the noble 

Lord mentioned and we keep under review the need 

for humanitarian aid. The question of diversion, though, 

is not an issue. 

Lord Desai: My Lords, are Her Majesty’s Government 

making any effort to consult the diaspora Sri Lankan 

groups here to try to form a Sinhala-speaking and 

Tamil-speaking people’s reconciliation group? That 

could help with reconciliation back home in Sri Lanka. 

Lord Brett: My Lords, my noble friend makes an 

interesting point. It is and has been the Government’s 

view that there is no military solution to the problems 

in Sri Lanka. Thankfully, we have a ceasefire in hostilities 

and we now need to build on a political solution using 

humanitarian aid not only from the United Kingdom 

but, as has been said, from India and other quarters, 

and to try to rebuild a community that understands 

the problems that it has been through and how to 

avoid them in the future. 

Lord Avebury: My Lords, the Minister mentioned 

the commitment that the Secretary-General received 

when he was in Sri Lanka that 80 per cent of the IDPs 

would be returned to their homes by the end of the 

year. How does he think that the many different 

agencies that are involved in Sri Lanka can be co-ordinated 

to ensure that the right balance exists between returning 

people to their homes and improving the appalling 

conditions in the camps? Does he think that the entitled 

donors have any role in securing the political settlement 

that he just mentioned?

1061 Sri Lanka 

[17 JUNE 2009] 


1062 

Lord Brett: My Lords, the noble Lord raises important 

questions. Through our high commission in Colombo, 

we are taking the opportunity to co-ordinate our 

efforts with international bodies, first, to look at the 

humanitarian situation but, beyond that, to look at 

the development of that country, which will depend 

on the international financial institutions that are 

being asked to provide assistance. In the political 

sense, it has to be for Sri Lankans to come together 

with the will to sit down and find a political solution. 

If they do that, I am sure that they will find no lack of 

international contributors to assist both the political 

and economic processes. 

Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what contact have 

Her Majesty’s Government had with the Chinese 

Government regarding their support for the Sri Lankan 

Government on the Tamil question? 

Lord Brett: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness 

for her question. I confess that, while of course I have 

studied my voluminous brief for many hours, I could 

spend 10 minutes trying to find the answer without 

having a clue where to find it, because I do not think 

that it is there. We have an ongoing dialogue with the 

Chinese Government on many issues and this is one of 

them. I will take her question on board and seek to 

provide an answer. 

Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, how 

will the aid be monitored in relation to those refugees 

who will be taken out of the camps and repatriated? I 

ask this particularly knowing that many women and 

children in those camps have been both physically and 

sexually abused and will need very careful therapeutic 

and tending help, as well as all the practical help that 

they need. There is a worry about how that will be 

monitored through the system. 

Lord Brett: My Lords, the first responsibility for 

that will, of course, fall to the Government of Sri 

Lanka, but the noble Baroness is absolutely right in 

saying that it is important to ensure that it is provided. 

The presence of the United Kingdom and such 

international non-governmental organisations as the 

International Red Cross will assist in that. I am sure 

that the United Kingdom Government will do everything 

that they can to ensure that such monitoring takes 

place. 


Question 

3.15 pm 

Asked By Lord Barnett 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further 

discussions they have had with banks regarding 

their lending to businesses and house buyers. 

The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury 

(Lord Myners): My Lords, at the 2008 Pre-Budget 

Report the Government announced the creation of a 

new lending panel which meets regularly to monitor 

lending to businesses and households. The lending 

panel is supported by the home finance forum, the 

consumer finance forum and the small business finance 

forum, which consider mortgage lending, consumer 

credit and lending to businesses. In addition to these 

meetings, Ministers and officials meet a wide range of 

stakeholders, including financial institutions, to discuss 

matters relating to the economy, including lending. 

Lord Barnett: My Lords, I thank my noble friend 

for that Answer. Does he agree with what the Deputy 

Governor of the Bank of England said last week? It is 

worth quoting. He said that unless banks increase 

their lending, 

“recovery might end up being anaemic, at best”. 

Also last week, the Prime Minister said that the banks 

have agreed to lend an additional £70 billion above 

what they had lent the previous year. But those are 

promises. In practice, there is ample evidence that the 

banks are still not lending as they should. I am sure 

that my noble friend is aware that in the case even of 

small business loan guarantee schemes, matching funds 

are required. In housing, where the banks previously 

lent 125 per cent, they are now—when prices are 

lower—demanding at least 40 per cent. Is the panel 

doing anything about that? After all, at the moment, 

all that we have are promises. What action do the 

Government or the lending panel agree to take in the 

event of the promises not being kept? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, I agree with Mr Paul 

Tucker’s comments. It is essential that the availability 

of credit is increased to support lending and economic 

activity, and that indeed is happening. It is happening 

particularly for larger companies, which are being 

supported by the capital markets through equity raising 

and bonds, but also for smaller businesses. The 

Government have done a considerable amount in this 

respect to encourage the process. The lending agreements 

that we have with Lloyds bank and Royal Bank of 

Scotland commit those institutions to lending an extra 

£14 billion and £25 billion this year. HSBC has committed 

to lend an extra £15 billion, Barclays an extra £11 billion 

and Northern Rock up to an extra £5 billion. These 

agreements with those banks that have entered into 

the extended credit guarantee scheme and the asset 

protection scheme are legally enforceable. They are 

monitored on a monthly basis and I regularly meet the 

chief executives of banks. The week before last I met 

the chief executive of HSBC; last week I met the 

Abbey National and this week the Co-operative and 

Nationwide. 

Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, does the 

Minister not recognise that the Government’s own 

plans to raise some £900 billion in the gilt markets will 

inevitably force up interest rates, adding to the burdens 

on those businesses that are able to obtain loans, and 

therefore reduce the speed of recovery? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble 

Lord misdirects himself. If he looks at the evidence, he 

will see it suggests that there is considerable confidence 

in the gilt-edged market. I now have direct responsibility 

within the Treasury for the Debt Management Office, 

a very professional unit that continues to fund our 

needs and requirements in an entirely practical way 

which is not damaging to interest rates. Therefore, we 

are not squeezing out the availability of funds to 

business and to private sector borrowers.

1063 Banks: Lending 

[LORDS] 


1064 

Lord Newby: My Lords, the Minister paints a pretty 

rosy picture of the increased levels of lending by the 

banks. Is he aware that in many cases the banks 

require from existing small business customers much 

higher levels of security and higher fees which, given 

the economic situation, those small businesses are 

unable to find? These businesses are therefore not able 

to roll over their loans. Will the Minister speak to the 

banks, particularly those in public ownership, and ask 

them to address those problems as well as the global 

quantum to which they are committed to lend? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, as I indicated to my noble 

friend, I have regular meetings with the chairmen and 

chief executives of our major banks, and of course I 

discuss this issue. The total cost of borrowing to 

businesses has been drawn down as a consequence 

of much lower interest rates and the positive effects 

of the Bank of England’s quantitative easing 

programme. However, we have seen a widening of 

margins and increasingly demanding terms around 

collateral and covenants which significantly reflect the 

fact that banks are being more prudent now and 

moving away from the somewhat reckless terms they 

offered prior to the crisis. The noble Lord, Lord 

Newby, cannot have it both ways. We want bankers 

who are not only sensible and prudent but who recognise 

that they need to support their customers. I and the 

Government are absolutely committed to ensuring 

that that happens so that this economy can recover as 

quickly as possible. 

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, my noble 

friend did not mention— 

Lord Tebbit: My Lords— 



Lords, I think that we should hear from this side. 

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, my noble 

friend did not mention a meeting with Northern Rock. 

Newspaper reports indicate that it is likely that Northern 

Rock will be sold. Would it not be beneficial if he had 

a meeting with Northern Rock and they talked about 

perhaps using it as the experimental base to try to 

advance lending both to people seeking to purchase a 

home and also to businesses as well? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, I met with the chief executive 

of Northern Rock last week. 

Lord Lang of Monkton: My Lords, what evidence is 

there that the policy of quantitative easing is actually 

helping to ease banks’ lending, or is it the case, as is 

widely suggested, that much of the cash is going to 

overseas banks, and much of the rest of it is going to 

our own banks for the understandable purpose of 

reinforcing their own balance sheets? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, the impact of quantitative 

easing—a policy which is being followed by central 

banks in other countries, including the United States 

of America—is very evident in the lower interest rates 

now being charged on new medium and longer-term 

fixed interest rate debt. So it is having a very beneficial 

impact on the flow of credit. Whether the gilts and 

bonds that are acquired under quantitative easing are 

acquired from domestic owners or foreign owners 

matters little because if it is a foreign owner the funds 

have to be repatriated into sterling and are available to 

provide reserves to the banking system and support 

lending activity. 

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, we have heard an 

awful lot about lending and borrowing but not very 

much about repaying. It strikes me that we have a 

whole generation who have got used to the idea that 

they can borrow money willy-nilly but they do not 

have to repay it, and this is why we have got into such 

financial trouble. Is it not time that we changed the 

culture and made people realise that you borrow money 

and then you repay it? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, I could not agree more 

with the noble Countess. That is at the heart of good 

lending and good borrowing activity and it is a culture 

that we want to see restored to our banks—to see 

those banks in the hands of competent, prudent 

individuals, rather than the reckless and feckless behaviour 

that we have seen from some of our bankers in recent 

years. 

Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Government launched 

the enterprise finance guarantee scheme with a great 

fanfare in January and told us that it was worth 

£1.3 billion. But this week in another place the 

Government said that the loans offered under the 

scheme totalled only £230 million and we do not know 

how much has actually been taken up. Does this mean 

that small firms do not need the finance, or is this 

another government scheme that has proved to be 

ineffective? 

Lord Myners: My Lords, at the heart of the noble 

Baroness’s question there is a very interesting point 

about whether, when studying credit creation and 

extension, we are looking at issues of inadequate 

supply or decreased demand. I think that the reduction 

in demand for credit is consistent with lower economic 

activity—that is what I would expect from my business 

background—as businesses harbour their cash resources 

more carefully, cut back on investment and hold less 

stock in ratio to sales. So I think that there is a demand 

feature at work. The noble Baroness, Lady Newby, 

also asks about the EFG scheme. 

Noble Lords: Oh! 

Lord Myners: I am sorry, my Lords—the noble 

Baroness, Lady Noakes. I do apologise. I’ll get back to 

reading my brief. I do not normally use my notes but 

on this occasion I think that it is probably right to. The 

EFG scheme has already extended £445 million to 

eligible applications from over 4,000 firms that have 

been granted or are being processed and assessed; 

2,855 businesses have been offered loans totalling 

£271 million. That is real help now for British business 

to help us get out of this economic crisis that is 

affecting the globe.

1065 Banks: Lending 

[17 JUNE 2009] 


1066 


Question 

3.25 pm 

Asked By Lord Ramsbotham 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, 

following the remarks of the Committee of Ministers 

of the Council of Europe on 12 June, they will take 

steps to allow prisoners to vote. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry 

of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, the Government 

have noted the remarks of the Committee of Ministers 

and remain committed to a two-stage consultation 

process on this issue. The Government launched their 

second consultation paper in April, outlining their 

proposals for how the judgment in Hirst (No. 2) might 

be implemented. The consultation closes 29 September 

2009, after which date the Government will consider 

the next steps towards implementing the judgment in 

legislation. 

Lord Ramsbotham: My Lords, I thank the Minister 

for that reply, which is very much what I expected. Is 

he aware that it is now two years and three months 

longer than the entire duration of World War II since 

this issue was raised in the High Court? In view of that 

time, it is hardly surprising that on Friday the Committee 

of Ministers in the Council of Europe expressed concern 

at the significant delay in implementing the judgment 

of the European Court; condemned the United Kingdom’s 

delay in organising voting for prisoners; warned that 

there was now a pressing need for action to be taken; 

and called on the Government of the United Kingdom 

swiftly to set in measures that prisoners would be able 

to vote in the general election predicted for the next 

spring. In view of that, my question to Her Majesty’s 

Government is simple: do they have any intention of 

speeding up the process to ensure that those prisoners 

whose crimes are not such as to warrant removal of 

the right to vote as part of their sentence may be able 

to vote in the next general election? 

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government believe that 

the issues around prisoner voting remain complex and 

require full consultation and consideration. The practical 

issues—and there are some—need to be thought through 

and decisions taken on what criteria should apply in 

order to make a fair decision on whether a prisoner 

should be able to vote. We are currently consulting on 

the enfranchisement of prisoners. We have set out in 

the consultation paper a number of questions on the 

practical aspects of implementation and a range of 

options for prisoners’ enfranchisement based on sentence 

length. As I have said, when the second consultation is 

concluded, we will consider the next steps towards 

implementing the judgment in legislation. 

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, can the Minister say why 

prisoners should be allowed to vote? 

Lord Bach: My Lords, there is a ruling of the 

European Court of Human Rights on this issue, and 

as signatories—this would apply whichever Government 

were in power—we are obliged to follow that ruling. 

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords— 

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords— 



Lords, shall we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Lester, 

first? 

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, the Government 

have a very good reputation, of which they should be 

proud, in abiding by judgments of the European Court 

of Human Rights. This, unfortunately, is a gross exception, 

which creates a bad example to the rest of Europe. 

Could the Minister expand on the answer he gave on 

20 April to the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, when 

he said that there were serious practical difficulties to 

the prison authorities and courts? What I do not 

understand—perhaps he can help the House—is why 

Ireland and Cyprus gave postal voting, and South 

Africa and Canada managed to do the same. Why 

cannot the Government introduce a remedial order, 

and get the judgment complied with, as the Committee 

of Ministers are asking should happen by Christmas? 

Lord Bach: My Lords, consultation ends on 

29 September and we then have to look at the way 

forward. Although of course the noble Lord is right 

that a remedial order would technically be available by 

virtue of the decision made by the European Court of 

Human Rights, any legislation would clearly have to 

deal with a number of complex issues. Those are issues 

of principle such as where the line should be drawn on 

partial prisoner enfranchisement, what length of sentence 

should serve as the cut-off point—I mentioned that 

earlier—and how to treat classes of prisoner not subject 

to ordinary periods of detention. This is a matter in 

which the public have considerable interest anyway. 

Primary legislation, which Parliament will have proper 

time to consider, debate and amend, is much the most 

appropriate vehicle for this issue. 

Lord Grocott: My Lords— 

Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords— 

Noble Lords: Cross Bench! 

Lord Grocott: I think that we have had one Cross- 

Bencher, have we not, my Lords? 

I agree very much with my noble friend’s observations. 

While we are on the subject of Europe and voting, 

would he like to comment on the deplorably low 

turnout in the recent European elections, based as 

they were on the system of proportional representation? 

Given that people in prison, as well as the rest of the 

population, have very little understanding of how the 

d’Hondt system works, I imagine—a lack of 

understanding which I admit I share—will my noble 

friend give a brief explanation of it? 

Lord Bach: My Lords, last time we debated these 

interesting issues, my noble friend asked me pretty 

much the same question. I was not expecting him to 

intervene again in quite the same way. I had better say 

what I said last time, with great trepidation, he being 

my former Chief Whip: I think that what he asks is a 

little wide of the mark.

1067 Policing and Crime Bill 

[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1068 


Order of Consideration Motion 

3.31 pm 

Moved By Lord Brett 

That it be an instruction to the Committee of the 

Whole House to which the Policing and Crime Bill 

has been committed that they consider the Bill in 

the following order: 

Clauses 1 to 16, Schedule 1, Clauses 17 to 20, 

Schedule 2, Clauses 21 to 26, Schedule 3, Clauses 

27 to 32, Schedule 4, Clauses 33 to 45, Schedule 5, 

Clauses 46 to 78, Schedule 6, Clauses 79 to 112, 

Schedules 7 and 8, Clauses 113 to 117. 

Motion agreed. 


Third Reading 

3.32 pm 

Bill passed and sent to the Commons. 

3.32 pm 


Third Reading 

Bill passed and returned to the Commons with amendments. 

3.33 pm 


Report (2nd Day) 

Amendment 38 

Moved by Lord Tyler 

38: After Clause 16, insert the following new Clause— 

“£50,000 cap on donations 

(1) In section 54 of the 2000 Act (permissible donors), after 

subsection (1) there is inserted— 

“(1A) A donation received by a registered party from a 

permissible donor must not be accepted by the party in so far as 

the amount of that donation and of any other donations accepted 

by the party from that donor during the same calendar year 

exceeds £50,000. 

(1B) Subsection (1A) does not apply to donations to which 

subsections (1) and (2) of section 55 apply, or to monies received 

from public funds.” 

(2) In section 56 of the 2000 Act (acceptance or return of 

donations: general), after subsection (2) there is inserted— 

“(2A) If a registered party receives a donation which it is 

prohibited from accepting by virtue of section 54(1A), subsection 

(2) applies to that donation only in so far as the amount of that 

donation and of any other donations accepted by the party from 

that donor during the same calendar year exceeds £50,000.” 

(3) In section 58(1)(a) of the 2000 Act (forfeiture of donations 

made by impermissible or unidentifiable donors) after “(b)” there 

is inserted “or (1A)”.” 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, perhaps I should make clear 

the rationale of the grouping of this amendment with 

others. Amendment 38 deals with the possibility of an 

effective cap on donations in general. Amendment 39, 

also in my name and that of my noble friend Lord 

Rennard, deals with contributions from trade union 

funds. Then there are two extremely important 

amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord 

Goodhart—he enjoys the support of Members on all 

sides of the House—for tax relief on small donations. 

The rationale for the grouping is simply to make sure 

that we are able to shift responsibility for funding our 

politics from a small number of big donors— 

millionaires—and try to encourage many small 

contributions, with tax relief, for those who make 

modest donations. I know from our debate in Grand 

Committee that there is widespread anxiety to make 

this shift. 

The amendment precisely follows the recommendations 

of the Hayden Phillips discussions and agreement, to 

which I shall come back in a moment, but it is absolutely 

fundamental to all the proposals that have been endorsed 

by all parties and those from no party to try to take 

big money out of British politics. Wealthy individuals, 

organisations and companies should not be able to 

buy influence in the way that they have in recent years. 

The inequality of influence generated by massive 

donations runs entirely counter to the democratic 

principle and erodes public trust. All of us in your 

Lordships’ House and, indeed, Members of the other 

place must be very well aware of the decline in public 

trust in recent years. 

Since I come from something of an ecclesiastical 

family, I am accustomed to producing or listening to a 

text. Therefore, I have a few texts to use this afternoon 

to show the widespread support for the approach 

represented by these amendments. In the first place, I 

know that there is widespread support for a reduction 

in the amount of expenditure by the parties. For 

example, Mr Gordon Brown asked Mr David Cameron 

at Prime Minister’s Questions in December 2007 whether 

he would, 

“support a national and local limit on expenditure”.—[Official 

Report, Commons, 5/12/07; col. 816.] 

We will come back to that point. At a policy forum in 

west London on 2 December 2007 Mr Brown said 

that, 

“the latest problems in party funding show why it is right not to 

delay, and it is now time to act … we have learned just how easily 

trust in our politics can be eroded … we must now complete the 

work of change”. 

Then the right honourable Francis Maude, speaking 

on behalf of the Conservatives in the other place, said 

in an opposition-day debate instigated by the Conservative 

Party on 4 December 2007: 

“We have consistently argued for comprehensive reform that 

would deal finally with the perception that large donors have 

undue influence on political parties … Dealing with that perception 

requires, above all, a cap on donations”.—[Official Report, Commons, 

4/12/07; col. 704.] 

Everyone now agrees that a cap of £50,000 would 

accomplish that. Finally, now that the noble Lord, 

Lord Bates, is in his place, I should say that he was in

1069 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1070 

very good company, not only in his party but in other 

parties, when he said in the debate on Monday in your 

Lordships’ House: 

“We on this side of the House look forward to the day when 

big money is genuinely taken out of politics”.—[Official Report, 

15/6/09; col. 913.] 

The noble Lord, with his voice and his vote this 

afternoon, can start that process. The day he looks 

forward to could indeed be today. 

It is extremely important that we build on the work 

of the Hayden Phillips discussions. All parties took a 

very active role over a long period under his distinguished 

chairmanship. It was quite clear from his work, which 

he set out in great detail in his publication of the draft 

proposals, that he very strongly supported views that 

had been previously expressed by the Constitutional 

Affairs Select Committee in the other place in 2006. 

However, in Grand Committee I am sad to say that the 

Minister did not seem to be totally persuaded either 

by the Hayden Phillips discussions or by the Constitutional 

Affairs Select Committee because, the Minister said, 

he felt that a cap on donations would so clearly result 

in a loss of income for the larger parties—I hope that I 

am paraphrasing reasonably well—that the issue of 

state funding had to be reopened. That is not the case. 

First and foremost, there is excessive expenditure 

by some of the big parties at election time. I do not 

absolve even the Liberal Democrats of that; occasionally 

when they have had money they have used it. However, 

the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, who has extensive 

experience of the advertising industry—I am delighted 

to see him in his place—pointed out to the Grand 

Committee that there is huge wastage, particularly on 

advertising, by the political parties. It does not follow 

that by restricting large donations to the political 

parties they would somehow be so inhibited from 

effective campaigning that they could not do their 

proper job. It is also why we emphasise the need to link 

these restrictions on the big donors with the very 

important initiative taken by my noble friend Lord 

Goodhart and others on other Benches to try to 

encourage smaller donations with tax relief. 

I emphasise that the experience in other countries— 

notably, what Barack Obama did in the United States— 

should encourage this approach in Britain. Barack 

Obama demonstrated that it was possible to raise very 

considerable sums of money in the height of the 

recession in the United States from individuals by way 

of the encouragement that was given in his campaign. 

Those who contributed then felt that they had a real 

connection with his campaign and a sense of ownership. 

It was not just a few individuals paying the bills; it was 

spread throughout the states. As a result, more than 

$750 million was raised. A record-breaking $150 million 

was raised in September at a time when the country 

was in recession. That is a very important example. 

I remind the House of the specific recommendations 

of the Hayden Phillips team, which were the result of 

a cross-party agreement. They were: 

“A1 There shall be a cap on donations and loans to all 

political parties that reach the threshold specified at A2. 

A2 The cap shall apply to all parties registered in Great 

Britain with two or more elected representatives to Parliament, 

the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the 

European Parliament. It shall apply to the party, its accounting 

units, and regulated donees. 

A3 The final level of the cap will be £50,000”. 

That was the specific proposal that the parties agreed 

to. 

I do not propose to go through all of the rationale 

that has been advanced for this restriction because it is 

well documented. I do not know of any serious argument 

against it. The Phillips team also relied on the work of 

the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the other 

place. I briefly refer to its recommendation on page 55, 

paragraph 152, of its 2006 report: 

“The UK currently limits expenditure but does not limit 

donations, while in the U.S.A, donations are capped but spending 

is not. Both systems lead to significant problems. In Canada, both 

income and expenditure are comprehensively capped and regulated, 

and we were convinced by the strengths and benefits of this 

model”. 

Even in the past few days there has been very strong 

support among the public, demonstrated in public 

opinion polls, for restrictions on the huge sums of 

money that are donated to the political parties and, 

indeed, on the way in which they spend them. In the 

Phillips proposals the following paragraph is very 

significant: 

“Few would now dissent from the proposition that there 

should be a limit on how much any one donor may contribute to a 

party each year. Of the parties consulted by my Review, just one – 

UKIP – does not favour this approach”. 

Everyone else supports this proposal. I hope that that 

will be evident from the speeches from other Benches 

this afternoon. 

I come now to the final point in the Phillips 

recommendations. The summary firmly said this: 

“I believe there is an emerging consensus that: the status quo, 

in which there are no caps on donations, is unsustainable and 

therefore donations to parties should be limited; and restrictions 

on donations should be buttressed by measures to prevent breaches 

of the new regulations”. 

I agree wholeheartedly with that. I hope your Lordships’ 

House will as well. 

I turn briefly to Amendment 39, which concerns 

the treatment of contributions from trade union political 

funds. Here again, there was very considerable consensus 

and agreement in the Hayden Phillips talks. I draw 

attention to the first part of our amendment, which 

sets out very clearly the intention of our special treatment 

of the trade unions. It says: 

“The limit on donations established by”, 

the section referring to the £50,000 cap on donations, 

“shall apply to all expenditure out of trade union political funds 

unless— 

I repeat: unless— 

“all the conditions of this section have been fulfilled with regard 

to the expenditure in question”. 

There follow very careful safeguards to ensure that the 

democratic will of members of trade unions is fulfilled 

but that, in those terms, the trade union has every 

right effectively to act as a collecting agent for a 

political party, or indeed for several political parties. 

The proposals that the Hayden Phillips team looked 

at—again, I emphasise the cross-party agreement—were 

very carefully thought through so that they would not 

penalise a trade union for taking a sensible active role 

in British politics but would ensure that everything

1071 Political Parties and Elections Bill [LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1072 

[LORD TYLER] 

was as transparent and democratic as it could be. 

Again, I draw attention in the amendment to the final 

point made by the Hayden Phillips team: 

“Due to the increased transparency and choice for trade union 

members the ten-year review ballot on the existence of the 

political fund is no longer necessary and should be removed”. 

In other words, the quid pro quo, if I may put it like 

that, was that trade unions, by being more transparent 

and more careful in relation to their own members, 

and by giving them more transparency and democratic 

rights, would not have to suffer as much bureaucracy 

as they do at the moment. 

I hope that with that fairly brief canter around 

this issue—because it has been discussed at 

considerable length in the other place, in the 

Hayden Phillips discussions and in Grand Committee— 

noble Lords will recognise that there is a quid pro 

quo in this group. By restricting the millionaires and 

the very big donors to political parties but, under the 

terms of my noble friend’s amendments, with a tax 

concession for small donations, we have a deliberate 

switch from the big boys to the general public, and 

that must be in the best interests of British democracy. 

I beg to move. 

3.45 pm 

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, Amendments 64, 65 and 

66 would provide tax relief for small donations. 

Amendments 64 and 66 are in my name, and Amendment 

65, which is an amendment to Amendment 64, is in 

the name of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. 

These amendments have been grouped with 

Amendments 38 and 39, which, for reasons explained 

by my noble friend Lord Tyler, would impose a cap on 

large donations. However, these two sub-groups, if I 

may call them that, are not dependent on each other. 

Tax relief on small donations can be given whether or 

not there is a cap on large ones, and a cap on large 

donations can be imposed whether or not tax relief is 

given for small donations. However, there is an interaction 

between these two sub-groups because a cap on large 

donations is likely to reduce party funds and, if that 

happens, parties will have to do more fundraising from 

ordinary members and supporters, as in the outstanding 

example of the fundraising by President Barack Obama 

during his campaign last autumn. Tax relief on small 

donations will also help to achieve more fundraising 

from ordinary members. 

The idea of giving tax relief on small or moderate 

donations has had considerable support in the United 

Kingdom and has been adopted in a number of foreign 

countries. Tax relief on modest donations was 

recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public 

Life, of which I was then a member, in its report on 

party-political funding published in 1998. In that report, 

the committee proposed an upper limit for tax relief of 

£500. I have kept to that figure in this amendment, in 

spite of the time that has passed. I am glad to say that 

two other members of that committee are present: the 

noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, who was then a member 

and certainly, with me, was an active supporter of the 

proposal to allow tax relief, and the noble Lord, Lord 

Neill of Bladen, who was the chairman of the committee 

at that time. 

Giving tax relief on modest donations has many 

advantages. It is highly undesirable that all funds 

should come from the Government, as that greatly 

reduces the need to recruit members and discourages 

greater contact with voters. However, it is even worse if 

party funding comes mainly from a small number of 

rich donors making large donations. That is a travesty 

of democracy and enables rich donors to have far too 

much control over party policy. It is important to 

encourage parties by giving tax relief for small or 

moderate donations, including membership subscriptions. 

We recognise that giving to charities should be encouraged 

by tax relief to donors. We believe that tax relief could 

be extended to donations to political parties, as those 

donations are also very much in the public interest and 

deserve tax relief. 

Tax relief has been given on inheritance tax in this 

context since the Inheritance Tax Act 1984—25 years 

ago—which exempted donations by will for the political 

parties that won at least two seats at the previous 

general election or one seat and at least 150,000 votes 

in total. Relief from inheritance tax should surely be 

extended to income tax. The obvious method would 

be to use a version of the Gift Aid system. 

I suggest, first, that the eligibility of a party to 

claim benefit of tax relief should be the same as that 

now for inheritance tax; that is, two seats at the last 

general election or one seat and at least 150,000 votes. 

Secondly, tax relief should be limited to the first £500 

of donations made in any one tax year by any one 

donor. Thirdly, whereas a charity donor can rightly 

reclaim a higher rate of tax relief on the amount of 

Gift Aid donations, donors to political parties should 

not be able to do so, to avoid putting the relatively 

well-to-do donors in a better position. Fourthly, tax 

relief should be given only for gifts by individuals. 

All those conditions are set out in Amendment 64. 

They produce a simple and workable system, which in 

Grand Committee was supported by Members from 

all three parties. The Electoral Commission has said in 

its briefing for this Report stage: 

“In principle the Commission welcomes measures that incentivise 

public engagement in politics and help parties to campaign effectively. 

Proposals for fiscal incentives are for Parliament to consider in 

the light of other priorities”. 

The “other priorities” are the rub now. I recognise that 

we are in a difficult tax situation. I was asked in Grand 

Committee for an estimate of the amount of money 

that would need to be returned by the Government 

every year under the scheme. It is impossible to tell, 

but my guess put an upper limit at £5 million. Since 

the original version had cut off at £1,000 rather than 

£500 and, more importantly perhaps, since recent 

events must have decreased the willingness of members 

of the public to contribute to political parties, the 

present prospective upper limit is probably something 

less than £4 million. 

I understand the problem, but if the Government 

are not willing to pay that small sum in the near 

future, I suggest two alternatives. The first would be to 

accept Amendments 64 and 66 but to withhold the 

commencement order for that new clause and schedule 

until the financial situation makes this easier. The 

other would be to accept Amendment 65 from the 

noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, which is an


amendment to my Amendment 64 and would reduce 

the cut-off point from £500 to £15 a year. I do not in 

principle welcome Amendment 65, because it would 

produce too little money, but if the Government were 

prepared to accept it, but not to accept the unamended 

format of my Amendment 64, I would say that a 

quarter of a loaf is better than no bread. In those 

circumstances, although not in others, I would accept 

the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord 

Campbell-Savours. 

Amendments 64 and 66 provide a simple system for 

the waiver of taxation on modest donations by individuals 

to recognise political parties. That is a good thing in its 

own right, and even more so if supplies of money to 

political parties are cut back by the capping of large 

donations. I invite your Lordships’ House to support 

Amendments 64 and 66. 

Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I speak in support 

of Amendment 64. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, 

pointed out, I was chairman of the committee that 

recommended to Parliament that tax relief should be 

allowed on donations up to the sum of £500. In reply 

to something that I said on Monday, the noble Lord, 

Lord Bach, said that in nearly every case the Government 

of the day accepted the committee’s recommendations. 

On Monday, there was one example when they did not 

do so; here is a second example where they did not 

accept the recommendation in the 2000 Act. Further 

thought should be given to it today. One proposal that 

is occasionally raised but is now impossible is that 

funding should come directly from the state to the 

political parties. As a saleable proposition to the general 

public, that is now impossible, although it was always 

very unattractive. 

The proposal in Amendment 64 is a way to encourage 

people to perform what is a useful function of supporting 

political parties with their money. It does not go very 

far and will not cost very much and is something 

which, in the present climate, ought to be welcomed. 

I say one final word. If the amendments are pressed 

to a Division, I hope that we will be able to find a way 

to divorce that proposal from the cap. That would be 

desirable. I see the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, nodding 

his head. Perhaps we could, when we get to that point, 

have a Division on the question of whether tax relief 

should be allowed on either the £500 figure or the £15 

limit proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, 

and not have it confused with what is in principle a 

wholly different issue: the capping at £50,000. 

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, perhaps I could explain. 

Amendment 38 will be voted on separately and then 

there will be a vote on Amendment 64 and the amendment 

to it. From the point of view of voting, they will be 

completely separate. 

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have not taken part in the 

debates on this Bill before, but I hope that your 

Lordships will permit a small intervention. I listened 

to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which he 

described as a brief canter round the course. Having 

listened to all 13 minutes of it, I was stung into taking 

part by something that he said right at the beginning, 

which was that the £50,000 cap is agreed by all of us. I 

do not know whether that means the Labour Party, 

the Liberal party and the Front Bench of the Conservative 

Party, but it is certainly not agreed by me—not that 

that makes a great deal of difference. 

I can never understand why there is such a fuss 

about having a cap. It seems to me that either we have 

parties funded by the state—as the noble Lord, Lord 

Neill, said, that is now, fortunately, impossible—or we 

have them funded by people who support them. If 

people support their party, I cannot see why there 

should be limits on the amount by which they support 

it. It would therefore be a great mistake if we tried to 

cut down the support given, whether to the Labour 

Party or to the Conservative Party—or even if the 

Liberals can find a bit here or there. It would be a pity 

to cut the limit, because all that means is that everyone 

has to go chasing around finding more money elsewhere 

or, alternatively, running into deficit. 

4pm 

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I hesitate to 

dissent from a view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord 

Neill of Bladen, but I would say the following to him 

on the question of state funding. If you put state 

funding directly to the British people, as against a 

system that in part almost invites corruption, I know 

on which side the public would come down. The 

problem with the argument about state funding is that 

we have never really set out the reasons why those of 

us who support it so passionately do so. We believe 

that it is a far more honest way of funding political 

parties and that it avoids all the difficulties that we 

have had over not just this recent period but the last 

10 years. 

My Amendment 65 is a probing amendment and I 

can assure my noble friends that I do not intend to 

push it to a vote. However, I would like to say this: 

Amendment 29 dovetails very neatly with this amendment. 

That is because the truth is, and we all know it, that 

political parties will be affected by what has happened 

over Amendment 29. Political parties will inevitably 

have to find different ways of raising revenue. The 

principle behind these amendments is that a covenanting 

tax-relief system would provide an alternative. 

My problem with the amendments moved from the 

Liberal Democrat Benches is the cost. That was the 

concern that I expressed in Committee. If I remember 

rightly, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, had, throughout 

the period of the Thatcher Administration, an important 

position in government—certainly in the Treasury in 

the years when I was in the Commons. In Committee, 

he said: 

“I will be arguing that every proposal for tax relief or for 

further state funding should be looked at extraordinarily carefully 

and be very well justified. Given the state of the public finances 

today, I would not put forward such a case … I hope that, in more 

propitious times, we can address this again in preference to 

further state funding. It is the right way to proceed”.—[Official 

Report, 5/5/09; col. GC 222.] 

I agree with that sentiment. It is the way forward, but 

the problem is that we are in difficult financial conditions 

and I have great reservations about an amendment 

that would oblige the Treasury to stump up a substantial 

amount of cash. 

The reason why I tabled my amendment is that it 

would cost the Treasury almost nothing but would put 

in place a framework on which we could build in the


[LORD CAMPBELL-SAVOURS] 

future. I imagine a system—in the more propitious 

times to which the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, 

referred—where, annually, either some inflationary 

measure is applied to it or the threshold is raised. I 

think that we should be impressing on the Treasury, 

and on my friend Jack Straw in the other place, the 

importance of accepting an amendment of this nature 

in legislation. 

I do not know whether the Liberal Democrat Benches 

intend to push this to a vote today. However, if the 

amendment were to be carried, it would be possible 

during Commons consideration of Lords amendments 

for the Government to introduce a more appropriate 

sum—a sum that could be afforded. I simply wonder 

whether that might be in the mind of Ministers if they 

have to reject this amendment today. If it is rejected 

today, I can say to my noble friends that I will be 

lobbying fairly extensively over the next few days, 

prior to Third Reading, for perhaps some concession 

to be made by the Government. I hope that we do not 

simply say no out of hand and reject this for all time; I 

hope that we can perhaps see a little flexibility in the 

response from the Dispatch Box by my noble friend. 

Viscount Tenby: My Lords, I rise with some 

diffidence—and, perhaps the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, 

will be pleased to hear, briefly—to support 

Amendment 38. 

A great deal of money is thrown about at elections, 

as I experienced in my misspent youth when I was 

involved in the marketing and advertising professions, 

with all the profligacy of Russian oligarchs. No one 

disputes the need for realistic budgets, but the siren 

voices of advertising and marketing men should be 

firmly resisted. Nothing disconnects the electorate 

from the electoral process more than huge sums of 

money, hitherto camouflaged in some cases, being 

dispensed in this way, together with the unwillingness 

of politicians of every party to embrace the idea that 

the electors themselves should be asked to make very 

modest contributions to the electoral process. 

I do not wish to seem cynical, but it often seems 

that the more the amount of money spent in election 

campaigns rises, the more the number of people voting 

in elections falls. Surely this is a very unhealthy state of 

affairs, which I suggest we can put right today. 

Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: My Lords, I 

shall speak to Amendments 64 and 66, and to some 

extent to Amendment 65. As the noble Lord, Lord 

Goodhart, said, I was a member of the Committee on 

Standards in Public Life, which first put forward this 

recommendation. I was very disappointed that this 

was one of the very few of our recommendations that 

the Government rejected in their response. Indeed, 

they never really gave any reasons against it, so I am 

very pleased that we are having this debate again today 

to talk about the principle and to see whether we can 

find some way forward. 

I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, 

that I fully appreciate as an ex-Chief Secretary—I 

think this was what he was referring to—that we must 

be very careful in the current circumstances about the 

extent to which we encourage increased tax relief or 

extra expenditure. What I think we are really trying to 

do today is take advantage of the Bill, which gives us 

the opportunity to establish the principle. My one 

difficulty with his amendment is that he refers to 

£15 as the limit in 2010-11. Frankly, no one will take it 

up at that level. The administration would be very 

high, and if it seemed not to work it might be regarded 

as a policy that was not worth while. That is my 

difficulty with the figure. However, if we agree on the 

principle in the House today, there is still an opportunity 

to try to get it into legislation and to work out the 

timetable for it. 

The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his usual 

exemplary fashion, gave all the reasons for accepting 

this proposal, so I shall emphasise just two points. The 

first relates to party funding. In my earlier years in 

politics, very many people in our constituencies spent 

a great deal of time not only actively campaigning but 

actively raising funds for party political work. That 

was hugely to the benefit of the democratic process. So 

much came from these small donations and fundraising 

activities, and it was entirely healthy. It spread interest 

in the democratic process, and spread political engagement 

much more widely. 

Equally, it is unhealthy to be too reliant on large 

personal donations; on substantial corporate funding, 

although that is largely diminished now if not defunct 

altogether; trade union support; and, above all, on 

state funding, which requires no activity beyond winning 

votes to get it. The principle here is therefore highly 

desirable and is a way of re-encouraging small donations. 

The emphasis is on small donations, which cannot be 

abused by large donors getting tax relief for them. We 

recommended the limit of £500 in 1998, so in principle 

I would be in favour of indexing beyond the £500 limit. 

The point that has been made about President Obama’s 

success in the American presidential elections is very 

clearly correct, too. This is an important way of 

encouraging wider participation in the political process. 

I shall put my second point, which goes much 

wider, very concisely. When I first entered public life 

and got involved in politics almost 50 years ago, and 

entered Parliament 35 years ago, it was a profession 

held in high regard. MPs were regarded with great 

respect in their constituencies and more widely, and it 

was a high aspiration to become an MP. Many in other 

careers entered Parliament half way through their 

active life because they felt that it was very worth while 

and were prepared to make sacrifices, including that of 

family life and financially, to do so. It is a matter of 

profound distress to me that parliamentary activity 

and the role of an MP are regarded in the way that 

they are today. 

I believe that nothing is more important than working 

for your constituents in the most important institution 

in the land. Above all, it is important to remember 

that Ministers are largely drawn from this pool. They 

make bigger and more profound decisions than others 

in leading positions in most walks of life. Yet those 

who aspire to these roles are being demeaned in public 

and, in my view, are seriously underpaid compared to 

those in leading positions in business, the professions 

and most other activities. My concern is not for the


good people in public life who are currently being so 

derided, but, above all, given the current environment, 

for the good people from other professions who would 

have a real role to play and could enter politics. That is 

one of the most serious things facing our nation. It 

will be easy enough perhaps to get people to stand, but 

it will be extremely difficult to get people of the 

quality we want in Parliament. 

I believe that this proposal plays some small part in 

dealing with that problem. Charitable activities are 

regarded as worth while and therefore attract relief. As 

the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, there is an 

interesting analogy with inheritance tax where this 

concept is accepted; yet we are not prepared to extend 

it to income tax. Therefore, I also take the point made 

by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, in Committee. 

Many charities are engaged almost in political activity 

for which they get tax relief, but those who are primarily 

involved in the activity and want to support it get no 

tax relief at all. Taking this principle today, if not the 

immediate implementation, sends a message of profound 

importance, which is why I so strongly support it. 

Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I am sorry 

that I have not been able for various reasons to participate 

earlier in discussion of this legislation. I should like to 

make one or two points on Amendment 39, and I 

speak as someone who has been a trade union official 

for most of my life. I understand the desire to ensure 

that there is proper democratic accountability for the 

use of funds and so on. However, there is already in 

place a fair amount of legislation designed to ensure 

just that. There are arrangements under which members 

can contract out of the obligation to pay the political 

levy at any time they wish to do so. The political funds 

are normally quite separate. The executive have to be 

accountable to the membership for their use of them. 

In my union and, I believe, in all unions, there is a 

section in the rule book which governs the way in 

which political funds are collected and administered. 

People can also complain to the registration officer. 

Under this amendment, there would seem to be a 

lot of extra bureaucracy, and I query whether it is 

necessary. If the present laws are operated—I have no 

evidence that they are not properly operated—I do not 

think that there is any necessity to have any further 

provision in legislation. I should be interested to know 

whether my noble friends on the Front Bench have a 

different view, but that is my view at present. 

4.15 pm 

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, my 

name is down in support of Amendment 38 covering 

the proposal to insert a £50,000 cap on donations. I 

wish my name had also gone down on Amendment 39, 

because I think they are paired, but owing to a gremlin 

somewhere, unfortunately that has not happened. 

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, has outlined the case 

for the cap extensively and I do not propose to plough 

that field again. Suffice it to say that, for me, more 

supporters, more members and more donors in all 

political parties are good for our democracy because 

that achieves a broader base of support and involvement. 

Fewer, larger donors carry dangers for our democracy. 

I say “carry” dangers rather than necessarily have 

them. The obvious question is the influence of wealthy 

donors on the policies of a party, and here I touch on 

the point made by my noble friend Lord Ferrers: it is 

not just whether they do or they do not have an 

influence, but whether there is a public suspicion that 

they might. Public suspicion is highly corrosive, because 

it carries the seeds of destruction of belief in the 

system and the way it operates. That is why the argument 

that the liberty of a person to give any amount to a 

party, which underlay his comments earlier, does not 

hold water in this sensitive area. 

This idea poses challenges for the two major parties. 

Historically, my party has benefited from large donors, 

although in recent years the Labour Party has largely 

caught up; whether that has been to its advantage is 

not for me to say. The Labour Party also benefits from 

the automatic nature of the political levy of the trades 

unions. I say to the noble Baroness that I am afraid 

there is too much anecdotal evidence of the way in 

which the donations are shuffled through without 

individual trades union members having a real say, 

and that knocks on the head the idea that the safeguards 

proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, are not 

required. 

I do not underestimate the challenges that these 

issues represent and the controversy that they will 

arouse, but surely, in the present circumstances, we 

need to face them. As has been said in the debate 

today, as was said on Monday, and as was said in 

Committee, there is a crisis of loss of faith in our 

democratic system. It is no good us wringing our 

hands and saying that it is all too difficult. That is the 

response of people who live inside the Westminster 

bubble, and I believe that our fellow citizens demand 

more of us today. 

Lord Bates: In speaking to these amendments, 

perhaps I may preface my remarks by apologising to 

the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, because I was not 

precisely in my place when he spoke. I was finding my 

way through the crowd as he rose to move the 

amendment. There was a degree of cross-party 

harmony on the previous piece of legislation that may 

not continue into this Bill, but we will see. 

The series of amendments we are discussing fall 

into two principal areas. One is the argument about 

donations. We discussed this at length in Committee 

and it was quite widely recognised that there is an 

anomaly in party political contributions, which do 

contribute towards the democratic health of our country. 

Indeed, the point was just made that if one is concerned 

about the environment and chooses to make a donation 

to a political party, that money is not eligible for tax 

relief. If someone chooses to make a donation to 

Greenpeace or another organisation, it is. That is a 

clear anomaly which needs to be addressed at some 

stage, although I stress the point that it should be 

considered at some stage. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, 

said that the cost of such a measure to the Exchequer 

would be around £4 million. I have no way of knowing 

whether the figure should be higher or lower, but my 

sense of the public mood at this time suggests that it 

would be difficult to argue in favour of an additional 

£4 million or £5 million of public funding being made 

available for political parties. While certainly we on


[LORD BATES] 

these Benches are happy to put on the record the fact 

that this is something we need to move towards in 

principle, timing is everything in these matters, and 

now is probably not the time to do this. 

Whether we should act on the suggestion in the 

probing amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord 

Campbell-Savours, that it should be bumped into another 

fiscal year would depend on the circumstances at the 

time. However, in this case the position of these 

Benches—certainly of the Front Bench—is to support 

it in principle but to question the timing. 

This leads me to the wider issue of the donations 

cap. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, was generous in his 

citations of my remarks on the first day of Report 

when I referred to the importance of taking big money 

and the significant influence that it has out of politics. 

I take the points that have been presented with such 

clarity by my noble friend Lord Hodgson in this 

regard. However, whether we are talking about perceived 

or actual influence, it is how the public perceive the 

political process that is important. 

The Liberal Democrats, of course, have their own 

problems with major donors. Michael Brown, who 

donated £2.5 million, has turned out to be a convicted 

fraudster and yet they refuse to repay that money. It is 

important in debates of this nature to recognise that 

this is a problem for party politics which needs to be 

sorted out. It is not only a problem for the two main 

political parties; it affects all political parties. 

This was touched upon by Sir Hayden Phillips in 

his first report, Strengthening Democracy: Fair and 

Sustainable Funding of Political Parties—The Review 

of the Funding of Political Parties—March 2007, which 

was in many ways the forerunner of the Hayden 

Phillips process. He set out a principle which is worth 

repeating at this stage. He said that his principle would 

be that nothing should be agreed until everything is 

agreed. It is an interesting point. He recognised the 

complexity of the number of different moving parts 

necessary to restore confidence in public life. Whether 

it refers to major donations or to some of the other 

issues touched on in another place concerning 

constitutional reform, there is something holistic about 

the need to tackle the whole issue in the round. 

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, to say that nothing can 

be done until everything can be done is, surely, a 

wholly absurd position to take. A series of steps have 

been taken, including the 2000 Act, which followed 

the report of the committee, being amended in the 

Electoral Administration Act 2006. This is a piecemeal 

operation. 

Lord Tyler: A very Conservative one, my Lords. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, the noble Lord’s concern is 

not necessarily with me but with Sir Hayden Phillips’s 

principle number one. If he dissents from that, he is 

entitled to make the point. I happen to disagree with 

him. There is an argument that piecemeal reform 

sometimes lacks overarching principles. However, good 

legislation has overarching principles that should be 

followed through in the process of getting everyone to 

the table in order to reach some agreement. 

That leads me to a key point on the donations cap. 

There is a certain unstated element—I shall say no 

more than that—on which I hope the noble Lord, 

Lord Tyler, might comment. I should be grateful for 

some clarity lest I inadvertently cast some aspersion 

on the motives here. There is an implication of a 

donations cap, as envisaged by the Hayden Phillips 

review. To plug the gap, there would be an introduction 

of public funding. The noble Lord is shaking his head, 

so I will be happy to take that away. However, the 

White Paper, Party Finance and Expenditure in the 

United Kingdom, says: 

“The public funding schemes he proposed”— 

that is, Sir Hayden Phillips— 

“based on a donations cap of £50,000, would have an overall cost 

of around £20-£25m per year”. 

Four million pounds here, £20 million to £25 million 

there—we are beginning to build up to some significant 

sums of money. That comes on top of a concern that 

some people may be seeking tactical advantage, rather 

than a principled point of seeing a decline in income 

or a concern over future income streams, and hoping 

to replace it with public funding as a whole. 

When we talk about party funding, in many ways 

the arms race has been triggered by a dramatic increase 

in the amount of funding that is available to Members 

of Parliament in their constituencies—the incumbency 

factor. When I was serving in the other place, the 

office cost allowance, as it was called then, was in the 

region of £30,000. It was effectively enough to have an 

assistant, perhaps a part-time caseworker in the 

constituency, and then to pay for your printing, postage 

and telephones. Now that figure is up to £90,000 just 

for staff, and there is an additional element, the incidental 

expenses provision, which is another £21,000. 

Lord Campbell-Savours: Communications. 

Lord Bates: I am coming to that, my Lords. As the 

noble Lord points out, there is also a communications 

allowance of £10,000 per year. Over the lifetime of a 

Parliament, that builds up to £50,000 spent in a particular 

constituency on promoting the case of the incumbent 

Member. It is therefore not surprising that the nongoverning 

party, the non-incumbent, would seek to 

raise funds to try to match the firepower that has been 

ranged against it in a democratic process. 

I wish only to put that point on the record. I am not 

saying that I have an answer for it, nor am I saying 

what we ought to do about those allowances. That 

needs to be addressed as part of the Kelly review that 

is taking place, along with the questions of whether 

they are inadvertently funding big money donations 

and encouraging reliance on those big donations. 

The interparty talks were an important part of the 

process and all parties have engaged in them. The 

argument was that if we were going to have meaningful 

reform, all the political parties needed to get around 

the table, have their heads metaphorically banged 

together and sort this out, realising that there is a 

problem. The trade unions are perceived to have an 

influence on the Government. It causes concern from 

time to time when you see questions in debates about 

public sector funding cuts, and then you have a party


in government faced with the prospect of a union that 

represents members in the public sector threatening to 

withhold a £1 million donation, which was announced 

this week, unless it gets some movement. The fact that 

three out of every four pounds that the Labour Party 

receives is from the trade unions has a disproportionate 

influence on the process. 

4.30 pm 

I listened carefully to the expertise in the House 

regarding how trade union membership works. One of 

our principal disagreements about the proposed 

amendment on the donation cap, apart from the 

implications for public funding, is that it says that a 

member should be afforded an opportunity during the 

12 months following the relevant expenditure to be 

exempted from contributing to the political fund of 

the union. Our party believes that it needs to go 

further. There ought to be an opportunity for an 

individual member to indicate whether they consent to 

having their fund given to a political party. In most 

cases such funding goes to the Labour Party, but I 

believe that the Liberal Democrats also get funding 

from UNISON. If this is a political levy, individual 

members of the union should have the right to express 

their preference regarding which political party it ought 

to go to. They should be able to do so by opting in to 

the political fund, rather than having it assumed and 

having to go through the process of contracting out. 

The last meeting of the inter-party talks on the 

funding of political parties, chaired by Sir Hayden 

Phillips, took place on 31 October 2007. It was suggested 

that these had somehow broken down and been brought 

to an undue end because of the Conservative Party’s 

attitude to funding. That is not the case, as the minutes 

show. On the second of the three pages of the minutes 

of the final meeting held on 31 October 2007, Sir Hayden 

Phillips said: 

“As far as trade union affiliation fees the Conservative Party 

argued that the changes on affiliation fees contained in the draft 

agreement would only take people to where they believed the 

situation was at the current time regarding individual choice. 

Their view was that individual trade unionists should be able to 

make clearly voluntary donations to any party of the individual’s 

choice. They hoped the Labour Party would be willing to continue 

the Talks on the basis of further proposals which could be 

developed” 

on this point. He continued: 

“The Conservative Party saw no necessity for further controls 

on party spending, but would continue to discuss them as part of 

a package” 

of reforms. This is Sir Hayden’s concluding point in 

the final meeting. It is worth getting on the record 

because the point of breakdown in the inter-party 

talks is something that has been discussed quite often. 

On page 3 of the minutes of the same meeting, Sir Hayden 

said that, 

“if the other two parties were willing to accept the Conservatives’ 

proposals made in this meeting as the basis for further work, then 

it would be worthwhile asking the Secretariat to prepare further 

papers. Third, if there was no realistic prospect of an agreement 

at the present time on either basis, then the Talks should be 

suspended”. 

That is the final entry in the minutes because talks 

were suspended. It shows that there was clearly a 

breakdown in the inter-party talks on this central 

issue. I return to that principle to say that a holistic 

approach was absolutely necessary on this. I do not 

think that the public have the stomach for the significant 

increases that would be the consequence of the 

amendment being agreed. On the public funding of 

political parties, the need is very much for the inter-party 

talks to be reconvened to reintroduce and put everything 

on the table, including the developments that occurred 

before that time. 

This is a wide-ranging group of amendments and I 

apologise for taking so long to speak to them. However, 

they are very significant in terms of people’s future 

confidence in democracy. The amendment before us 

does not go nearly far enough; we need to go further. 

The cross-party talks need to be in place and there 

needs to be a holistic approach which embraces all 

these issues and recognises public attitudes and timing 

as regards current economic conditions. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, this has been a very 

interesting debate in which many noble Lords have 

taken part. I hope that they will forgive me if I do not 

respond in detail to each point, but I shall touch on all 

the fundamental points that have been raised. However, 

there will be a couple of exceptions. I shall not respond 

to the very interesting speech of the noble Lord, Lord 

MacGregor, about our political life apart from 

commenting on what he said about donations. I am 

sure that part of his speech will resonate in many 

quarters. I hope that that debate continues and reaches 

a proper conclusion in the interests of the health of 

our democracy. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord 

Bates, will forgive me as I cannot possibly touch on all 

the detail of his speech as I am cognisant of our 

objective to complete Report stage today. 

This group of amendments relates to the establishment 

of a cap on donations, treatment of contributions 

under that cap and a system of tax relief for donations. 

Amendment 38 would establish a cap of £50,000 per 

year on the amount that an individual or organisation 

could donate to a registered political party. Contributions 

from trade union political funds would be subject to 

this cap unless they adhered to the conditions set out 

in Amendment 39. These conditions seek to create a 

clear link between the amount paid in individual 

contributions to a union’s political fund, by way of 

affiliation fees, and the amount of any subsequent 

donation made by the union. 

The Bill is the result of a painstaking search for 

consensus between the parties. The Government’s 

overriding priority throughout has been to ensure 

broad cross-party agreement to the changes that the 

Bill will make. It simply would not be acceptable to 

make far-reaching changes to legislation in this area 

without such agreement. The amendments before us 

today are identical to amendments that have already 

been debated both in Grand Committee and the other 

place. On each occasion they have failed to command 

support across the House. 

When Amendment 38 was put to a vote in the other 

place it did not receive support from either the 

Conservative Party or the Labour Party. When 

Amendments 38 and 39 were debated in Grand 

Committee, they again failed to find cross-party 

support. And, as we have heard in the debate today,


[LORD TUNNICLIFFE] 

the proposals contained in the amendments are simply 

not broadly supported in your Lordships’ House. I 

shall briefly set out again why they are not supported 

by the Government. 

The idea of a cap on donations is not a new one. 

Two recent major reports on party funding—the 

Constitutional Affairs Select Committee report of 2006 

and the Sir Hayden Phillips review of 2007—both 

recommended that a cap should be instituted. The 

noble Lord may claim, as he did in Grand Committee 

and has again today, that his amendments “absolutely 

follow” what was put to the parties by Sir Hayden in 

the cross-party talks that followed the publication of 

his report. In fact, Sir Hayden proposed that a cap 

should be phased in gradually, beginning initially at a 

level of £500,000 and reaching the level of £50,000 

only after a period of four years. 

The noble Lord must also be aware that both the 

Constitutional Affairs Select Committee and Sir Hayden 

were explicit that a donation cap could be introduced 

only alongside an increase in state funding. In considering 

the effects of the package of measures he proposed, 

Sir Hayden said they, 

“would impose significant restrictions on the parties’ freedom to 

raise their own funds, and new obligations in terms of compliance 

and reporting. These measures are in the public interest, and it is 

fair and reasonable to use public funds to help offset their 

financial impact”. 

Sir Hayden was also quite clear that his recommendations 

on party funding needed to be considered as a whole 

package. So if the noble Lord wishes to pray in aid Sir 

Hayden’s review for his amendments, he must acknowledge 

that he is also arguing for an increase in the level of 

state funding of politics. The increase would be significant. 

The Government’s White Paper, Party Finance and 

Expenditure in the United Kingdom, calculated that a 

cap of £50,000 would result in a reduction of income 

of £5 million to £6 million each year for the two 

largest parties. 

The Government’s view on this matter is clear. We 

do not consider that an increase in the level of public 

funding, particularly of the magnitude that would be 

required to offset the imposition of a donation cap, is 

acceptable to either the political parties or the public. 

Public support for politicians and political parties 

could scarcely be lower than it is currently. It would 

defy all logic to test taxpayers’ patience even further 

by asking them to contribute more money to the 

parties. Noble Lords may argue that any increase in 

state funding should be made only as a result of 

reductions in government spending in other areas; 

however, we still think it highly unlikely that the public 

would support the general principle of an increase in 

the state funding of politics. 

Amendment 39 relates to how union contributions 

would be treated under the donation cap. It could not 

be agreed unless amendment 38 was accepted. The 

funding activities of trade unions are already very 

tightly regulated as a result of successive Acts passed 

during the 1980s and 1990s. In its 1998 report, the 

Committee on Standards in Public Life considered 

trade union political funds. It concluded: 

“We have received no evidence to suggest that the legislation is 

not working satisfactorily, and no case has been made out for any 

reform. We do not propose any change in the law in this respect”. 

The Government agree with that conclusion. However, 

the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and other noble Lords 

have today again raised concerns about the funding 

activities of unions. Perhaps I may put on the 

record, once again, the words of my right honourable 

friend the Minister of State in the debate on Second 

Reading in the other place. He noted that affiliated 

unions recently wrote to the Labour Party general 

secretary, 

“to confirm that they will voluntarily provide more information 

to members about the collection and use of political funds and 

the individual member’s right to opt out, and that the affiliates 

will introduce a common text for incorporation into membership 

materials, including application forms. In addition, the affiliates 

agreed that full affiliation of the levy-paying membership is the 

most transparent form of political membership, and moves will 

be made to that end”.—[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/08; 

col. 120.] 

The Government consider that transparency in party 

finance is the key requirement. A cap on donations 

could increase the incentive to divert donations 

through other routes and could therefore have the 

ultimate effect of decreasing transparency. As I have 

set out, it would require a significant and unjustifiable 

increase in the state funding of politics. For those 

reasons, we are not minded to support its introduction 

and I hope the noble Lord will agree not to press the 

amendment. 

I turn now to Amendments 64 to 66. Amendments 64 

and 66 would introduce a system of tax relief on 

donations to political parties. This would be along 

similar lines to the system of gift aid already in place 

for contributions to charities, albeit with certain key 

differences. They would perhaps be intended to 

compensate parties for the shortfall of income that 

might result from the imposition of the cap proposed 

in Amendment 38. The amount available to political 

parties under the system proposed in Amendment 64 

would be capped at £500 per donor per year and 

would be limited only to basic rate income tax. In 

order to qualify to receive relief, a political party 

would have to have at least two MPs elected to the 

House of Commons at the preceding general election. 

These amendments were considered in Grand 

Committee and were well supported by noble Lords 

from all three main parties, although I note that of the 

main parties’ Front Benches only the Liberal Democrats 

spoke in favour of the amendments. My noble friend 

Lord Campbell-Savours spoke in favour of the 

amendments but suggested that the amount of relief 

available should, initially at least, be capped at £15 per 

donor per year, with the Government able to increase 

that amount by order in subsequent years. This is 

formally proposed in Amendment 65. 

As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, set out, a 

system of tax relief for political donations was first 

recommended by the Committee on Standards in 

Public Life in its landmark 1998 report on the funding of 

political parties in the United Kingdom, often 

referred to as the Neill report after the committee’s 

chairman at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Neill of 

Bladen. The Government at the time accepted the 

vast majority of the Neill report’s recommendations in


the Bill that went on to become the Political 

Parties,Elections and Referendums Act 2000. 

However, we did not accept the recommendation 

to introduce tax relief and continue to oppose its 

introduction now. 

4.45 pm 

The Neill report set out a number of arguments in 

favour of introducing tax relief, some of which were 

repeated in Grand Committee and again today. The 

chief argument of principle advanced in the report is 

that it is more democratic and in the public interest for 

political parties to be funded by a large number of 

small donations than a small number of large donations. 

The report considered that, by introducing tax relief, 

parties would be encouraged to make greater efforts to 

obtain smaller donations. 

The Government entirely support the principle that 

it is preferable for parties to develop a broad base of 

support. However, that does not necessarily mean that 

the public purse should be employed to support that 

end. Parties are free to conduct their fundraising activities 

within the legislative framework. There are many steps 

that they could take to encourage a wider base of 

donors which would not require what effectively amounts 

to an increase in state funding of politics. 

Noble Lords may argue that there is a distinction to 

be made between state funding and what is proposed 

in the amendments, in that the money would not come 

directly from the state, as the allocation and amount 

of relief would depend on the choice made by individuals. 

That may be so, but the end result would still be an 

increase in the money diverted from public funds to 

support political parties. As I have already set out, at 

present, when politicians and political parties are held 

in particularly low esteem by the public, we do not 

consider that there is any public appetite for increasing 

the money paid out by the state to support political 

parties. 

We must also consider the cost of any such scheme. 

Under current legislation, donations below £200 are 

not recorded, so it cannot be known how many donations 

would be affected by the measure and what it would 

cost. However, the Neill report recommended tax relief 

on donations of up to £500 per year. In their response 

to that report, the Government estimated that the loss 

of revenue as a result would be some £4 million to 

£5 million per year. The Government do not consider 

that such an increase in the amount of state subsidy of 

politics is currently justified. Noble Lords may argue 

that, relative to total government spending, this would 

still be a small amount. The public perception, however, 

would be unlikely to take that argument into account, 

and would instead focus on the principle and the 

headline figure. 

My noble friend Lord Campbell-Savours has proposed 

in Amendment 65 that the amount of relief available 

should be set at a very low level, such that the cost to 

the public purse is low but that the principle of tax 

relief on political donations would nevertheless be 

established in legislation. As I set out, the Government 

do not agree that any increase in state subsidy of 

politics is acceptable to the public in present circumstances. 

In any case, any system of tax relief would be expensive 

for both political parties and HMRC to administer. 

That point was remarked on in the Neill report, in the 

context of considering a minimum donation which 

would qualify for relief. The report said: 

“The cost of obtaining the signature by donors of the necessary 

forms, and the cost of keeping the necessary records will impose 

an administrative burden on political parties which means that, 

below some level, it will become uneconomic to claim tax relief 

on a donation”. 

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, the 

Minister has acknowledged on behalf of the Government 

the desirability of broadening individual support for 

political parties. He went on to say that there were any 

number of opportunities available to parties so to 

broaden their membership. For his position to remain 

reasonable in rejecting the amendments, can he say 

what kind of ideas the Government have in mind for 

broadening membership at this stage? 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, it is not the role of the 

Government to advise political parties on how to 

broaden their sources of income. Indeed, if the 

Government and my party had any particularly bright 

ideas, we would be keeping them to ourselves for as 

long as we could. 

If we set the level of relief as low as my noble friend 

suggests, the administrative burden involved could all 

but cancel out the benefit of the relief. There is a 

further concern with my noble friend’s suggestion. 

Once the principle of relief is established in legislation, 

there would be little to stop future Governments increasing 

the sums involved, perhaps exponentially. It would be 

poor legislative practice to allow for such a possibility. 

Noble Lords might argue that state funding of 

politics already exists in the form of Short money, 

Cranborne money, policy development grants and 

free postage at elections; so the principle is already 

well established. However, that money is provided 

with a specific purpose or political activity in mind. By 

contrast, tax relief on donations would amount to a 

broad subsidy on a political party’s general activity. 

The amendments do not propose any restriction on 

the purpose for which the relief income could be used. 

There is a risk that under the amendments a political 

party would receive income which could be spent for 

non-political purposes. This danger was acknowledged 

by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, when we first 

considered these matters in Grand Committee. The 

amendment before us does nothing to allay these 

fears, however. 

As has been noted, inheritance tax relief is currently 

provided on bequests to political parties. Noble Lords 

have argued that this suggests that the principle should 

be extended to income tax. I can only repeat what I 

said in Grand Committee. We are not in favour of 

extending this anomaly any further. 

If carried and enacted, these amendments could 

effectively place political parties on an equal footing 

with charities. The Government do not agree that the 

two should be regarded as analogous. Charities can 

and do undertake campaigning activities, but only in 

the context of supporting the delivery of their charitable 

purpose. Guidance for charities is quite clear on the 

matter. In order to be a charity, an organisation must



be established only for charitable purposes that are for 

the public benefit. An organisation will not be charitable 

if its purposes are political. Campaigning activity can 

be legitimate but it must not be the continuing and 

sole activity of the charity. There is thus a clear 

difference between the campaigning activities of a 

charity and those of a political party. The provision of 

gift aid to charities does not imply that it should be 

provided to political parties. The Government do not 

support these amendments, and I hope that— 

Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I deliberately 

refrained from intervening until the noble Lord was 

close to the end of his speech. I am bound to say—I 

ask him to comment—that he appears to be endeavouring 

to support the view that political parties are unworthy 

objects of finance by members of the public. He seems 

to be prepared to accept a specious argument that 

because of some misbehaviour by a handful of politicians 

the whole basis of our democratic system—which is 

political parties—should be penalised. In fact, he seems 

to be kow-towing to the most prejudiced views about 

our democracy. If he does not recognise the absolutely 

essential part of political parties, not only in campaigning 

but in developing policy for Governments, he is failing 

to do the task for which the public are paying him. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I did not particularly 

notice a question in that speech. I am drawing a clear 

distinction. There is a more or less universal consensus 

in the United Kingdom that charities are special; that 

they should have a peculiar position in our tax regime; 

that their activities should be carefully regulated by an 

Act that was passed relatively recently, after extensive 

debate in both Houses, which in particular stuck on 

the point that a charity should not be solely for the 

purpose of campaigning. I draw a distinction between 

political parties and charities. That is widely done. 

We are kidding ourselves if we think that the public 

out there are not at this moment asking themselves 

what political parties do and how they behave. Sadly—I 

entirely take the point of it being sad—the public do 

not hold political parties in the same regard and 

respect as they do the generality of charities. That is 

the basis on which I hope noble Lords will withdraw 

their amendments. 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, it falls to me to respond on 

the whole group of amendments, which I shall do as 

briefly as I possible can. It has been a most useful 

debate. I am very grateful for the support that has 

been expressed, not necessarily to the whole package 

that is represented in this group, but, in differing 

degrees, to important parts of the package. 

The speeches from the Minister and from the 

Conservative Back Bench reminded me that, whenever 

I look at the patron saints in the Central Lobby up on 

those murals, I think that we should replace them all 

with a mural of St Augustine, who, Members of your 

Lordships’ House will recall, said, “Lord, make me 

virtuous—but not yet”. Everybody who has opposed— 

very few have opposed—the proposals in the amendments 

seems to be in favour of them, but not yet. 

I am particularly struck by those who think that 

somehow or other it is perfectly appropriate for the 

dead to make contributions to political parties through 

the tax system, but somehow those of us who are alive 

are not able to do so. That is an extraordinary anomaly, 

to which my noble friend Lord Goodhart has referred. 

It is also ridiculous to suggest that those charities that 

make a virtue of their campaigning in political matters— 

small “p”; they are not supporting political parties—are 

given full tax concessions from all donations, and 

yet political parties are somehow thought to be second rate. 

I would resist absolutely the suggestions that somehow 

or other this is the thin end of the wedge for an 

increase in state funding. I must say in passing that the 

Conservative Party is of course the biggest recipient of 

state funding. The leader of the Conservative Party in 

the other place, in this place and a number of offices 

of the Conservative Party receive state funding in a 

way that no other group does, not even the government 

party. Let us not fool ourselves that somehow state 

funding is a problem. 

It is, however, absolutely true that this particular set 

of amendments is not linked to state funding, except 

in this respect. As my noble friend said, the estimate is 

that, if there was the tax concession regime that he 

postulates, something between £3 million and £4 million 

might be the annual cost. I remind your Lordships’ 

House that the current advertising budget of this 

Government is £300 million a year. This small sum, 

this little concession, is something in the region of 

1 per cent or possibly 1.5 per cent. A lot of that 

funding for advertising is very close to party political 

persuasion. It comes a long way away from simply 

advertising what the Government are doing. It very 

often advertises what the Government wish to do. 

There is a point about the trades unions. I entirely 

understand the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, 

Lady Turner. I must direct her attention, however, to 

what the Prime Minister—not some Minister in some 

debate, but the Prime Minister—said on 4 December 

2007: 

“I have told the trades union movement that we have got to 

make the changes in the political levy so that it is more transparent 

as well”. 

That is why the very careful safeguards set out in the 

review by Sir Hayden Phillips, which are endorsed in 

Amendment 39, are very appropriate. 

The Minister constantly—at Second Reading, in 

Grand Committee and again this afternoon—refers to 

the need for consensus. In Grand Committee, the 

noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, quite rightly poohpoohed 

the need for consensus. Consensus means that 

you move as slow as the slowest movers, which, in this 

respect, happen to be some of the most retrograde in 

the Conservative Party. In that regard, I very much 

appreciate the support this afternoon from the 

Conservative Back Benches. Here, I think that they are 

being realistic, and indeed the Cross-Benchers recognise 

that something has to be done. I am afraid that a 

major factor in the reduced respect that the public 

now have for parliamentary institutions—the noble 

Lord, Lord MacGregor, made a very passionate reference 

to this—is that they think that big money buys influence. 

That thread went right through the cross-party agreement


in the talks convened by Sir Hayden Phillips, and I 

believe that it has been the background to all the 

contributions from all sides of the House this afternoon, 

with the disappointing exception of the Conservative 

Front Bench and the Minister. 

It is a ludicrous Aunt Sally to say that allowing a 

small tax concession in the form suggested by my 

noble friend, with widespread support across the House, 

would somehow cause even more concern and angst 

among the public. I do not believe that. In fact, it 

would give the public the opportunity to put their 

money where their mouth is—in a small way, 

admittedly—but it would not increase state funding 

hugely. If members of the Conservative Party are so 

anxious about state funding, let them give it up. That 

is an obvious way in which they can make a contribution 

to the Exchequer. At present, in the course of a 

Parliament the Conservative Party receives in the region 

of £25 million to £30 million of taxpayers’ money, 

most of which is not available to any other party. 

We have had a very useful debate this afternoon 

and there has been widespread support for the changes 

that we would make. I remind your Lordships that it is 

a very simple quid pro quo—a restriction on very large 

donations and, in return, the encouragement of small 

donations through the tax system. I believe that that is 

a very appropriate stand for your Lordships to take, 

and I wish to test the opinion of the House. 

5.01 pm 

Division on Amendment 38 

Contents 71; Not-Contents 210. 

Amendment 38 disagreed. 

Addington, L. 

Allenby of Megiddo, V. 

Alton of Liverpool, L. 

Ashdown of Norton-sub- 

Hamdon, L. 

Avebury, L. 

Barker, B. 

Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury, 

B. 

Bradshaw, L. 

Bridges, L. 

Burnett, L. 

Chidgey, L. 

Clement-Jones, L. 

Cotter, L. 

Craigavon, V. 

Dholakia, L. 

D’Souza, B. 

Dykes, L. 

Falkland, V. 

Falkner of Margravine, B. 

Garden of Frognal, B. 

Glasgow, E. 

Goodhart, L. 

Greaves, L. 

Hamwee, B. 

Harries of Pentregarth, L. 

Harris of Richmond, B. 

Division No. 1 

CONTENTS 

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, 

L. 

Hooson, L. 

Howe of Idlicote, B. 

Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. 

Lee of Trafford, L. 

Lester of Herne Hill, L. 

Linklater of Butterstone, B. 

Livsey of Talgarth, L. 

Mackie of Benshie, L. 

Maclennan of Rogart, L. 

McNally, L. 

Maddock, B. 

Mar and Kellie, E. 

May of Oxford, L. 

Methuen, L. 

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, 

B. 

Montgomery of Alamein, V. 

Neuberger, B. 

Newby, L. 

Northover, B. 

O’Neill of Bengarve, B. 

Pannick, L. 

Patel, L. 

Razzall, L. 

Redesdale, L. 

Roberts of Llandudno, L. 

[Teller] 

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L. 

Sandwich, E. 

Scott of Needham Market, B. 

Sharp of Guildford, B. 

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller] 

Steel of Aikwood, L. 

Sutherland of Houndwood, L. 

Taverne, L. 

Tenby, V. 

Thomas of Gresford, L. 

Adonis, L. 

Ahmed, L. 

Amos, B. 

Anderson of Swansea, L. 

Andrews, B. 

Anelay of St Johns, B. 

Archer of Sandwell, L. 

Arran, E. 

Astor of Hever, L. 

Attlee, E. 

Bach, L. 

Baker of Dorking, L. 

Barnett, L. 

Bassam of Brighton, L. 

[Teller] 

Bates, L. 

Berkeley, L. 

Bernstein of Craigweil, L. 

Billingham, B. 

Bilston, L. 

Borrie, L. 

Boyd of Duncansby, L. 

Brett, L. 

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. 

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, 

L. 

Brookman, L. 

Buscombe, B. 

Carter of Coles, L. 

Cathcart, E. 

Clark of Windermere, L. 

Clarke of Hampstead, L. 

Clinton-Davis, L. 

Cobbold, L. 

Colville of Culross, V. 

Colwyn, L. 

Condon, L. 

Cope of Berkeley, L. 

Corbett of Castle Vale, L. 

Courtown, E. 

Crawley, B. 

Crickhowell, L. 

Cunningham of Felling, L. 

Darzi of Denham, L. 

Davidson of Glen Clova, L. 

Davies of Abersoch, L. 

Davies of Coity, L. 

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] 

De Mauley, L. 

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, 

B. 

Desai, L. 

Dixon-Smith, L. 

Donoughue, L. 

Eccles of Moulton, B. 

Elder, L. 

Elton, L. 

Elystan-Morgan, L. 

Erroll, E. 

Evans of Parkside, L. 

Evans of Temple Guiting, L. 

Evans of Watford, L. 

Falconer of Thoroton, L. 

Falkender, B. 

Farrington of Ribbleton, B. 

NOT CONTENTS 

Thomas of Winchester, B. 

Tonge, B. 

Tordoff, L. 

Tyler, L. 

Walmsley, B. 

Walpole, L. 

Warnock, B. 

Williams of Crosby, B. 

Young of Hornsey, B. 

Faulkner of Worcester, L. 

Ferrers, E. 

Ford, B. 

Fowler, L. 

Gale, B. 

Geddes, L. 

Gibson of Market Rasen, B. 

Golding, B. 

Goudie, B. 

Graham of Edmonton, L. 

Grantchester, L. 

Grocott, L. 

Hanham, B. 

Hannay of Chiswick, L. 

Hanningfield, L. 

Harris of Haringey, L. 

Haskel, L. 

Haskins, L. 

Haworth, L. 

Henig, B. 

Henley, L. 

Higgins, L. 

Hilton of Eggardon, B. 

Hollis of Heigham, B. 

Howarth of Newport, L. 

Howe, E. 

Howe of Aberavon, L. 

Howie of Troon, L. 

Hughes of Woodside, L. 

Hunt of Kings Heath, L. 

Hurd of Westwell, L. 

Inglewood, L. 

Irvine of Lairg, L. 

James of Blackheath, L. 

Jay of Ewelme, L. 

Jay of Paddington, B. 

Joffe, L. 

Jones, L. 

Jones of Whitchurch, B. 

Jopling, L. 

Kimball, L. 

King of Bridgwater, L. 

King of West Bromwich, L. 

Kirkhill, L. 

Laird, L. 

Lamont of Lerwick, L. 

Lea of Crondall, L. 

Lipsey, L. 

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L. 

Luke, L. 

Lyell, L. 

McColl of Dulwich, L. 

McDonagh, B. 

Macdonald of Tradeston, L. 

MacGregor of Pulham 

Market, L. 

McIntosh of Haringey, L. 

McKenzie of Luton, L. 

MacLaurin of Knebworth, L. 

Malloch-Brown, L. 

Mar, C. 

Marland, L. 

Masham of Ilton, B. 

Massey of Darwen, B. 

Maxton, L.


Mayhew of Twysden, L. 

Monson, L. 

Montrose, D. 

Moonie, L. 

Morgan, L. 

Morgan of Drefelin, B. 

Morris of Aberavon, L. 

Morris of Handsworth, L. 

Morris of Manchester, L. 

Morris of Yardley, B. 

Morrow, L. 

Moser, L. 

Neill of Bladen, L. 

Noakes, B. 

Norton of Louth, L. 

O’Cathain, B. 

O’Neill of Clackmannan, L. 

Onslow, E. 

Palmer, L. 

Parekh, L. 

Patel of Blackburn, L. 

Patten, L. 

Pearson of Rannoch, L. 

Pendry, L. 

Perry of Southwark, B. 

Plant of Highfield, L. 

Plumb, L. 

Prosser, B. 

Puttnam, L. 

Quin, B. 

Ramsay of Cartvale, B. 

Reay, L. 

Rendell of Babergh, B. 

Renton of Mount Harry, L. 

Richard, L. 

Rogan, L. 

Rooker, L. 

Rosser, L. 

Rowe-Beddoe, L. 

Rowlands, L. 

Royall of Blaisdon, B. 

Ryder of Wensum, L. 

5.14 pm 

Amendment 39 not moved. 

Scotland of Asthal, B. 

Seccombe, B. 

Selborne, E. 

Selsdon, L. 

Sewel, L. 

Sharples, B. 

Sheldon, L. 

Shephard of Northwold, B. 

Shrewsbury, E. 

Simon, V. 

Skelmersdale, L. 

Snape, L. 

Soley, L. 

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L. 

Stewartby, L. 

Stoddart of Swindon, L. 

Strathclyde, L. 

Symons of Vernham Dean, B. 

Taylor of Bolton, B. 

Taylor of Holbeach, L. 

Tebbit, L. 

Temple-Morris, L. 

Thornton, B. 

Tomlinson, L. 

Trenchard, V. 

Trimble, L. 

Trumpington, B. 

Tugendhat, L. 

Tunnicliffe, L. 

Turner of Camden, B. 

Uddin, B. 

Warwick of Undercliffe, B. 

Watson of Invergowrie, L. 

West of Spithead, L. 

Whitaker, B. 

Whitty, L. 

Wilcox, B. 

Wilkins, B. 

Williams of Elvel, L. 

Williamson of Horton, L. 

Woolmer of Leeds, L. 

Young of Norwood Green, L. 

Schedule4:Reports of gifts received by 

unincorporated associations making donations: 

Schedule to be inserted into the 2000 Act 

Amendments 40 to 63 

Moved by Lord Tunnicliffe 

40: Schedule 4, page 66, line 20, leave out “donations” and 

insert “contributions” 


insert “political contributions” 

42: Schedule 4, page 66, line 24, leave out “donation” and 

insert “contribution” 









47: Schedule 4, page 66, leave out lines 32 to 36 and insert— 

“(2) An unincorporated association makes a “political 

contribution” in any of the following cases— 

(a) it makes a donation (within the meaning of Part 4) to a 

registered party; 

(b) it makes a loan of money to a registered party, or 

discharges (to any extent) a liability of a registered party, 

in pursuance of a regulated transaction (within the 

meaning of Part 4A); 

(c) it makes a donation (within the meaning of Schedule 7) 

to a regulated donee; 

(d) it makes a loan of money to a regulated donee, or 

discharges (to any extent) a liability of a regulated 

donee, in pursuance of a controlled transaction (within 

the meaning of Schedule 7A); 

(e) it makes a donation (within the meaning of Schedule 11) 

to a recognised third party; 

(f) it makes a donation (within the meaning of Schedule 15) 

to a permitted participant.” 

48: Schedule 4, page 67, line 1, leave out “donation” and insert 

“contribution” 



50: Schedule 4, page 67, leave out lines 4 to 12 

51: Schedule 4, page 67, line 29, at end insert— 

“(e) the value of a contribution within sub-paragraph (2)(b) 

or (d) is the amount of money lent or liability 

discharged.” 

52: Schedule 4, page 67, line 30, after “donation” insert “, or a 

sum of money lent,” 

53: Schedule 4, page 67, line 30, leave out “it” and insert “the 

donation or loan” 


insert “political contribution” 

55: Schedule 4, page 67, line 38, leave out first “donation” and 


56: Schedule 4, page 67, line 38, leave out second “donation” 

and insert “contribution” 














“( ) lends money to another otherwise than on commercial 

terms;” 

Amendments 40 to 63 agreed. 

5.15 pm 

Amendment 64 

Moved by Lord Goodhart 

64: After Schedule 4, insert the following new Schedule— 

“SCHEDULE 

Tax relief on donations


1 To obtain tax relief under section (Tax relief on donations), 

the conditions set out in paragraph 2 must be satisfied. 

2 (1) The individual who made the donation is a permissible 

donor. 

(2) The registered political party to which the donation is 

made is a party which, at the last general election preceding the 

donation, had at least two members elected to the House of 

Commons. 

(3) Conditions A to F in section 416 of the Income Tax Act 

2007 (c. 3) (meaning of “qualifying donation”) would have been 

met if the donations had been made to a charity. 

(4) The donor has given a declaration in the manner specified 

by regulations made by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s 

Revenue and Customs and containing any information and any 

statements required by regulations. 

3 Regulations made under paragraph 2(4) may provide for 

declarations— 

(a) to have effect; 

(b) to cease to have effect; 

(c) to be treated as never having had effect, 

in any circumstances and for any purposes specified by the 

regulations. 

4 Regulations made under paragraph 2(4) are subject to 

annulment pursuant to a resolution of the House of Commons. 

5 Tax relief in relation to donations given by an individual in 

any fiscal year may be given only on whichever is the lesser of— 

(a) the amount of donations given by the individual in that 

year to which section (Tax relief on donations) applies; 

(b) £500. 

6 Tax relief shall not be given on higher rate income tax. 

7 The amount of tax relief (subject to paragraphs 5 and 6) 

shall be computed and allocated to the political party to which 

the donation was given as if that party was a charity to which 

Chapter 2 of Part 8 of the Income Tax Act 2007 applies.” 

Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I wish to test the opinion 

of the House. 

5.15 pm 




Addington, L. [Teller] 


Ashdown of Norton-sub- 

Hamdon, L. 

Avebury, L. 

Baker of Dorking, L. 

Barker, B. 


B. 

Bowness, L. 

Bradshaw, L. 

Bridges, L. 

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, 

L. 

Burnett, L. 

Cathcart, E. 

Chidgey, L. 


Cotter, L. 

Dholakia, L. 


CONTENTS 

Dykes, L. 

Elliott of Morpeth, L. 

Falkland, V. 


Garden of Frognal, B. 

Glasgow, E. 

Goodhart, L. 

Greaves, L. 

Hamwee, B. 

Harries of Pentregarth, L. 



L. 

Hooson, L. 


James of Blackheath, L. 

Kirkwood of Kirkhope, L. 

Lamont of Lerwick, L. 



Linklater of Butterstone, B. 


MacGregor of Pulham 

Market, L. 


Maclennan of Rogart, L. 

McNally, L. 

Maddock, B. 

Marland, L. 

Marlesford, L. 



Methuen, L. 


B. 

Morrow, L. 

Neill of Bladen, L. 

Neuberger, B. 

Newby, L. 

Nicholson of Winterbourne, 

B. 

Northover, B. 



Pannick, L. 

Amos, B. 


Andrews, B. 


Bach, L. 

Barnett, L. 


[Teller] 

Berkeley, L. 


Bew, L. 

Bilston, L. 

Borrie, L. 

Boyd of Duncansby, L. 

Brett, L. 

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L. 

Brookman, L. 





Cobbold, L. 


Condon, L. 


Craigavon, V. 

Crawley, B. 


Davies of Abersoch, L. 

Davies of Coity, L. 

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller] 


B. 

Desai, L. 

D’Souza, B. 

Elder, L. 



Evans of Temple Guiting, L. 


Falconer of Thoroton, L. 

Falkender, B. 



Ford, B. 

Gale, B. 


Golding, B. 

Goudie, B. 


NOT CONTENTS 

Plumb, L. 

Razzall, L. 

Redesdale, L. 



Sandwich, E. 


Sharp of Guildford, B. 



Steel of Aikwood, L. 

Stewartby, L. 


Taverne, L. 

Tebbit, L. 

Tenby, V. 



Tonge, B. 

Tordoff, L. 

Tugendhat, L. 

Tyler, L. 

Walmsley, B. 

Walpole, L. 


Greenway, L. 

Grocott, L. 

Hannay of Chiswick, L. 


Haskel, L. 

Haskins, L. 

Haworth, L. 

Henig, B. 


Hollis of Heigham, B. 

Howarth of Newport, L. 

Howie of Troon, L. 

Hughes of Woodside, L. 


Irvine of Lairg, L. 



Joffe, L. 

Jones, L. 



Kirkhill, L. 

Laird, L. 

Lea of Crondall, L. 


McDonagh, B. 

Macdonald of Tradeston, L. 

McIntosh of Haringey, L. 

McKenzie of Luton, L. 

Malloch-Brown, L. 

Mar, C. 


Maxton, L. 

Montgomery of Alamein, V. 

Moonie, L. 

Morgan, L. 



Morris of Handsworth, L. 

Morris of Manchester, L. 

Morris of Yardley, B. 


Parekh, L. 

Patel, L. 


Pendry, L. 

Prosser, B. 

Quin, B. 


Rea, L.


Rendell of Babergh, B. 

Robertson of Port Ellen, L. 

Rogan, L. 

Rooker, L. 

Rosser, L. 

Rowlands, L. 


St. John of Bletso, L. 


Simon, V. 

Snape, L. 

Soley, L. 

Sutherland of Houndwood, L. 



Temple-Morris, L. 

5.25 pm 


Amendment 67 


Thornton, B. 

Tomlinson, L. 

Tunnicliffe, L. 

Turner of Camden, B. 

Uddin, B. 

Vadera, B. 



West of Spithead, L. 

Whitaker, B. 

Whitty, L. 

Wilkins, B. 

Williams of Elvel, L. 

Woolmer of Leeds, L. 



“National spending limit 

In the Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2), after 

section 75A there is inserted— 

“75B National spending limit 

(1) A registered political party may spend in total, including 

expenditure by its national, regional, local or other organs, no 

more than £100 million on qualifying expenditure in the period of 

61 months following a general election. 

(2) If more than one general election occurs within 61 months 

following the previous general election, the Secretary of State 

may by order increase the sums referred to in subsection (1) by 

any appropriate amount. 

(3) Before making an order under subsection (2), the Secretary 

of State shall consult the Electoral Commission. 

(4) An order under subsection (2) must be laid before, and 

approved by a resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.”” 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, we now turn to the discussions 

that have taken place over many years about constraint 

on spending by political parties at both the national 

and the local levels. In case the Minister feels that this 

is not a relevant or topical issue, perhaps I may refer to 

the fact that today UNISON, Britain’s second largest 

union, has decided not to make any further contributions 

to the Labour Party for the time being. Therefore, 

constraint on expenditure by political parties may be 

more relevant than it was just a few hours ago. Perhaps 

I should also remind the Minister that, in the last three 

months recorded by the Electoral Commission, Labour 

managed to raise £2.8 million but the Conservatives 

raised £4 million. The Minister may like to comment 

on that discrepancy and think again about whether 

implementation of the agreements arrived at during 

the cross-party talks under the auspices of Sir Hayden 

Phillips may be more appropriate. 

Amendments 67 to 73 would, in effect, all implement 

the concerns and proposals discussed at such length 

by the Hayden Phillips team. Although spending limits 

were debated in Grand Committee, the Minister will 

acknowledge that we have responded in these amendments 

to some of the criticisms made during that process. We 

have returned to the amendments proposed in the 

other place, which more closely reflect the Hayden 

Phillips proposals. The amendments differ in only one 

respect: the spending limit that we suggest over a 

period is £100 million, rather than the £150 million in 

the Hayden Phillips discussions. That reflects some of 

the anxieties that have been expressed—not least in 

the previous debate by the noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, 

who spoke from professional experience of the marketing 

and advertising industry—about how much wastage 

takes place. We believe that it would be reasonable to 

think of a more modest target, which would also meet 

some of the anxieties of the public. 

I do not propose going through all the specifics of 

the Hayden Phillips proposals, which are directly reflected 

in the amendments before your Lordships’ House. 

However, I should like briefly to refer to the conclusions 

of that team, which I again remind the House reflected 

the anxieties, concerns and intentions of all three 

parties and for which, at the time, there was explicit 

support not only in the Hayden Phillips team but also 

in the House of Commons. Mr Maude, whose comments 

I referred to in the previous debate and will not repeat 

now, was absolutely explicit that the recommendations 

should be incorporated as soon as possible, while in 

exchanges during Prime Minister’s Questions in 

December 2007 the Prime Minister and the leader of 

the Conservative Party also specifically endorsed the 

proposal that there should be limits on expenditure. 

In his summary, Sir Hayden Phillips states: 

“I believe there is general agreement that: expenditure on 

general election campaigns has progressively grown and should 

now be reduced in line with a new spending control regime to be 

agreed between the parties; and controls on expenditure by all 

third parties should be strengthened … This chapter has described 

the options available to the parties in crafting new controls on 

spending. To reach a lasting agreement, there needs to be a 

focused discussion on four key issues: the period over which 

spending should be limited; the categories of spending which 

should be limited; the geographical scope of the limits on spending; 

and, in the light of the nature of an agreed scheme, the amount by 

which spending should be reduced. But it is clear to me that 

progress must be made on this point and that a new approach to 

curbing expenditure is necessary. A comprehensive agreement on 

party funding should, at a minimum, include within it measures 

to return to the overall rise in party spending to the trend line as it 

was before the spike in spending prior to the 2005 general 

election”. 

5.30 pm 

I turn now to a specific issue that again we have 

modified somewhat from the proposals we put to the 

Grand Committee; it relates to permissible expenditure. 

We are clear that at the moment there is a temptation 

for national parties effectively to interfere with constituency 

campaigns in a way that is contrary to all the intentions 

and legislation going right back to the 1883 Act. That 

temptation relates to specific approaches made to 

individual electors on behalf of a national campaign 

and seeks effectively to undermine what is going on in 

the individual constituency. 

Many of us who took part in the Grand Committee 

proceedings have been candidates at various stages. I 

added up the number of occasions on which I have 

been a candidate for a county or general election and 

it is rather a large number, but on every occasion my 

agent was able to say to me—others will have had this 

experience—“If you go over the expenditure limit that


has been imposed on this constituency, you as the 

candidate or I as the agent will be in court”. It was laid 

down absolutely and precisely that those who fought a 

constituency campaign should bear the full legal 

responsibility for all the money spent on promoting 

the candidature. 

However, by means of mailshots directed at 

individuals—let alone all the other material that can 

come from a national headquarters—a principle that 

has been in place for more than a century has been 

effectively undermined. Therefore, we have included a 

specific requirement in these amendments that, where 

national expenditure takes place to promote, effectively, 

a candidate and his or her party within a constituency 

directly related to an individual elector’s response, that 

should be taken into account in relation to the limits 

on expenditure at the local level. We understand that 

this is difficult where, for example, billboards are used; 

in Chester, for example, it might be said that billboards 

apply to the whole of Cheshire, because people go in 

and out of the city. However, where unsolicited mail is 

sent to an individual elector, that undermines what is 

happening at the local level and the responsibility of 

the candidate and his or her agent to look after very 

precisely what expenditure is made on behalf of that 

candidate. That is included in the eligible expenditure 

categories within this section. 

I do not need to say much more at this point. There 

has been considerable discussion at all stages of the 

process through your Lordships’ House and some 

discussion in the other place, but I plead with the 

Minister to take this seriously. Indeed, perhaps on this 

occasion he might be permitted a little bit of a partisan 

approach, as it is his party that is suffering most from 

this attempt to get around the law on the way in which 

expenditure is advanced. 

It has also been the experience in recent years that 

expenditure during the three weeks or so of the campaign 

is but part of the total campaign expenditure. That 

has been the cause of much concern and controversy, 

certainly in the analysis undertaken by Mr Peter Bradley, 

the former Member for the Wrekin, who was the 

unfortunate victim of a huge amount of money being 

spent in his constituency on behalf of his opponent 

before the dissolution of the last Parliament. 

This is an important issue. There has been considerable 

agreement across the parties, with all three leaders 

agreeing that something needs to be done on this 

score. I hope that we will not have yet another example 

of the St Augustine syndrome: let us all be virtuous, 

but not yet. I beg to move. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, these amendments are in the 

same vein as the previous group that we discussed. I 

can therefore keep my comments fairly brief, because 

most of the points have been covered. 

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to being virtuous, 

but not yet. He might say that to his own party on the 

question of the donation of £2.4 million. This is a 

germane point and the people watching this debate or 

reading it in Hansard need to have it placed in context. 

It was a significant donation from a foreign national, a 

fugitive from justice in the UK, which was made to the 

Liberal Democrats, who refuse to repay it. If the 

Liberal Democrats feel so passionately about being 

virtuous, why not repay it? If the noble Lord will make 

that pledge I shall happily give way to him in order 

that he may do so. 

My real point on spending preferences is that in a 

fair and democratic situation we need to have a level 

playing field. However, that level playing field—I alluded 

to this in my previous comments—has been distorted 

by the amount of public money that has been poured 

into constituencies. The office costs allowance, which I 

mentioned, and the communications allowance could 

amount to something in the region of £100,000 per 

year, or £500,000 during the lifetime of a Parliament. 

That money is put in by the incumbent and is in 

addition to all the benefits and opportunities that he 

or she has of writing letters and access to the press. 

Lord Greaves: My Lords, the noble Lord seems to 

be repeating what he said in the debate on the previous 

group. Regardless of what one thinks about the £10,000 

a year communications allowance—I would be in favour 

of scrapping it—does he really believe that there is a 

proper comparison between the £10,000 per year 

communications allowance that an MP receives and 

the much larger amounts of money with which the 

Conservative Party is swamping some constituencies? 

Lord Bates: My Lords, the direct answer to the 

question is yes, I do think that there is a comparison. 

That is why I am making the case. 

Lord Greaves: My Lords, does the noble Lord, 

therefore, not think that the Conservatives ought to be 

matching that £10,000 with £10,000 of their own 

money and not a penny more? 

Lord Bates: My Lords, I was intending to go on to 

talk about all the additional benefits that the incumbent 

has in contesting an election. If the noble Lord is so 

passionate about limiting the amount of money that 

can fund campaigns, I think, having been around a 

few campaigns myself, not least by-election campaigns, 

that the Liberal Democrats could take the lead and 

show their virtue by imposing a restraint now on the 

amount of funds that they are going to put into the 

Norwich North by-election. They could do that if 

they really wanted to take the big money out of 

politics. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I quote from the 

Companion: 

“A member of the House who is speaking may be interrupted 

with a brief question for clarification. Giving way accords with 

the traditions and customary courtesy of the House ... Lengthy or 

frequent interventions should not be made, even with the consent 

of the member speaking”. 

We are on Report. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, I will humbly continue the 

debate. I recognise the rules of the House and would 

not want to trespass on them. 

I was talking about the amount of money that is 

going into elections and the need for a spending cap. 

This is the point that my right honourable friend


[LORD BATES] 

David Cameron has made in his personal pledge: an 

incoming Conservative Government would abolish 

the communications allowance as a first step and a 

gesture in that direction. We would seek to reduce the 

cost of politics and the size of the House of Commons. 

He has put his finger on the national mood at the 

moment, which is not inclined to put one penny more 

towards the political process in these straitened times 

but wants to see the system managed much more 

efficiently. It is up to the political parties, through 

interparty dialogue, to come up with ways in which 

that can be achieved. 

I would like to make a couple of other points about 

expenditure limits. There are many other forms of 

support that political parties receive from the public 

purse, a point that was raised in the Neill report and 

was touched on by Sir Hayden Phillips in his review, 

where he pointed out the value of freepost mailings of 

manifestos at election time and of political election 

broadcasts. Significant amounts of funding are there 

for the incumbent. 

We are not saying that there is not a problem; big 

money—I use the term again with no hesitation—needs 

to be taken out of politics. “Big money” refers not 

only to trade unions and major wealthy individuals 

but to the public purse as well. Some steps have been 

taken and it is worth putting on the record some of the 

progress that has been made in relation to national 

limits. We have just experienced a European election 

that had a national limit on expenditure. That was a 

good exercise and a good discipline to impose. 

The very Bill that we are talking about came forward 

with a limitation on pre-candidacy election expenses 

for certain general elections. It introduces a limit, 

which is a step in the right direction, as it acknowledges 

that we have to find ways of reducing the amount of 

funding that is going into constituencies. Section 18 

talks about a system of limiting the amount of money 

expended, kicking in after the 55th month of a Parliament. 

However, there is an important corollary to the 

point about the limitations on pre-election expenses 

under the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister 

could put some additional remarks on the record 

about this. The understanding was that that would be 

matched by a limitation of the communications allowance 

used during that period by Members in the other place 

in their constituencies. It seems only right and fair that 

any limit that applied to donation income should be 

matched by a gesture from the incumbent Members in 

limiting the amount that is spent through the 

communications allowance. Various statements have 

been made claiming that such a statutory instrument 

or convention would be in place by the time the Bill 

received Royal Assent. It would be good to hear that 

this is still very much the Government’s intention. I 

recognise the intention behind the amendments but, 

for the reasons that I have outlined, we do not want to 

support them at this stage. 

5.45 pm 

Lord Bach: My Lords, this group of proposed 

amendments seeks to introduce a radical change in the 

regulation of political expenditure in this country. I 

pay tribute the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the, alas, 

not present noble Lord, Lord Rennard—whom we 

hope is getting better—for their passion and commitment 

to this particular point about national spend and 

constituency spend. I am unable to accept the 

amendments, but I hope that what I have to say will go 

a little way towards making the noble Lord realise that 

we want to move forward on this. 

I will not go through the amendments one by one. 

The noble Lord did not do so either. We recognise the 

broad shape of the amendments from Grand Committee. 

We are grateful that some rectification has been made 

of some of the problems and deficiencies that were 

identified in the previous versions of these amendments, 

but we have some concerns. For example, Amendment 67 

would impose a five-year limit on a party’s spending 

but still fails to anticipate the problem of parties 

saving up the majority of their permitted spend until 

shortly before an election. In Amendment 68, we are 

concerned that smaller parties would face great difficulty 

in accurately calculating the level of their permitted 

spend, given that it cannot be known how many 

months will elapse between elections. These are small 

points, but I make them in case the noble Lord wants 

to deal with them. 

The transitional arrangements proposed in 

Amendment 70 appear to suggest that a party could 

spend 75 per cent of the permitted £61 million between 

July 2009 and the next election. That is probably a 

drafting error, but prescribing any figure in the manner 

of the amendment would be risky, given that we 

cannot know exactly when the election will be. 

Amendment 72 would require registered political parties 

to report annually on their qualifying expenditure 

under the proposed new system of spending limits, 

although it defines expenditure as that found in 

Schedule 4A to the 1983 Act. However, that schedule 

lists the regulated matters for the candidate’s spending 

limit, not the party’s campaign spending limit. That 

list of regulated matters is to be found in Schedule 8 to 

the 2000 Act. 

Amendment 71—and here I come to more major 

issues—would make two crucial changes to the list of 

regulated matters for candidates’ spending, as set out 

in Schedule 4A to the 1983 Act. First, it seeks to add 

spending on newsletters or similar publications, which 

is by the central party but relates to candidates. Secondly, 

it would add market research or canvassing activity to 

the list of regulated matters. The noble Lord, Lord 

Tyler, raised concerns about the current list of regulated 

matters for the candidate and campaign spending 

limits in Grand Committee. Election spending is, of 

course, regulated by separate limits, according to whether 

it is by or on behalf of a party, or by or on behalf of a 

candidate. This is clearly an important distinction. 

The noble Lord’s concern is that spending by a central 

party organisation, which might be specifically aimed 

to enhance the electoral prospects of an individual 

candidate, would not be recorded against that candidate’s 

spending limit. 

So we understand the point and the noble Lord’s 

concern, but we fear that the proposals would introduce 

further complexity into what is already a complex area 

of legislation. We are concerned that they could be


difficult to understand and operate in practice and 

could blur the respective roles and responsibilities of 

the election agent, central party and local party. 

In the White Paper that preceded this Bill, the 

Government stated that they would assess whether 

there is clarity over which expenses count towards the 

party campaign and candidate spending limits. We 

stated that we would bring forward proposals to update 

the lists of regulated matters. However, such changes 

would be made via secondary legislation rather than 

in this Bill. 

The Government will consult fully with all the 

major political parties and the Electoral Commission 

before bringing forward proposals for change. Any 

proposals would then be subject to full scrutiny by 

both Houses. The concerns that the noble Lord, Lord 

Tyler, raises and the changes that he proposes to make 

to Schedule 4A would best be addressed during the 

course of that consultation and those discussions. I 

understand that there is due to be a meeting of party 

administrators and officials from my department, the 

Ministry of Justice. This could be a productive issue to 

be considered at that meeting, which I believe is due to 

be held later this summer. 

This is a complex area of legislation and any proposal 

for change would have to be considered very carefully 

if we are to avoid the unintended consequences that 

are always a danger of introducing changes that have 

not been sufficiently considered. I can give no guarantee 

that it will be possible to address fully the noble Lord’s 

concern, not least as his proposal would be a significant 

change and we have concerns about the practical effect 

of such a step. However, I reassure him that we intend 

to look at the lists of regulated matters, and to do so 

not on a solitary or party basis—although he tempts 

me, I shall resist the temptation to be parti pris—but 

on a consultative and co-operative basis. 

To return to the main thrust of the debate, which 

we are grateful to the noble Lord for raising, this 

group of amendments is based, in a broad sense, on 

the package of recommendations on spending put 

forward by Sir Hayden Phillips, although there are 

some key differences between Sir Hayden’s suggested 

reforms and the amendments before us today. The 

noble Lord, Lord Tyler, mentioned the key one. Sir 

Hayden proposed that the whole of term limit should 

be £150 million, including a general election premium 

of £20 million. Sir Hayden’s proposals for the treatment 

of smaller parties also differed, and he did not propose 

introducing the new controls until after the next general 

election. These differences are significant. We are not 

considering the Hayden package of reforms with these 

amendments, but a revised version which has not 

come about as the result of cross-party talks and 

discussion. 

We have constantly stated that we broadly support 

the approach of comprehensive spending limits as 

proposed by Sir Hayden. However, we have also made 

it clear that there are concerns about how these could 

be made to operate effectively in practice. I talked 

about a meeting of officials and party administrators. 

Such a meeting has not yet been arranged but we will 

seek—I give that promise from the Dispatch Box—to 

arrange a meeting of the type I mentioned to take 

place this summer. 

We have also made the case—I know that the noble 

Lord, Lord Tyler, is not particularly happy with this—that 

it is necessary to proceed in this area only on the basis 

of cross-party consensus. We do not think that we can 

introduce fundamental changes to the regulation of 

party funding unless all the main parties are signed up 

to the way forward. That requires detailed discussion 

between parties and scrutiny of any proposals for 

change. That is what the Sir Hayden Phillips talks 

sought to achieve. Alas, they failed to settle on proposals 

that all parties could support. 

We have always said that this Bill is not intended to 

be the last word on party funding issues. We hope that, 

in the long term, cross-party agreement can be achieved. 

We do not believe such agreement exists in your Lordships’ 

House today. For that reason, we do not believe that 

this Bill is the correct place to introduce such a system. 

I hope the noble Lord will consider withdrawing his 

amendments on the basis of what I have said in my 

reply. The noble Lord, Lord Bates, mentioned the 

restriction post-55 months. My right honourable friend 

Michael Wills said on Report in another place that 

CA would be restricted for the longer regulated period 

introduced in Clause 18. That is a matter for the 

House of Commons to agree, not for the Government. 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister 

for the very careful and positive way in which he has 

responded to our amendments. I am sorry that his 

colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, is 

not in the Chamber, because he was so effective in 

demolishing this argument that everything has to be 

agreed by total consensus across the parties. I wonder 

what the Minister’s position would be if there was 

complete agreement between the Conservative and 

Labour Parties on an issue of this sort, but the Liberal 

Democrats did not agree. Would he still say that there 

was consensus, or would he say that the Liberal Democrats 

effectively had a veto on any agreement? The danger 

with the concept that we can do something in this field 

only when everybody is agreed is that we will not make 

any serious reforms to our political system at all. 

There will always be somebody who does not want to 

move. I have to say that we are usually rather more in 

advance when it comes to reform. However, this idea 

that consensus is essential, and therefore the slowest 

mover has a veto, is a dangerous new tendency in 

government. I do not see it in any other walk of life 

where government seeks to interfere or control. 

I hope I am not putting words into the Minister’s 

mouth, but I think that I can detect from what he is 

saying that the Government take very seriously the 

sort of anxieties and concerns that we have expressed. 

He did not say that he is seeking to reconstitute any 

cross-party discussions but I hope that it can be read 

into his words that he is not giving up on seeking to 

achieve some agreement, even if it is not complete, 

100 per cent consensus. As he rightly says, his colleagues 

in the other place are increasingly anxious about the 

failure of the present regulations, particularly in terms 

of qualifying expenditure, to prevent interference on a 

scale that has never been experienced before. Not in 

the past 100 years has there been such considerable 

expenditure by national parties to encourage people to 

support local candidates within the constituency. He


[LORD TYLER] 

was very generous in identifying that this was an issue 

of concern which the Liberal Democrats are not alone 

in identifying. He is right that we need in some form or 

other to go back to the issues in Schedule 4A, and it 

may not be our precise amendments that will be 

necessary. 

I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who 

is engaged this afternoon and has given her apologies 

to me and perhaps also to the Minster, shares our 

anxieties on this score. If the Minister is saying—I 

think he is, and I hope he will intervene if I have it 

wrong—that there may be other ways in which we can 

tighten and improve how these categories of expenditure 

are currently treated, then my colleagues and I very 

warmly welcome that. Frankly, however, it is not very 

helpful simply to say that there will be an urgent 

meeting some time in the summer. That does not 

communicate to me the sense of urgency that even 

this House would feel in giving priority to this important 

issue. 

The Minister has been generous in saying that these 

are matters of concern to him and his colleagues in 

government. I hope it will be accepted that the issue is 

certainly of concern to members on different sides of 

the House. It did not sound as though even the noble 

Lord, Lord Bates, speaking on behalf of the Conservatives, 

is really totally satisfied with the lack of clarity. In the 

mean time, I take at face value precisely what the 

Minister has said. I hope we will see some progress, 

outwith the discussions on this Bill, before the Summer 

Recess. On those terms, I beg leave to withdraw 

Amendment 67. 

Amendment 67 withdrawn. 

Amendments 68 to 73 not moved. 

6pm 

Amendment 74 

Moved by Lord Norton of Louth 


“Abolition of the edited electoral register 

Following the publication of the 2011 edition of the edited 

version of the electoral register, the provisions of section 9 of the 

Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 (c. 41), in 

so far as they relate to the edited version of the register, shall 

cease to have effect, and no further edited versions of the register 

shall be compiled and published.” 

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, this is the first 

amendment I have moved that has been the subject of 

a campaign; I have received a number of e-mails 

urging me to oppose it. I fear I must disappoint the 

correspondents. 

The purpose of the amendment is to get rid of the 

edited version of the electoral register, though providing 

time to do so. In seeking to abolish the edited register, 

as I explained in Committee, I am in good company. 

Support for abolishing it comes from the Association 

of Electoral Administrators, the Electoral Commission 

and the Information Commissioner. The Thomas-Walport 

report last year on data sharing recommended that it 

be brought to an end, stating, 

“we feel that selling the edited register is an unsatisfactory way for 

local authorities to treat personal information. It sends a particularly 

poor message to the public that personal information collected 

for something as vital as participation in the democratic process 

can be sold to ‘anyone for any purpose’. And there is a belief that 

the sale of the electoral register deters some people from registering 

at all. We are sympathetic to the strong arguments made by the 

Association of Electoral Administrators and the Electoral Commission 

that the primary purpose of the electoral register is for electoral 

purposes”. 

The arguments for abolishing the edited version 

rest on principle and practice. The principled argument 

is, to my mind, compelling. Heads of households are 

required, by law, each year to complete an electoral 

registration form in order for those in the household 

to be registered to vote. That is a fundamental part of 

our democratic process. Yet at the same time they have 

to decide whether they wish to have their name withdrawn 

from a register that is compiled for sale to any body 

that wishes to purchase it. People can exercise their 

option to opt out—it is opt-out, rather than opt-in—but 

why should they be required, by law, to make such a 

determination? It completely sullies the integrity of 

the electoral process. The electoral registration form 

should be solely for the purpose of compiling the 

electoral register. I thus have a principled objection to 

using the force of law to impose this burden on 

citizens. 

The practical argument is that the present situation 

imposes a major and, to my mind, unnecessary burden 

on electoral registration officers. They are required to 

compile the information and then sell it. They make 

no profit in doing so—rather the reverse. There is no 

benefit to the local authority. There is certainly no 

benefit to electoral registration officers; it has no 

relevance to their role. Compiling the edited version of 

the register imposes a major burden. It will become 

even more of a burden as electoral registration officers 

prepare for the move to individual registration. We 

should be facilitating that move, not maintaining a 

significant burden. On practical grounds, the case for 

getting rid of the edited register is thus greater than 

ever before. 

What are the arguments against? In Grand Committee, 

the Minister focused solely on practical arguments. 

There was no engagement with the issue of principle. 

The argument related solely to the benefit for organisations 

that purchase the register. Abolishing the edited register 

may create problems for them. The Government plan 

to consult on the issue. 

There are two, related responses to this. First, my 

amendment provides for the edited register to cease 

after the 2011 edition. There is thus time to prepare, 

and indeed to consult. The Government can utilise 

their proposed consultation on the best way to ensure 

a smooth transition. The principal objections to abolishing 

the edited register appear to come from debt collection 

agencies that use it to track down debtors who have 

moved. Given that 40 per cent of electors opt out of 

the register—one suspects that those in debt may be 

among them—that strikes me as an inefficient way of 

proceeding. Credit reference agencies already have 

access to the full register to check the names of people 

applying for credit. As the Credit Services Association 

points out, it is illogical that the Ministry of Justice 

supports the continued use of the full register by credit


reference agencies to check the names and addresses 

of people applying for credit, so helping them to get 

into debt, but not for the process of recovering sums 

borrowed and helping people to get out of debt. I am 

not against agencies being able to utilise the full register 

for that purpose. As the Credit Services Association 

quite justifiably points out in its briefing: 

“Desired access to the electoral roll by the direct mailing and 

marketing industry should not be linked with the completely 

different requirements of the debt collection industry”. 

I concur. I would be content for the agencies to have 

access to the full register and would support the 

Government in making the necessary adjustments for 

that purpose. 

Secondly, as my noble friend Lord Bates observed 

in Committee, if there is demand for such a product by 

direct mailing and marketing bodies, market forces 

will take care of it. My amendment allows time for the 

market to operate. This is clearly something appropriate 

to the market and not to misusing statutory provisions 

for commercial purposes. 

My basic point is straightforward. The process of 

employing the force of law to compile the electoral 

register should be confined to that task. Electoral 

registration officers should be allowed to get on with 

their tasks as electoral registration officers. They are 

not, or rather should not be, in the business of helping 

junk mail companies. Given that the costs of compiling 

the edited register are not wholly recovered, we are in 

effect subsidising commercial concerns. We are doing 

so through the use of statute, through the use of a 

provision that is fundamental to the democratic process. 

Requiring people to decide whether they wish to remove 

their name from the edited register is a misuse of that 

process. We should restore the integrity of our electoral 

registration process. We certainly should not use it to 

subsidise commercial concerns. 

Other democracies manage to survive without such 

an edited register. Their economies do not appear to 

be undermined by the absence of such a register. We 

should get rid of it. It is in principle objectionable and 

it imposes an unnecessary burden. I beg to move. 

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I support 

my noble friend. I have been astonished by the amount 

of paper that I have received on this amendment from 

the Finance and Leasing Association, the Credit Services 

Association, the Institute of Fundraising and the UK 

Cards Association opposing him—I also received 

something from the Electoral Commission supporting 

him—so I listened carefully to what he had to say. 

My concerns are primarily threefold. First is the 

civil liberties argument. I am always concerned about 

information being collected for one purpose and then 

being passed on to be used for another, and my 

concerns have been increased by the examples given by 

my noble friend. The second is what I might describe 

as an ecological argument; that is to say, I suspect that 

what we are allowing here increases the volume of 

junk mail that travels through all our letterboxes. It is 

unnecessary, untidy and wasteful of our resources. 

The third is what I describe as the economic argument. 

I understand that the information is provided at cost, 

and I do not see why there should not be an economic 

charge for it, which would at least reward the local 

authorities and those involved for the expense, trouble 

and management time required to provide it. That 

does not happen at present; therefore, as my noble 

friend pointed out, this is a subsidising of the private 

sector by the state, which is inherently undesirable. 

My civil liberties argument is the most critical. We 

should make every effort to ensure that information 

collected is used for the purposes for which it is 

collected, and not passed to somebody else for use in a 

completely different way. Although the Electoral 

Commission says that it has worries about the drafting 

of the amendment, it strongly supports it. And given 

that the Minister has so often in the past prayed in aid 

the Electoral Commission when rejecting our arguments, 

I hope that on this occasion he will see the logic of its 

position and ensure that my noble friend’s amendment 

is accepted. 

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, every 

possible argument in favour of this extremely sensible 

proposal has been put forward by my noble friends. By 

rising to speak, I give the government Front Bench an 

opportunity for information to arrive from the distant 

corners of the Chamber. I declare that I am a foot 

soldier in the army commanded by my noble friend 

Lord Norton. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, in Committee my noble 

friend Lord Henley and I tabled an amendment that 

was similar in effect because we were persuaded by the 

argument put forward. The principle was very clear 

and has been ably articulated by my noble friend Lord 

Norton of Louth. 

It covered two pieces of very persuasive evidence. 

The first was the intervention of the Information 

Commissioner, Richard Thomas, and Mark Walport, 

director of the medical charity the Wellcome Trust, 

who, in their report published in July, said: 

“The edited register is available for sale to anyone for any 

purpose. Its main clients are direct marketing companies and 

companies compiling directories”. 

The point of this amendment is to make it clear that 

one must opt into the edited register and thus make it 

harder to sell information on to third parties. 

In addition, the Local Government Association 

carried out a survey of electoral registration officers, 

98 per cent of whom wanted a change in the law to 

abolish the edited register that councils have to sell to 

direct marketing companies, and 88 per cent of electoral 

registration officers believed that the current system 

deters people from voting. The survey also found that 

councils raise on average only a mere £1,900 from this 

source. 

Putting together all of those arguments that were 

so eloquently persuasive, I rose in Grand Committee 

and asked whether this was not an opportunity for 

a change. I should have realised that although 

taking on various groups is perhaps necessary in 

the course of public life, taking on direct marketing 

companies is a recipe for being inundated with e-mails, 

paper and representations. They certainly lived up to 

the reputation of their direct-marketing capabilities by 

making representations in between the Grand Committee 

and now.


[LORD BATES] 

I totally support the principal point of the more 

reasoned amendment put forward by my noble friend 

Lord Norton of Louth which delays implementation 

of the abolition. Direct mailing companies need to be 

aware and acknowledge that there is grave discomfort 

at the information being passed on for marketing 

purposes. They need to start thinking in the medium 

term about finding other sources from which to garner 

this information. 

However, we keep coming back to timing, which is 

everything. At present, the representations that we 

have received from the organisations that would be 

most affected by this measure have led us to a deeper 

concern about the impact on jobs and businesses in 

this country. At times of recession, when many people 

are losing their homes and jobs, and many businesses 

are closing for many reasons, we should take almost a 

hippocratic oath, which is, “First, do no harm”. My 

hesitation is not about the principle of the amendment 

but that at a practical level we may actually harm an 

important part of the economy. 

Therefore, while we very much support the principle 

of the amendment and urge the industry to take notice 

of the remarks made in this House, and to look for 

alternatives, we would not be able to offer support 

from the Front Bench to my noble friend. 

6.15 pm 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I want to reiterate the point 

made by my noble friend Lord Rennard in Grand 

Committee when we supported the noble Lord, Lord 

Norton of Louth. I quote from the Grand Committee 

on 6 May. My noble friend said that, 

“the purpose of the electoral register is democracy and the 

purpose of political parties is to promote their messages legitimately. 

It is not right that someone who registers to vote should then have 

to consider whether they should receive junk mail”.—[Official 

Report, 6/5/09; col. GC263.] 

The register was never intended for that purpose and 

the noble Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, has made a 

persuasive case for looking very seriously again at the 

whole purpose of the electoral register. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble 

Lord, Lord Norton of Louth, for his amendment and 

for the way in which he has changed some of the 

wording between Grand Committee and now. It is 

right to point out that the Electoral Commission 

states: 

“While we support the intention of Amendment 74 in the 

name of Lord Norton of Louth, which aims to end the compilation 

and publication of the edited version of the electoral register, we 

have strong concerns about the drafting of the amendment”. 

I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, 

will accept that when the Electoral Commission is 

absolutely in favour of what the Government want, I 

quote it; but I also try to do so when it is not. To be 

fair, that is exactly the comment that the commission 

made on this issue. 

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I did 

say in my remarks that the Electoral Commission had 

concerns about the drafting of the amendment. I was 

not trying to say that the commission was 100 per cent 

behind it. I think that I made that perfectly clear. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord is being fair; 

I hope he thinks that I have been fair in response. 

This amendment introduces a new clause, whereby 

after December 2011, Section 9 of the Political Parties, 

Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in relation to the 

edited register will no longer have effect, thus preventing 

any use after that date of the provisions that allow for 

the compilation and publication of the edited version 

of the electoral register. EROs would no longer compile 

an edited version of the register for sale to anyone for 

any purpose. Historical versions of the edited register, 

including the final version published on 1 December 

each year, would still be available. 

We have been reminded that in July 2008, Dr Mark 

Walport and Mr Richard Thomas published their 

report, the Data Sharing Review, which made a number 

of recommendations to the Government. In particular, 

recommendation 19 called for the edited version of 

the register to be abolished. We indicated that we 

would consult on this proposal and that remains our 

intention. 

The Government clearly understand the concerns 

around the sale of personal details through the supply 

of the edited register. As my noble friend Lord Tunnicliffe 

stated in Grand Committee, before we can consider 

taking forward recommendation 19 there is a need to 

establish how removing the provisions would impact 

on the UK economy, businesses, charities and the 

general public. Indeed, noble Lords may be interested 

to hear that evidence to date indicates that a wide 

variety of organisations use the edited register and 

there could be an economic impact—even a significant 

economic impact—if it were no longer available for 

sale. For example, the direct-marketing industry has 

indicated that it would be hard hit if the edited register 

were abolished. It is worth pointing out that direct 

mail is worth £8.6 billion to the UK economy and 

accounts for 182,000 jobs. 

We must not neglect the very real potential impact 

on charities. They are of course suffering, as are 

businesses, in the current economic climate. Direct 

mail remains a significant form of direct marketing for 

charities. The Institute of Fundraising has told us that 

it relies on the edited register for this purpose. A piece 

of research was carried out by nfpSynergy in 2008. 

Based on the responses from more than 100 charities, 

the level of income generated from existing donors—those 

acquired through direct mail—sits at around an average 

of 27 per cent of the charities’ total income. Charities 

would face poorer quality direct marketing lists and 

lower response rates if the edited electoral register was 

no longer available for sale. If charities are unable to 

verify addresses accurately, there is more chance of 

mail being addressed wrongly, which could lead to a 

reduction in the inclination of potential donors to 

donate. We think other impacts need to be taken into 

account. 

In the absence of the edited register, direct mailing 

organisations may rely on out-of-date information, 

thus increasing the risk of wrongly addressed 

correspondence. Direct marketing companies may start 

to rely on more intrusive methods of marketing, such 

as cold calling. The Royal Mail benefits substantially 

from income from advertising mail. Out of a £7 billion


a year turnover, £1.7 billion represents delivering and 

advertising mail to the Royal Mail. This might be 

impacted. Those are powerful arguments, particularly 

in the economic times we are living in. 

Having said all that, we accept that there are strong 

principled arguments in favour of abolishing the edited 

register. We are sympathetic to those who argue on 

principle, as does the noble Lord who moved the 

amendment, that data collected for electoral purposes 

should not be sold on for commercial purposes. We 

are also concerned that the existence of the edited 

register may put some people off registering to vote. 

That runs contrary to our programme of work to 

bolster registration ahead of the introduction of individual 

registration. It is something we wish to consider carefully. 

While we have collected some evidence to date, a 

full consultation would allow us to go out to a wider 

audience, including businesses, charities and the public. 

We feel that this would enable us to build up a firmer 

evidence base and better understand the nature of the 

impact of abolishing the edited register. It is our 

intention to conduct a consultation before the Summer 

Recess in order to build a firmer evidence base about 

the advantages and disadvantages of the edited register 

and to consider the way forward on the basis of the 

responses received. 

I should like to emphasise that an amendment to 

this Bill is not the only legislative mechanism, in our 

view, by which the provisions for the edited register 

may be removed. The edited register exists because of 

provision in secondary legislation, made under paragraph 

10(1) of Schedule 2 to the Representation of the 

People Act 1983. There is no requirement that secondary 

legislation should include provision about an edited 

register. Accordingly, our argument is that it would be 

possible to remove the provision for the edited register 

by using existing powers to amend secondary legislation, 

if that was deemed appropriate. 

Therefore, it would be open to the Government to 

use this mechanism to remove the edited register if, 

following consultation, it became evident that that 

was the best way forward. That would still leave the 

power to create the edited register again on the statute 

book. Nevertheless, it might achieve the benefits that 

noble Lords describe and would be a more flexible 

approach. This would allow us to have the benefit of 

fully considering the outcome of the consultation 

before taking further steps. Notwithstanding our sympathy 

for the arguments against the edited register, this 

should be the preferred approach and proper process 

for making this informed policy decision about changes 

to our system of electoral administration. I am not 

making any commitments on behalf of the Government, 

as I would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of any 

consultation. I mention this solely to emphasise that 

this Bill may not be the only mechanism by which the 

provisions relating to the edited register may be amended. 

I hope that those who support the amendment 

might give careful consideration to the impact of 

accepting it. I repeat that, in principle, we understand 

the motivation behind the amendment, but we argue 

that it would not be appropriate to abolish the edited 

register via an amendment to this Bill before we had 

conducted a public consultation in full. The noble 

Lord will take whatever course he thinks best. However, 

I hope that some of the arguments that I have tried to 

employ might gave him some food for thought. 

Lord Norton of Louth: My Lords, I am grateful to 

all those who have spoken. In addition to the bodies I 

mentioned that support abolition, there was cross-party 

support for it in Grand Committee. I am very grateful 

for this afternoon’s expression of support from my 

noble friends Lord Hodgson and Lord Brooke and the 

noble Lord, Lord Tyler. 

I am grateful for the Minister’s response. It came 

more towards meeting the point of principle this time 

rather than relying solely on the practical point. I have 

two concerns about what he said. He has repeated the 

point that the Government propose to consult. They 

have been proposing to consult for some time. The 

Government could have already had the consultation 

exercise and got the responses by now. There does not 

appear to be any great urgency on the part of the 

Government. 

That brings me to the second point. The Minister 

has said, quite rightly, that one could get rid of edited 

registers through existing legislation; the provisions 

are there. He said that that is the more flexible approach. 

My concern is that it is flexibility in favour of doing 

nothing; that would be my worry. I feel that there is a 

need for something to be locked in to ensure that there 

is action. I think ultimately the issue of principle is 

paramount. 

I will reflect on what the Minister has said. However, 

my greatest concern is, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson 

said, the concern expressed by the Electoral Commission 

in relation to drafting. I want to reflect on that. 

However, I will reflect on what the Minister has said 

and consider whether to return to the issue at Third 

Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the 

amendment. 



Amendment 76 


76: Clause 21, leave out Clause 21 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, this is an important issue 

not least because, as yet, Members of the other place 

have had no debate on it. Those who were present at 

Second Reading, as well as those who have taken part 

in the discussions in Grand Committee, will recall that 

this is the question of the exclusion from the ballot 

paper of the candidates’ addresses. By some special 

arrangement, this was put to the other place without 

any debate, out of sequence and not in the group to 

which it related. I need go no further. 

There is an important principle here, which is similar 

to the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell- 

Savours, enunciated on Monday, in relation to the 

amendment that we had both put before the House. 

This is an issue that the House of Commons should


[LORD TYLER] 

debate, but it will not be in a position to do so unless 

we pass our amendment tonight; if we do not do so, 

the clause will stand in the Bill undebatable. 

The suggestion has been made that somehow this 

issue is not appropriate for your Lordships’ House 

because it wholly relates to Members of the other 

place. That is not so. It relates to all candidates who 

wish to stand for the other place. It is therefore perfectly 

appropriate for your Lordships’ House to take a view 

on this issue. That is the first illusion that I must seek 

to dispel. 

There are other misunderstandings, too. It has been 

suggested that somehow this is an important issue to 

deal with because there is some sort of new security 

risk. Frankly, as those who have had the experience of 

standing as candidates will know, you do not have to 

put your name on the ballot paper for your address to 

be well known in your area by other means. If there 

was a security risk, no doubt the Government would 

come forward with some direct evidence from the 

police or the security services to that effect. 

The Government very properly instituted a consultation 

process on this issue back in November, I think. We 

now have the response. Only two MPs—on behalf of 

other MPs, I should say—responded. The Electoral 

Commission supported the idea that there might be a 

change in the law. However, electoral administrators, 

returning officers, the Newspaper Society and, most 

important of all, the public have made it absolutely 

clear that they think that any reduction in transparency 

on this issue would be totally inappropriate and certainly 

out of favour at the present time. The only political 

party to make any sort of submission to the consultation 

process were the Liberal Democrats and we were 

clearly against withholding addresses in this way. 

Of course, there was a vote in the other place. The 

Lord Chancellor and the Minister responsible for the 

Bill both voted against this change, which they felt was 

clearly inappropriate, without proper discussion and 

debate. The Minister said on a previous occasion that 

he intends there to be a free vote, rather than a 

whipped vote, on this proposal. I hope that that is still 

the case; no doubt he will be able to confirm that. 

At the moment, increasing the secrecy that surrounds 

the political process will seem even more inappropriate 

than it was when we discussed these matters at Second 

Reading and in Grand Committee. Frankly, I believe 

that the public will think it pretty odd if that is 

introduced for the politicians who may stand for election 

to the other place—but not, incidentally, in relation to 

some of the devolved Administrations. You would 

think that, if there were real pressure for this to 

happen, it might be in Northern Ireland, where there 

is a reasonable case for doing this. However, so far as I 

am aware, there is no such pressure and there is 

certainly nothing in this clause to cover anyone else at 

any other level in the political system. I think that the 

public would regard this as another attempt by the 

political classes to protect themselves from scrutiny 

when that scrutiny was thought to be perfectly appropriate 

for everyone else. I hope that the Minister will now be 

rather more responsive to that concern than he was 

able to be prior to the consultation period. I beg to 

move. 

6.30 pm 

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, the noble Lord, 

Lord Tyler, will know that unfortunately I dissent 

from the position that he has taken. I ask him to 

forgive me because we work together very well in a 

number of areas of the Bill. 

I did not move my amendment because I wanted to 

concentrate on the essence of the noble Lord’s case. 

This is not about risk to Members of Parliament; the 

issue in this case is the risk to the families of Members 

of Parliament. In Committee, I drew attention to two 

occasions: the first was when a Member of Parliament 

was in Paris and an incident was about to take place; 

and the second was the incident that took place outside 

the home of the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, 

when the police were brought in and there were subsequent 

prosecutions. In the latter case, there was clearly a risk 

to the family. 

I am worried by the fact that the case put by the 

noble Lord, Lord Tyler, seems to be based on the 

proposition that, because we are in public life, our 

families have to take into account the fact that we may 

be placing them at risk. He was not quite as blunt as 

that, but that is the implication. I want to give an 

example. If a person anywhere in the world were to 

Google the names of every single Member of 

Parliament—their names and addresses would be available 

on the internet following a general election campaign— 

that person would have a database that could be used 

against each individual Member. They could dispatch 

from anywhere in the world envelopes containing 

biological material or other dangerous agents and 

send them to the homes of those Members of Parliament. 

The mail that we receive here is screened but we all 

know that that is not the position with mail that goes 

to our homes. We are advised at every stage in our 

political lives to be more diligent and careful with 

regard to our personal arrangements because of the 

dangers from terrorism and I cannot believe that a 

political party would argue that we should not have 

that in mind when taking decisions on this issue. We 

cannot place the families of Members of Parliament 

in that position. 

The noble Lord has said that this material is already 

available. Of course it is. You could have gone to my 

former constituency in Workington and asked on the 

streets, “Where does the Member of Parliament for 

Workington live?”, and you would probably have been 

told the answer within a road or two. However, when 

you are in some obscure country in another part of the 

world, you do not have access to that kind of material. 

When I oppose the noble Lord’s amendment, I am 

referring to a completely different kind of threat. 

I am also concerned about the impact of international 

terrorism on how Members of Parliament conduct 

themselves in a public place—particularly in the Chamber 

in Parliament, where their remarks might be heavily 

publicised. Even though they are protected by privilege, 

if Members of Parliament feel constrained in any way 

because of the possible danger to their families that 

might arise out of any statements that they make in 

Parliament, I believe that we have a responsibility to 

try to remove that possibility of constraint. We must


place Members of Parliament in a position where they 

feel confident that what they say will not lead to 

unnecessary risk to their families. 

I am afraid that the remarks of the noble Lord, 

Lord Tyler, do not really address that. I am sorry to 

say that, because we have worked together well on this 

Bill. However, this is an area where we have a fundamental 

difference of opinion. As I said in Committee, my 

views on this matter stem basically from the noble 

Lord’s lobby. I supported the principle of absolute 

transparency that he advocated until I had the conversation 

with my wife, to which I referred in Committee. She 

explained what happened in our family during the 

Iraqi debate in the 1990s, when I was quite involved 

with the Iraqi opposition. 

Now is the time to change the nature of the debate 

in this area. I appeal to the noble Lord not to press his 

amendment to a vote today because I think that it 

sends out the wrong message. For all the goodness that 

lies in the libertarian values that he and his party 

colleagues hold, this is one area where I am afraid that 

too much transparency will place individual Members’ 

families at risk in a totally unacceptable way. 

Lord Monson: My Lords, when I first read about 

this amendment in the press, it seemed to me a good 

one and well worthy of support were it to go to a 

Division. After all, Enoch Powell—not exactly the 

most uncontroversial of political figures—always insisted 

on having his name, private home address and telephone 

number published in the London telephone directory. 

Furthermore—this is not so widely known—while he 

was Member of Parliament for South Down, he always 

refused to carry a side-arm for personal protection 

against terrorist attacks, as he was legally entitled to 

do. Given his military background, he could have used 

the weapon to good effect in an emergency. However, 

he refused to do so because he felt that it would be 

insulting to his constituents, whether or not they were 

his supporters. 

It must be conceded that that was more than 30 years 

ago. Perhaps the British character has changed since 

then and, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, 

has just reminded us, we now have a problem with 

international terrorism, which hardly existed at that 

time. So far as the British character goes, there are 

some who claim that we have become collectively—not 

individually of course—more emotionally incontinent 

and much less able, and certainly much less willing, to 

restrain our words or actions. The rather alarming 

scenes outside a magistrates’ court in Devon a few 

days ago, when a woman was charged with paedophile 

offences, was perhaps indicative of this. So, on further 

reflection, the argument seems to be much more finely 

balanced, and I am now not so sure that I can support 

the amendment. 

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I spoke 

in favour of the amendment in Grand Committee. I 

remain sympathetic to it and run the risk of incurring 

the wrath of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours. 

I accept that the arguments are finely balanced. I 

believe that the link between those who seek election 

and the electorate should be as close as possible. The 

publication of home addresses is part of that. 

At the margin, as we heard in a powerful speech by 

the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, there are 

potential security risks. Yes, it is possible that people 

will pack packets of anthrax in Pakistan and mail 

them to individual Members of Parliament, so there is 

a risk, but it is a risk at the margin. 

I am concerned about the other principle addressed 

by the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, which is that this 

measure was slipped in without any of the people in 

the other place having seriously debated its pros and 

cons. I entirely accept the argument that it is not for us 

in this House to lay down the terms and conditions 

under which people stand for election to the other 

place, but it is important to provide an opportunity to 

air all the issues, particularly in the light of the difficulties 

that we are facing at the present time. 

The Division Lists at the end of the non-debate that 

took place were divided across parties; strong views 

were held in various parts and various parties. It will 

be important for us to give the other place a chance to 

debate the issue, to discuss the principles ab initio with 

tabula rasa. We would not wish to interfere in any way 

with that, but the debate should take place because it 

is such an important issue in our democratic system, 

particularly when that system is under strain. That is 

why I support the noble Lord’s amendment. 

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I 

shall be brief. At Second Reading, I intervened on the 

speech of my noble friend Lord Hodgson and asked 

whether he was including security considerations. It 

would not be right for me to tell your Lordships’ 

House what my noble friend said to me after the 

debate was over, but because this debate will be a 

quarry for any subsequent debate that may occur in 

the House of Commons, I will add one other consideration 

as someone who has been under threat. I agree that it 

is easy to find out where someone lives but, if he or she 

lives in a block of flats, for example, we are placing at 

risk all the people who live in that block of flats and 

not simply ourselves. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, having listened to the 

contributions and having found the remarks of the 

noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, incredibly persuasive 

and articulate in presenting the case against this 

amendment, I would not want to and would be incapable 

of adding anything to what he said. It stands on its 

own merits. 

I will make one brief point on a technicality: the 

question whether the other place had an opportunity 

to consider this measure. That is at the heart of our 

position. There was a vote in the other place. The 

result was that 235 Members voted in its favour and 

176 voted against it. That was a matter of a free vote 

on the part of the government party and the Conservatives. 

It was, sadly, the subject of a three-line Whip on the 

part of the Liberal Democrats. None the less, the 

Whip was voted against by several of their Members. 

The argument presented is that the matter was not 

discussed, but Members of the other place had seen 

the amendment in the name of my honourable friend 

Julian Lewis. The debate had continued; most people 

had an opinion on it and they expressed it in the most


[LORD BATES] 

important place: in the Division Lobby. As the elected 

House, they expressed their opinion on a matter that 

impacts them; it does not impact us in this House. 

Our position is that, if that view was taken in 

the other place and it was the settled view of that 

House, it would be wrong for us in this place to seek to 

overturn that from a procedural point of view, not to 

mention the qualitative and security arguments that 

have been presented so forcefully in this debate from 

many sides. Members on our Benches would have a 

free vote again in any Division, but I hope that we will 

allow the House of Commons to determine the terms 

on which they stand for election and respect that. 

6.45 pm 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, Clause 21 removes the 

requirements on candidates to provide their full address 

on statements of persons nominated and the ballot 

paper at UK parliamentary elections. The clause was 

inserted into the Bill following an amendment that 

was tabled by the honourable Member for New Forest 

East, Dr Lewis, and accepted by the other place at 

Report following a free vote. The clause provides that, 

at a parliamentary election, candidates’ full home 

addresses will no longer appear on the nomination 

paper but will instead be supplied to the returning 

officer on a separate home address form. A home 

address form enables candidates to choose whether 

their full home addresses will be included on the 

electoral documents available to the public. That is the 

statement of persons nominated on the ballot paper. 

Should a candidate prefer that their full home address 

not be made public, these documents will instead 

identify the constituency in which the candidate has 

an address. 

The Government issued a consultation paper on 

26 November 2008. From the 65 responses to the 

consultation, it was clear that there are strongly held 

views for and against changing the legislation. Broadly 

speaking, a majority of politicians who responded 

and the Electoral Commission favoured change, while 

administrators, returning officers and the majority of 

responses from the public did not. Those in favour 

argued that the candidate and their families faced 

more ordinary risks to their safety and security, which 

warranted the need for their home addresses to be 

removed from the public domain. By contrast, those 

against the idea argued that the interest of accountability 

and free expression of democracy would not be served 

by allowing candidates to make it more difficult for 

the public to find out information about them. 

As a result of the responses to the consultation and 

the importance of the issue, we took the view that the 

matter would be for the other place and not for the 

Government to decide on—hence there was a free vote 

on the issue. That allowed those who were elected to 

make a decision on their behaviour during elections 

and on the information that should be made available 

to the public. I reiterate that the Government take no 

position on the merits of Clause 21 and that the 

inclusion of the clause in the Bill is not government 

policy. The Government will therefore allow a free 

vote on Amendment 76. 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful that we have 

had an opportunity to discuss this important issue this 

evening. Ever since the Ballot Act 1872, the electorate 

have had the right to know where their candidates live. 

I suggest to your Lordships’ House that we should 

take seriously any reduction in that transparency—hence 

my anxiety, which I am disappointed that the noble 

Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, does not share, that 

the other place should debate the issue. That was the 

issue on which he and I agreed on Monday and we 

were successful with that amendment. That place should 

take a decision of this importance after careful discussion. 

If the Minister really believes that taking an amendment 

out of its grouping—no one expected it to come—and 

then putting it to a vote without any debate and 

without its even being moved is a proper way to 

discuss such an issue, I am disappointed. 

I have been a Member of Parliament. My address 

was in the local telephone book for all the years for 

which I represented my constituency. As I mentioned 

in Grand Committee, when I had a majority of nine, 

at three o’clock in the morning pig farmers would ring 

up to say, “We was the nine”, and give me a great deal 

of stick on what my views should be on the pig 

industry, so I understand the point about families. 

The logic of the submission of the noble Lord, 

Lord Campbell-Savours, is that every representative in 

every devolved Assembly should be given the same 

protection. I have listened especially to the experience 

of those Members of your Lordships’ House who 

know about Northern Ireland. Why should Members 

of the House of Commons be protected in a way that 

Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly are not? 

If the Government want to make some real changes, I 

suggest that they remove the provision from the Bill 

and look at the whole issue again, so that there can be 

proper consideration, rather than have it forced through 

as it has been so far. 

We still have not heard from the Minister or anyone 

else any evidence from the police or the security forces 

that this is an essential requirement to protect candidates 

for the other place and their families. Yet, on a whim, 

some seem to want to remove the transparency that 

has been in place for some 137 years. This is an issue 

that should be debated, discussed and decided in the 

other place. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion 


6.51 pm 





Addington, L. [Teller] 

Avebury, L. 

Barker, B. 

Barnett, L. 


B. 

Burnett, L. 

Chidgey, L. 


CONTENTS 



Cotter, L. 

Dholakia, L. 

Dixon-Smith, L. 

Dykes, L. 


Glasgow, E. 

Goodhart, L.


Greaves, L. 

Hamwee, B. 



L. 

Hollick, L. 

Hooson, L. 

Hylton, L. 

Kalms, L. 





McNally, L. 

Maddock, B. 

Marland, L. 


B. 

Monson, L. 

Morgan of Huyton, B. 

Neuberger, B. 

Newby, L. 

Adams of Craigielea, B. 

Adonis, L. 

Alli, L. 



Anelay of St Johns, B. 


Attlee, E. 


Bates, L. 


Bew, L. 

Billingham, B. 

Bilston, L. 

Blackstone, B. 

Brennan, L. 

Brett, L. 

Brookman, L. 

Brooks of Tremorfa, L. 

Brougham and Vaux, L. 

Buscombe, B. 

Butler-Sloss, B. 

Campbell-Savours, L. 


Cathcart, E. 

Chandos, V. 




Colwyn, L. 

Cope of Berkeley, L. 

Crawley, B. 


Davies of Coity, L. [Teller] 

Davies of Oldham, L. 

De Mauley, L. 


B. 

D’Souza, B. 

Dundee, E. 

Eatwell, L. 






Ferrers, E. 

Freeman, L. 

Gale, B. 

Gardner of Parkes, B. 


Gilbert, L. 

Golding, B. 

NOT CONTENTS 

Nicholson of Winterbourne, 

B. 

Pendry, L. 

Razzall, L. 



Rooker, L. 



Soley, L. 


Taverne, L. 



Tonge, B. 

Tyler, L. 

Waddington, L. 

Wallace of Saltaire, L. 

Walmsley, B. 

Walpole, L. 


Gould of Potternewton, B. 

Graham of Edmonton, L. 


Greengross, B. 

Grenfell, L. 

Grocott, L. 

Hanningfield, L. 


Haskel, L. [Teller] 

Haworth, L. 

Henig, B. 

Henley, L. 


Howe, E. 

Howe of Idlicote, B. 


Hunt of Wirral, L. 




Jones, L. 


Jopling, L. 

King of Bridgwater, L. 


Kirkhill, L. 

Laird, L. 

Lindsay, E. 


Luke, L. 

McDonagh, B. 

Mar, C. 



Maxton, L. 


Montrose, D. 

Moonie, L. 



Morris of Bolton, B. 




Pannick, L. 

Parekh, L. 


Pearson of Rannoch, L. 


Reay, L. 

Roberts of Conwy, L. 

Rosser, L. 

Rowlands, L. 



Seccombe, B. 

Selkirk of Douglas, L. 

Selsdon, L. 


Simon, V. 

Snape, L. 

Stewartby, L. 



Taylor of Holbeach, L. 

7.03 pm 

Amendment 76A 


Tomlinson, L. 

Uddin, B. 

Verma, B. 

Warsi, B. 



Whitaker, B. 

Whitty, L. 

Wilcox, B. 

Wilkins, B. 

Williamson of Horton, L. 


76A: After Clause 21, insert the following new Clause— 

“Description of candidates 

(1) Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) 

is amended as follows. 

(2) In rule 6 (nomination of candidates), for sub-paragraph 

(3)(a) there is inserted— 

“(a) where the candidate is not registered with a registered 

political party, a description of not more than 6 words in 

length, authorised by the Electoral Commission; 

(aa) where the candidate is registered with a registered 

political party, the name of the party as registered under 

section 28 of the Political Parties, Elections and 

Referendums Act 2000; or”. 

(3) Omit rule 6A (nomination papers: name of registered 

political party).” 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I must first of all apologise 

on behalf of my noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood. 

He was here earlier; unfortunately, the timing has 

coincided with a very important occasion to commemorate 

the foundation of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, of 

which he was a founder member. Not many people 

can still say that. He is very sorry not to be here to 

move the amendment on the Marshalled List in his 

name and mine. 

This is a particular issue that has arisen recently, 

and I hope the Government are going to be able to 

give us some guidance on how to deal with it. The 

description of candidates on a ballot paper has, on 

two specific occasions recently, been used not to inform 

the electorate of the status of the candidate, but 

effectively to put propaganda on the ballot paper. 

The first example was in Scotland, where certain 

candidates put “Alex Salmond for First Minister” on 

the ballot paper as their description—which was clearly 

completely outwith the intentions of the regulations, 

but was permitted. Similarly, and more recently, the 

BNP put on the ballot paper against candidates not a 

description of the party, but a slogan: “Protecting 

British Jobs”. In both cases, there will, I think, be 

widespread recognition around the House that this is a 

deliberate distortion of the intention of the ballot 

paper, which is intended to be entirely factual—nothing 

to do with propaganda or slogans. My noble friend Lord 

Steel has, with the assistance of the authorities of the 

House, produced a way in which this problem can be 

dealt with; that is incorporated in Amendment 76A. 

My noble friend Lord Steel left with me a number 

of cuttings, which I think at this point in the evening I


[LORD TYLER] 

shall forbear to use, because his reading matter ranges 

from the Sunday Times to Private Eye. Members of 

your Lordships’ House do not need to be told what 

either of those august journals think of the way in 

which the BNP, in particular, has used the electoral 

system to promote its policies. 

However, there is a very serious point here, and it 

was addressed in the Gould report on the Scottish 

elections of 2007. It was quite clear in that election 

that there was real confusion in Scotland as a result 

of the way in which the ballot paper had, in my 

view and the view of my noble friend, been misused. It 

may be that the Minister this evening may not be able 

to accept the amendment in its present form, despite 

the assistance of the authorities of the House. But I 

hope the Minister will accept that there is a real 

problem here, and something needs to be done. I beg 

to move. 

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am very pleased that the 

Liberal Democrat Front Bench has now come around 

to the view that I have been promoting for some time, 

that slogans should be omitted from ballot papers. In 

the past, all the parties have been guilty of using the 

description in this way. In my view, it is quite wrong 

and I hope that ways will be found to stop it. 

I have in front of me a copy of the ballot paper for 

the elections to the European Parliament in the north-west 

region, which has one or two interesting examples on 

it of exactly what we are complaining about—putting 

political slogans and other irrelevant information on 

ballot papers. The British National Party, as my noble 

friend has already said, says in its subsidiary description, 

“British National Party: Protecting British Jobs”. That 

is clearly a slogan. The Christian Party says it is 

“proclaiming Christ’s Lordship”. That may or may 

not be a slogan, but it seems to me that if the Christian 

Party wishes to stand, then what it is about should be 

part of its campaigning and not on the ballot paper. 

The Conservative Party and the Labour Party are 

crystal pure on this issue, and have nothing further, 

and the Liberal Democrats, for reasons I do not quite 

understand, say, “Liberal Democrats: liberal democrat”. 

I do not think “Liberal Democrat” is a slogan, but 

why “Liberal Democrats” appears followed by “Liberal 

Democrat”, I do not understand. Nevertheless, I think 

we are above reproach there. 

Then we have the English Democrats Party, which 

says, “English Democrats: Putting England First”. 

That is clearly a slogan. We have something called the 

Jury Team, which I do not understand at all, that says, 

“Democracy, Accountability, Transparency”. That 

might be an ideological statement, but it is not 

something that should be on the ballot paper. 

The Socialist Labour Party says, “Leader—Arthur 

Scargill”. People will have their views as to whether he 

should be on the ballot paper; it did not do them much 

good. The Green Party says, “Green Party: Say No To 

Racism”. That is clearly a slogan, and while one does 

not doubt that the Green Party is anti-racist, it ought 

not to be on the ballot paper. So it seems to me that 

this is prevalent: people are using it to promote a 

political message. It is still going on and it ought to be 

stopped. 

Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, I want to speak 

on this amendment, because I think it is an important 

issue. The reality is that we were in Committee prior to 

the last round of elections. It seems to me that this is 

an escalating level of abuse: if we allow it to develop in 

one particular area, then someone else will say, “Well, 

if they can do it, we can do it”, and more and more 

candidates are going to adopt this approach in the 

future. We learn from this last election, which, as I 

said, took place after we were in Committee. I would 

have thought that the noble Lord, Lord Steel, as a 

former Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament, 

would have had particular experience of this, as I 

presume that candidates in Scotland have made 

representations to him that have led to him tabling this 

amendment. 

Irrespective of what is in the Minister’s brief, which 

may well have been written prior to these most recent 

elections and the experience of candidates in various 

parts of the country of being confronted with a ballot 

paper riddled with slogans—many areas had a very 

long ballot paper of some 15 to 18 inches long: the 

longest one I have ever seen in my life—I would have 

thought that my noble friend might want to indicate a 

little flexibility during the course of his response. At 

the least he might indicate that the Government are 

now considering these issues so that in the future we 

may consider further legislation in this area. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, briefly, I have some sympathy 

for what is behind this amendment. Like the noble 

Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, I do not like the growth 

in the use of slogans on the ballot paper. As he said, 

since Committee we have seen them used a great deal 

in the European elections. The noble Lord, Lord 

Greaves, took us through the ballot paper for the 

north-west—the one on which I would have put my 

cross—and speculated whether the expression “liberal 

democrat” could be seen as a slogan. As someone who 

came from the old Liberal Party and often feels that 

there is not much liberalism left among the Liberal 

Democrats, perhaps he is right that it is a slogan—but 

then, looking at some of the other slogans, I imagine 

the poor berated Prime Minister might have rather 

resented the fact that the BNP took to paraphrasing 

his line “British jobs for British people” by adding its 

slogan “Protecting British jobs”. It might have been 

preferable if we did not have such slogans on the 

ballot paper, and I will be interested to hear what the 

Government have to say in response to the noble 

Lord, Lord Tyler. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the amendment seeks 

to prevent the use by political parties of descriptions 

on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary 

elections, and provides that independent candidates 

may use descriptions of up to six words. The 

description would have to be authorised by the 

Electoral Commission. 

The regulation of party descriptions has evolved 

considerably over the past decade. The Political Parties, 

Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provided for the 

compulsory registration of political parties. The Electoral 

Commission’s 2003 report, Standing for Election in the


United Kingdom, included the recommendation that 

parties should be given the option to register 

descriptions, and that candidates be limited to using 

their registered party name or a registered description 

on the ballot paper. The Electoral Administration 

Act 2006 introduced this measure for UK elections. 

However, independent candidates may use only the 

description “independent”. 

I recognise the concerns that have been expressed 

by politicians on all sides and by a number of electors 

who have questioned whether the descriptions used on 

the ballot paper at the recent European elections were 

appropriate, even if they were within the law. In addition, 

there has been a debate for some time about whether 

the existing arrangements are fair to independent 

candidates. However, I am concerned that the proposal 

set out in this amendment goes too far in the other 

direction. 

Within the current framework, smaller or local 

parties have the opportunity to register a party name 

that capitalises on contentious local issues, and larger 

and national parties have argued that this puts them at 

a disadvantage. Party descriptions address this 

disadvantage by allowing national parties the opportunity 

to reflect local circumstances on a ballot paper. For 

example, parties commonly use one description when 

contesting UK parliamentary elections and another 

for elections to the devolved Administrations. The 

noble Lord’s amendment would provide that independents 

would be the only candidates able to use a description 

of any kind. I question whether this arrangement goes 

too far in allowing independent candidates to make an 

appeal that would be denied to political parties. 

In addition, while I recognise the noble Lord’s 

intentions, I should make it clear that the amendment 

is defective since it envisages that candidates are registered 

with a political party. This registration is the route by 

which the amendment defines candidates who are 

compelled to use only the registered party name as a 

description. While political parties must register with 

the Electoral Commission, there is no requirement 

that candidates must register with political parties 

before they may stand on that party’s behalf at an 

election; nor is there any requirement for any candidate 

to be a member of the party on whose behalf they are 

a candidate. 

Another difficulty with the proposed measure is the 

burden that it would place on the Electoral Commission. 

In considering this issue in 2003, the commission 

concluded that it would be impractical for it to, 

“attempt to regulate all independent candidates’ descriptions in 

the tight timescales allowed by election timetables”. 

For this reason, I understand that the Electoral 

Commission does not support the noble Lord’s 

amendment and is of the view that the existing position 

is satisfactory. 

These matters are of course kept under review, and 

since this issue concerns the way in which those standing 

for election communicate with the electorate, it must 

be right that any change should be made in discussion 

with all those who have a stake in the electoral process. 

Therefore, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his 

amendment. 

7.15 pm 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am grateful to all those 

who have contributed to the debate, although I must 

say that I found the tone of the Minister’s response 

much less forthcoming that I had hoped it would be as 

a result of the very effective way in which the noble 

Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, in his normal emollient 

way, had invited the Minister to be equally emollient. 

There is a serious issue here. I understand what the 

Minister says about the Electoral Commission’s work, 

and it was clear from the Gould commission that what 

it recommended was not intended to be the last word 

on this subject; as I anticipated, there would be further 

discussion about the ballot paper design. I hope that I 

can read from what the Minister has just said that the 

continuing review to which he referred is ongoing: that 

it has not stopped and will not cease simply because 

there is a problem at the moment. I also understand 

that the Electoral Commission will review what happened 

in this respect in the recent European parliamentary 

elections. I hope that I have got that right. The Minister 

may like to intervene if I have got it wrong, but I hope 

the fact that he is not intervening suggests that that is 

exactly what will happen. 

In those terms, having aired an important issue and 

the Government having responded, I beg leave to 

withdraw the amendment. 

Amendment 76A withdrawn. 

Clause 23 : Filling vacant European Parliament seats 

in Northern Ireland 

Amendment 77 


77: Clause 23, page 25, line 16, at end insert— 

“(aa) where the previous MEP stood in the names of two or 

more registered parties when elected (or most recently 

elected), by a person jointly nominated by the nominating 

officers of those parties;” 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, Clause 23 provides for 

regulations to be made that would permit a vacancy in 

a Northern Ireland European parliamentary seat to be 

filled by a person nominated by the nominating officer 

of the political party on whose behalf the vacating 

MEP stood when elected. 

Currently, the law provides for by-elections to be 

held only in the event that a European parliamentary 

seat is vacated in Northern Ireland. Noble Lords will 

be aware that by-elections to fill vacancies are generally 

undesirable in elections where the single transferable 

vote form of proportional representation is used because 

this has the potential to distort the careful balance of 

seats that will have been secured by the election. Last 

year, the Government consulted publicly in Northern 

Ireland on possible changes to the current system, and 

there was substantial support for introducing the method 

set out in Clause 23 of replacing MEPs from political 

parties from both sides of the community. 

Amendments 77 and 78 amend Clause 23 so that 

regulations may provide for an MEP who stood in the 

name of two or more political parties when elected to 

be replaced by a person nominated jointly by the 

nominating officers of those parties. The law generally



provides for a candidate to stand on behalf of more 

than one political party at a European election, and 

noble Lords may be aware that just such a candidate 

was recently returned in Northern Ireland at the recent 

European election there. 

In other areas of electoral law, where a nominating 

officer has a specific role we have sought to ensure that 

that role is undertaken jointly by nominating officers 

in cases in which a candidate stands on behalf of more 

than one party. For example, under the European 

parliamentary elections rules for Northern Ireland, a 

person may not be validly nominated to stand for 

election using more than one party’s description unless 

the nominating officer of each party concerned authorises 

this. In line with this approach, I believe that when an 

MEP who stood on behalf of more than one party 

vacates his or her seat, the nominating officers of each 

of the parties on whose behalf the MEP stood should 

jointly nominate a replacement. 

These amendments would provide valuable clarification 

of how the proposed new method for filling vacant 

European parliamentary seats in Northern Ireland 

would work for MEPs who have stood on behalf of 

more than one political party. It is for this reason that 

I ask noble Lords to support the amendments. I beg to 

move. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I have one query on which 

the noble Lord can no doubt help me. What happens if 

the two nominating officers—presumably there will be 

one from each of the two parties—disagree on the 

replacement? They might have been in agreement at 

the previous election but then, as the noble Lord 

pointed out, lost the MEP two or three years later. The 

noble Lord does not think that there should be a 

by-election under STV, because that does not work on 

these occasions. That is another good reason for staying 

well clear of STV. So what do we do when two nominating 

officers who previously were on very good terms but 

no longer are, cannot agree on a successor? 

Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, in 

Grand Committee I moved an amendment which in a 

sense was overtaken by the events that the Minister 

explained. The noble Lord, Lord Bach, very kindly 

offered me the advice of officials if I sought to bring 

the matter back on Report. I wish to put on record 

that the officials whose advice was proffered could not 

have been more assiduous in seeking to advise me. But 

I decided that it would have been invidious to identify 

specifically in legislation my concern, and therefore I 

did not take up the advice. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, if the nominating officers 

could not agree on a replacement and no replacement 

was nominated, the regulations would make provision 

for an election to be held. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, is the position that, on 

those occasions, there would have to be a by-election 

for just one Member, under a system that the Government 

have admitted would not be satisfactory? 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, one has to be satisfied 

at some point that one has done the best that one can, 

and I believe that this is the best we can do. As one of 

the parties concerned is the Conservative Party, I 

cannot see any possibility of them not agreeing. I have 

nothing further to add. 

Amendment 77 agreed. 

Amendment 78 


78: Clause 23, page 25, line 17, after “(a)” insert “or (aa)” 


Clause 24 : Local returning officers for elections to the 

European Parliament 

Amendment 79 

Moved by Baroness Hamwee 

79: Clause 24, page 25, line 34, leave out from beginning to 

“subsection” in line 35 and insert— 

“( ) Section 6 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 

(c. 24) (returning officers) is amended as follows. 

( ) In subsection (2) (returning officer for electoral region in 

England etc), in paragraph (a), after “the Representation of the 

People Act 1983 (c. 2)” there is inserted “or is the proper officer of 

the Greater London Authority for the purposes of section 35(2C) 

of that Act.” 

( ) In” 

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I shall speak also to 

Amendment 80. I appreciate that it may seem a little 

impertinent, or at any rate discourteous, to intervene 

for the first time in the debates on this Bill at this late 

stage. The subject of these amendments is a discrete 

matter and I declare an interest in that I was asked to 

put forward these amendments by the Greater London 

Authority. I was a member of the London Assembly, 

which was a part of the Greater London Authority, 

for eight years until just over a year ago. I am also a 

joint president of London Councils. 

The GLA has been in discussion with officials 

about this matter, and I am extremely grateful for their 

assistance. Both what I have to say and the amendments 

will be very familiar to those officials. Amendment 79 

allows the proper officer of the Greater London 

Authority—that is, the Greater London Returning 

Officer—to be appointed by the Secretary of State as 

regional returning officer at a European election in 

any region in England and Wales. In practice, it is 

likely that the GLRO would be appointed only as 

regional returning officer for London, but there could 

be circumstances in which the GLRO may be appointed 

to a neighbouring region or, if there are boundary 

changes—if anyone is brave enough to address that—to 

a region which includes London and an area outside 

London. The GLRO will not be appointed automatically 

as regional returning officer. It will be open to him or 

her, alongside acting returning officers for parliamentary 

elections, to put himself forward for designation as the 

regional returning officer by the Secretary of State. 

Amendment 80 provides for the GLA to place the 

services of its employees at the disposal of the GLRO. 

If he is appointed as regional returning officer, this 

would apply only if the GLRO is appointed as regional 

returning officer for the London region. To speak off 

script for a moment, I should like to place on record 

my admiration for the work done by those who have

1125 Political Parties and Elections Bill [17 JUNE 2009] 


1126 

been running GLA elections for some years now. I 

should explain that the funding that the GLRO would 

receive under Section 6(6) of the 2002 Act if he were 

appointed would be calculated on the same basis as 

that for regional returning officers in other regions and 

that for the RRO appointed for London at the June 2009 

European elections. In other words, the GLRO will 

not be treated any different from other regional returning 

officers. 

A couple of days ago I saw briefing from the 

Electoral Commission which I understand supports 

this amendment. The commission says that the experience 

that the GLRO gains in carrying out the role may 

mean that he or she is best placed to ensure the 

efficient running of the European parliamentary elections 

in the London region and that he or she should 

therefore be appointed in the way that the amendment 

provides. I beg to move. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, this amendment seeks 

to provide that the Greater London returning officer 

should be eligible for appointment as a regional 

returning officer for European parliamentary elections. 

The Government see merits in the proposed change 

and I am pleased that parliamentary counsel and 

Ministry of Justice officials have been able to assist 

the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, in the drafting of 

the amendment. The GLRO is the chief executive 

of the Greater London Authority. The GLRO leads 

an experienced elections team which has previously 

run successful GLA Assembly and London mayoral 

elections. 

At European parliamentary elections, regional 

returning officers are appointed to each UK electoral 

region and they are responsible for the conduct of the 

election in their region. Under Section 6 of the European 

Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, in England and 

Wales the RRO is to be a person who is an acting 

returning officer for parliamentary elections and is 

designated as an RRO by an order of the Secretary of 

State. The GLRO is not able to be appointed as an 

RRO under these provisions as he is not an acting 

returning officer for parliamentary elections. These 

amendments change that position by amending the 

European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002 to allow 

the GLRO to be designated as an RRO. It also provides 

that if the GLRO is appointed as RRO for London, he 

may call on the assistance of employees of the GLA to 

help him carry out his duties as RRO in addition to 

the London boroughs in the London region. 

There is no reason to doubt that the European 

elections in June 2009 were effectively administered in 

London under the existing statutory framework. However, 

the GLRO has experience of running London-wide 

elections and the proposed change would widen the 

scope of suitable persons who may be considered as 

the RRO for the London region in future European 

elections and make it easier to recruit for the post. The 

Government are therefore content to accept the 

amendment. 

Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I am extremely grateful 

for the acceptance of the amendments and the recognition 

of the experience, expertise, enthusiasm and dedication 

of those who have been running the elections. 


Amendment 80 

Moved by Baroness Hamwee 


“( ) After subsection (8) there is inserted— 

“(9) Where functions are conferred on the proper officer of 

the Greater London Authority under subsection (5) in relation to 

the London electoral region, the Authority must place the services 

of its employees at his disposal for the purpose of assisting him in 

the discharge of those functions.”” 


Consideration on Report adjourned until not before 

8.30 pm. 


Question for Short Debate 

7.30 pm 

Tabled By The Countess of Mar 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they 

will reconvene the Interdepartmental Group on 

Organophosphates (the Carden Committee). 

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I declare an 

interest. I was poisoned by organophosphate sheep 

dip in 1989. In fact, it is almost exactly 20 years since I 

was doused while helping to dip our sheep. Prior to 

that, I had been chronically exposed to a variety of 

OPs in common use on farms and in homes. At the 

time we were led to believe that OPs were safe if used 

as instructed. It was not until 1991, after a long 

process of elimination and observation after further 

exposures, that the cause of my illness became clear to 

me and to my GP. Contrary to received belief, the 

signs and symptoms of poisoning were not temporary 

and, for me, the effects are still evident today. I am 

extremely fortunate in that I have supportive medical 

practitioners whose main objective in life is not to 

poison me further. 

Sheep dipping once or twice yearly in the UK was 

compulsory from 1975 to 1992 as part of the regime to 

control sheep scab. OPs replaced organochlorines from 

the early 1980s after the latter were found to persist in 

the environment. It was in 1992 that the noble Lord, 

Lord Tyler, then Paul Tyler MP, and I independently 

started to ask questions about the safety of using OPs 

as veterinary medicines and as both agricultural and 

domestic pesticides. Indeed, I almost said, “Welcome 

to the ‘Mar and Tyler Show’” because we have been 

together on this for so long, but perhaps I should say 

the ‘Mar, Tyler and Rooker Show’ because the noble 

Lord, Lord Rooker, has also been involved for a long 

time. In 1992, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and I first 

met John Gummer, then the Minister of Agriculture, 

to ask him to apply a moratorium on OP sheep dips. 

By this time it was becoming clear that OPs were 

affecting a significant number of individuals who were 

using them or were inadvertently exposed to them. At 

first, the Government assured us that these products 

were safe and that they presented no risk to human

1127 Organophosphates 

[LORDS] 


1128 

[THE COUNTESS OF MAR] 

health. Since then there has been progress and their 

acute effects are readily acknowledged. Many OPs 

have been removed from the market, while stringent 

instructions now apply to those that are still in use. 

But there is still no recognition of their chronic central 

and autonomic nervous system effects. 

Following close on the heels of the sheep farmers 

and other agricultural workers were some Gulf War 

veterans who reported very similar adverse health 

effects following medication with pyridostigmine bromide, 

a carbamate closely related to OPs, and exposure to 

OP nerve gas and pesticide sprays. Despite the fact 

that the US Research Advisory Committee on Gulf 

War Illnesses recently concluded that some 25 per cent 

of Gulf War veterans—25 per cent of more than 6,000 

people—are suffering the effects of OP poisoning, the 

British Government persist in their denial that these 

same exposures have had any effect on our troops. 

More recently, airline pilots and crew have reported ill 

effects following exposure to cabin air contaminated 

by leaking engine oil that produces very toxic OPs 

when heated. 

In all these groups, scientific research has shown 

consistently that there may be a relationship between 

long-term, low-level exposure to organophosphates 

and the development of neurobehavioural problems. 

The first study of sheep farmers was in 1991, and the 

latest was published this year. As there have been very 

few reports of adverse reactions to OP sheep dips in 

recent years, it is fairly safe to assume that the problems 

are persistent. It is interesting that Dr Sarah Mackenzie 

Ross, who conducted the DEFRA-funded research 

entitled “Neuropsychological and Psychiatric Functioning 

in Sheep Farmers Exposed to Organophosphate 

Pesticides”, had to eliminate 60 per cent of possible 

subjects, all of whom were sheep farmers exposed to 

OPs, because they had other conditions. Among those 

eliminated were people with a history of acute exposure; 

those with a neurological condition such as Parkinson’s 

disease or multiple sclerosis; heart conditions and lung 

disease, all of which are associated with possible toxic 

causation. This means that those in whom she did find 

neuropsychiatric problems were likely to have been 

those who had the lowest exposure to OPs. 

When the Labour Party came into Government in 

1997, Ministers from all the departments involved 

agreed that an interdepartmental group of high-level 

officials should be formed to report to Ministers on 

the continuing public debate over whether OPs damage 

human health. This was the Official Group on 

Organophosphates, also known as the Carden Committee, 

although I understand that Mr Carden has since retired. 

The group reported in 1998 and a number of its 

recommendations, including a research programme, 

were implemented, for which I am grateful. I understand 

that the group has met occasionally since then, the last 

time being 26 June 2007. As the minutes of its meetings 

are not published, we have no means of knowing the 

detail of their discussions. 

What is clear is that the science has moved on 

considerably since 1998. The Carden report gives at 

paragraph 2.2 a simple explanation of the manner in 

which inhibitors of acetylcholinesterase function, 

stating that: 

“In the case of most OPs and all medicinal and pesticidal 

anticholinesterase OP products the effect is either reversible or 

recoverable”. 

It also reminds us that some non-OPs are 

anticholinesterases and that they have similar toxicity 

to anticholinesterase OPs, to which I shall come later. 

There appears to be a genetic susceptibility to OP 

poisoning. It is recognised that cytochrome P450 

enzymes, Paraoxonase-1 and butyrylcholinesterase 

play important parts in the detoxification of 

anticholinesterases. It has also been recognised for 

some time that there are flaws in the traditional methods 

of assessing exposure to OPs by measuring metabolites 

for specific OPs in the urine or measuring levels of red 

blood cell acetylcholinesterase. The scientific paper 

Identification and Characterisation of Biomarkers of 

Organophosphorus (OP) Exposure in Humans by Kim 

et al, 2009, details, 

“the development of rapid protocols for extraction of the target 

biomarker protein from a sample, digesting the enzyme and 

identifying the OP modified peptide by mass spectrometry”. 

The authors go on to state: 

“We feel these methods are optimal for filling the void of 

diagnosing and treating long-term exposures to several ubiquitous 

OPs”. 

In the UK, the Government have funded a few 

neuropsychological function studies and epidemiological 

studies of shepherds exposed to OPs. None of these 

has gone into the detail of the US research on sick 

Gulf veterans. The US neurocognitive studies found 

similar significantly poorer performance results on 

veterans who had been exposed to anticholinesterase 

chemicals to those conducted in the UK on shepherds. 

Six out of seven projects that evaluated brain structure 

and function using highly specialised equipment found 

significant differences between veterans with Gulf War 

illnesses and healthy controls, although they qualify 

their results by stating that additional research is 

needed. I could go on, and those interested in the 

detail will find it in the US RAC report of last November. 

In view of the fact that providing scientific proof has 

been a virtual impossibility for those who are suffering 

the effects of OPs, may I ask the Minister how many 

of the most recent developments have been accepted 

in the UK? 

I cannot express adequately the effect that the somewhat 

apathetic attitude of those who are responsible for 

ensuring our health and safety over the past 20 years 

has had. By failing to study individuals who report 

symptoms after more than a minute exposure to 

OPs in the initial stages and by failing to conduct 

longitudinal studies, they may well have exposed many 

sick people to at least a poor quality of life or at worst 

an early death. My own experience has taught me 

that there is an almost total lack of understanding of 

the life-threatening heart and lung function damage 

and of the effects of administering drugs that act on 

the acetylcholine system. The Health and Safety 

Executive’s leaflet MS17, Medical aspects of work-related 

exposures to organophosphates, warns of the effects of 

repeated absorption of small doses of OPs. However, 

I can find no warning to the medical profession of the 

effects of administering any of a wide range of drugs 

that may have a similar action. First-line drugs for 

bladder incontinence, asthmatic symptoms and


[17 JUNE 2009] 


1130 

glaucoma are all in this group and the first two are, to 

my knowledge, also caused by OP damage to the 

autonomic system. 

Is the Minister able to say how much research 

has been conducted into the effects that drugs which 

act on the acetylcholine system have on patients who 

have reported illness following exposure to 

organophosphate pesticides? If he knows of none, 

does he agree that this is an important consideration 

for a large number of agricultural workers, Gulf War 

veterans and aircrew? Should this not be an urgent 

consideration? 

I have made a brief outline of some of the reasons 

why I believe that the Official Group on 

Organophosphates should reconvene. I have barely 

touched on recent developments in this field. I have 

asked that it should give the matter priority. I also ask 

that on this occasion it produces a report on the lines 

of its 1998 report. 

7.41 pm 

Lord Rooker: My Lords, I support the noble Countess. 

Basically, the simple answer to her question should be 

yes. I am not going to go into all the background 

details because I am not as up-to-date as I was when I 

was one of the Ministers responsible in 1997-99 and 

then again from 2006-08 in one department, but the 

fact that this issue goes across departments is the 

central point that I wish to make. 

As the noble Countess has said, there has been 

progress. The lack of exposure today is a result of 

the work that has been done by the industry, 

pushed by our officials in the Veterinary Medicines 

Directorate, in producing better containers from 

which people could not by accident, irrespective of 

negligence, be contaminated. There is no question that 

this was a serious issue in the past. However, this 

means that no new people from farming are coming 

into the system for the doctors and the scientists to 

look at. As I say, the problem transcends that, but 

there has been stagnation. 

When we considered this problem in MAFF from 

very early on in 1997 and 1998, I had discussions with 

the then Minister, Jack Cunningham, who, with his 

background as a chemist, took it very seriously. We 

picked up from other departments that there were 

issues across government in regard to chemicals. Richard 

Carden—who, as the noble Countess said, has retired— 

would take some pleasure in seeing the Carden Committee 

reconvened. He was a first-class civil servant, in my 

experience, at MAFF and he chaired a large Whitehall 

committee which covered many more departments 

than one would imagine. Obviously, as I moved around 

Whitehall I did not keep up to date over the years. I 

regret that the committee’s deliberations have not been 

made public and I can see no good reason for that. 

In that period of time, we had probably three 

scientific advisers, and now we have a new Government 

Chief Scientific Adviser. This problem should be the 

first thing on Professor Bennington’s desk and he 

should look at it to see what the current situation is. 

There are grounds for considering it. I have never seen 

a satisfactory answer to the issue of the airline pilots 

and the doubts that have been raised about it. I do not 

want to be controversial but, if one looks at the big 

picture from the outside—at the nature of the doubts 

about organophosphates, at the issue of Factor VIII, 

dirty blood and blood products, and at the issue of 

Gulf War syndrome from the first Gulf War—one 

gets the impression of a natural reluctance of the 

centre to investigate when these issues arise and a 

pattern starts to be formed. That is the point that I 

want to make. 

In a way, the Carden Committee and what was put 

together could overcome and answer some of these 

issues. They go across Whitehall departments. I do not 

want the Government to be in the dock over them but 

a pattern has emerged over a period—there may be 

others of which I am unaware—that there is a reluctance 

to investigate. Why? “Oh, because there are no new 

cases; because of the issue of compensation; because 

the science is not quite clear”. Given what has happened 

in the United States in the first 100 days, if these 

matters were put to President Obama I can envisage 

some executive action coming forth. Not by overdoing 

the science or taking the scientists’ view, but by giving the 

issue a push, a spurt, to ensure that we can put it to 

bed. 

There is plenty of evidence—I do not think complete 

solutions will ever be found—from those who have 

been injured, if I can put it that way, in the farming 

industry, from those with Gulf War syndrome and 

from the issue of the fuel used in aircraft to ensure that 

the doubts about the use of organophosphates remain. 

These are matters worthy of investigation. In the way 

that it does, Whitehall did some joined-up thinking on 

this. There was genuine joined-up working in the way 

in which the Carden Committee was put together and 

worked. I pay tribute to that and I have no problem 

with it. 

I was on the receiving end over a 10-year period of 

delegations which included the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, 

and the noble Countess, Lady Mar. I said to officials 

on one occasion—I think it was in 2006 or early 

2007—after the noble colleagues had left, “One day I 

will be a Back-Bencher and she is my model”. That is 

true. The noble Countess has shown great tenaciousness 

in pushing this issue—it is not a vested interest, although 

she has been affected in many ways—getting to grips 

with it and not accepting no for an answer. In this 

case, Whitehall and the Government reached out. 

I do not know whether it is time to call for Carden, 

who is well away into retirement—I shall not mention 

what part of the country he is in but I had a nice letter 

from him when I left government, so I know he keeps a 

watch on what is going on—but I hope the lawyers will 

not make the final decision; it is important that it is 

made on the grounds of science and health. The 

Government have a public responsibility and a duty of 

care in all these issues. In allowing products onto the 

market, however they are used, the Government have 

a duty of care. It may be that people will say, “We have 

solved all the problems” but, nevertheless, there are 

too many unanswered questions. It is probably time, 

given the Whitehall committee structure, genuinely to 

say to the noble Countess tonight that the answer to 

her question should be yes.


[LORDS] 


1132 

7.48 pm 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, I am delighted to follow the 

noble Countess and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. We 

have over many years worked together on this issue 

and I congratulate the noble Countess, in particular, 

on her extraordinary mastery of the facts. My only 

concern about her case is that she sometimes thinks 

OP has affected her brain power. However, there is no 

evidence of that in the way in which she contributes to 

the debates of your Lordships’ House. 

I should put on record that the right honourable 

Michael Meacher, who has also been a Minister in the 

department principally responsible for this issue, has 

been a doughty campaigner, as has the noble Lord, 

Lord Rooker, in seeking justice for those who suffer 

from OP poisoning. 

As has already been mentioned, since 1992 and 

through to 2005 I convened an all-party parliamentary 

group containing Members of your Lordships’ House 

and Members of the other place, from all parties and 

from all parts of the country, to deal with this issue. 

The problem originally arose with sheep farmers—in 

my case sheep farmers in the south-west, who I 

represented—and every improvement in the controls 

placed on the use of OPs and every time more protective 

measures were placed on their use and on the people 

who were going to use them was, effectively, an admission 

that the previous arrangements were inadequate. Of 

course, the previous arrangements were forced upon 

sheep farmers by government decree. It was not like 

thalidomide, where people voluntarily took on a particular 

form of treatment and then there were difficulties. 

Sheep farmers had to use OPs—twice a year, under 

the original arrangements. The Government, as well 

as those responsible for manufacture, had not just a 

moral but a legal responsibility for the use of 

organophosphates. 

As has been said, and this is a good moment to 

make this point again, there is a responsibility for 

joined-up government. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker—at 

the instigation, I would like to think, of others outside— 

took up that challenge and made sure that it happened, 

and the Carden Committee was the effective vehicle 

for that purpose. It was not down to the Ministry of 

Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or, as it became, 

Defra. It was not down to the Ministry of Defence, in 

the case of the 1991-92 Gulf War—I should perhaps 

declare a non-pecuniary interest as a member of the 

Royal British Legion Gulf War Group. It was not 

down to the Department for Transport, in the case of 

the BAe146 aircraft that has proved to be most 

controversial in this case, where the bleeding into the 

cabin of some of the OP lubricants in the engine 

seems to have caused huge problems and considerable 

risk. Not a single one of those departments can carry 

the can for the difficulties that have occurred, because 

every one of them had some responsibility. Hence the 

significance of the interdepartmental committee to 

which the noble Countess’s Question refers—that was 

our hope for joined-up government. Now it has not 

sat for some 24 months, so what is going on? Is there 

any joined-up government at all now? 

The Carden Committee should be reconstituted 

because there are urgent questions now across government. 

In the case of the Ministry of Defence, there has been, 

as the noble Countess said, an inaccurate response to 

the research that has been undertaken in the United 

States, a point that I shall come back to. It is urgent to 

look at the implications for the British troops who 

were there serving on our behalf, and who suffered as 

a result of their service in the Gulf. 

In the case of Defra there is an urgent responsibility 

to ensure that proper funding is put into the remaining 

research proposals, particularly those that are under 

the auspices of Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross, who is the 

principal researcher in this field. As the noble Lord, 

Lord Rooker, implies, every day there are people who 

should be analysed for this purpose but who may no 

longer be with us. 

Then there is the issue of transport. It was not just 

the BAe146, although the problem seemed to occur 

particularly on that aircraft; there are wider issues 

there. As yet, thank goodness, there has not been a 

disaster, but there could easily have been one if the 

impact of these chemicals—which, after all, started 

their life as part of the Nazis’ war effort—had continued 

to be sprayed around aircraft cabins and cockpits in 

aerosol form. The potential for disaster is considerable. 

My bitter and, I fear, rather cynical experience, 

after 17 or 18 years of campaigning on this issue, is 

that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, seems to be right: 

there is a built-in systemic lethargy that means that 

eventually, if you string out the research programme 

long enough, which is what the manufacturers of these 

products want to do, either the OP products can be 

replaced by something else so that there is no longer a 

commercial problem for the manufacturers; compensation 

can be avoided because you continually block liability 

claims; or, frankly, the victims die. Understandably, it 

is that lethargy, stringing out the process, that the 

victims feel is going on in Whitehall. It would be a 

tragedy if the considerable efforts made by the noble 

Lord and others in Whitehall—Michael Meacher being 

another—to try to create a genuine link-up and real 

joined-up government came to a full stop, simply 

because Mr Richard Carden had retired. 

I hope that the Minister will be able to give us a 

cast-iron assurance that the committee will be reconstituted 

and will give practical expression to the determination 

of the Government to get to the bottom of this 

problem. Again, I underline the point made by the 

noble Lord, Lord Rooker: imagine if this were in the 

United States under the present President. In fact, we 

do not have to imagine; a new imperative has been put 

behind the research programme into OPs by President 

Obama. Let us therefore take something from across 

the Atlantic that we can put to good use in this 

country. Let us have some joined-up government here. 

I warmly support the noble Countess. 

I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, 

has rejoined the human race by coming off the government 

Front Bench and is now able to use his persuasive 

powers on his colleagues. I hope that we will have 

evidence in a minute that he is as persuasive as he ever 

was in the Government.


[17 JUNE 2009] 


1134 

7.55 pm 

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I do not think that the noble 

Lord, Lord Rooker, ever left the human race, which is 

one reason why he was such a good Minister. 

I thank the noble Countess, Lady Mar, for initiating 

this short debate as part of a campaign that has been 

going on since long before I came to this House. With 

the noble Countess, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, and 

my noble friend Lord Tyler, I feel as though I am 

among some of the political giants as far as this issue 

is concerned. My interest in OPs, particularly sheep 

dips, came about a bit less than 10 years ago when 

Chris Davies MEP took me up a track on the Saddleworth 

moors to see Mrs Brenda Sutcliffe, an equally doughty 

campaigner on OPs in a rather different way, bashing 

away on what was then her manual typewriter. She is 

still there and still campaigning, and long may she do 

so as long as this issue needs resolving. 

I shall refer to the most recent piece of research on 

OPs and sheep dips, which comes from Dr Sarah 

Mackenzie Ross of University College London on 

behalf of Defra’s project VM02302 on which, over the 

past six or seven years, the department has spent 

nearly £500,000. The project was mooted earlier; it 

started in August 2004 and ended in 2008, last year. 

The purpose of the study was to determine whether 

low-level exposure to organophosphates caused disabling 

neurological or psychiatric disease in a small sub-group 

of exposed persons. The significance of this project is 

that it is concentrated on low-level exposure over a 

period of time rather than on a higher level and the 

more acute problems presented by most of the people 

who have come forward as victims of OPs. 

The participants in the study—there were originally 

160 but there ended up being 132—are working farmers 

and farmers who retired on the grounds of ill health 

and who have a history of exposure to sheep dip. They 

were compared with a control group, a comparison 

group, of rural police workers, in an attempt to find 

similar people in the community who had not been 

particularly exposed to organophosphate pesticides. 

That group began as 80 but ended up as 79. The 

participants were recruited from the south-west and 

the north of England. My understanding is that the 

study has been completed—certainly the executive 

summary has been published—and that we are waiting 

for the full report to be peer-reviewed. Perhaps the 

Minister will confirm that. It is with Defra and we are 

waiting to see what Defra is going to do about it. 

The results of this study of low-level exposure were 

that, 

“A range of emotional, physical and cognitive problems were 

identified in agricultural workers with a history of low level 

exposure to OPs. In terms of cognitive function, general intellectual 

ability, reasoning, visio-spatial and verbal ability were relatively 

well preserved, but agricultural workers obtained lower scores on 

tests of response speed, working, verbal and visual memory, 

mental flexibility and fine motor control, than non-exposed controls”. 

The report also compared these results with the general 

population and found a similar difference. The report 

says that, 

“a number of significant correlations were observed between 

duration of exposure and verbal and visual memory, verbal 

ability, strategy making and fine motor control. Although weak, 

they were in the expected direction, consistent with findings from 

the group analyses and consistent with study hypotheses.” 

I am not sure that I understand these words, but I 

think they mean that there was a correlation and the 

findings were significant. The recommendation is that 

follow-up studies should be carried out to determine 

whether symptoms persist over time, improve or worsen, 

and to look into recommended treatment protocols 

for individuals who report chronic ill health following 

exposure to OPs. This is one reason why the official 

committee should be reconvened. It is suggested that 

there is a need for prospective treatment trials. That is 

from Dr Mackenzie Ross. 

Defra has responded. I have looked at the Defra 

website and failed to find it, but that may be because I 

am not very good at negotiating websites, or it may 

not be there. I read in the Western Morning News that 

a Defra spokesman said: 

“The results of this report do not definitively demonstrate 

that organophosphates cause chronic ill-health, but suggest that a 

relationship may exist”— 

I think that is what Dr Mackenzie Ross is saying— 

“It is not possible to draw conclusions on the basis of one 

report without considering a wider context of published data on 

OPs and human health”. 

That seems to be a fairly weak response from Defra, of 

the kind that previous speakers have suggested has 

been forthcoming over the years. It seems to me, 

again, to be a reason why the committee should be 

reconvened and should meet to consider these matters. 

Defra continues to say that, 

“our advice to farmers remains to take all necessary protections 

including protective clothing and to follow instructions supplied”. 

That is all very well for people who are around now 

but it does not really tackle the problem of people who 

were exposed in the past. I read in my exciting weekly 

reading, the Farmers Guardian, a quote from 

Dr Mackenzie Ross herself: 

“The worry is that there might be a slow cumulative effect on 

people. We have got no idea how many people out there are 

suffering … There was this idea that low exposure is OK but this 

research would suggest otherwise. We think it is more dangerous 

than previously thought”. 

There follows the same quote from Defra, suggesting 

that it would rather not do very much. 

This latest report is important, partly because it confirms 

that people have been suffering from OPs, but particularly 

because it looks at the people who have been subjected 

to low-level exposure, as opposed to those who have 

been made particularly poorly by a high level of 

exposure. This is clearly new evidence and clearly a 

new report. I ask the Minister, first, what will Defra do 

with this report? What is its response to it, other than 

trying to tell the papers that everything is really okay? 

Secondly, in particular, is it not sensible to put it to a 

reconvened official committee? 

8.04 pm 

Lord Taylor of Holbeach: My Lords, I declare an 

interest as a farmer and grower. We use chemicals in 

pest and disease control; I will make observations on 

this in my speech. No one can doubt the commitment 

of the noble Countess to making sure that the use and 

effect of organophosphates remains on the agenda. 

She should be thanked for securing this debate and for 

the skill with which she has presented her case. She 

speaks powerfully from a personal experience that has 

been extremely distressing. Indeed, all noble Lords


[LORDS] 


1136 

[LORD TAYLOR OF HOLBEACH] 

have spoken with passion on this issue and I am sure 

that the Minister will be keen to respond and provide 

the reassurance that noble Lords rightly seek. 

I can speak only on the use of OPs in agriculture, 

but I know that concerns can and do stretch into other 

areas, which have been widely explored in this evening’s 

debate. However, I can speak with some authority, 

since not only are OPs used and recommended as a 

vital sheep dip, they have in the past been used to dip 

bulbs prior to commercial planting. In the 1960s I 

personally sterilised bulbs using the nematicide Phagol, 

which was withdrawn around the middle of that decade. 

By good fortune, no one—as far as I know—suffered 

any ill-effects from its use in this way, although a 

MAFF employee at Kirton EHS died from mercury 

poisoning, which was part and parcel of a similar 

operation. Later, in the 1980s, Nemaphos was widely 

used for similar purposes here and in Holland on tulip 

bulbs. It, too, was withdrawn. Again, no ill-effects 

were reported, but environmental considerations and 

ground water contamination led to its ceasing to be 

available. 

The work of the noble Countess in battling on this 

issue is well known, but we need to be careful not to 

draw the wrong conclusions from this particular issue. 

I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the 

Government remain concerned at the change in the 

definition of pesticides from risk-based to hazard-based. 

This, regrettably, has been introduced as a European 

directive, with regulations to follow. This will cut off 

many vital products. This is particularly true for 

horticultural growers, of whom I am one. Their permitted 

use is dependent on off-label approval—testing that 

manufacturers are not necessarily prepared to pay for. 

I cannot emphasise strongly enough the role that can 

be played by horticulture in reviving the productive 

capacity of the sector. 

I may have strayed beyond the strict definition of 

this debate, but it is important that the principle that 

we apply to organophosphates is the same: decisions 

should be based on the science. There is a further 

point to be deduced from the general to the particular. 

Any use of chemicals requires the proper respect of 

the user. At all times operators need to be disciplined 

in following correct procedures and ensuring their 

own safety. The most common way for humans to 

come into contact with OPs, as has been explained in 

this debate, is through sheep dipping. The noble Lord, 

Lord Tyler, explained fully how this policy came into 

effect. The Government’s policy towards its uses takes 

into account factors including the environmental effects 

and effect on human health of organophosphates. It is 

good to see the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, in his place 

and contributing to this debate. We have all missed 

him, but welcome him back and are pleased that he is 

participating in his usual robust fashion. 

Concern about the use of organophosphates led to 

the commissioning of the interdepartmental group on 

organophosphates, known as the Carden Committee. 

It drew representatives from several government 

departments, including the Department of Health and 

the Ministry of Defence, as well as representatives 

from the veterinary field, health and safety, the Food 

Standards Agency and the Office for Science and 

Innovation, as it was then known. It has not met since 

June 2007, which was two years ago. As the noble 

Countess said, many questions remain unanswered. I 

can think of several. Has any assessment been made of 

the effectiveness of the Control of Substances Hazardous 

to Health Regulations 2000—or COSHH in short—when 

it comes to risk assessments prior to sheep dipping? 

What further work has been undertaken on finding 

alternatives to using organophosphate-based products 

in farming? 

Further to these questions, I hope that the Minister 

will be able to reassure me on two others. How many 

of the “pour ons” now used in sheep treatment for 

ecto parasites contain organophosphates? Are the 

Government satisfied that spreading of waste dip on 

agricultural ground presents no residual hazard? If 

ever an issue could benefit from transparency, it is this 

one. That is why I trust that the Minister will be able to 

give a positive answer to the noble Countess’s Question. 

8.10 pm 

The Minister of State, Department for Environment, 

Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Davies of Oldham): My 

Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have 

contributed to this debate, particularly the noble Countess, 

Lady Mar, whom we all respect for her committed 

work over a considerable period on this very important 

issue. I discussed these issues with her when for a short 

while I held responsibility for the transport brief in 

this House. I was well aware of the strength of her 

arguments and I did my best, from a more limited 

position than my noble friend Lord Rooker, to see 

how we could make progress on those issues. 

A number of speakers suggested that the Government 

have been tardy in responding to these issues out of an 

unwillingness to commit resources, or from anxiety 

about compensation that may be payable. Those are 

unfair charges. The issue is straightforward, as the 

noble Lord, Lord Taylor, emphasised; namely, that we 

must make progress on the basis of the scientific 

evidence. As I understand it, the problem is that we do 

not have a secure enough scientific base to know 

exactly what to do. That is not to say that we are not 

aware of studies such as the one to which the noble 

Lord, Lord Greaves, referred. After all, that was 

commissioned by Defra. I am sorry that the noble 

Lord did not find the response on the website; I shall 

give it now. The researcher, Dr Sarah Mackenzie Ross, 

found that the results suggested there may be a relationship 

between long-term, low level exposure to OPs and the 

development of neural behavioural problems. This is 

an important piece of research but we have commissioned 

two other research reports as a result of COT’s work 

in 1999 and we await their publication. We cannot 

publish them yet because they have not been subjected 

to peer review and proper scientific vetting and analysis. 

All these reports, and our response to them, will be 

produced in the very near future. 

That brings me to the question: what has happened 

to the Carden Committee? As the noble Lord, Lord 

Rooker, indicated, it has changed its name as Mr Richard 

Carden is now retired. Therefore, the committee reverts to 

its original title, the Official Group on Organophosphates, 

which produces the appalling initials OGOP, which I


[17 JUNE 2009] 


1138 

shall mention once but not refer to again in those 

terms; rather, I shall refer to it as the committee. It 

would take me more time than is available to me in this 

debate to list all the contributors to the committee but 

representation on it is an example of joined-up 

government. There is not a single government department 

relevant to this issue that is not actively represented on 

the committee and forms part of its composition. The 

only thing that is missing from there is any direct 

reference to lawyers. Given that it was suggested that 

they might be the very contributors to delay, I should 

hope that the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, will feel reassured 

by that omission. Not that I am saying that no lawyers 

are ever present with a government committee of this 

kind; I am merely indicating that the legal contribution 

is not important. What is important is the scientific 

support and the contribution of the government 

departments that all have an interest in this area; for 

example, the Health and Safety Executive, the Food 

Standards Agency, the Health Protection Agency, the 

Department of Health, my own department and others. 

I merely summarise the contributors. I would be happy 

to publish a list. 

When will the committee meet again? It will meet 

shortly. Noble Lords are right to say that we have not 

made sufficient progress in the past couple of years to 

justify the committee meeting. I noted the criticisms 

made by noble Lords that they were not aware of what 

the committee did at its 2007 meeting. In 2007, the 

committee did some very important work. It looked at 

an Australian review of diazinon. The Australians 

seemed to have made progress with regard to sheep 

dips. However, when we examined the progress that 

they had made we found that it fell short of being a 

conclusive position that we could adopt. It was clear 

that where the Australians had tackled issues with 

regard to sheep dips and offered advice on the basis of 

their experience, they had not conducted the supervision 

of sheep dipping in quite the way that we do in the 

United Kingdom and we could not translate their 

results directly to our own experience. This conclusion 

was reached on the basis of very clear analysis of the 

Australian activity. 

Since then, the committee has reviewed the research 

projects to see whether sufficient progress is being 

made to bring the group together. I heard that what 

this country needs in this area is a bit of a zip behind it 

such as President Obama has produced in the United 

States. I am at one with the House in thinking that 

most things good in America at present result from the 

election of President Obama and the work that he 

does. He certainly has insisted that additional work is 

done with regard to Gulf War veterans. That work will 

produce results in February 2010 because you cannot 

speed up such work. When that United States research 

and the other pieces of research I mentioned that we 

have commissioned, and which have received scientific 

validation, are completed, our committee will meet 

and address these issues further. 

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, asked about the timescale 

in the most trenchant terms and asked whether it 

constituted an exercise in procrastination. That is not 

the case. This is an exercise in dealing with what we all 

recognise is a very difficult issue on the basis of 

making progress and of having a committee which is 

equipped to do this work. Its timescale is clear and fits 

in with crucial pieces of evidence that will be available 

to us in the not too distant future. 

I appreciate the work that the noble Countess, Lady 

Mar, has done in this regard. However, until she 

mentioned it this evening, I had not appreciated that 

she had suffered illness in this context. I express my 

concern about that and I am therefore not at all 

surprised at the anxiety that she expresses on behalf of 

others who may have come into contact with the 

problem. I say to her and to my noble friend Lord 

Rooker, who, as ever, was bold and assertive in his 

comments and confirmed exactly how he would have 

acted in government, that we are obliged to work on 

the basis of the best scientific advice. It is certainly 

government practice to— 

Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am reluctant 

to say very much although I know quite a bit about 

this subject. However, can the Minister assure us that 

as regards the inordinate delay that has occurred—literally 

thousands of sheep farmers in the UK are medically 

proven to be affected by this issue—his department 

and other government departments have not been put 

upon by the Treasury not to accept any liability or 

proof whatever that OP has the effect which many 

medical practitioners accept is the cause of the terrible 

condition from which many of these people suffer? 

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I do not think it 

is anything to do with Treasury pressure; this is to do 

with a proper, intensely scientific investigation which 

has to establish cause and effect. I am merely saying to 

the House that at present we are not in a position to do 

that. 

The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and the noble Countess, 

Lady Mar, referred to the HS146 issue and cabin air 

quality. When that issue was presented to me five years 

ago, I was shocked by the representations that were 

made. I did my very best to discover the nature of 

what we knew about this issue, how much had been 

substantiated and how dangerous it was to passengers 

and to cabin crew and pilots. My voice would be but a 

bleat in the wilderness compared to that of BALPA 

and airline pilots across the world if an aircraft as 

popular as the HS146 was capable of producing a 

persistent and threatening illness. HS146 is not grounded 

on that basis; crews do not refuse to fly the aircraft. I 

know that there are anxieties about the issue, which 

needs full investigation. I am not saying that there are 

grounds for complacency, far from it; the last impression 

that I want to give from this debate is any suggestion 

of complacency. 

We have the machinery in place to examine this 

fully to produce answers to these very difficult questions. 

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to 

interrupt but the noble Lord’s time is running short. 

The crux of my question was about the serious health 

effects that some medicines cause to people who have 

been exposed to OPs. It can kill people. It very nearly 

killed me; I know from my own experience. I do not 

want what happened to me to happen to anyone else. 

Will he kindly address that?


[LORDS] Political Parties and Elections Bill 1140 

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I understand 

that point entirely and I value the strength with which 

the noble Countess presents that position. The committee, 

and the Department of Health in its contributions to 

the committee, are in a position to address themselves 

to exactly those kinds of concerns. But I emphasise 

again that the committee is bound to be able to act 

effectively only when the research is sufficiently conclusive 

to guide how we can act. 

The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am sorry to 

interrupt again. My own medical practitioners, when 

they knew what had happened, found the research. 

The scientific research is there—even on the internet. 

Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as far as the 

committee is concerned, which together with the 

noble Countess’s concern is what this debate is about, 

the issues which it has had to address, and which have 

been part of its brief, are within the framework of the 

research it has commissioned and all the other 

research which it is evaluating across the world, 

including the American research which is due fairly 

shortly. I give the House the assurance that the 

committee will of course address these issues at 

that time. 

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked me some specific 

questions, one of which was on the question of alternatives 

to the use of OPs in farming. There is work on 

developing alternative sheep dips. That work is continuing 

with regard to the possibility of vaccine development 

and we have also been looking at the use of a hormone 

to disrupt the metamorphosis of the sheep scab mite. 

Progress on both projects is going to be reviewed by 

Defra in the very near future. It is not known whether 

any of these projects will lead to product development. 

The research after all has to be translated into a viable 

product that a company can market for the industry. 

Work on the biological control of the sheep scab mite 

has been stopped, because it was shown to have no 

effect when it was used on sheep. Although in the 

laboratory encouraging progress was made, when it 

was applied in the field, I am afraid the results were 

negative. Alternative treatments to sheep scab are available 

but are not effective against the same range of external 

parasites as OP sheep dips. That is why we continue 

with that position. 

I want to assure the House—I have inadequate time 

to respond to a debate of such significance and such 

importance and I value very much this opportunity of 

responding—that the reason why my noble Lord, Lord 

Rooker, with all his persistence, was not able to come 

up with a straightforward answer in a short period of 

time, after all his work with the department, is because 

we are genuinely facing some very difficult issues 

which relate to essential research. I know the noble 

Lord, Lord Greaves, tried to suborn me by introducing 

research and lobbying from Saddleworth Moor, because 

he knew that I would be instinctively responsive to 

that, because of its closeness to Oldham. I do have to 

say to him that the basis of the Government’s position 

is bound to be scientific research and advance. I want 

to give this hope and expectation to the House that 

this committee will be meeting in the not too distant 

future, with additional research to hand, some of 

which may be extremely significant in terms of producing 

solutions to these problems, which we all recognise are 

very acute and very important to the people for whom 

we have responsibility. 

8.26 pm 

Sitting suspended. 

8.30 pm 


Report (2nd Day) (Continued) 

Amendment 81 

Moved by Lord Henley 


“Absent voting: personal identifiers verification in England 

and Wales 

(1) The Representation of the People (England and Wales) 

(Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2006 (S.I. 2006/2910) are amended 

as follows. 

(2) In regulation 37 (amendment of regulation 84) leave out 

“not less than 20%” and insert “not less than 100%”.” 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall also speak to 

Amendment 82. We put forward similar amendments 

in Committee, as a way of probing; it will only be a 

further bit of probing this evening. As I am sure the 

Minister will remember, the amendments are designed 

to make sure that all postal votes are checked. Given 

the amount of fraud in the system, it seems only 

sensible that that should happen wherever possible. 

When I moved the similar amendment in Grand 

Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said in response: 

“We agree in principle that all postal votes should be checked, 

and will wish to require 100 per cent to be checked when it is 

practicable to do so. A key factor in determining when it will be 

appropriate to move to 100 per cent checking is when there is 

deemed to be sufficient capacity within postal voting software 

systems to support 100 per cent checking”.—[Official Report, 

13/5/09; col. GC 435.] 

He went on to talk about the then forthcoming elections 

for the European Parliament on 4 June. As his noble 

friend Lord Campbell-Savours mentioned earlier, we 

have had the European elections between Committee 

and Report. Therefore, while I appreciate that on 

17 June it is relatively few days since those elections, it 

might be useful if the Minister were able to say a little 

about what the Government learnt from them. I do 

not mean from a political point of view, as I imagine 

that they have been feeling fairly sore about them ever 

since, with a mere 15 per cent of the vote. That is the 

lowest percentage of the vote that the Labour Party 

has had in modern history, if we take modern history 

back to 1919; I see my noble friend Lord Bates nodding. 

Even in those couple of weeks, the Government 

might have learnt something about the need for checking, 

so I wonder whether the Minister can say what level of 

checking there was in the different regions. He said 

that we required at least 20 per cent at the moment; I 

imagine therefore that 20 per cent were checked, and I 

look forward to confirmation of that. Can he say


whether, in any of those areas, any of the returning 

officers felt it necessary to go beyond that 20 per cent 

because they began to think that there might be some 

fraud? That should be known at this relatively early 

stage. The same would be true of the local elections, 

which took place on the same day but were counted a 

couple of days earlier. Postal voting fraud seems more 

likely to happen in local elections; obviously, a smaller 

number of votes can make a big difference. In European 

elections it would be quite difficult, particularly with 

the d’Hondt system of counting the votes, for it to 

make much of a difference in the long run. 

As I understand it, county council votes would have 

been counted on a ward-by-ward basis, which might 

have indicated to individual returning officers that it 

might have been better to have checked more than 

20 per cent in certain wards. I think that the European 

votes were counted on a local government basis—roughly 

in constituencies, sometimes a bit bigger, sometimes a 

bit smaller. Again, I would be interested to know 

whether there were any areas where the returning 

officers felt it necessary to make such checks. 

I hope that that is sufficient and that the Minister 

can give us some idea of what happened, and whether 

that indicates that there is a need to pursue these 

amendments at a later stage. I beg to move. 


of Justice (Lord Bach): My Lords, the introduction of 

personal identifiers for postal voters under the Electoral 

Administration Act 2006 has been a key measure in 

strengthening the integrity of postal voting. Under 

amendments made to the Representation of the People 

(England and Wales) Regulations 2001 following the 

introduction of the 2006 Act, we specified that at 

elections returning officers were required to check at 

least 20 per cent of returned postal votes. That is the 

minimum requirement, but they have a discretion to 

check 100 per cent if they wish to do so. If the 

returning officer considers that there is a real risk of 

fraud, he may specify from the outset that all postal 

voting statements will be checked. The current statutory 

provisions also provide the returning officer with the 

flexibility to begin with 20 per cent checking but to 

increase that level at later postal vote-opening sessions 

if any evidence of fraud emerges. 

I repeat what I said in Grand Committee: we agree 

in principle with the desire for 100 per cent of postal 

votes to be checked and we will make that a statutory 

requirement once it is safe and appropriate to do so. 

The regulations for the recent European parliamentary 

elections followed the provisions for parliamentary 

and local elections, and therefore required that at least 

20 per cent of returned postal votes were checked. 

However, at the request of the regional returning 

officers, we made funding available to local returning 

officers to cover the costs for administrators in checking 

all returned postal votes. 

While we have been supportive of the 100 per cent 

checking of all returned postal votes, we continue to 

believe that it would be premature to mandate 100 per 

cent checking in law at this stage given, as I said in 

Grand Committee, that we cannot be certain that the 

necessary software systems are in place to deliver 

100 per cent checking across all regions in Great Britain. 

In order to establish when it will be appropriate to 

move to mandatory checking of postal votes, it is 

imperative that we work with the Electoral Commission, 

electoral administrators and software suppliers to carefully 

review how the 100 per cent checking of postal votes 

worked in practice at the European parliamentary 

elections. For that reason, we do not consider it appropriate 

today to accept the amendment. It is possible to make 

the change to mandatory 100 per cent checking of 

postal votes through amendments to the existing 

secondary legislation. I want to reassure the noble 

Lord and other noble Lords that there will be no need 

to rely on there being a suitable Bill before Parliament 

for this change to be made. I hope that on that basis 

the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful that the 

noble Lord has confirmed that this matter can be dealt 

with by secondary legislation in due course, when the 

appropriate software systems are in place. However, he 

did not deal with my principal question, which was 

whether the Government have learnt any lessons, other 

than the obvious political lessons, from those elections. 

Were there any areas where a returning officer at a 

local or a wider level felt it necessary to make a 100 per 

cent check? The noble Lord must know the answer, 

because it obviously happened either on 5 June, when 

the local election votes were counted, or on Sunday 

7 June, when the national votes were counted. The 

noble Lord’s colleague has returned with some advice; 

perhaps the Minister can intervene with an answer. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, I shall respond quickly. The 

elections happened only a few days ago and we await 

the Electoral Commission’s report on how the system 

worked for the European elections. The noble Lord 

must give us a little longer to come up with the 

answers. The votes were counted on the Sunday night; 

I remember it well. That was 10 days ago, which is not 

very long in the Electoral Commission’s life. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I appreciate that it is 

possibly too early. I, too, remember watching the 

results on Sunday night; the noble Lord will probably 

remember them for longer than I will. For the moment, 

I must accept what he has said and take that as an 

answer. I shall not come back to these amendments, 

but I certainly hope that the noble Lord will make sure 

that, when the Electoral Commission reports, he notifies 

me and other noble Lords who have taken an interest 

in this of its findings. I beg leave to withdraw the 

amendment. 



Amendment 83 

Moved by Lord Bates 


“Service Registration 

(1) Section 15 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 

(c. 2) (service declaration) is amended as follows. 

(2) Omit subsection (2)(a). 

(3) Omit subsections (9) to (12).”


Lord Bates: My Lords, the amendment stands in 

my name and that of my noble friend Lord Henley. It 

deals with service registration and would add a new 

clause to strengthen provision for members of the 

armed services to be on the electoral register. It might 

be helpful for the House and for Members who were 

not present when this matter was discussed in 

Grand Committee if I offered a few sentences of 

background before coming to the point that we are 

concerned about. 

Before 2001, service personnel were registered on 

the electoral register through the Ministry of Defence. 

This was changed to relieve the administrative burden 

on the Ministry of Defence and apply a greater focus 

to local authorities, which were then enabled to remove 

from the register those who were no longer resident. 

This period was marked by poor administration, but 

all service personnel were registered during that time. 

The 2001 changes resulted in a number of service 

personnel not being included in the electoral register 

and, given the rolling register’s four-week qualification 

period and a three-week election campaign, many 

service personnel were disfranchised in the 2005 general 

election. The number of service voters in Great Britain 

on 16 February 2001 was 175,475; the figure for 4 

December 2006 was 21,000—a reduction of 150,000. 

That is clearly a cause for concern, particularly given 

that our Armed Forces are involved in at least two 

military engagements. They are putting their lives at 

risk for this country and we certainly feel that they 

ought to have a say about the policy and the Government 

who are responsible for dispatching them into those 

engagements. 

Under the terms of the Representation of the People 

Act 2000, the time limit on the validity of the service 

declaration for service registration was changed by the 

Secretary of State from every year to every three years, 

designed to coincide with the three-year postings which 

have diminished currency in the current period. Service 

personnel—and their husbands, wives or civil partners— 

are currently able to register as an ordinary voter or a 

service voter. Those based overseas can also register as 

overseas voters. 

Service voters are registered at a fixed address in the 

United Kingdom, even if they move around. Therefore, 

if used for those who are moving more frequently, or 

for those who are likely to be deployed overseas frequently 

or at short notice, this has a significant impact. That is 

not to suggest that the Electoral Commission or, indeed, 

the Government have not been alert to the problems 

or not taken steps. The Electoral Commission launched 

an initiative last October specifically aimed at trying 

to get Armed Forces members to register. There was 

an attempt to have all 4,000 units hold an electoral 

registration day in November where attention would 

be drawn to the issue. 

8.45 pm 

I come to the principal evidence causing our concern. 

A survey carried out by Defence Analytical Services 

and Advice, published in July 2008, surveyed 8,719 

service personnel across the three services. It found 

that only 69 per cent of personnel were registered to 

vote. Only 62 per cent of Army respondents reported 

that they were registered. Some 84 per cent of officers 

were registers but only 66 per cent of the other ranks. 

Only 43 per cent of overseas personnel were registered 

to vote, and 31 per cent of personnel who were not 

registered to vote said that they did not receive an 

electoral registration form. Of the units, 70 per cent 

had still not held a service electoral registration day 

informing personnel about how to register to vote. 

That evidence, coupled with the massive fall-off in 

Armed Forces members registering to vote, was the 

cause of our concern. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will 

not mind giving way. We were very impressed by what 

he had to say about this in Grand Committee, and he 

is making the same points tonight. As he says, the 

Ministry of Defence is making real efforts to ensure 

that more service personnel are registered. I should 

point out that the figures, which have come down so 

much, do not take account of the number of people in 

the services who have put their own names on the 

register at their home addresses, as they are entitled to 

do. The noble Lord is right to say that there has been a 

decline, but not by that amount. 

I will listen very carefully to what the noble Lord 

said both last time and tonight. He knows that the 

existing regime allows the period to be varied by up to 

five years by order, instead of the three years at which 

it stands at the moment. In respect of members of the 

Armed Forces and their spouses or civil partners, if 

the view is reached on consideration of the evidence 

that a longer or shorter period would be beneficial, we 

think that it would be important to retain that flexibility. 

We think that to allow it for ever, as the amendment 

provides, would automatically make the register inaccurate. 

Therefore, in response to his comments and his concerns 

about lower registration rates, we intend to extend the 

service declaration period from three years to five 

years. An increase to five years offers the additional 

benefit of being the same period as the one in which 

postal voters must provide new identifiers. Indeed, the 

service voters’registration form, as issued by the Electoral 

Commission, includes a postal vote application. 

I am sorry to interrupt him. I do so in order to tell 

him that we are prepared to make that concession 

because of his advocacy this evening. I hope that may 

assist him in continuing with his arguments. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, I am happy to take such 

interventions at any time. It is a very welcome intervention 

and I thank the Minister. He is always extremely 

courteous and thoughtful and he pays attention to the 

debates. It is very encouraging that he is making that 

proposal. 

The proposal to have no time limit is essentially an 

attempt to return to the state that existed before 2001. 

I recognise that changes have come into place and I 

recognise the importance of having an up-to-date and 

accurate electoral register. The Minister’s offer of an 

increase from three years to five will therefore be 

widely welcomed not only by service personnel but by 

their families. It is one way of ensuring that their 

voices are heard in future elections. I am very grateful 

for that reassurance.


Perhaps I may push my luck just a fraction further 

by mentioning that 70 per cent of units have still not 

held a service electoral registration day informing 

personnel how to register to vote. I am sure that service 

personnel will appreciate that they have to go through 

this exercise only once every five years as a result of 

the Minister’s welcome concession. However, perhaps 

I may press him a little further and ask whether he can 

encourage his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence to 

make representations—indeed, it would seem appropriate 

for the Ministry of Defence to issue an order—regarding 

an electoral registration day so that people know 

about the changes that have been made and know also 

that their engagement in the democratic process is of 

the highest concern to Members on all sides of this 

House. I am happy to give way at this point or, if other 

people want to contribute to the debate, perhaps I 

should sit down and allow that to happen. 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, the Minister will recall that 

in Grand Committee we, too, were concerned about 

this issue, and we very much welcome the concession 

that he has made this evening. I cannot remember 

whether it was him or his colleague but in Grand 

Committee the Minister who spoke was pretty adamant 

that he wanted to stick with the three-year period. 

Therefore, I am glad that on this issue at least the 

opposition parties seem to have moved the Minister a 

little. 

I want to make a couple of additional points. First, 

I understand that since 2005, which is after all four 

years ago, the Electoral Commission has been working 

with the Ministry of Defence on this issue because it, 

too, has been very concerned about the under-registration 

of members of the Armed Forces. Can the Minister 

say how that initiative is progressing, and can he give 

us an undertaking that, if further recommendations 

come forward as a result of that exercise, there will be 

a method by which he can, if necessary, move further 

without the need for legislation? 

Secondly, if the discrepancy is anything like the one 

to which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, referred, then is 

the Minister serious? After all, in recent years we have 

been asking young men and women to fight on behalf 

of the nation in the most appallingly difficult 

circumstances. Following deployment, the very least 

that they should expect is every possible assistance to 

enable them to use their civic right to vote. I cannot 

think of any situation more frustrating than for a 

young service man or woman coming back from Iraq 

or Afghanistan not being able to vote on the big issues 

affecting the nation today. I am sure that the Minister 

accepts and supports that view. Therefore, if the Electoral 

Commission and the MoD feel that further improvements 

can be made, I hope that there will be ways in which 

that can be achieved outwith this legislation. 

Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, I am obviously 

very interested in this subject. I should like to be quite 

clear that it is the responsibility of the Ministry of 

Defence to bring to the attention of all service personnel 

the current situation, whatever it may be, in relation to 

voting. At the moment, it seems that one talks about 

the Ministry of Defence doing this or that, but I 

should like it to be clearly laid out that it is an MoD 

responsibility. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble 

Lords. I should have praised, or at least mentioned, 

the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and his colleagues, who 

also pushed for a change in our line on this. We were 

always persuaded that there was a problem, even 

though the numbers have gone up recently, and we 

always knew that more had to be done. However, as I 

said, their joint advocacy moved us to believe that we 

could alter the rules by statutory instrument as soon 

as practicable in order to change the time limit from 

three to five years. 

As I understand it, getting members of the Armed 

Forces on to the register is a joint obligation on the 

Ministry of Defence and my department, the Ministry 

of Justice, which has responsibility for elections in 

general terms. That is the answer to the noble and 

gallant Lord. 

The question of the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, links 

with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Bates, 

asking what more we can do. On the information 

gained from the survey last year, we have redoubled 

efforts through the annual information campaign to 

encourage members of the Armed Forces and their 

families to register to vote and to update their registration 

details when they move. The campaign will continue 

to highlight the options for service personnel and their 

families to register as an ordinary elector or as a 

service voter; a choice that they can exercise depending 

on their circumstance. 

Officials at my department will support that work 

and place particular focus on establishing how the 

MoD’s joint personnel administration system can help 

to promote service registration. As noble Lords will be 

aware, the Electoral Administration Act 2006 placed a 

duty on the MoD to maintain a record of a service 

person’s electoral registration record on a voluntary 

basis. The use of the system is still in its infancy, but 

responses from service personnel themselves in the 

2008 survey suggest that they could be better employed 

to aid registration. It is clear that more work needs to 

be done to identify new ways of encouraging service 

personnel to register. My officials will meet with MoD 

officials to discuss the matters in more detail, and I am 

happy to write to noble Lords on the outcome of that 

meeting so that they will be kept informed about how 

progress is continuing. I hope that in the light of the 

offer that I have made to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, 

he will consider withdrawing his amendment. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s 

comments, as I am for the intervention of the noble 

Lord, Lord Tyler, in these matters, and the intervention 

of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, 

who sought clarification of exactly where responsibility 

resides. The Minister’s response was clearly that 

responsibility is shared between the Ministry of Justice 

and the Ministry of Defence, in which case responsibility 

clearly needs to lead to action. It is not acceptable that 

there is such a large fall-off involved. More needs to 

happen to realise the aspiration put forward by the 

Electoral Commission about electoral registration 

awareness days. 

There is a special electoral registration form for 

armed services personnel which is readily available on 

the internet. However, there is no substitute for having


those in hard-copy form. When armed services personnel 

are deployed overseas, that should be part of the 

checks made under the standard operating procedures. 

That would seem a sensible way forward. The Minister 

has undertaken to make representations to the Ministry 

of Defence. We are encouraged by that and I am 

grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. 

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 

Lord Greaves moved Amendment No. 84: 


“Rejected postal votes 

(1) Schedule 1 to the 1983 Act (parliamentary elections rules) 

is amended as follows. 

(2) After rule 31A (return of postal ballot papers) there is 

inserted— 

“Postal ballot papers not counted 

(1) Where a postal vote has been returned but not counted 

because the personal identifiers— 

(a) are absent, 

(b) are incomplete, or 

(c) do not match the personal identifiers provided with the 

application for a postal vote, 

the returning officer must record this information on a separate 

list (the list of postal votes returned but not counted) in addition 

to making the entry on the marked list. 

(2) The list of postal votes returned but not counted is a 

relevant election document for the purposes of section 42 of the 

Electoral Administration Act 2006. 

(3) The returning officer shall write to each elector whose 

returned postal vote has not been counted for a reason listed in 

paragraph (1) to inform them of the circumstances in which their 

vote has not been counted.”.” 

The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I am going to 

refer to some of the local information on Pendle about 

which the noble Lord, Lord Bates, was asking, I 

should declare an interest in that I was the Liberal 

Democrat agent for most of the county council candidates 

in the recent elections and attended counts on both 

Friday morning and Sunday evening. The matter raised 

by the amendment was one I referred to briefly in 

Committee on a different amendment, but I have now 

brought it back following the experience in the recent 

elections as there is a serious problem that needs to be 

tackled. I am moving the amendment in the hope that 

it is helpful. 

The amendment requires the returning officer to do 

two things. First, the returning officer must keep a 

separate list of those postal votes that have been 

returned, or where envelopes have been returned but 

where the votes have not been counted owing to a 

failure of the personal identifier system. In other 

words, the personal identifiers are absent, incomplete, 

or do not match the information that the council holds 

on file as a result of the application for a postal vote. I 

should say that I am particularly grateful to Gillian 

Hartley, who is the Pendle Council elections officer, 

for helping me to understand how the system works 

and what happens, and for providing me with the 

information that I shall offer a little later. 

Secondly, the amendment requires the returning 

officer to write individually to each of the electors 

whose votes have not been counted because of a 

mismatch in or absence of the personal identifiers. At 

the moment, that does not happen. At the moment, 

two lists are produced after the election, which are 

available to candidates and political parties under the 

approved conditions. 

The first is the marked register, which shows the 

people who have turned up at polling stations and 

been given a ballot paper—and, presumably voted. 

The second is the postal voters list, which provides a 

list of those postal votes which have been returned at 

that election. The postal voters list includes all the 

envelopes that have been returned, because the list is 

compiled from information on the envelopes before 

they are opened and before the votes are opened, so it 

includes those which are not subsequently counted. 

The provision of that list, which did not happen before 

the passing of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, 

was partly a result of discussion that took place in 

your Lordships’ House on previous legislation, when 

it became clear that that list was required. Before then, 

the only list required was of the postal votes issued, 

not those returned. 

The current system is that if you send a postal vote 

back, the envelope is returned, received and opened. 

Inside that envelope, there should be a smaller envelope, 

sealed up, that includes the ballot paper and the piece 

of paper that contains the personal identifier. When 

those personal identifiers are checked—I have to say 

that Pendle, like most of the councils in the north-west, 

did a 100 per cent check of postal votes and the 

returning officer decided to do it last year in view of 

the controversy over previous postal votes in Pendle—the 

sheet of personal identifiers comes in, it is fed into the 

machine that checks them and that computer-type 

machine checks whether the information about date of 

birth and signature match the information that the 

council holds on its records. If the machine thinks that 

they match, it goes through. If the machine thinks that 

they do not match, or it is not sure, it is spewed out 

and on the screen, on the monitor, is displayed the 

information that the council holds on its records. That 

is then compared visually and manually by counting 

staff with the paper that has come in, and they decide 

whether, yes, they match sufficiently or no, they do 

not. That is how it actually works. 

We discussed this in Grand Committee, I brought 

evidence from two county councils by-elections this 

spring in Nelson, which is part of Pendle, in one of 

which the number of rejected votes, because of a 

mismatch or absence of identifiers, was more than 

5 per cent of the total, and in the other, which was a 

substantially Asian ward, more than 10 per cent. This 

year, in the six county divisions within Pendle, which 

make up Pendle and the area that counted for the 

European elections, 485 returned envelopes were 

rejected—in other words, the ballot paper was not 

looked at and not counted—for failure to provide a 

matching identifier. In some cases, the identifiers were 

absent; in some cases, only one of them was there; in 

most cases, they did not match. This was approximately 

4.5 per cent of the total, on a return of postal votes of 

about 70 per cent. 

In the most Asian division—I do not have the exact 

figure, but I think the Asian electorate is about 45 per 

cent of the total—the return of postal votes was 

81.7 per cent, and 11.6 per cent of the envelopes


returned were rejected. So across the area, about one 

in 20 was rejected, and in this particular division, it 

was more than one in 10. 

I am interested in the Electoral Commission’s comment 

on this amendment, and I will read it: 

“The Commission has since July 2007 recommended that the 

Government should enable Returning Officers and Electoral 

Registration Officers to access and use data that identifies electors 

whose postal votes were rejected due to a mismatch of identifiers. 

This information should be used by the Electoral Registration 

Officer to write to all electors whose postal votes were rejected 

due to a mismatch of identifiers, inviting them to provide fresh 

identifiers. The Returning Officer should also write to any elector 

where they believe that their postal ballot was used in error by 

someone other than the elector, advising of the correct process 

and the possible penalties for malpractice”. 

Whether these figures show that people are simply 

making a mess of the system, or whether they show 

that, in some cases at least, there are attempts at 

voting fraud which have not succeeded because the 

postal vote identifier system is working, there is a 

problem. If one in 20 or one in 10, or something of 

that order—450 votes across the borough—are being 

sent in by people expecting them to be counted, and 

they are not being counted because the personal identifiers 

are absent or not matching, there is something wrong. 

It seems to me that this is information to which 

candidates and political parties should have access 

after the election, because it is fairly obvious that, in 

some cases, there may be prima facie evidence of 

fraud. One of the reasons why candidates and political 

parties are allowed access to the marked register and 

the list of postal votes returned is precisely so that they 

can be investigated, and if people want to challenge an 

election or ask the police or the returning officer to get 

involved, they can do so. This seems to be a piece of 

information that also ought to be available, but at the 

very least, the electors concerned should be written to, 

because otherwise there may well be a lot of people 

who are sending back their votes in good faith, who 

are making the same mistake time after time. It may be 

that they have two signatures, and they are just using 

the wrong one—they are using their personal signature 

and not their cheque-book signature or whichever way 

around it is—and votes are being lost. There is, therefore, 

a problem here arising from the system of personal 

identifiers that was very properly introduced in order 

to make postal voting a bit more secure. There is a 

problem and it needs to be addressed. 

My final point is that I am told by Mrs. Hartley 

that the information on the proportions and numbers 

of these votes which have been rejected for these 

reasons are part of the information that is being sent 

off, she says, to Plymouth. I assume it is the elections 

centre at the University of Plymouth that is collecting 

information, as she says, on behalf of the Government. 

So there ought to be a lot of this information gathered 

in fairly soon from around the country. It is a serious 

problem and one that needs to be addressed. This 

amendment is an attempt to do that. I beg to move. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I shall comment briefly on 

the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord 

Greaves. We obviously have some sympathy with the 

amendment in that it is designed to help deal with 

postal voting fraud, which I stress was an important 

issue in an earlier amendment. We have just three 

caveats that I shall point out before the Minister 

responds. 

First, I worry that the amendment could place an 

excessive burden on the returning officer, and I am 

interested to know whether the noble Lord has carried 

out any assessment of the resource implications of the 

returning officer writing what might be a rather large 

number of letters, particularly in an area such as 

Pendle in which, as the noble Lord told us, some 

400 or 500 postal votes were held not to be valid. 

Secondly, if the returning officer had to write to 

each elector setting out why their vote has not been 

counted, as set out in proposed new sub-paragraph (3) 

in proposed new subsection (2) in the amendment, and 

if there was the possibility of a criminal prosecution 

of this matter later, I worry that anything that the 

returning officer might say might prejudice the chances 

of a fair trial. I would need legal advice as to whether 

that is the case, but no doubt the Minister will respond 

to that point in due course. 

My third point relates to privacy. Proposed new 

sub-paragraph (2) in proposed new subsection (2) in 

the amendment tells us that, 

“The list of postal votes returned but not counted”, 

would be kept and would count as “a relevant election 

document”. As a relevant election document under 

Section 42 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006, 

it would be available for inspection by the public. The 

noble Lord set out his reasons for that, but presumably— 

again, I welcome comments on this—it could have a 

detrimental impact on privacy of the ballot. People 

should not be able to see a list of those who have spoilt 

their ballot paper, intentionally or otherwise, so there 

are dangers in going down this route. Although I have 

expressed a degree of sympathy for the noble Lord’s 

amendment, I think that there are one or two problems 

with it. 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, the amendment would 

require a returning officer to keep information on 

postal votes that have been rejected because the postal-vote 

identifiers have not been completed, are incomplete, 

or do not match the records held on the postal-vote 

application form. The second part of the amendment 

would require a returning officer to write to all electors 

whose postal vote was rejected notifying them of the 

circumstances in which it was rejected. 

I think Members on all sides of the House are 

concerned to secure every possible improvement 

that we can to the postal voting system, and the 

amendment clearly has very good intentions, seeking 

as it does to ensure that votes cast may be counted and 

that the integrity of the system is strengthened. These 

are aims that the Government of course support, but 

while we may agree on the general intention, I have 

some concern about the policy prescription set out by 

the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I am not convinced that 

compelling a returning officer to write to all electors 

who have had their postal vote ballot rejected due to a 

mismatch of identifiers is the correct course of action. 

In some cases, this may well have the effect simply of 

alerting would-be fraudsters to the failure of their 

attempt.


My inclination would be to grant the returning 

officer discretion so that, when there has clearly been a 

simple error such as entering the wrong date on the 

postal vote application or statement, the returning 

officer might write; but where the returning officer 

suspects fraud, he or she might consider that notifying 

the police to investigate is the correct course of action. 

This judgment should be made in conjunction with 

administrators and the Association of Chief Police 

Officers, rather than leaping to a decision that may 

hinder rather than help attempts to tackle fraud. At 

this late stage in the passage of the Bill, I do not 

consider there to be the time available for us to work 

through the issues so that we can be confident about 

making a change of this nature. 

9.15 pm 

Another matter for further consideration is the 

question of those electors who do not respond to the 

letter issued by the returning officer. It may well be 

desirable for additional follow-up action to take place 

in this instance in order that the ERO might establish 

beyond doubt the identity of the individuals residing 

at that address with a view to ensuring the 

comprehensiveness and accuracy of the electoral register. 

However, this is properly a role for the electoral registration 

officer. Clarifying the powers for returning officers 

and electoral registration officers to share data for 

these purposes is another area which would need 

careful consideration. Rightly, there are clear provisions 

in law concerned with the safe disposal and secrecy of 

election documents. It would be all too easy to implement 

a change in the legislation which sought to provide 

access to election records for one purpose, but which 

inadvertently compromised the safety and secrecy of 

the information that those records contained. 

On the provisions for dealing with election documents, 

I should also make it clear that the amendment put 

forward by the noble Lord is defective. It provides that 

the proposed list should be regarded as a relevant 

election document for the purpose of Section 42 of 

the Electoral Administration Act 2006. However, this 

section provides for access to election documents in 

relation to elections other than parliamentary elections. 

Corresponding provision in respect of parliamentary 

elections is made in rules 55 to 57 of the parliamentary 

elections rules. 

I am sorry that I cannot give the noble Lord, Lord 

Henley, any answers, but his questions make the point 

that the Government would make. It is not 

straightforward. We would need to understand the 

size of the burden, the implications for a successful 

criminal prosecution and the implications for the whole 

area of privacy. 

To summarise, we agree that there is merit in the 

intention behind the noble Lord’s amendment, but we 

are concerned that the right measures are put in place 

and we would wish to consult more widely before 

bringing forward proposals. I note from its briefing 

that the Electoral Commission supports the intention 

of the noble Lord. However, I understand that it 

shares our concerns about moving to legislation without 

due consideration of the issues at hand. The Government 

will therefore undertake to consider this issue with the 

commission, ACPO and other appropriate stakeholders 

with a view to legislating in the next electoral Bill. On 

this basis, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his 

amendment. 

Lord Greaves: My Lords, I am very grateful for that 

reply. I agree with a great deal of what the Minister 

has said, particularly about the potential tension between, 

on the one hand, when a returning officer or an 

electoral registration officer writes to people to say, 

“Sorry you have made a mistake. You ought to know 

this because you are losing your vote”—accidentally, 

presumably—and, on other hand, when they think 

that it might be evidence of fraud. I thought about 

that issue before writing this amendment, but I came 

to the view that it would be best to put down a simple 

amendment in order to raise the issue and in the hope 

of getting the response that the Minister has given. I 

am very grateful for that and for his promise. I was 

getting quite excited until he used the word “stakeholder”, 

then I lost interest. 

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, I do not 

think that there will be a huge administrative burden. 

There will be a little extra administrative burden because 

when someone applies for a postal vote—at general 

elections a lot come in at the last minute—the returning 

officers write to people to check that they want it and 

that it is okay. Election offices are full of computers 

which are for ever churning out letters and envelopes. 

They do that all the time—perhaps they do it too 

much. Nevertheless, it is not a huge question. On the 

privacy and secrecy of documents, it is important that 

lists of everyone who has voted and everyone who has 

returned a postal vote envelope are produced, just like 

those that are produced at the moment. 

The noble Lord referred to spoiled ballots. We are 

not talking about spoiled ballot papers, but those that 

have not even been looked at. I agree that a spoiled 

ballot paper should never be divulged because that is 

the way someone has voted, but here we are talking 

about ballot papers that have not been looked at or 

counted, so no one knows if they have been spoiled 

because they are still in their envelopes, having never 

been opened. 

The Government said that they would work through 

these issues. Instead of waiting for the next election 

before introducing legislation, I wonder whether it 

might be possible to deal with this through secondary 

legislation by introducing statutory instruments to 

amend the election rules. I would ask the Government 

to look at that once they have carried out the consultation. 

However, I am very encouraged by what the Government 

have said and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. 


Amendment 84A 

Moved by Lord Pearson of Rannoch 

84A: After Clause 24, insert the following new Clause— 

“Ballot papers 

(1) Except in the case of postal votes, ballot papers must be 

given to voters unfolded. 

(2) The Commission shall monitor, and take such steps as they 

consider appropriate to securing, compliance with subsection (1). 

(3) Within three months of an election, the Commission shall 

publish a report pursuant to subsection (2).


(4) If the Commission consider that failure to comply with 

subsection (1) may have affected the result of an election, it shall 

advise the Secretary of State on the validity of the election result 

and make public its advice.” 

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, as I mentioned 

at col. 893 during our last proceedings, this amendment 

is inspired by the very unsatisfactory events of 4 June 

during voting for the European Parliament. The name 

of my party, UKIP, which came last alphabetically on 

ballot papers, was folded over at the back of a large 

number of them. The result was that many hundreds 

of voters blocked our call centre saying that they 

could not find UKIP on the ballot paper and either 

asking what to do or telling us that they had voted for 

another party. I appreciate that a number of noble 

Lords may feel that this could not have happened to a 

nicer party, but it is worth recording that Mr Nick 

Griffin of the BNP won his seat from us in the 

north-west by only 1,300 votes. 

The problem appears to have been at its worst in the 

south-east, where I understand that we may have been 

denied another seat. It is certainly true that we received 

a great many complaints from voters in East Sussex, 

especially Bexhill; from West Sussex, especially around 

Worthing; from Hampshire, especially in Farnborough; 

and from Surrey, Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire, 

especially in Aylesbury. Such inquiries as we have been 

able to make indicate two main causes: machine folding, 

perhaps before the ink was dry, by printers supplying 

local returning officers, and the manual folding of 

ballot papers by polling clerks. This latter practice is 

encouraged by the Electoral Commission in its guide 

to polling station staff. Machine folding by printers 

appears to have been a major problem in Yorkshire, 

while manually folded papers caused serious problems 

in the eastern region and the West Midlands. 

Following a complaint from our party leader, Mr Nigel 

Farage, the commission did issue guidance on 4 June 

that all ballot papers should be handed out unfolded, 

but this followed only very late in the day, sometimes 

as late as 9 pm, and does not appear to have been 

generally followed at all in the north-west. As things 

stand at the moment, the onus appears to be on UKIP 

to discover exactly what happened and where, and if it 

can muster sufficient evidence, to mount a petition to 

the commission for a re-run. This is a prohibitively 

expensive task and one, I submit, that should not fall 

to the affected party but to the commission. I would 

have hoped that, at the very least, the commission 

would find out how many ballot papers with UKIP 

over the back were machine folded and where they 

were distributed, and how many were folded at polling 

stations. I would have thought that the commission 

should also employ a good independent psephologist, 

if it does not have one in-house, and publish an 

objective report drawing on all these inputs. If anything 

like this happens in the future, surely the commission 

should sort it out, not the damaged party. I look 

forward to the Minister’s view on these questions. 

I also wonder whether the commission should be 

empowered to oversee and direct regional and local 

returning officers on the printing, distribution and 

handling of ballot papers, especially when the list of 

candidates is as long as it was in many areas on 4 June. 

I understand that the commission does not think that 

this amendment is necessary, so may I assume that it 

will be doing all the things I have suggested above 

under the present Act? If not, how will we get redress? 

What happens next? I look forward to the Minister’s 

reply and I beg to move. 

Lord Bates: My Lords, I shall comment briefly on 

the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, 

and, in doing so, I recognise that it is of the utmost 

importance that people get the opportunity to vote for 

the party they wish to vote for. 

One of the consequences of the ever expanding list 

of parties seeking election under our proportional 

representation system for European elections is that 

the ballot paper is ever lengthening. An interesting 

point has been raised as to whether someone needs to 

think—forgive the pun—outside the box on this and 

consider whether the shape of the current ballot paper 

is the right one. The noble Lord’s amendment, which I 

assume is a probing amendment, might not be able 

to answer the point. If a burden is placed on people to 

ensure that papers are not folded, it might lead to 

disputes in polling stations. If a paper were folded 

there could be a discussion about whether it was done 

by one of the polling clerks or by the elector. I can 

foresee many such disputes. 

The noble Lord raises a valid point. If he cannot 

find satisfaction on this issue, he might consider changing 

his party’s name so that it appears further up the 

ballot paper. However, I do not wish to be guilty of 

giving too much assistance to him. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, the amendment seeks to 

ensure that all ballot papers are handed out in polling 

stations with the paper flat in order to prevent the 

problem of folded papers potentially hiding the names 

of candidates from the sight of electors. The amendment 

would require the Electoral Commission to monitor 

whether that was done and to report on it, and to 

assess any adverse impacts if and when it was not 

done. 

Clarity for the elector and a level playing field for 

the parties are of course important factors, and I fully 

understand why the noble Lord has brought forward 

his amendment. It cannot be right that the nature of 

the production of a ballot paper, or any other element 

of the administration of an election, should adversely 

impact on how electors vote or on the results for a 

party or candidate. In this instance, I understand that 

the production of the ballot papers with machine folds 

had caused the bottoms of the papers in some areas of 

two regions—Yorkshire and the Humber and the South- 

East—to be bent upwards. It is reported to have 

potentially obscured the names of one or a number of 

candidates so that they were not apparent to electors 

as they marked their votes. There are, however, large 

versions of the ballot paper posted up in all polling 

stations to assist voters in making their choice. 

As I understand it from officials, action was taken 

to address the issue on 4 June, once the concerns of 

the noble Lord and his party were raised in the morning. 

Indeed, I had the pleasure of speaking to the noble 

Lord that morning in the environs of this Chamber. 

This included the local returning officers in relevant 

areas being asked to ensure that ballot papers were


handed out flat, and then a subsequent notice to that 

effect was sent out from the Electoral Commission to 

all returning officers in the UK. 

The ballot papers for the elections were very long 

due to a significant number of candidates standing. 

For ease of transport and handling, I am told, they 

were folded to fit into cardboard boxes. That in itself 

is not a problem; rather, as the Government understand 

it, it is the position and nature of the folds that may 

have caused an issue in this instance. In fact, the 

Electoral Commission’s guidance, as contained in the 

handbook that it produces for polling station staff, 

actively suggests that the practice of folding the completed 

ballot paper before it is put in the ballot box in the 

polling station is maintained to ensure the secrecy of 

the vote. So perhaps we should pause before moving to 

legislate in the manner proposed by the noble Lord. 

However, I suspect that this is a probing amendment 

and, if I may, I will treat it as such. I am therefore not 

going to criticise its wording because that would just 

be to waste time. 

9.30 pm 

Notwithstanding what I have said, the Electoral 

Commission has a statutory duty under Section 5 of 

the PPER Act to prepare and publish a report on the 

administration of the European parliamentary elections. 

I understand that the commission has already undertaken 

to report on this issue in detail. It is right that we await 

the outcome of that report and consider the most 

appropriate way forward in the light of evidence. 

Pending receipt of that report and consideration of its 

conclusions, however, we think that the issue is best 

addressed for the moment by identifying best practice 

and issuing clear revised guidance on the production, 

supply and handling of ballot papers. I understand 

that the commission’s thinking is along these lines. 

The noble Lord raises an important issue. We are 

grateful to him, and we will respond accordingly as a 

Government once the full facts of the case are available. 

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I am grateful 

to noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the 

Minister. Of course there is nothing wrong with a 

folded ballot paper, provided that it does not cause the 

problems that were caused on 4 June. I accept that 

greater secrecy is achieved by folded ballot papers, and 

I am also aware that there were large versions of the 

ballot paper in the polling booths. That did not stop 

hundreds of people ringing in and saying that they did 

not understand how to vote for UKIP. It is true, as I 

think I mentioned in my remarks, that the Electoral 

Commission issued instructions, and I am most grateful 

to the Minister for his interest on the day in question. 

It is also true, though, that those instructions did not 

appear until very late in the day. I hope that before 

Third Reading I will be able to get a better idea of 

what the commission proposes to do in this case. In 

the mean time, though, I beg leave to withdraw the 

amendment. 

On a slightly separate subject, I am also extremely 

grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bates, for suggesting 

that I should rejoin his party. That, of course, depends 

on whether the Conservative Party joins me on another 

matter. 

Amendment 84A withdrawn. 

Amendment 85 


85: Before Clause 25, insert the following new Clause— 

“Establishment of corporation sole to be CORE keeper 

(1) Part 1 of the Electoral Administration Act 2006 (c. 22) 

(co-ordinated on-line record of electors) is amended as follows. 

(2) In section 1 (CORE schemes: establishment), in subsection (10), 

for “must be a public authority” there is substituted “must be— 

(a) a corporation sole established by an order under section 

3A, or 

(b) some other public authority”. 

(3) After section 3 there is inserted— 

“3A Establishment of corporation sole to be CORE keeper 

(1) The Secretary of State may by order establish a corporation 

sole (“the corporation”) with a view to its being designated by a 

CORE scheme as the CORE keeper. 

(2) The Secretary of State may also by order establish a panel 

(“the advisory panel”) to provide advice and support to the 

corporation. 

(3) An order under this section may make— 

(a) provision for and in connection with the appointment 

of— 

(i) the occupant of the corporation (“the officeholder”); 

(ii) directors of the corporation (including nonexecutive 

directors); 

(iii) one or more deputies to the office-holder; 

(iv) other officers or members of staff of the 

corporation; 

(v) members of the advisory panel. 

(b) provision about the terms and conditions of 

appointment of persons referred to in paragraph (a) 

(including provision about how and by whom those 

terms and conditions are to be determined and provision 

as to their approval); 

(c) provision about the payment to or in respect of persons 

referred to in paragraph (a)(i) to (iv) of remuneration, 

allowances, expenses, pensions, gratuities or compensation 

for loss of employment; 

(d) provision about the payment of allowances and expenses 

to members of the advisory panel; 

(e) provision about the acquisition and disposal by the 

corporation, and in particular the transfer to the corporation 

by the Secretary of State, of property, rights and liabilities; 

(f) provision about the transfer of staff to the corporation 

by the Secretary of State; 

(g) provision about the functions of the corporation and of 

the advisory panel, and about delegation of functions of 

the office-holder; 

(h) provision requiring the corporation to consult the 

advisory panel in relation to particular matters or in 

particular circumstances; 

(i) provision about accounts and reports, including— 

(i) provision requiring accounts and reports of the 

corporation to be laid before Parliament and 

published; 

(ii) provision about auditing of accounts; 

(j) provision about the name of the corporation and of the 

advisory panel; 

(k) incidental, supplementary, consequential or transitional 

provision.


(4) An order under this section may add such entries to— 

(a) the Table in paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Public 

Records Act 1958, 

(b) Schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967, 

(c) Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification 

Act 1975, or 

(d) Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Assembly 

Disqualification Act 1975, 

as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in 

consequence of the establishment of the corporation or 

the advisory panel. 

(5) The Secretary of State may make payments to the corporation 

of such amounts, at such times and on such conditions (if any) as 

the Secretary of State considers appropriate. 

(6) Neither the corporation nor any person referred to in 

subsection (3)(a)(i) to (iv) nor the advisory panel is to be regarded 

as a servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, 

immunity or privilege of the Crown.” 

(4) In section 6 (CORE schemes: procedure)— 

(a) in subsection (1), after “section 1” there is inserted “or 

3A”; 

(b) after subsection (5) there is inserted— 

“(6) An order under section 3A must not be made unless the 

Secretary of State first consults— 

(a) the Electoral Commission; 

(b) the Information Commissioner.”” 

Lord Tunnicliffe: My Lords, I am moving these 

amendments today as they are necessary to the successful 

implementation of the co-ordinated online record of 

electors, or CORE, scheme. The amendments are essential 

to ensure that there is authority to create a new 

non-departmental public body to fulfil the role of the 

CORE keeper. Until November 2008 it was intended 

that the Electoral Commission would fulfil this role, 

and the Electoral Administration Act 2006 makes 

provision for that. Following the recommendations 

from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, 

however, the commission is seeking to refocus its 

functions and concentrate on enhancing its regulatory 

role. The Government agree with the commission that 

this is the right thing to do. 

Furthermore, the Government have now brought 

forward our proposals for the introduction of a scheme 

of individual registration. It is quite likely that we will 

require a central point through which electors’ personal 

identifiers, such as national insurance numbers, may 

be validated with the relevant authority, and CORE 

may provide that service. Such a role does not currently 

fit with the Electoral Commission’s redefined regulatory 

role, but it is important that the public body taking on 

this role is demonstrably independent from government. 

In bringing these amendments forward, therefore, we 

will ensure that the CORE scheme can be delivered 

without delay, and that the necessary infrastructure 

can be developed to facilitate the introduction of 

individual registration. 

The new clause that is brought in by Amendment 85 

inserts new Section 3A into the 2006 Act to enable the 

Secretary of State, by order, to establish a new nondepartmental 

public body in the form of a corporation 

sole with a view to its being designated by a CORE 

scheme as the CORE keeper. 

This type of body is considered appropriate for 

three reasons. First, it would comprise a single officeholder, 

meaning that there is an identifiable decision-maker 

for accountability purposes. This is regarded as important 

because the CORE keeper’s functions under the 

2006 Act will include the receiving and processing of 

electoral registration information from EROs. Secondly, 

it would achieve the right balance between daily 

operational independence and accountability to 

Parliament via the Secretary of State, who would 

appoint the office-holder. Finally, a single identifiable 

decision-maker is similar in concept to an electoral 

registration officer, and is therefore a model that is 

established and well understood within the electoral 

administration field. 

Taking a power to create the corporation sole in 

secondary legislation is designed to provide an appropriate 

degree of flexibility so that the precise detail of the 

structure and operation of the body, and the timing of 

its creation, can be developed consistently with the 

CORE scheme order. The amendment provides for 

necessary matters of detail concerning the creation of 

the corporation sole to be addressed in the order, and 

makes provision for a number of matters that would 

be consequential on the establishment of the corporation 

sole. In particular, it amends Section 1(10) of the 

2006 Act expressly to provide that a person designated 

as the CORE keeper under the CORE scheme must be 

a corporation sole established under the new power, or 

some other public authority. This preserves the ability 

for another public authority to take on the role of 

CORE keeper if that is considered appropriate in the 

future. It also provides for an order establishing the 

new corporation sole to be subject to the affirmative 

resolution procedure and provides that, before the 

order can be made, the Electoral Commission and the 

Information Commissioner must be consulted. These 

requirements are designed to ensure that the order will 

be subject to a high degree of scrutiny. 

Moving on to the other amendments, Amendment 86 

is intended to provide additional protections around 

access to the electoral register from the CORE keeper. 

The effect of current provisions in the 2006 Act is that 

the regulations governing the supply of the electoral 

register by EROs will also apply to the CORE keeper, 

subject to any modifications that the Secretary of 

State considers appropriate. This means that bodies 

entitled to receive copies of the electoral registers and 

related information from EROs will be entitled to 

receive the same information from the CORE keeper, 

subject to the same restrictions on access and use. This 

does not expand the range of bodies with access to the 

registers, but the creation of the CORE scheme would 

enable the registers to be accessed from a single source 

on a national scale. In light of this, specific arrangements 

may be required where information is supplied by the 

CORE keeper to ensure that the provision of data is 

appropriate. Accordingly, Amendment 86 supplements 

the Secretary of State’s existing power to modify the 

application of the regulations by enabling additional 

or different conditions to be imposed on the supply of 

material by the CORE keeper. 

Amendment 87 relates to Section 3 of the Juries 

Act 1974, which currently requires EROs to supply 

copies of the register for the purpose of jury summoning. 

Once the CORE system is operational, it may be more 

efficient and convenient for the registers to be supplied 

on a national scale by the CORE keeper, rather than


by each individual ERO. Accordingly, this amendment 

takes a power to amend Section 3 of the Juries Act to 

provide for this, but it would not allow anyone who is 

not already entitled to access the register from EROs 

to do so from the CORE keeper. 

Finally, Amendment 88 extends the Secretary of 

State’s existing powers in relation to the CORE scheme 

order so that the order can authorise information 

sharing between the CORE keeper and the Electoral 

Commission. As I have already detailed, the original 

intention was for the Electoral Commission to be the 

CORE keeper. However, now that this is not to be the 

case, it is important that the CORE keeper is able to 

furnish the commission with information that is relevant 

to its functions. It is envisaged that the power may be 

exercised to enable the CORE keeper to provide the 

Electoral Commission with statistical reports, for example, 

regarding registration patterns or the number of 

notifications made by the CORE keeper to EROs 

about circumstances that may be indicative of absent 

voter fraud or other improprieties. The power may 

also be used to enable the CORE keeper to inform the 

commission where an ERO has failed to report back 

to the CORE keeper on steps taken to investigate 

potential instances of fraud or other improprieties, as 

may be required in the CORE scheme order. I beg 

to move. 


Clause 25 : CORE information and action to be taken 

by electoral registration officers 


Moved by Lord Bach 


“( ) At the end of subsection (3) there is inserted— 

“Modifications under this subsection may, in particular, 

provide for the supply of material by a CORE keeper to 

be subject to conditions or restrictions which do not 

apply in the case of an ERO (or which differ from those 

that apply in the case of an ERO).”” 


“( ) After subsection (4) there is inserted— 

“(4A) A CORE scheme may amend section 3 of the Juries 

Act 1974 (electoral register as basis of jury selection)— 

(a) so as to require a CORE keeper to supply a designated 

officer with any documents or information referred to in 

that section (as it had effect immediately before the 

establishment of the scheme), and to make provision as 

to when the CORE keeper is to do so; 

(b) so as to require an ERO to supply a designated officer 

with any such documents or information, but only when 

requested to do so by the officer. 

In this subsection “designated officer” means an officer 

designated by the Lord Chancellor.”” 


“( ) After that subsection there is inserted— 

“(11A) A CORE scheme may authorise the CORE keeper to 

supply information to the Electoral Commission.”” 


Clause 26 : Voluntary provision of identifying 

information 

Amendment 89 


89: Clause 26, page 27, line 20, leave out subsection (7) 

Lord Bach: My Lords, the Government have tabled a 

number of amendments to the individual registration 

clauses. Many of these, with the exception of Amendments 

90, 91, 92, 99, 100, 101, 114 and 117, are minor 

technical changes that tidy up the way that these 

clauses are intended to work and I do not propose to 

say anything about them. There are also a small number 

of more significant changes that I will describe shortly. 

I do not think that I need to go into detail at this hour 

about the importance of the shift to individual registration, 

which as a principle I know has the support of all the 

main parties in the House. It marks a significant point 

in the evolution of our electoral registration processes 

in Great Britain. 

I wish to mention briefly five changes. The first 

concerns Amendment 90, which amends Clause 27(2)(d) 

to broaden the purposes for which EROs can check 

information provided from the national insurance number 

(NINO) database during the voluntary phase of individual 

registration. The purpose of this amendment is to give 

EROs more flexibility in using data from the NINO 

database, while also ensuring that data are used only 

for appropriate purposes relating to checking a person’s 

entitlement to vote. 

Amendment 91 provides for the disclosure of 

information by the CORE keeper to a registration 

officer for the purposes of registration. Amendment 101 

introduces a requirement for registration officers to 

provide assistance to the Electoral Commission for 

the purpose of compiling their reports, and thus is 

very close to what the Official Opposition are looking 

for in their Amendment 96. In practice this is likely to 

cover the provision of information that the commission 

is likely to require. The Electoral Commission specifically 

asked if we might include this requirement in our 

legislation. 

Amendments 99 and 100 make a number of 

amendments to the steps the Secretary of State needs 

to take in the event that there is not a positive endorsement 

of the shift to individual registration in 2014 by either 

the Electoral Commission or Parliament. If noble 

Lords require more detail on those amendments, I 

shall be happy to give them that information. Those 

are the government amendments in short. I shall now 

sit down as I know that there are opposition amendments 

in this group. I beg to move. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble 

Lord for explaining the government amendments. I 

wish to comment briefly on the two amendments in 

my name and that of my noble friend Lord Bates, and 

on Amendment 98, to which I imagine the noble Lord, 

Lord Tyler, will want to speak, and which my noble 

friend and I also support. 

As regards Amendments 96 and 97, in light of what 

the noble Lord said about achieving most of what we 

were trying to do in those amendments, and in view of


the lateness of the hour I assure noble Lords that I 

shall not move those amendments when we come to 

them. As regards Amendment 98, I make it clear 

again, as we did in Committee, that we still find it odd 

that the Government are trying to insist that nothing 

can go ahead before 2014, whatever happens. That is 

why we strongly support the amendment in the name 

of the noble Lords, Lord Tyler and Lord Rennard, 

myself and my noble friend Lord Bates. That amendment 

makes it clear that if the commission believes that an 

appropriate assessment has been made, as provided by 

subsection (4)(a), a recommendation can then be made 

that the process should go ahead. Most of us, being 

rather cynical, suspect that there are political motives 

behind this and that we are not allowed, if things are 

ready, to move ahead of the date 2014, if that is 

possible. It might be that the Government have been 

conservative, and it might not be possible to get things 

moving by 2014, but it might be that we are easily 

ready for that date. When the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, 

comes to move his Amendment 98, which we are 

supporting, we will certainly give it our backing. I do 

not know what the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, intends to 

do with it at this late hour on a Wednesday evening. If 

he feels it is inappropriate to divide what I imagine is a 

fairly empty House at this hour, he might consider 

coming back to it at Report stage. Certainly, as this is 

happening at a late hour, we would reserve the right to 

consider that if it was necessary. 

Lord Tyler: My noble Lords, I think the noble 

Lord, Lord Henley, means the Third Reading for a 

further look at this. We are getting to the stage now 

when we are all a bit punch-drunk. 

The integrity of the register is incredibly important 

and we welcome the moves that the Government are 

making towards personal identifiers. I think I am right 

in saying that the Electoral Commission made its 

recommendations as long ago as 2003. It is a very long 

time ago; we ought to have made more progress by 

now. As the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, the 

purpose of Amendment 98, standing in my name and 

that of my noble friend Lord Rennard and supported 

by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Bates, is to 

try to build back into the Bill a little more flexibility. If 

we can make some progress, it surely would be right to 

do so. 

In Grand Committee, the argument that the Minister 

gave was that if we were to move more quickly it might 

conflict with the run-up to the general election. He is 

obviously greatly better informed that I am, because 

who knows when the election after next is likely to be? 

We might indeed find ourselves with a very short 

Parliament. I was the victim of the very short Parliament 

in 1974—in and out within eight months. Who knows? 

I therefore do not regard that argument as being 

conclusive, unless of course the Government are going 

to move towards fixed-term Parliaments as part of 

their package of reform proposals that are due any 

moment now. 

We simply thought that it was sensible to ask the 

Electoral Commission not to be boxed into a corner of 

automatically doing nothing until 2014 and that if 

there was a possibility of moving further and faster, 

we should do so. But we recognise also that there are 

important reasons why that may not be possible. We 

are not precluding the possibility of waiting until 

2014; we are simply saying that if we can move further, 

faster and earlier we should so. 

I shall listen with interest to what the Minister says 

on this subject in a moment. I assume that he is going 

to address that particular point, and then we will have 

to think very carefully whether it is appropriate to 

pursue this any further at this late hour, or whether it 

is more sensible to look at it again, in the light of the 

Minister’s response, in time for Third Reading. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords. 

Amendment 98 is an important amendment. It provides 

the Electoral Commission with a discretion to make 

an assessment before 2014 of whether the registration 

objectives would be helped or hindered by a move 

towards the compulsory collection of personal identifiers. 

In tandem, it also provides the commission with the 

ability to make a recommendation before that date on 

whether the provision of identifiers should be made 

compulsory. Our proposal is well known. 

Of course, I am aware that some noble Lords 

believe that we should be moving more quickly towards 

a system of individual registration. As I argued in 

Grand Committee, a phased approach is the only way 

to ensure that this very radical change is made effectively. 

We should not rush it. The specific timetable we have 

set out delivers on this phased approach. It has been 

developed with great care, with due regard to the 

magnitude of the change and the risks involved. What 

this timetable allows is, first, sufficient time for the 

public to acclimatise itself to the change; secondly, 

time for each and every one of the 400-plus electoral 

registration officers to adapt to the new system and to 

ensure that all are working to the level of the best; 

thirdly, time to investigate and test which public sector 

databases will be of most assistance to registration 

officers in targeting people not included on the register; 

and, finally, time to design the infrastructure for the 

validation of national insurance numbers, which will 

underpin the new system. Importantly, the proposed 

timetable will also allow us to minimise disruption to 

elections by avoiding, so far as is possible, national 

and sub-national elections, such as the 2014 elections 

to the European Parliament. 

In developing that timetable, we have paid careful 

attention to the Northern Ireland experience when 

implementing individual registration. That is an 

important point in my argument. The registration 

rate fell significantly in Northern Ireland when 

individual registration was introduced. There is an 

ongoing debate about why that happened, and at least 

some of the decrease in the numbers registered in 

Northern Ireland in 2002 was due to the removal of 

the carry-forward, but the Electoral Commission’s 

analysis tells us that the impact of that change was 

keenly felt among particular groups. It states that 

individual registration, 

“tended to have an adverse impact on disadvantaged, marginalised 

and hard-to-reach groups. Young people and students, people 

with learning disabilities and other forms of disability, and those 

living in areas of high social deprivation were less likely to be 

registered and encountered specific problems with the new registration 

process”.


It goes on: 

“While these findings relate directly to Northern Ireland, they 

are not unique and reflect the wider picture across the UK. They 

present a major challenge to all those concerned with widening 

participation in electoral and democratic processes”. 

That comment is important. 

We all agree that making the shift towards individual 

registration is right but, in doing so, we have to ensure 

that we do not disfranchise large numbers of people 

who may find the new system more onerous. That 

becomes especially important when you consider that 

already an estimated 3 million individuals are not 

registered to vote. We must do all we can to ensure that 

that figure does not increase. By taking time to prepare 

both the system and the public for the change, to 

analyse registration performance and to develop a 

better understanding of the issues impacting on 

registration rates, we mitigate the risk of that outcome. 

Now more than ever, we need to ensure that we do not 

take steps that risk discouraging individuals from 

engaging in our democracy. A more effective and 

secure registration system is more likely to be achieved 

by building in time, to ensure to that the factors that I 

have mentioned can be fully taken into account in a 

realistic timeframe. That is what our proposal is designed 

to achieve. 

The work that I have described would be vital to the 

success or otherwise of the shift to compulsory individual 

registration. The Electoral Commission’s reports will 

provide invaluable evidence about registration rates, 

the performance of EROs and the operation of the 

system, which will inform our understanding of its 

preparedness for the change. Without that information, 

we cannot have a full understanding of whether the 

system is ready for the shift. We must protect the space 

for the Electoral Commission to undertake proper 

and robust analysis during the voluntary phase. It is 

only on the basis of that evidence that we can be 

confident that the system can withstand the change. 

If the idea is that a pre-2014 recommendation 

should be permissible and brought before Parliament 

if made in favour of individual registration, we would 

resist that. Furthermore, the existing proposed timetable 

is a fair balance between the role of the Electoral 

Commission and that of Parliament. It is right that 

Parliament should set the agenda for moving towards 

a compulsory phase, taking into account the 

recommendations of the commission. A decision as 

historic as this should be made only after a thorough 

and informed parliamentary debate. 

The purpose of a phased approach to implementation 

is to ensure that we take the necessary time to bolster, 

adapt and improve the current system for registration, 

in readiness for the major shift in process. Any attempts 

to introduce individual registration at a faster rate 

might risk damaging the integrity of the system and, 

worse still, the public’s confidence in it. If that were to 

happen in the run-up to a general election, the 

consequences could be dire. 

That is the Government’s argument as to why the 

amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord 

Tyler, should not be moved. 


Clause 27 : Regulations amending or supplementing 

section 26 



90: Clause 27, page 28, line 8, at end insert “or checking a 

person’s entitlement to be registered in a register” 


“(ee) provision for the disclosure by a CORE keeper to a 

registration officer, for the purpose mentioned in 

paragraph (d), of information within sub-paragraph (i) 

or (ii) of that paragraph;” 


“(2A) Information obtained by a registration officer or CORE 

keeper under regulations made by virtue of subsection (2)(d) or 

(ee) may not be disclosed by the officer or CORE keeper except— 

(a) for the purpose mentioned in subsection (2)(d), or 

(b) for the purposes of any criminal or civil proceedings, 

or, in the case of information obtained by a registration 

officer, to a person to whom the officer may delegate his 

or her functions. 

(2B) A person who discloses information in breach of subsection 

(2A) is guilty of an offence and liable— 

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both; 

(b) on summary conviction in England and Wales and 

Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 

12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory 

maximum, or to both; 

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to 

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a 

fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.” 

93: Clause 27, page 28, line 25, leave out “section” and insert 

“Part” 

94: Clause 27, page 28, leave out lines 42 to 44 

95: Clause 27, page 28, leave out line 46 


Clause 28 : Report by Electoral Commission on 

provision of identifying information 

Amendments 96 to 98 not moved. 



99: Clause 28, page 29, line 42, leave out “the Secretary of 

State may require the Electoral” and insert “within 12 months 

after the day on which the report is submitted by the Electoral 

Commission (in the case mentioned in paragraph (a)) or disapproved 

in Parliament (in the case mentioned in paragraph (b)), the 

Secretary of State must require the” 

100: Clause 28, page 29, line 45, leave out subsection (8) and 

insert— 

“(8) For the purposes of subsection (7)— 

(a) a report is disapproved in Parliament when either House 

decides against resolving to approve the report (or, if 

both Houses so decide on different days, when the first 

of them so decides);


(b) the date specified by the Secretary of State must be at 

least one year, but no more than two years, after the day 

on which the requirement under that subsection is 

imposed.” 


“()Aregistration officer must comply with any request made 

in writing by the Electoral Commission for assistance that they 

reasonably require in connection with the preparation of a report 

under this section.” 

102: Clause 28, page 30, leave out line 6 


Amendment 103 

Moved by Lord Henley 


“Personal identifiers at the ballot box 

(1) Schedule 1 (parliamentary election rules) to the Representation 

of the People Act 1983 is amended as follows. 

(2) After rule 37(1) (ballot paper to be delivered to voter on 

application) there is inserted— 

“(1A) A ballot paper shall not be delivered to a voter unless he 

has produced a specified document to the presiding officer or a 

clerk. 

(1B) Where a voter produces a specified document, the presiding 

officer or clerk to whom it is produced shall deliver a ballot paper 

to the voter unless the officer or clerk decides that the document 

raises a reasonable doubt as to whether the voter is the elector or 

proxy he represents himself to be. 

(1C) Where a voter produces a specified document to a 

presiding officer and he so decides, the presiding officer shall 

refuse to deliver a ballot paper to the voter. 

(1D) Where a voter produces a specified document to a clerk 

and he so decides, he shall refer the matter and produce the 

document to the presiding officer who shall proceed as if the 

document has been produced to him in the first place. 

(1E) For the purposes of this rule the Secretary of State must, 

as soon as is practicable, after consultation with the Electoral 

Commission, designate by order what the “specified document” 

or “specified documents” are. 

(1F) The power to make an order under paragraph (1E) is 

exercisable by statutory instrument. 

(1G) No order may be made under paragraph (1E) unless a 

draft of the instrument containing the order has been laid before 

and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament. 

(1H) Orders made under paragraph (1E) may be subject to 

alteration by subsequent orders made by the Secretary of State in 

consultation with the Electoral Commission. 

(1I) References in this rule to producing a document are to 

producing it for inspection.” 

(3) After rule 38(1) (incapacitated voter’s vote to be marked on 

ballot paper on application) there is inserted— 

“(1A) Paragraphs (1A) to (1G) of rule 37 shall apply in the 

case of a voter who applies under paragraph (1) above as they 

apply in the case of a voter who applies under rule 37(1), but 

reading references to delivering a ballot paper to a voter as 

references to causing a voter’s vote to be marked on a ballot 

paper.”. 

(4) After rule 39(2) (blind voter to be allowed assistance of 

companion on application) there is inserted— 


case of a voter who applies under paragraph (1) above as they 

apply in the case of a voter who applies under rule 37(1), but 

reading references to delivering a ballot paper to a voter as 

references to granting a voter’s application.”. 

(5) After rule 40(1) (person entitled to mark tendered ballot 

paper after another has voted) there is inserted— 


case of a person who seeks to mark a tendered ballot paper under 

paragraph (1) above as they apply in the case of a voter who 

applies for a ballot paper under rule 37(1). 

(1B) Paragraph (1C) below applies where a presiding officer 

refuses to deliver a ballot paper to a person under paragraph (1C) 

of rule 37 (including that paragraph as applied by rule 38 or 39 or 

this rule). 

(1C) The person shall, on satisfactorily answering the questions 

permitted by law to be asked at the poll, nevertheless be entitled, 

subject to the following provisions of this rule, to mark a ballot 

paper (in these rules referred to as “a tendered ballot paper”) in 

the same manner as any other voter.”. 

(6) After rule 40(4) there is inserted— 

“(5) A person who marks a tendered ballot paper under 

paragraph (1C) shall sign the paper, unless it was marked after an 

application was refused under rule 38 or 39. 

(6) A paper which is required to be signed under paragraph (5) 

above and is not so signed shall be void.”.” 

Lord Henley: My Lords, this amendment brings in 

personal identifiers at the ballot box. I spoke on this 

issue in our long debate on IVR in Grand Committee. 

At that point, I said that I did not think that fraud at 

the ballot box in the form of personation was that 

serious a problem. I have since been advised that it is, 

in fact, a growing problem, mainly in local elections, 

because personation is quite difficult to do in large 

numbers. However, in houses of multiple occupancy 

and similar establishments it is often easy for people to 

pick up a number of different polling cards and use 

them to vote in the names of other people. 

When he responded in Committee, the Minister did 

not consider this to be a serious problem and did not 

seem to think that merely providing some proof of 

identity would necessarily deal with it, because one 

would have to decide what type of proof of identity 

would have to be produced. In the previous group of 

amendments, the noble Lord prayed in aid Northern 

Ireland legislation. We have taken our amendment 

from legislation in Northern Ireland whereby voters 

have to have personal identifiers, but we have left out 

the bit that specifies the document that would have to 

be produced by the individual when they turned up at 

the polling station. We have left it for the Secretary of 

State to designate that by order. 

Most of us normally carry some form of identification 

that would be enough to stamp out most fraud of this 

sort—a driving licence or even a credit card. If people 

were required to take credit cards, which obviously do 

not have photo ID on them, it would complicate the 

whole matter and would make it that much harder for 

them to commit fraud on a large scale, which must be 

our issue of concern. 

I feel quite strongly about this amendment, but I 

shall listen carefully to what the noble Lord has to say 

about it. At this hour, whether we press this to a vote 

will depend very much on the support I receive from 

other parts of the House and on the response I get 

from the Government as to whether they will consider 

bringing this measure forward at a future date. I beg to 

move. 

Lord Tyler: My Lords, all that I want to say at this 

stage is that I know from friends who have experience 

of Northern Ireland that they think that the requirement


for personal identification is natural. They are so used 

to it that they do not think that this matter should be 

controversial. Frankly, at this time of night we are not 

going to have a substantial debate, but we may well 

wish to return to this issue at Third Reading. I hope 

that the Minister will give some thought to what could 

be done, because there is a genuine concern that if we 

are to move in this direction we need to ensure that it 

works as effectively as it does in Northern Ireland. 

Lord Bach: My Lords, the amendment would require 

electors to produce evidence of their identity in order 

to be issued with a ballot paper at a polling station in 

an election. The purpose is to strengthen the security 

of the voting process at polling stations. Of course, 

voting at polling stations has traditionally been conducted 

without the need for any personal identification to be 

produced. 

However, as we have been told, it is an offence to 

attempt to vote in place of another elector. That is 

personation. The Electoral Commission has provided 

guidance for returning officers on the actions that 

polling station staff should take if they suspect that a 

person requesting a ballot paper is not who they claim 

to be. It has encouraged returning officers to supply 

copies of this guidance to all presiding officers. The 

commission and the Association of Chief Police Officers 

have also worked together to produce guidance for 

police officers on how they should respond to any 

incidents of personation at polling stations. 

10 pm 

Any proposal to require voters in polling stations in 

Great Britain to produce ID as envisaged under the 

amendment would need very careful consideration. 

Though the amendment provides for a wide range of 

documents that may be produced as evidence of identity 

at polling stations, the Government remain of the 

view that requiring identification might present 

considerable barriers to voting at elections for some 

individuals. I note from the Electoral Commission’s 

briefing note that it is also of this view, stating: 

“While we would welcome such consultation, we believe that 

the benefits of moving to a system of ID in polling stations would 

need to be carefully considered before deciding on whether legislation 

should be introduced, so as to examine the risk that it could 

disenfranchise some electors”. 

The requirement to produce evidence of identity 

would be a significant change; we must ensure that 

any approach is aligned with other reforms to the 

registration and electoral processes that are a part of 

this Bill. It would be premature at this stage to introduce 

identifiers in order to vote before we have had the 

chance to scrutinise the feasibility and any subsequent 

effectiveness of moving to a system that requires identifiers 

to be produced in order to register to vote. 

It is perhaps worth mentioning the recent information 

published on 1 May by ACPO and the Electoral 

Commission, which allows us for the first time to 

examine the extent and nature of allegations of electoral 

malpractice. From the information published, it is 

evident that there were 13 alleged cases of personation 

at the 2008 elections, with no further action being 

taken in at least six of these cases. While any instance 

of personation is unacceptable, these figures must be 

seen in the context of the 16 million votes that were 

cast at those elections. Any response must be 

proportionate. 

Our view is that, while not rejecting this out of 

hand, the available evidence does not justify the potential 

barriers to voting that the measure proposed by noble 

Lords might well put in place. This Government are 

prepared to take forward significant reform of the 

electoral system as, I hope, the introduction of individual 

registration clearly demonstrates. The approach we 

have taken to ensure that we strengthen the integrity 

of the system on a step-by-step basis, in the light of 

available evidence, in a way that does not disfranchise 

those electors who are entitled to cast their vote, is the 

right one. We do not think this amendment fits in with 

that. The great worry is that people will turn up at the 

polling station without any identification and then be 

turned away. That is the problem that we need to 

overcome. That is what I have to say on the matter on 

behalf of the Government tonight. I invite the noble 

Lord to withdraw his amendment. 

Lord Henley: My Lords, I do not think that that 

was satisfactory. I am minded to consider what to do 

about it in due course. At three minutes past 10, I will 

spare the noble Lord a Division on this matter, because 

I suspect that the response that we might get might not 

be representative of the feelings of the House. 

I think that there is a problem here. I have certainly 

been advised that there is one. I do not think that it 

would be a problem for people to bring some form 

of identification. Most people have some form of 

identification of one sort or another on them most of 

the time. We suspect the Government want ultimately 

to make that compulsory by bringing in ID cards. The 

noble Lord, Lord Tunnicliffe, denies this and shakes 

his head. However, we know that ID cards are on the 

way. At least, the Government seem to think that they 

are on the way; I am not sure that they will ever 

happen. 

I will not go any further. The response was 

unsatisfactory. I will consider what we shall do with 

this matter. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw 

the amendment. 


Clause 29 : Obligatory provision of identifying 

information 



104: Clause 29, page 30, line 34, after “above” insert “or by 

virtue of subsection (4C) above” 





107: Clause 29, page 32, line 23, leave out from “keeper” to “, 

following” in line 24 

108: Clause 29, page 32, line 36, at end insert “or checking a 

person’s entitlement to be registered in such a register”



“(4ZC) Provisions for the disclosure by a CORE keeper to a 

registration officer, for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph 

(4ZA), of information within paragraph (a) or (b) of that subparagraph.” 


“( ) in sub-paragraph (4A), for “such authority or person” 

there is substituted “authority or person within 

paragraph (a) or (b) of sub-paragraph (4)”, and for 

“such records” there is substituted “any records within 

sub-paragraph (4)”;” 

111: Clause 29, page 32, line 43, leave out paragraph (c) and 

insert— 

“(c) for sub-paragraph (6) there is substituted— 

“(6) But provision made under sub-paragraph (4ZA), (4ZC) 

or (4A) may not permit information obtained by a 

registration officer or CORE keeper under that 

provision to be disclosed by the officer or CORE keeper 

except— 

(a) for the purpose mentioned in sub-paragraph (4ZA) 

or, as the case may be, sub-paragraph (4A), or 

(b) for the purposes of any criminal or civil 

proceedings, 

or, in the case of information obtained by a registration 

officer, to a person to whom the officer may delegate 

functions.”;” 


The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gibson of Market 

Rasen): My Lords, as Amendment 111 has been agreed 

to, Amendment 112 should not refer to page 32, 

line 44. 

Amendment 112 



“( ) after sub-paragraph (6) there is inserted— 

“(6A) In sub-paragraphs (4ZA) and (4ZB) “CORE keeper” 

has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the Electoral 

Administration Act 2006.”;” 


Amendment 113 


113: Clause 29, page 32, line 45, leave out paragraph (d) and 

insert— 

“(d) sub-paragraph (8) is omitted.” 


The Deputy Speaker: My Lords, as Amendment 113 

has been agreed to, Amendment 114 should not refer 

to page 32, line 46. 

Amendment 114 



“( ) In paragraph 13 of that Schedule, for sub-paragraph 

(1ZA) there is substituted— 

“(1ZA) Provisions making a person who discloses information 

in breach of paragraph 1(6) guilty of an offence punishable— 

(a) on conviction on indictment, by imprisonment for a 

term not exceeding two years or a fine, or both; 


Scotland, by imprisonment for a term not exceeding 

12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory 

maximum, or both; 

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, by 

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a 

fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both.”” 


Clause 30 : Provision supplementing section 29 

Amendment 115 


115: Clause 30, page 33, leave out lines 29 and 30 


Clause 31 : Schemes for provision of data to 

registration officers 



116: Clause 31, page 33, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and 

insert— 

“(2) The purpose is assisting the registration officer to meet 

the registration objectives and, in particular, assisting the officer— 

(a) to ascertain to what extent those objectives are being 

met, and 

(b) to determine what steps should be taken for meeting 

them.” 

117: Clause 31, page 34, leave out lines 26 to 28 and insert— 

“( ) A person who discloses information in breach of subsection 

(7) is guilty of an offence and liable— 

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term 

not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both; 


Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 

12 months, or to a fine not exceeding the statutory 

maximum, or to both; 

(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to 

imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to a 

fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.” 




Clause 32 : Schemes under section 31: proposals, 

consultation and evaluation 

Amendment 120 


120: Clause 32, page 35, line 36, leave out ““registration 

officer” and “scheme” mean the same” and insert ““scheme” has 

the same meaning” 

Amendment 120 agreed.


Amendment 121 



“Meaning of expressions relating to registration 

In this Part (except in section 29)— 

“false”, in relation to a signature, means that the signature is 

not the usual signature of, or was written by a person other than, 

the person whose signature it purports to be; 

“register”, in relation to a registration officer, means a register 

maintained by that officer under section 9 of the 1983 Act; 

“registered person” means a person registered in such a register; 

“registration objectives” has the meaning given by section 27(6); 

“registration officer” has the same meaning as in the 1983 Act 

(see section 8 of that Act) except that it does not include the Chief 

Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland.” 


Schedule6:Repeals 

Amendments 122 and 123 



“In Schedule 2, paragraph 1(8).” 

123: Schedule 6, page 77, line 2, in the second column, at 

beginning insert— 

“In section 13— 

(a) in subsection (1), paragraphs (b) and (c); 

(b) in subsection (1A), paragraph (b) and the preceding “and”; 

(c) in subsection (2), the words “or (b)”; 

(d) in subsection (3), the words “, or to local government,” and 

the words after “in Scotland”; 

(e) in subsection (7), the words “, or to local government,”.” 

Amendments 122 and 123 agreed. 

Clause 35 : Transitional provision 

Amendment 124 


124: Clause 35, page 36, line 7, leave out from second “in” to 

second “to” in line 8 and insert “any other Act” 


In the Title 

Amendment 125 


125: In the Title, line 2, leave out “and expenditure and” and 

insert “, loans and related transactions and about political expenditure; 

and to make provision” 

Lord Bach: My Lords, as a result of amendments 

that have been made since its introduction, the Bill 

now deals in a more significant way than at the outset 

with loans and other transactions regulated by Part 4A 

of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums 

Act. Therefore, this is a technical amendment to ensure 

that the Bill reflects that in the Long Title. 

Before moving the amendment, I take this opportunity 

to thank noble Lords for their kindness in ensuring 

that we finished the Report stage tonight. I also thank 

the usual channels for their help. I beg to move. 


House adjourned at 10.07 pm.

GC 271 Arrangement of Business [17 JUNE 2009] Companies Act 2006 Order 2009 GC 272 


Wednesday, 17 June 2009. 

Arrangement of Business 

Announcement 

3.45 pm 

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): 

Before the Minister moves that the first statutory 

instrument be considered, I remind noble Lords that 

in the case of each statutory instrument, the Motion 

before the Committee will be that it do consider the 

statutory instrument in question. I should make it 

clear that the Motion to approve each statutory instrument 

will be moved in the Chamber in the usual way. If 

there is a Division in the House, the Committee will 

adjourn for 10 minutes. 

Companies Act 2006 (Part 35) 

(Consequential Amendments, Transitional 

Provisions and Savings) Order 2009 

Considered in Grand Committee 

3.46 pm 

Moved By Lord Young of Norwood Green 

That the Grand Committee do report to the 

House that it has considered the Companies Act 

2006 (Part 35) (Consequential Amendments, 

Transitional Provisions and Savings) Order 2009. 

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint 

Committee on Statutory Instruments. 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, 

Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord 

Young of Norwood Green): The draft statutory instruments 

which we are debating this afternoon are an important 

part of our implementation of the Companies Act 

2006. The Act reformed and clarified company law in 

many areas and brought company legislation together 

in one place. The Act makes it easier to set up businesses, 

gives investors greater information and confidence, 

and promotes shareholder engagement and effective 

dialogue between business and investors. 

The Act has been implemented in stages and these 

statutory instruments relate to provisions which are 

due to come into force in October 2009. This staged 

approach gave companies time to prepare, allowed us 

to coincide changes with parallel EU requirements 

and allowed Companies House to update its systems 

to support the new measures. 

The first debate concerns two statutory instruments 

relating to the Registrar of Companies. The basic 

functions of the registrar are set out in Part 35 of the 

Companies Act 2006. This largely replaces the relevant 

provisions of the Companies Act 1985, but it provides 

new powers and duties for the registrar which will help 

Companies House maintain the register as a useful 

and accurate source of information for users. The 

draft Registrar of Companies and Applications for 

Striking off Regulations supplement Parts 31 and 35 

of the Act by making more detailed provision in four 

areas: rectification of the register, annotation of the 

register, language requirements and an application by 

a company to have its name struck off the register. 

The registrar does not currently have any statutory 

powers to remove information from the register, although 

the registrar will remove material if a court order 

authorises it. It was recognised on both sides of this 

House during the passage of the Bill that more needs 

to be done to address the filing of inaccurate, forged 

or fraudulent information on the register. The Companies 

Act 2006 introduces two new statutory procedures 

requiring the registrar to rectify the register—that is, 

to remove material from the register under court order 

or under a new administrative procedure on application 

to the registrar. The new administrative procedure has 

been introduced to permit certain information to be 

removed from the register without a court order. It is, 

we believe, an important step towards a more accurate 

register, although I should make it clear that it is not a 

panacea, and that matters requiring adjudication of 

competing claims should be left to the courts. 

Under the draft regulations, it will be possible for 

an applicant to seek removal of company officers’ 

details from the register. Companies House will follow 

the procedure set out in the regulations and, if no 

objection is received, the material will be removed. It 

will also be possible for companies to seek removal of 

material relating to changes to a company’s registered 

office address. We believe that the way in which the 

provisions of the 2006 Act are framed in relation to a 

company’s registered office and the grounds for 

rectification effectively precludes the possibility of an 

applicant, other than a company, making an application 

in respect of a registered office address and prevents 

the administrative procedure being used at all in respect 

of a registered office address provided on incorporation 

of the company. 

An earlier draft of the regulations was withdrawn 

in the light of fresh evidence that some companies 

were purportedly appointing directors without the 

consent or knowledge of the persons concerned. The 

earlier draft addressed this issue where there was a 

change of directors in an established company, but the 

revised regulations address it also where directors are 

purportedly appointed when a company is first set up. 

We are very conscious that the provisions of the 

Act and the draft regulations do not provide a full 

answer to issues relating to the accuracy of the register, 

particularly where the company has provided fraudulent 

information. We will consider these matters further 

and if solutions can be identified, we are minded to 

consult on possible changes to the law in this area, 

including to the 2006 Act in due course. 

The second area where the draft regulations make 

more detailed provision is annotation of the register. 

They authorise the registrar to annotate the register 

where he believes that any material is misleading or 

confusing. 

The Act contains rules about the language in which 

documents can be drawn up and delivered to the 

registrar under company and insolvency legislation.

GC 273 Companies Act 2006 Order 2009 [LORDS] Companies Act 2006 Order 2009 GC 274 

[LORD YOUNG OF NORWOOD GREEN] 

The basic rule is that they must be drawn up and 

delivered in English. This does not apply to Welsh 

companies, which can deliver documents in Welsh so 

long as they are accompanied by an English translation. 

The draft regulations relax this exception further, 

prescribing documents relating to certain Welsh companies 

that can be delivered to the registrar in Welsh without 

a certified translation into English. The draft regulations 

also add further documents to the list of documents in 

the 2006 Act that can be delivered to the registrar in a 

language other than English, provided that they are 

accompanied by a certified translation into English. 

They also provide the characters and symbols that are 

permitted in names and addresses. 

Finally, the draft Registrar of Companies Regulations 

require an application by a company to have its name 

struck off the register to contain a declaration that 

there are no circumstances as set out in Sections 1004 

and 1005 that prevent the application being made. 

It is important to Companies House and very 

helpful to business to have a coherent and consistent 

registration system for all types of business which are 

required to send material to Companies House. It 

has therefore always been our intention to apply provisions 

of Part 35, relating to the Registrar of Companies, to 

forms of business association other than companies. 

Some provisions already apply generally to companies 

and other bodies, but others, such as certain provisions 

relating to electronic delivery, must be applied to other 

bodies to provide a coherent system. It would be 

possible to do this by making consequential amendments 

to each individual area of law, but we believe that the 

legislation will be clearer and simpler if we amend 

Part 35 to achieve this. The draft Companies Act 2006 

(Part 35) (Consequential Amendments, Transitional 

Provisions and Savings) Order will give effect to this. 

I should make it clear that the amendments made 

by the draft order are relatively modest in their 

impact, being concerned essentially with procedural 

and administrative matters. The draft order does not 

seek to extend all the provisions of Part 35 and does 

not seek, for example, to extend the provisions about 

correcting or removing material on the register. 

These instruments will make an important contribution 

to our efforts to make the register a useful and accurate 

source of information for users. I commend them to 

the Committee. I beg to move. 

Lord De Mauley: I thank the Minister for introducing 

the order and the regulations. I welcome him to his 

new department. The SIs are not particularly controversial, 

so I shall not detain your Lordships long, but perhaps 

I may ask a couple of quick and rather more general 

questions of the Minister. 

The order is an amendment to Part 5 of the Companies 

Act 2006. If it has taken the ever-growing Department 

for Business, with all the resources at its disposal, until 

2009 to work its way through the complexity and 

conclude that there is a need for it, one has to ask what 

hope there is for the small businessman trying to go 

through the entire pile of regulation and work out 

whether and how each item of it affects him. 

The Explanatory Memorandum to the order says, 

under “Matters of special interest to the Joint Committee 

on Statutory Instruments”, that, 

“the Order amends Part 35 itself”— 

that is, part 35 of the Companies Act— 

“instead of making amendments to various pieces of legislation 

which contain functions of the registrar in relation to bodies 

other than companies”. 

Is it easier for the layman if it is done that way rather 

than by amending the various pieces of legislation? If 

so, it would be helpful to understand why in a little 

more detail. I do not ask that with any formed opinion; 

I would just like to know, because it is important that 

steps should be taken to ensure that legislation and 

regulation are accessible and understandable to those 

being regulated. 

With that in mind, my final question is rather more 

general. What steps are being taken to codify the huge 

volume of extant legislation and regulation so that a 

layman stands a chance? 

Lord Razzall: Clearly, these regulations are appropriate 

and relatively straightforward, although I take the 

point that the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, makes 

about the complexity of statutory instruments under 

this legislation. I have two points to make. First, I very 

much welcome the confirmation that the Minister 

gave that this area will be kept continually under 

review. I have some scepticism about whether the 

appetite of Parliament, under any party, for another 

Companies Act will be met in the foreseeable future, 

after living through the last one. As the Minister said, 

anecdotally there is beginning to be a bit of an increase 

in fraudulent formation of companies, with directors’ 

names being used who were never directors and never 

actually signed the consent form—somebody else forged 

their signature. Recognising that that is a problem, I 

welcome the undertaking that the Minister has given 

that this will be kept under review. 

My second point is on a slightly more difficult 

question. I am always amused by the report that we, 

rightly, receive on consultation outcomes, when the 

phrase is used, 

“the proposed approach was generally supported”. 

I would always like to know what objections people 

had who did not generally support the proposed 

regulations. Clearly, we will not have a statement in 

this document, because it has already been written, 

but it would be helpful if the Minister could give some 

indication about the objections, because they are not 

stated and they are not obvious to me. If anyone is 

sitting behind him who can summarise it for him, I 

would be grateful. 

Lord Lyell: I wonder whether I might impudently 

ask the Minister one or two gentle queries on the 

order before us today. First, I declare a very minor 

interest. I look around the Committee today to find 

the Minister, my noble friend and perhaps one or two 

other noble Lords who have ground through the years 

to become chartered accountants. Indeed, I am reminded 

of the musical, “Evita”, when the young lady says, 

“Somebody called me something unmentionable” and 

an old man says, “Yes, madam, they still call me an

GC 275 Companies Act 2006 Order 2009 [17 JUNE 2009] Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 GC 276 

admiral, although I left the sea many years ago”. With 

regard to the accountancy profession, that is very 

much up my street. 

The Minister referred at least twice to language. I 

beg him not to trouble himself today, but I hope that 

he can answer this impudent question in writing. The 

Minister referred twice to the language requirements, 

which are mentioned right at the bottom, in paragraph 4, 

Section 1059A(4), Sections 1102 to 1105 and 1107(18). 

I think that he mentioned Welsh. I had the opportunity 

to serve in Northern Ireland. I do not think that any 

cantankerous people would wish to have financial 

documents in Irish—or I doubt it. Do the language 

requirements cover other languages? I think particularly 

of oriental languages such as Japanese or Chinese, let 

alone Vietnamese. I understand that the Minister served 

in Vietnam. I was curious about that; perhaps he 

could reassure me that there should be no problem 

here. He referred to Welsh, which should be the only one. 

On page 4, paragraph 13 refers to Section 1109(1) and, 

“voluntary transliteration of name or address into Roman characters”. 

Is there a problem there? I am curious as to quite what 

that refers to. I am not necessarily aware of that 

section in the Companies Act. Could the Minister 

reassure me that there is no problem there? If he 

cannot today, perhaps he could write to me as I would 

not wish at any time to delay the Committee. 

4pm 

Lord Young of Norwood Green: The starting point 

is that Part 35 contains a mixture of provisions that 

apply generally and provisions that have either more 

limited application or that contain references to companies 

but which are essentially intended to apply generally. I 

hope that I will reassure the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, 

that it takes relatively little to amend some of the 

provisions so as to generalise them or make it clear 

that they apply generally. That is more efficient than 

amending other legislation simply by writing in the 

provisions we want to apply with very little adaptation. 

Our approach leaves Part 35 as the foundation of 

the law about the register’s function and material sent 

to the register. Other legislation will build on that 

foundation by applying the less straightforward provisions, 

including those which require greater adaptation to fit 

particular cases. An example of that is provided by 

limited liability partnerships. We intend to apply most 

of Part 35 to limited liability partnerships. The amendment 

made by the draft order will provide the foundation 

for that. 

I am not sure that that actually deals with the noble 

Lord’s point. Unless I misunderstood it, the point was 

whether it would make it easier for lay people to deal 

with this issue. I am looking at my officials to see 

whether they will say yea or nay. In the mean time, I 

will deal with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord 

Razzall about the proposed approach being generally 

supported. He asked what objections anybody had. 

We received relatively few written responses, but both 

the department and Companies House discussed them 

in detail with our leading stakeholders. We are not 

aware of any areas where our approach is not supported, 

other than those relating to rectification, which we 

have already said we will keep under review. So we 

have nothing up our sleeves on that one. 

The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, asked whether 

we would codify for clarity. We will not be codifying 

secondary legislation made under the Act, but we will 

publish guidance on the websites for the Department 

for Business, Innovation and Skills and for Companies 

House. We will also work closely with our leading 

stakeholders and leading publishers. 

As regards the point the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, 

raised—we will confirm this in writing just to ensure I 

get it absolutely right—English is the preferred language 

but there are allowances for other languages provided 

that they are accompanied by a translation. The reference 

to Roman characters is shorthand for the characters 

set out in the schedule. Only these may be used in 

names and addresses in documents delivered to the 

registrar. Not a lot of people know that. 

I hope that that has dealt with all the questions. As 

regards the point of the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, 

we believe that this will be a reasonable procedure for 

lay people. Proof of that particular pudding will be in 

the eating. 


Registrar of Companies and Applications 

for Striking Off Regulations 2009 


4.05 pm 



House that it has considered the Registrar of 

Companies and Applications for Striking Off 

Regulations 2009. 




Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 


4.06 pm 



House that it has considered the Overseas Companies 






Young of Norwood Green): We are today debating the 

draft Overseas Companies Regulations. They set out a 

simplified regime for registration of information at 

Companies House of companies incorporated overseas 

that operate their business in the United Kingdom 

through an establishment. We are talking not about 

UK incorporated subsidiaries of overseas companies, 

rather about overseas companies that are conducting 

their business through a local representative or have a 

small, permanently active base in the UK, such as a

GC 277 Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 [LORDS] Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 GC 278 


representative office, warehouse or shop. The regime 

concerns only obligations to file specified information 

in the UK at Companies House. The internal governance 

of companies incorporated outside the UK is for the 

law of the country of their incorporation. 

In order to best protect UK creditors and the needs 

of law enforcement agencies, a regime has been prepared 

that continues to meet the EU requirements of the 

11th directive for branches of overseas companies and 

also includes companies operating a place of business 

in the UK. The draft regulations include a revised 

accounting regime for overseas companies that is 

transparent, straightforward and up to date. Overseas 

companies will primarily file accounts prepared under 

the parent law of the country where the company is 

incorporated. However, where that is not applicable, 

accounts are to be prepared and disclosed in a manner 

compatible with the requirements for UK companies 

as set out in the Companies Act 2006. The regulations 

do not cover the law on the execution of contracts or 

the requirement to register the use of their assets in the 

UK to secure loans. These will be covered by a separate 

statutory instrument that will be made by negative 

resolution after these regulations have been made. 

In line with the approach in the Companies Act 

2006, the draft regulations apply to the United Kingdom 

rather than, as at present, to Great Britain only. This 

considerably simplifies the position for overseas companies 

that conduct business in both Northern Ireland and 

the rest of Great Britain by allowing them to register 

their presence in the UK once and therefore avoid the 

burden of duplicate filing. These draft regulations 

meet the concerns raised during the consultation process. 

They provide a single regulatory regime for the filing 

obligations of overseas companies operating in the 

UK. I commend this instrument to the Committee. 

Lord De Mauley: I cannot see anything in the 

regulations to object to per se. Indeed, if my reading is 

correct, according to the Explanatory Memorandum, 

the majority of respondents to the consultation exercise 

agreed with what is being done here, although in line 

with the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord 

Razzall, in the previous debate, it would be interesting 

to know how big the minority was and what its major 

concerns were. 

My only question is on the regulatory impact 

assessment. I explained before in this Committee my 

scepticism of the figures put on costs and, in particular, 

the claimed benefits of certain regulations in RIAs. In 

the case of these regulations, the net benefit claimed is 

no less than £43,360,000. I have followed the calculations, 

which are based on a sweeping assumption that half 

the 7,847 overseas companies will be in a position to 

provide parent company accounts and the other half 

will not. A further assumption is made about the 

average costs for each of those categories of company. 

The whole of the annual saving so calculated is then, I 

think, subjected to a net present value calculation, 

which itself makes assumptions—for example, about 

the cost of capital—which must be, to put it mildly, 

fairly subjective in the current market. I do not disagree 

that it is helpful to have a regulatory impact assessment, 

but I wonder what value there is in a claim of benefit 

to corporate entities based on such huge assumptions. 

I wonder whether the Government have, in a wider 

context, given thought to improving the techniques 

followed for arriving at a cost-benefit analysis, or at 

least to giving an indication of the subjectivity. 

Lord Razzall: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, 

Lord De Mauley, in agreeing that the regulations are 

appropriate. Clearly, it makes enormous sense to simplify 

the procedure for registration of an overseas company, 

so that the company no longer has to take legal and 

accounting advice about the form of registration it 

requires. That lifts the regulatory and cost burden on 

overseas companies establishing places of business in 

the UK, which is welcome. 

I have only one technical question, on which I 

would welcome the Minister’s view. Clearly, what became 

known as Section 700 accounts were criticised by the 

company law review committee, and it is appropriate 

to move away from that. My question concerns the 

simplification of accounts procedures for non-European 

Union countries. They are straightforward in the EU 

because companies formed there comply with the 

accounting rules that have emerged by a series of 

directives, so it is clear what they will say. In the 

Government’s view, will the liberalisation—that may 

be the wrong noun, so let us say alteration—of the 

rules and the replacement of the Section 700 accounts 

make it marginally harder for creditors and people 

dealing with those companies to find out exactly what 

is happening or will it improve their position? 

Lord Young of Norwood Green: My Lords, the first 

question was a minority view, so to speak, as I understood 

the noble Lord, Lord De Mauley. Responses to each 

of the consultations on a simplified single regime for 

overseas companies consistently supported the approach. 

Almost all respondents supported the regime as set 

out in the draft regulations set out in December 2007, 

which was based on the concept of an overseas company 

with a UK establishment. Key stakeholders have continued 

to be involved in the finalisation of the draft regulations 

and have continued to support the concept of a single 

regime. It seems to be pretty well supported. 

Impact assessment can be justified by the savings. 

The net saving of £4.9 million is measured in terms 

of new overseas companies registering a UK 

establishment under the new regime. It is rather 

difficult to quantify one of the main benefits of the 

regime, which is that these companies no longer have 

to decide whether their establishment in the UK is a 

place of business or a branch. This element of choice 

and the time and effort required will vary from 

company to company. 

The PwC assessment of costs to business of UK 

regulation did not include an assessment of this choice. 

We believe that the simplification of the regime is a 

major customer benefit, and it is unfortunate that this 

saving cannot be counted. Instead, we have been able 

to quantify the benefit to companies of following the 

new simplified accounting regime and avoiding the 

existing Section 700 accounts requirements. PwC assessed 

the cost of preparation of such accounts to be just 

under £885 per company.

GC 279 Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 [17 JUNE 2009] Limited Liability Partnerships Regs 2009 GC 280 

Many overseas companies will now be in a position 

to avoid this cost by filing accounts already prepared 

under the parent law of their country of incorporation. 

We have taken an indicative view that half the overseas 

companies that could benefit from this change will do 

so. It is difficult to be more accurate, given the range of 

countries involved, and the saving could be higher. 

Those companies unable to rely on parent law and still 

required to prepare accounts will find the new 

arrangements more straightforward, and we have 

estimated an average reduced cost of half that for 

Section 700 accounts assessed by PwC. We based the 

saving on the number of active overseas companies 

registered at Companies House that are non-EU 

companies with a UK branch or overseas companies 

with a place of business. EU companies with a UK 

branch are not subject to Section 700 accounts, so we 

have not counted them in the saving calculation. 

4.15 pm 

For some existing overseas companies, there will be 

negligible increased cost. The regulations include 

transitional provisions that allow existing companies 

sufficient time to provide a set of accounts where they 

have not already been provided. Other information to 

be provided as part of the transition is negligible. We 

have allowed companies six months from 1 October 

2009 to comply with a simple return to the registrar. 

Respondents to the December 2007 consultation did 

not challenge the figures used, nor did they offer any 

alternative approach. On the contrary, the majority 

supported the approach taken. 

In response to the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, 

accounting by non-EU companies has been modernised, 

not liberalised. It will be easier for creditors because 

the resulting accounts will follow more modern accounting 

standards—so I am assured. I think that we have dealt 

with all the questions raised. 


Limited Liability Partnerships 

(Application of Companies Act 2006) 

Regulations 2009 


4.16 pm 



House that it has considered the Limited Liability 

Partnerships (Application of Companies Act 2006) 






Young of Norwood Green): We are debating today the 

Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Companies 

Act 2006) Regulations 2009. Limited liability partnerships 

were introduced by the Limited Liability Partnerships 

Act 2000. The main early users of the limited liability 

partnership form were major accountancy and law 

firms, and now all sizes and types of businesses are 

using it. 

The LLP Act is a relatively short Act that sets out 

the basic structure of the LLP and provides a power to 

fill it out as appropriate by applying to LLPs selected 

provisions of company law. The LLP Regulations 

2001 applied major parts of the Companies Act 1985, 

with appropriate modifications, to LLPs along with 

bits of financial services and insolvency law. 

As the Companies Act 1985 has been comprehensively 

replaced by the Companies Act 2006, we need to 

update the regulations that apply company law provisions 

to LLPs. Last year, your Lordships debated the Limited 

Liability Partnerships (Accounts and Audit) Regulations, 

which applied to LLPs rules on accounts and audit 

corresponding to those under the Companies Act 

2006. These take effect for financial years beginning 

on or after 1 October 2008. The current regulations 

complete that work by applying to LLPs the other 

relevant provisions of the Companies Act 2006, with 

modifications as necessary. They apply to the whole of 

the United Kingdom. 

If any noble Lord is familiar with the 2001 LLP 

regulations, he or she will have noticed that the current 

regulations are much longer. This is because the earlier 

regulations simply listed the section numbers of provisions 

in the Companies Acts that were to be applied with a 

list of textual modifications. The current regulations 

take the approach of writing out the provisions so that 

the regulations can be read as a stand-alone document 

without looking at the Companies Act. This approach 

received strong support when we consulted, particularly 

from practitioners in the field. 

Much of the update has simply meant applying to 

LLPs the provisions of the Companies Act 2006 that 

correspond to the provisions of the 1985 Act that were 

applied to LLPs. As set out in the Explanatory 

Memorandum, some of the new provisions of the 

2006 Act are applied to LLPs, but others are not. 

Broadly, these decisions maintain the approach of 

applying to LLPs the rules that regulate a company’s 

dealings with third parties and, in particular, the filing 

and transparency requirements, but not rules on the 

internal workings of companies. 

There is also a small number of changes that are 

not directly related to the Companies Act 2006. They 

include providing a new right for a member of an LLP, 

if he is the sole remaining member, to apply to have 

the LLP dissolved. In summary, these regulations will 

keep the law on LLPs up to date and consistent with 

current company law. I beg to move. 

Lord De Mauley: I am grateful to the Minister. The 

Explanatory Memorandum says that this instrument 

and the application of the accounts and audit provisions 

of the 2006 Act to LLPs will be, 

“reviewed, from 2011, as part of the Companies Act 2006 evaluation”. 

I notice that the other Explanatory Memorandums for 

the orders that we are discussing today all say something 

similar. What does “from 2011” mean? It sounds like, 

“not before 2011”, which is rather worrying. Does it 

mean, on the other hand, “in 2011”? If not, when will 

we know the outcome of the review?

GC 281 Limited Liability Partnerships Regs 2009 [LORDS] 

Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 GC 282 

[LORD DE MAULEY] 

Other noble Lords may have received a communication 

regarding these regulations from the Institute of Chartered 

Accountants in England and Wales, an institute of 

which, I should disclose, I am a member. While most 

of its concerns with earlier drafts appear to have been 

allayed, it raised the following points. Perhaps the 

Minister could address them. 

The first concerns Regulation 18, which would 

apply Sections 162 to 165 of the 2006 Act, which 

concern the registry of directors’ names to LLPs with 

modifications. That will require an LLP to keep available 

for inspection a register of members containing certain 

particulars, including a service address for each individual 

member and whether a member is a designated member. 

In practice, the institute notes that most LLPs currently 

maintain a list of all members at their principal place 

of business and do not object to the requirement being 

imposed. However, particularly given that failure to 

comply will be an offence, it feels—and I can see the 

point—that it is important that the Minister’s department 

provides LLPs with adequate information about that 

new requirement to ensure compliance as from 1 October. 

The institute also notes that the department has 

postponed the decision on whether to apply the overseas 

company disclosure regime to LLPs. It understands 

that it would be undesirable to hold up the application 

of the remainder of the Act to LLPs while the difficult 

question of overseas LLPs is considered, but it would 

like to know when the issue will be tackled, as there is 

now a discrepancy between the treatment of overseas 

companies, as against overseas LLPs. 

Lastly, as a drafting point, the institute draws attention 

to the fact that in Regulation 51 applying Section 

1007(1) and 1007(5)(a), reference is made to an application 

being made by an LLP. It says that that should refer 

to an application being made on behalf of an LLP. 

I should be interested to hear whether the Minister 

can respond to those points. 

Lord Razzall: I make one point in support of the 

regulations, which is to congratulate whoever in the 

Government or the department was responsible for 

producing them in this format. Before the Minister’s 

time, when we ground our way through the Companies 

Bill in the august Chamber, we argued from these 

Benches that it was important that the Company Law 

Reform Bill became a consolidating Act, for the reasons 

that the Minister gave—that it was important that 

people could read legislation in a digestible form, 

rather than having to leap from one section and one 

Act to the other, the only benefit of which being to 

increase the profits of Butterworths. I welcome this 

approach and hope that the Government will continue 

to follow it when we have further legislation in this area. 

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I thank the noble 

Lord, Lord Razzall, for that comment. The Acts have 

been implemented in stages, which will need to be 

reflected in our evaluation. We will begin to evaluate 

some provisions commenced in 2007 next year, but we 

will wait until 2011 to evaluate most provisions 

commenced in October 2009. 

The regulations for LLPs come into effect on 1 October 

2009, in line with the implementation date for the 

remaining provisions of the Companies Act 2006 for 

companies. We will take steps to ensure that LLPs 

know about these changes, particularly the new register 

of members, given the importance of the situation in 

which they find themselves. Companies House will 

send a mailshot to all LLPs telling them about the 

changes. It will highlight the new requirement to keep 

a register of members available for inspection, and it 

will mention that a failure to do so will be an offence. 

Guidance and specimen forms will be available on the 

Companies House website from 1 July. We will look at 

the drafting point raised by the ICAEW to see whether 

it needs amendment. No consensus has emerged about 

how or whether to change the way in which we regulate 

overseas LLPs. The regulations before us therefore 

continue the approach in the existing regulations. 

I believe that I have dealt with all the questions. 

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to 

this debate. The regulations represent the last step 

towards the application of the Companies Act 2006 to 

limited liability partnerships. They ensure that the 

regulations under which LLPs form and operate are in 

step with modern company law. In summary, by applying 

the remaining provisions of the Companies Act 2006 

to LLPs, as set out in the regulations, where necessary 

and appropriate, we make essential changes to align 

the requirements for LLPs with those for companies. 

This will ensure that LLPs enjoy some of the same 

benefits and savings as companies, and remain an 

attractive and distinctive corporate vehicle for business, 

with different characteristics from companies and other 

types of partnerships. I commend these regulations to 

the Committee. 


Companies Act 2006 (Accounts, Reports 

and Audit) Regulations 2009 


4.27 pm 



House that it has considered the Companies Act 

2006 (Accounts, Reports and Audit) Regulations 

2009. 





Young of Norwood Green): The main purpose of this 

instrument is to complete the implementation of the 

company reporting directive, directive 2006/46, in relation 

to corporate governance statements that publicly traded 

companies publish separately from the directors’ report. 

The regulations before the Committee today amend 

the Companies Act 2006 to make provision for the 

filing of separate corporate governance statements at 

Companies House. They also implement the directive’s 

requirement for an auditor’s report on any separate 

corporate governance statement. Rules made last year 

by the Financial Services Authority implemented the 

requirement for a corporate governance statement and 

set out what it should contain. As permitted under the

GC 283 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 [17 JUNE 2009] Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 GC 284 

directive, the FSA rules give companies the option to 

prepare a separate corporate governance statement 

rather than including it in a specific section of the 

directors’ report. The auditor is required by these 

regulations to check that information in a separate 

corporate governance statement on internal control 

and risk management systems in relation to the financial 

reporting process and share capital is consistent with 

the audited financial statements. That is the same 

check that would be required to be carried out by the 

auditor if the information formed part of the directors’ 

report. 

We do not believe that these regulations should add 

to the costs of audit because the test for consistency 

should not be onerous, and in a number of companies, 

the audited financial statements may not contain 

information on internal control and risk management 

systems. 

The regulations also contain some technical accounting 

amendments. If the noble Lord wishes, I can give a 

brief description of each of the accounting amendments 

that remain in Part 3 of the regulations. 

As noble Lords will be aware, a version of this 

instrument was laid before Parliament earlier this year 

and then withdrawn. That earlier version contained 

an amendment to Section 413 of the Companies Act 

2006 concerning disclosure of loans to directors of 

banking companies. We have decided to re-lay the 

draft regulations without that amendment. We want 

to consider further what form the amendment should 

take and to conduct a public consultation. I commend 

these regulations to the Committee. I beg to move. 

4.30 pm 

Lord De Mauley: I thank the Minister once again 

for introducing these regulations. I do not think that 

they are particularly controversial so I will not detain 

your Lordships long. As the name includes the word 

“audit” I suppose I should disclose once again my 

membership of the Institute of Chartered Accountants 

in England and Wales although I have not been a 

practitioner since at least the early 1980s. 

When these regulations were being debated on Monday 

in another place, I notice that the Liberal Democrat 

spokesman asked the Minister several technical questions, 

which he did not fully answer. Perhaps I can leave it to 

the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, to pursue these matters 

if he wishes to do so. On these Benches, we are strong 

supporters of transparency. Transparency is particular 

important with company accounts. Although relatively 

modest in their ambitions, we are supportive of the 

impetus behind these regulations. When they were 

debated in another place my honourable friend Oliver 

Heald asked the Minister why these provisions had 

taken so long to promulgate. He asked if it was because 

the Financial Services Authority had taken a very long 

time to create the rules. The Minister there undertook 

to make inquiries of the FSA, and it would be helpful 

to know if there is an answer yet. 

Lord Razzall: I do not propose to repeat the questions 

that my colleague in another place asked, but I will say 

what they were. The two questions he asked were: first, 

whether the Minister will state the accounting impact 

of the fairly technical changes to realise losses; and, 

secondly he asked about the transfer and value of 

pensions. I do not expect the Minister to answer 

because I understand that the Minister in another 

place gave an undertaking to write to my colleague 

with an answer to that, which no doubt we will see in 

due course. I do not propose to delay the Committee 

any further; I am happy to support this regulation. 

Lord Lyell: Could I delay the Minister for 10 seconds? 

I had a look through the corporate governance statements. 

My noble friend told us when he last carried out work 

in the audit profession; I go back at least 15 to 20 years 

before that. 

Will the Minister clarify something for me, though 

not necessarily today? On page 3 under “Part 15 

definition of ‘corporate governance statement’”, the 

noble Lord will find paragraph 6 and “Auditor’s report 

on separate corporate governance statement”. That is 

not necessarily his duties, but in Regulation 6 he will 

find Section 497 of the Companies Act 2006, which, I 

am afraid, is not part of my bedtime reading. I am 

fascinated by the auditor’s report on the auditable part 

of directors’remuneration, but I am somewhat suspicious. 

I wonder what aspects of the report and the directors’ 

remuneration would not be auditable, to put it politely. 

Perhaps the noble Lord could reassure me—not today, 

but in writing, because I do not want to delay the 

Committee any further. I am very grateful for his 

words of reassurance throughout. 

Lord Young of Norwood Green: I say to the noble 

Lord, Lord De Mauley, that with regard to the 

implementation by the FSA of rules of directive 2006/46, 

requirements on corporate governance statement, the 

Government consulted on the implementation of the 

directive in March 2007. One of the questions asked 

was whether the requirement for a corporate governance 

statement should be implemented by rules made by 

the FSA or should it be prescribed as part of the 

Companies Act. 

The consultation period closed on 1 June 2007. 

Consultees preferred a continuation of the existing 

regime for corporate governance statements. The 

Government therefore decided with the agreement of 

the FSA that the requirement for a corporate governance 

statement should be implemented by FSA rules. The 

FSA needed to consult on its rules, which encompass 

not only the corporate governance statement but also 

requirements for audit committees in the Audit Directive 

2006/43/EC. The FSA’s consultation document was 

published in December 2007; the consultation period 

closed on 20 March 2008. Due to that need to consult 

and the length of the consultation period, the FSA 

was not able to make the rules by the common 

commencement date of 6 April 2008. They were made, 

however, within the deadline for implementation of 

the directive. 

In answer to his technical questions, I assure the 

noble Lord, Lord Razzall, that a letter has been placed 

in the Libraries of both Houses. The noble Lord, Lord

GC 285 Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 [LORDS] 

Companies Act 2006 Regs 2009 GC 286 


Lyell, asked about the non-auditable parts of directors’ 

remuneration—the parts that the auditors cannot reach. 

No doubt, we will provide a Written Answer. 

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions 

to this debate and for their succinctness. The regulations 

make some modest changes to the law which are 

needed to complete our exercise of the member state 

option under the EU directive permitting publicly 

traded companies to prepare a separate corporate 

governance statement should they so wish. I hope 

that, on this basis, noble Lords will support the regulations. 


The Deputy Chairman of Committees: That 

completes the business before the Grand Committee 

this afternoon. The Committee stands adjourned— 

remarkably early. 

Committee adjourned at 4.36 pm.

WS 69 Written Statements 

[17 JUNE 2009] 


WS 70 


Wednesday 17 June 2009 

Coal and Carbon Capture and Storage 

Statement 


Climate Change (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My right 

honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy 

and Climate Change (Ed Miliband) has made the 

following Written Ministerial Statement. 

I am today publishing a consultation on coal and 

carbon capture and storage entitled A Framework for 

the Development of Clean Coal. 

In April, the Budget announced financing for up to 

four CCS demonstration projects in the UK and, the 

following day, I outlined proposals for a new regulatory 

regime for new coal-fired power stations. Following 

the statutory strategic environmental assessment, this 

consultation document sets out the Government’s 

proposals in more detail. 

The aims of our proposals are to drive the 

decarbonisation of our energy supply, to safeguard 

our energy security and to get the best deal for consumers 

and businesses. The conditions on new coal proposed 

in this document are the most environmentally ambitious 

of any country in the world, requiring the demonstration 

of CCS on a substantial proportion of any new power 

station and the 100 per cent retrofit of CCS when it is 

proven. 

The document also sets out for consultation the 

process for funding and taking forward the demonstration 

projects which will enable us to maintain coal as part 

of our energy mix, supporting diversity and therefore 

security of supply. 

By acting early, we will ensure that jobs will also be 

created as Britain develops the expertise in what could 

be a major new industry, with CCS projects offering 

the potential to form the hubs for clusters of low-carbon 

industries. 

By driving the development of CCS in this country, 

we are also, as a country, playing an essential role in 

tackling climate change. Coal is already widely used in 

developed and developing countries and its use is 

expected to grow further: 70 to 80 per cent of the 

predicted growth in emissions in the coming decades 

will come from developing countries unless we find a 

route to low-carbon growth 

Copies of the consultation have been placed in the 

Library and it is available from www.decc.gov.uk. 

EU: Telecoms Council 

Statement 

The Minister for Communications, Technology and 

Broadcasting (Lord Carter of Barnes): Further to the 

Written Statement concerning the positions that HMG 

intended to take at the Telecommunications Council, 

held on 11 June 2009, I am pleased to be able to report 

back on the main conclusions and topics of discussion. 

The Telecommunications Council took place on 

11 June 2009 under the chair of the Czech presidency. 

Andy Lebrecht, the deputy permanent representative 

in Brussels, represented the United Kingdom. Much 

of the discussion was taken up by two main items, an 

informal and off-the-agenda discourse on the review 

of the EU regulatory framework from electronic 

communications networks and services and a formal 

table-round on European network and information 

security policy. 

On the review after an introduction by the presidency 

(in which it regretted that it had been unable to preside 

over a final agreement), Commissioner Reding suggested 

that, while she understood the concerns of member 

states over the introduction of Amendment 138 (the 

clause that would make any internet disconnection 

subject to judicial review), she was more worried about 

a delay in the adoption of the framework that would 

occur if the council decided on a conciliation process. 

In response, the vast majority of member states said 

that they could not accept the EP amendment, some 

noting that it potentially interfered with national 

competencies. The UK noted that the amendment was 

unacceptable both in legal and policy terms, noting 

how it could constrain future decisions of the Government. 

In terms of a future conciliation process, the vast 

majority of member states (including the UK) indicated 

their wish to see discussion limited to Amendment 138 

with other (agreed) issues not being reopened. Most 

member states were also happy to leave the question as 

to whether council should reject the whole package or 

just the better regulation directive, which contains 

Amendment 138, to the presidency. 

The presidency concluded that, while a majority 

of member states wanted the framework adopted quickly, 

there was a strong majority that rejected Amendment 138 

and so the next step would be conciliation. 

On the formal discussion on European network 

and information security policy, Commissioner Reding 

introduced the Commission’s communication by noting 

that a breakdown in the critical telecoms infrastructure 

in the next five years was more likely now as a result of 

security flaws. She asked member states to take the 

threat seriously and to reflect on the role that the 

European Network and Information Security Agency 

(ENISA) may need to take. She noted the Commission’s 

intention to publish proposals concerning the reform 

of the ENISA mandate by April 2010. 

Following this, during a wide-ranging exchange of 

views, the majority of member states endorsed the 

need for a pan-EU (or even global) approach to 

information security and for enhanced co-operation 

between member states. All that spoke, with the exception 

of the UK and Hungary, also called for ENISA’s term 

and remit to be automatically extended. The UK, 

while also welcoming the Commission’s approach, 

noted that a future role for ENISA should be discussed 

within the context of an overall policy discussion on 

information and security and critical infrastructure 

protection. 

The council then moved on to three items under 

any other business, the first of which was on “Internet 

of Things—An Action Plan for Europe—Information 

from the Commission”, where the Commission noted

WS 71 Written Statements 

[LORDS] 


WS 72 

that it would shortly be issuing a communication on 

the matter; a report from the presidency on the ministerial 

conference entitled Safer Internet for Children (Prague, 

20 April 2009), where the Commissioner thanked the 

presidency for an important conference; and “Internet 

Governance: The Next Steps”, where, Commissioner 

Reding noted the imminent publication of a 

communication addressing, among other issues, the 

future of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned 

Names and Numbers). 

Scottish and Northern Ireland Banknotes 

Statement 


(Lord Myners): My honourable friend the Exchequer 

Secretary to the Treasury (Kitty Ussher) has made the 

following Written Ministerial Statement. 

Today I am publishing a consultation document on 

secondary legislation made under Part 6 of the Banking 

Act 2009, regarding arrangements underpinning the 

commercial issuance of Scottish and Northern Ireland 

banknotes. Copies of the document, entitled The Banking 

Act 2009 (Scottish and Northern Ireland Banknotes) 

Regulations 2009: A Consultation, have been deposited 

in the Library of the House and the Vote Office and 

will be available on the HM Treasury website. 

Terrorism Act 

Statement 

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home 

Office (Lord West of Spithead): My right honourable 

friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department 

(Alan Johnson) has made the following Written Ministerial 

Statement. 

I am pleased to say that Lord Carlile of Berriew QC 

has completed his report on the operation of the 

Terrorism Act 2000 and Part 1 of the Terrorism Act 2006 

in 2008, which will be laid before the House today. 

I am grateful to Lord Carlile for his detailed report 

and have considered his recommendations fully. Following 

consultation within my department and with other 

relevant departments and agencies, I am also pleased 

to lay before the House today my response to Lord 

Carlile’s recommendations. 

Copies of both Lord Carlile’s report and the response 

will be available in the Vote Office. 

UK Trade and Investment 

Statement 

The Minister for Trade and Investment (Lord Davies 

of Abersoch): With my right honourable friend, the 

Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth 

Affairs, I am pleased to inform the House that in these 

difficult times for the global economy, the UK is 

maintaining its status as a world-class business destination. 

UK Trade and Investment has announced today, in 

its launch of UK Inward Investment Results 2008-09, 

that there were 1,744 direct investments in the UK by 

foreign-owned companies between 1 April 2008 and 

31 March 2009, as reported by UK Trade and Investment 

and its partner agencies in Scotland, Wales, Northern 

Ireland and the English regional development agencies. 

This is an increase of 11 per cent on the year before 

and confirms that international business has continued 

to select the UK as the preferred investment location 

in Europe, second only globally to the United States 

of America. Through this foreign direct investment, 

78,540 new and safeguarded jobs have been delivered 

to the UK. 

At a time of global economic downturn, inward 

investment is a long-term decision for any company 

seeking to grow internationally. In the current climate, 

more investors are seeking to locate in the UK than 

anywhere else in Europe, helping to underpin the 

long-term economic prospects of the UK’s business 

environment. The number of new projects has increased 

by 26 per cent from 653 in 2007-08 to 827 in 2008-09 

and there were 460 expansions by existing investors, 

up by 5 per cent from 436 the previous year. In line 

with reduced global market liquidity, the number of 

acquisitions, joint ventures and mergers taking place 

is down 6 per cent from 484 in 2007-08 to 457 in 

2008-09. 

Companies are seeking to invest internationally 

earlier in their life cycles than at any time previously to 

fund their growth. The UK has positioned itself as a 

springboard for global growth for companies seeking 

to grow both in the UK and internationally from a 

UK base. UK Trade and Investment is the government 

organisation leading support for such companies in 

the international business environment. 

I am arranging for a copy of the UK inward 

investment report 2008-09 to be placed in the Library 

of the House.

WA 207 Written Answers 

[17 JUNE 2009] 


WA 208 



Afghanistan 

Question 

Asked by Lord Morris of Aberavon 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the 

estimated cost of the war in Afghanistan to date. 

[HL4144] 

The Minister for International Defence and Security 

(Baroness Taylor of Bolton): MoD identifies the costs 

of operations in terms of the net additional costs it 

has incurred. The costs that would have been incurred 

regardless of the operation taking place, such as wages 

and salaries, are not included. Savings on activities 

that have not occurred because of the operation—such 

as training exercises—are taken into account in arriving 

at the net figures. 

The total annual costs of operations in Afghanistan 

since 2001 are set out below: 

2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09* 

Total to 

Date* 

Resource Costs 

187 236 36 58 148 560 1,071 1,656 3,952 

(£M) 

Capital Costs (£M) 34 75 10 9 51 178 433 967 1,757 

Total (£M) 221 311 46 67 199 738 1,504 2,623 5,709 

Note: The figures for 2008-09 are provisional outturn figures that are subject to final audit. 

Our forecast cost for operations for 2009-10 will be 

published in main estimates shortly. 

Benefits: Uprating 

Question 

Asked by Lord Laird 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much 

extra monies in (a) social security benefits, and 

(b) public sector pensions, are forecast to be paid in 

the financial year 2009–10 to take account of the 

5 per cent and 6.3 per cent inflationary upratings 

determined by the prices indices of September 2008. 

[HL3627] 


(Lord Myners): My right honourable friend the Minister 

for Pensions and the Ageing Society provided an 

estimate of the costs of uprating DWP social security 

benefits at the appropriate rates in 2009-10 on 12 February 

2009 (House of Commons, Official Report, col. 1545). 

The Government do not hold detailed costings for 

indexation in respect of the full range of public sector 

pension schemes, but the overall cost of the 5 per cent 

uprating in 2009-10 has been estimated at around one 

and a quarter billion pounds. 

Community Empowerment, Housing and 

Economic Regeneration 

Questions 

Asked by Baroness Hamwee 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government further to the 

Written Answer by Baroness Andrews on 7 May 

(WA 134), what criteria were applied in deciding 

whether further changes in policy and practice discussed 

in the White Paper Communities in Control required 

legislation. 

[HL4049] 


Department for Communities and Local Government & 

Department for Work and Pensions (Lord McKenzie of 

Luton): Government can promote changes in the policies 

and practices of external bodies through a variety of 

means, such as legislation, the provision of funding 

information or guidance, by piloting initiatives, and by 

spreading best practice. The assessment of the best 

means in any circumstances is carried out on a case by 

case basis. 




(WA 134), on what grounds they have decided not 

to take forward “a number of more minor proposals, 

namely on remote attendance and voting by councillors, 

payments for councillors on loss of office, and 

incentives to vote in local elections”. [HL4050] 

Lord McKenzie of Luton: Most of the proposals for 

change in the White Paper Communities in Control do 

not require legislation. For those where legislation is 

required, the Local Democracy, Economic Development 

and Construction Bill, which is currently before 

Parliament, contains the major provisions, including a 

number added since introduction. 

Given the stage of the parliamentary cycle, we have 

decided to concentrate our energy on this, and not to 

publish a Draft Community Empowerment Bill, which 

would have contained only a few more minor proposals. 

Substantial progress has been made since Communities 

in Control was published. We published a “Communities 

Progress Report” on 1 June. Copies are in the Libraries 





(WA 134), what the remaining proposals are which 

require legislation, in addition to any legislation


[LORDS] 


WA 210 

responding to the consultation on Changing Council 

Governance Arrangements and proposed reforms 

to parish governance. 

[HL4051] 

Lord McKenzie of Luton: The Government have no 

current plans for legislation to implement proposals in 

the White Paper Communities in Control, beyond those 

provisions in the Local Democracy, Economic 

Development and Construction Bill, currently before 

Parliament. 

Cycling 

Question 

Asked by Lord Berkeley 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the 

Home Office is implementing the Government’s 

cycle-to-work scheme. 

[HL4113] 


Office (Lord West of Spithead): The Home Office has 

included the implementation of the cycle-to-work scheme 

in its business plan for 2009-10 and is committed to its 

implementation. 

Equality and Human Rights Commission 

Question 

Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill 


Written Answers by Baroness Royall of Blaisdon 

on 24 April (WA 419) and 4 June (WA 105), what 

performance assessment process is in place for 

reappointing members of the Equality and Human 

Rights Commission, including the criteria and evidence 

used in making the assessment. 

[HL4098] 

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Baroness 

Royall of Blaisdon): As required by the Cabinet Office 

and the Office for the Commissioner for Public 

Appointments, commissioner performance appraisals 

have been carried out to provide the necessary evidence 

for considering any reappointments. The chair of the 

Equality and Human Rights Commission completed 

annual appraisals for the commissioners, assessing 

their performance against their own objectives and the 

key objectives of the commission. 

Food: Labelling 

Question 

Asked by Lord Dykes 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, in 

future consultations with food retailers and trade 

associations, they will propose inclusion of information 

additional to guideline daily amounts in front-of-pack 

nutritional labelling. 

[HL4032] 


Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): Future 

consultations on front of pack (FoP) labelling will 

take account of the independent research published 

on 6 May 2009, which found that a FoP label that 

included the words “high, medium and low”, traffic 

light colour coding and percentage of guideline daily 

amount (per cent. GDA) was most effective in terms 

of consumer comprehension and enabling consumers 

to assess the healthiness of a product. The published 

report is available at www.food.gov.uk/news/newsarchive/ 

2009/may/pmp. 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office and 

Department for International Development 

Question 

Asked by The Earl of Sandwich 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department 

for International Development missions have been 

combined under the co-location programme; and 

when the benefits of co-location will be assessed. 

[HL4203] 

Lord Brett: Since the start of the Comprehensive 

Spending Round 07 period, Department for International 

Development (DfID) missions in Brasilia, Georgetown, 

Harare, Kampala and Lilongwe have co-located with 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) posts. The 

FCO is currently co-located with DfID in a total of 

28 overseas sites, and are working with DfID on 10 

further co-location projects. 

Each co-location proposal is assessed on the basis 

of a cost benefits analysis carried out between DfID 

and the FCO. This considers both financial and non 

financial elements with a focus on achieving best value 

for the Government. Ongoing assessment of joint 

missions will take place as part of annual budget 

planning exercises. 

Gurkhas 

Question 

Asked by Lord Alton of Liverpool 


Gurkha ex-servicemen who retired prior to 1 July 

1997 are living (a) in the United Kingdom, and 

(b) overseas. 

[HL4110] 


Office (Lord West of Spithead): We believe that there 

are approximately 36,000 former Gurkhas who retired 

before 1 July 1997. Of these we estimate that approximately 

3,500 are already resident in the United Kingdom and 

the remaining 32,500 are living overseas. 

Health: Clinical Diagnoses 

Question 

Asked by Lord Morris of Manchester 


Written Answer by Lord Darzi of Denham on 1 

June (WA 28), what they estimate would be the cost 

of obtaining centrally the information referred to 

in the Question. 

[HL4025] 


Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): Clinical 

diagnosis is a matter for clinicians. We would not 

normally expect a dispute over diagnosis to arise. 

Should this happen we would expect roles and


[17 JUNE 2009] 


WA 212 

responsibilities to be clarified at a local level. This 

would not, therefore, be an appropriate issue for a 

national data collection and it is not possible to make 

an estimate of costs. 

Homeless People 

Question 

Asked by Lord Ouseley 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they 

intend to respond to the increase in the number of 

homeless persons in town and city centres; and 

what are the implications of that increase for mental 

health and voluntary social care services. [HL4118] 




Luton): Over the three years until 2011, the Government 

are investing more than £220 million through local 

authorities and voluntary sector organisations to tackle 

homelessness. This includes a range of specialist provision 

for people sleeping rough. The £80 million Places of 

Change programme is transforming hostels to help 

rough sleepers rebuild their lives. 

Our new strategy “No One Left Out” signals our 

intent to work with partners to end rough sleeping by 

2012. This builds on the considerable success over the 

past decade substantially to reduce rough sleeping. 

Homelessness: Rough Sleepers 

Question 

Asked by Lord Roberts of Llandudno 


rough sleepers were estimated to be in the Greater 

London area in (a) 2000, (b) 2005, (c) 2007, and 

(d) 2008; and how those figures were obtained. 

[HL4129] 




Luton): Annual rough sleeping figures for London are 

based on local authority street counts and estimates 

where street counts did not take place. Number of 

rough sleepers in London: 

2000—546; 

2005—221; 

2007—248; and 

2008—238. 

Houses of Parliament: Select Committees 

Question 

Asked by Lord Lester of Herne Hill 


Written Answer by the Lord President (Baroness 

Royall of Blaisdon) on 20 April (WA 346), on how 

many occasions and in what circumstances Ministers 

of the Government Equalities Office and its 

predecessors have refused to give evidence to 

Parliamentary Select Committees during the past 

five years. 

[HL3139] 


Royall of Blaisdon): There have been no such occasions. 

Housing 

Questions 

Asked by Lord Burnett 


new residential property starts have been made 

since 1999. 

[HL4253] 


new residential property starts were made in the 

first quarter of 2009. 

[HL4254] 




Luton): The latest statistics on house building starts 

and completions for England were published in the 

Communities and Local Government statistics release 

of 21 May 2009 and accompanying live tables. The 

web links are shown below: 

link to house building statistics release: 

www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/ 

statistics/housebuildingq12009. 

link to house building live tables: 

www.communities.gov.uk/housing/ 

housingresearch/housingstatistics/housingstatisticsby/ 

housebuilding/livetables/. 

Justice: Sharia Law 

Question 

Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch 


answer by Lord Bach on 4 June (Official Report, 

House of Lords, col. 296), whether they will take 

steps to ensure that resident Muslim men cannot 

bring their second, third or fourth wives, together 

with their children, to live in the United Kingdom 

and to draw benefits. 

[HL4145] 


Office (Lord West of Spithead): It is government policy 

to prevent the formation of polygamous households 

in this country. Entry clearance or leave to enter or 

remain is refused if the applicant’s spouse has another 

spouse living who is, or at any time since their marriage 

has been, in the UK, or who has been granted a 

certificate of entitlement in respect of right of abode 

under Section 2(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1988, or 

who has been granted entry clearance to enter the UK 

on the basis of their marriage. 

There are certain exceptions to this general restriction: 

a spouse who seeks leave to entry or remain if he/she 

has been in the UK before one August 1988, having 

been admitted on the basis of his/her marriage; or, if 

he/she has, since his/her marriage, been in the UK at 

any time when there was no such other spouse living.


[LORDS] 


WA 214 

At the present time we see no firm evidence that 

further legislation and/or other restrictions, on top of 

the existing tight restrictions, are necessary. 

Latvia and Republic of Ireland 

Question 

Asked by Lord Kilclooney 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether 

economic support to Latvia and the Republic of 

Ireland will be provided only by nations in the 

eurozone or by the whole of the European Union; 

and what are the implications of such support 

coming from the United Kingdom. [HL4148] 


(Lord Myners): Latvia secured agreement to a ¤7.5 billion 

financial support package in December 2008, including 

¤3.1 billion from the European Union’s medium-term 

balance of payments facility and ¤1.7 billion from the 

International Monetary Fund. The UK did not make 

a bilateral contribution. 

The Government are not aware of any request from 

Ireland for international economic support. 

Legal Aid 

Question 



funding was provided as legal aid in Northern 

Ireland in each of the past 10 years. [HL4048] 


of Justice (Lord Bach): The funding provided to the 

Northern Ireland Legal Services Commission for legal 

aid in Northern Ireland in each of the past 10 years is 

as follows; 

Financial Year Legal Aid Fund £m 

99-00 34.5 

00-01 37.5 

01-02 41.5 

02-03 45.0 

03-04 49.9 

04-05 58.6 

05-06 57.2 

06-07 68.5 

07-08 73.7 

08-09 80.0 

NHS: Ageism 

Question 

Asked by Baroness Greengross 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps 

they are taking to tackle ageism in the National 

Health Service in the light of the survey of British 

Geriatrics Society members reported by Help the 

Aged in January 2009. 

[HL4169] 


Department of Health (Lord Darzi of Denham): The 

Government are strongly committed to ending age 

discrimination. The National Health Service (NHS) 

Constitution, published in January 2009, states that 

“the NHS provides a comprehensive service, available 

to all irrespective of gender, race, disability, age, sexual 

orientation, religion or belief” and sets out patients’ 

right not to be unlawfully discriminated against in the 

provision of NHS services, including on grounds of 

age once the relevant provisions of the Equality Bill 

are brought into force for the health sector. The Bill, 

currently before Parliament, includes provisions to 

prohibit age discrimination in the provision of services 

and the exercise of public functions. This will apply to 

health and social care. 

NHS professionals are dedicated to offering good 

care to all patients irrespective of age, but we recognise 

that more needs to be done to improve services for all 

age groups and tackle age discrimination where it 

exists. 

The Secretary of State for Health has initiated a 

national review of age discrimination led from the 

south-west region by Sir Ian Carruthers, chief executive 

of the South West Strategic Health Authority, and Jan 

Ormondroyd, chief executive of Bristol City Council. 

The review is looking at the key actions health and 

adult social care should take to prepare for implementation 

of the ban on age discrimination. More widely, the 

department is considering how health and social care 

organisations can ensure that people receive high quality 

services, whatever their age. The review will make its 

recommendations in a published report in October 

2009. 

Parliaments: Members’ Costs 

Question 

Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the 

average annual cost of maintaining a member of 

(a) the House of Lords; (b) the House of Commons; 

and (c) the European Parliament including salaries, 

pensions, attendance allowances, travelling allowances 

and office expenses for the most recent year for 

which figures are available. 

[HL3826] 


Royall of Blaisdon): I refer the noble Lord to the 

Answer given to Baroness Seccombe on 26 November 

2008 (Official Report, col. WA 336-7). 

Poland 

Question 

Asked by Lord Ouseley 


will make representations to the Government of 

Poland about the safety of black British citizens 

visiting Poland. 

[HL4233] 

Lord Brett: We are not aware of any reports in the 

Polish press of abuse, harassment or threatening behaviour 

being directed towards black British citizens in Poland. 

We do not, therefore, have any plans to make 

representations to the Polish Government about the 

safety of black British citizens in Poland.


[17 JUNE 2009] 


WA 216 

Population Statistics 

Question 

Asked by Lord Taylor of Holbeach 


supply the United States Census Bureau with United 

Kingdom population statistics; and, if so, in what 

form and how frequently. 

[HL4053] 

Baroness Crawley: The information requested falls 

within the responsibility of the UK Statistics Authority. 

I have asked the authority to reply 

Letter from Karen Dunnell, National Statistician, to 

Lord Taylor, dated June 2009. 

As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply 

to your Question asking whether Her Majesty’s 

Government supply the United States Census Bureau 

with United Kingdom population statistics; and, if so, 

in what form and how frequently. (HL4053) 

Population statistics are published on the ONS 

website where they are available publicly for all users 

at www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk= 

601&More=N. 

No other Census or other population statistics are 

supplied to the United States Census Bureau. 

Public Bodies 

Question 


To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recourse 

they have if a body set up by an Act of Parliament 

exceeds its brief. 

[HL3544] 


Royall of Blaisdon): There are a wide range of public 

bodies set up by Acts of Parliament. Any concerns 

about the actions or performance of a particular 

public body should be raised with the chairman of the 

body concerned and/or the relevant sponsor department. 

Public Sector: Contracts 

Question 

Asked by Lord Kirkwood of Kirkhope 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures 

are in place in the process for tendering public 

sector contracts to protect local specialist providers 

of services from exploitation by prime contractors. 

[HL4103] 


(Lord Myners): The Office of Government Commerce 

has issued guidance which encourages departments to 

seek effective management of supply chains by their 

prime contractors. 

This guidance will be reviewed and updated as part 

of a programme of work to implement the 

recommendations of the Glover Advisory Committee, 

which published its report Accelerating the SME economic 

engine; through transparent, simple and strategic 

procurement in November 2008. That work includes a 

project to help ensure small businesses and other firms 

acting as sub-contractors obtain contract conditions, 

for example, promptness of payment, that are comparable 

to those applied to the prime contractor. 

Within central government it is mandatory for major 

new construction projects to adopt the principles set 

out in OGC’s Guide to Best Fair Payment practices. 

That requires departments to adopt the principles of 

OGC’s Fair Payment Charter for their construction 

supply chains. 

Questions for Written Answer: Websites 

Question 


To ask Her Majesty’s Government why they 

refer to websites to answer parliamentary questions 

instead of supplying the information, and whether 

they will ensure that in future answers are provided 

in full in the Official Report. 

[HL4003] 


Royall of Blaisdon): The presumption should be that, 

unless it is of such size and complexity that it would 

not be practicable to do so or would involve 

disproportionate cost, requested information which is 

readily available should be provided in the relevant 

Written Answer itself, in addition to referring the 

Member to the published sources. I will be reminding 

departments of the need to do so. 

Shipping: Ferry Operators 

Questions 



Written Answer by Lord Adonis on 9 June (WA 147-8), 

whether the agency issued a temporary passengercarrying 

certificate on or about 12 September 2008 

for MV “CANNA”. 

[HL4221] 



whether a temporary passenger-carrying certificate 

was requested from the agency on or about 5 September 

2008 for MV “CANNA”. [HL4223] 



what was meant by “had the MCA issued the 

correct paperwork, the passenger certificate would 

have been valid for a full year through to 18 September 

2008”. [HL4226] 

The Secretary of State for Transport (Lord Adonis): 

The Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA) issued 

a short-term passenger certificate, valid for one month, 

for the MV “CANNA”on 12 September 2008, following 

an in water survey. No request was made to the MCA 

for a temporary passenger-carrying certificate in 

September 2008. 

An error occurred in the re-issue of passenger 

certification in July 2008 to take account of a change 

of operator to the current operator. This certification 

should have reflected previous changes, unrelated to 

the current operator, which would have confirmed 

that the certification was valid until 18 September 

2008, rather than 31 August 2008. 

On 5 September 2008 the operators of the 

MV “CANNA” informed the MCA that the vessel 

could not be surveyed out of water before 18 September


[LORDS] 


WA 218 

2008, the date that the operators believed their survey 

window expired based on the assumption that the 

certificate would be valid for 12 months from the date 

of the last survey. It was during the request for the out 

of water survey that the basis for confusion was revealed. 

The surveys on this vessel were current even if the 

paperwork did not always reflect this. 

Following the out of water survey, a new five-year 

passenger certificate was issued on the 5 October 

2008. 

Smoking 

Question 



they raised in tobacco-related taxes in 2006–07. 

[HL4258] 


(Lord Myners): Total tobacco duty received by the 

Exchequer in 2006-07 was £8,149 million and is published 

in the National Statistics Tobacco bulletin available at 

www.uktradeinfo.com/index.cfm?task=bulltobacco. 

Statutory Instruments 

Question 

Asked by Lord Naseby 


statutory instruments were laid in each of the Sessions 

1996–97; 1997–98; 2001–02; 2002–03; 2006–07; and 

2007–08. [HL4177] 


of Justice (Lord Bach): The number of statutory 

instruments laid in each of the specified Sessions was 

a follows: 

Session 

Number of instruments 

1996-97 1054 

1997-98 1816 

2001-02 1730 

2002-03 1391 

2006-07 1358 

2007-08 1306 

Territorial Army 

Question 

Asked by Lord Astor of Hever 

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether 

Territorial Army soldiers who are currently unemployed 

are able to claim jobseeker’s allowance whilst attending 

to their Territorial Army duties. 

[HL4092] 




Luton): Unemployed people who are Territorial Army 

soldiers can claim jobseeker’s allowance provided they 

are available and actively seeking work. Most TA units 

have a minimum commitment to train for around 

three hours per week, one weekend per month and to 

participate in an annual two week camp for basic 

training, which may take place in the UK or abroad. 

The only time their TA activity would impact on 

JSA entitlement is during the annual two week training 

period per year. Normally when a TA solider attends 

their annual training they tend to close their claim to 

JSA, as the full time nature of the training means they 

cannot be available for or actively seeking work during 

this period.


ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO 

WRITTEN STATEMENTS 

Col. No. 

Coal and Carbon Capture and Storage............................. 69 

EU: Telecoms Council ....................................................... 69 

Scottish and Northern Ireland Banknotes ......................... 71 

Col. No. 

Terrorism Act .................................................................... 71 

UK Trade and Investment ................................................. 72 


ALPHABETICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS 

Col. No. 

Afghanistan..................................................................... 207 

Benefits: Uprating............................................................ 207 

Community Empowerment, Housing and Economic 

Regeneration................................................................ 207 

Cycling............................................................................. 209 

Equality and Human Rights Commission ....................... 209 

Food: Labelling................................................................ 209 

Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for 

International Development.......................................... 210 

Gurkhas........................................................................... 210 

Health: Clinical Diagnoses............................................... 210 

Homeless People.............................................................. 211 

Homelessness: Rough Sleepers......................................... 211 

Houses of Parliament: Select Committees ....................... 211 

Housing ........................................................................... 212 

Col. No. 

Justice: Sharia Law .......................................................... 212 

Latvia and Republic of Ireland........................................ 213 

Legal Aid......................................................................... 213 

NHS: Ageism................................................................... 213 

Parliaments: Members’ Costs .......................................... 214 

Poland ............................................................................. 214 

Population Statistics ........................................................ 215 

Public Bodies ................................................................... 215 

Public Sector: Contracts .................................................. 215 

Questions for Written Answer: Websites .......................... 216 

Shipping: Ferry Operators ............................................... 216 

Smoking .......................................................................... 217 

Statutory Instruments...................................................... 217 

Territorial Army .............................................................. 218 

NUMERICAL INDEX TO WRITTEN ANSWERS 

Col. No. 

[HL3139] ......................................................................... 212 

[HL3544] ......................................................................... 215 

[HL3627] ......................................................................... 207 

[HL3826] ......................................................................... 214 

[HL4003] ......................................................................... 216 

[HL4025] ......................................................................... 210 

[HL4032] ......................................................................... 209 

[HL4048] ......................................................................... 213 

[HL4049] ......................................................................... 207 

Col. No. 

[HL4050] ......................................................................... 208 

[HL4051] ......................................................................... 209 

[HL4053] ......................................................................... 215 

[HL4092] ......................................................................... 218 

[HL4098] ......................................................................... 209 

[HL4103] ......................................................................... 215 

[HL4110] ......................................................................... 210 

[HL4113] ......................................................................... 209 

[HL4118] ......................................................................... 211

Col. No. 

[HL4129] ......................................................................... 211 

[HL4144] ......................................................................... 207 

[HL4145] ......................................................................... 212 

[HL4148] ......................................................................... 213 

[HL4169] ......................................................................... 213 

[HL4177] ......................................................................... 217 

[HL4203] ......................................................................... 210 

Col. No. 

[HL4221] ......................................................................... 216 

[HL4223] ......................................................................... 216 

[HL4226] ......................................................................... 216 

[HL4233] ......................................................................... 214 

[HL4253] ......................................................................... 212 

[HL4254] ......................................................................... 212 

[HL4258] ......................................................................... 217

Volume 711 

Wednesday 

No. 91 17 June 2009 

CONTENTS 


Questions 

Police: Funding.............................................................................................................................................................. 1057 

Sri Lanka ....................................................................................................................................................................... 1059 

Banks: Lending.............................................................................................................................................................. 1061 

Prisoners: Voting ........................................................................................................................................................... 1065 


Order of Consideration Motion ................................................................................................................................... 1067 


Third Reading ................................................................................................................................................................ 1067 


Third Reading ................................................................................................................................................................ 1067 


Report (2nd Day) ......................................................................................................................................................... 1067 


Question for Short Debate............................................................................................................................................ 1126 


Report (2nd Day) (Continued)................................................................................................................................... 1140 


Companies Act 2006 (Part 35) (Consequential Amendments, Transitional Provisions and Savings) 

Order 2009 ................................................................................................................................................................ GC 271 

Registrar of Companies and Applications for Striking Off Regulations 2009 ........................................................ GC 276 

Overseas Companies Regulations 2009 ....................................................................................................................... GC 276 

Limited Liability Partnerships (Application of Companies Act 2006) Regulations 2009....................................... GC 279 

Companies Act 2006 (Accounts, Reports and Audit) Regulations 2009 

Debated...................................................................................................................................................................... GC 282 

Written Statements......................................................................................................................................................... WS 69 

Written Answers............................................................................................................................................................ WA 207

house of lords official report - United Kingdom Parliament

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?